ML20217K790

Forwards,For Review & Comment,Final Draft Revision of Management Directive 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program. Rev Includes Description & Evaluation Criteria for non-common Performance Indicators

ML20217K790
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/01/1997
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Barchi T, Olmstead W, Ross D NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG)
References
NUDOCS 9708180117
Download: ML20217K790 (65)

Text

_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

i UNITED STATES l

i p

j 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. o.c. ma mg

%,.....[ August 1, 1997 l

MEMORANDUM TO: William J. Olmstead Associate General Counsel for Licensing and Regulation Office of the General Counsel l

l Thomas J. Barchi Assistant inspector General for Audits Office of the Inspector General Denwood F. Ross, Jr., Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data FROM: Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs l/Il[ < < < fi t f

SUBJECT:

REVISION OF MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 5.6, "lNTEG TEL MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (IMPEP)" FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT in accordance with Management Directive 1.1, enclosed for your review and comment is a final draft revision of Management Directive (MD) 5.6, " Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)" (Attachment 1). This revision includes descriptions and evaluation criteria for the non-common performance indicators for the Agreement States and Regions. The draft descriptions and evaluation criteria for the individual non common performance indicators for the Regional Fuel Cycle inspection Program and the Site Decommissioning Management Plan were previously sent to the Regions for review and comment. A summary of Regional comments and staff responses is contained in Attachments 2 and 3. The draft descriptions and evaluation criteria for the individual non-common performance indicators for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposa! Program, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program and the Uranium Recovery Program were previously sent to the Agreement States for review and comment (Region IV also reviewed the Uranium Recovery guidance). A summary of Agreement State and Region IV comments and staff responses is contained in Attachment 4. As these draft criteria were developed, IMPEP teamb *1 ave used them during the interim implementation of IMPEP.

In addition, the enclosed revision to MD 5.6 incorporates changes to reflect the new Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs. Specifically, the non common performance indicator

• Legislation and Regulations" has been expanded to include both regulations and other program elements consistent with the new policy. The

.rww title for this indiga or " Legislation and Program Elements Required for g l B 'Co'mpat g.1  ;\

gW~~;d!St*iGPs8$a 6FPA l 30 t n'01 a gl%IZW M

William J. Olmstead 2 AUG 1 - 1997 Thomas J. Barchi Denwood F. Ross, Jr.

We would appreciate receiving your comments by August 27,1997 to meet a Commission assigned duc date of August 29,1997 to prepare MD 5.6 in final. We have sent a copy of the final draft revision to MD 5.6 to the Regions and the Agreement States for review and comment on July 29,1997, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at 301415 3340 or Kathleen Schneider at 301415 2320.

Attachments:-

As stated 9

1

I William J. Olmstead 2 AUG 1 - g Thomas J. Barchi Denwood F. Ross, Jr.

We would appreciate receiving your comments by August 27,1997 to meet a Commission assigned due date of August 29,1997 to prepare MD 5.6 in final. We have sent a copy of the final draft revision to MD 5.6 to the Regions and the Agreement States for review and comment on July 29,1997.

If you have any questions regarding this correspondenbe, please contact me at 301415 3340 or Kathleen Schneider at 301 415 2320.

Attachments:

As stated I

Distributiom DIR RF SDroggitis PDR (YESJ NO_)

FCameron HNewsome DCD (SP03 )

CPaperilln JPiccone FCombs GDeegan SWigginton SMoore IMPEP File DCool Management Directives File

' DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\0GCIGMDM ,

OFFICE OSP ,t j q{ g [ OSP;D{f ( [ [

NAMF. KSchneider: n' PLoh&gs{

~

RBangayt 8 "I' DATE 07/ x /97 O7Q97 05 0\/97 OSP FILE CODE: SP l 2, SP M 1

~

l 4

4 l

i ATTACHMENT 1 i REVISION OF MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 5.6 i .

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE 1

EVALUATION PROGRAMS (IMPEP) 1 l

i l,

, . _ ~ ~ . - - , - - .--,..-,-~---i. - . , . - . , , - , - . . . . - - - - _ - - - - - - - - , _ _ _ - - . . . _ - .,- - . , - -

l l .

! U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATDRY COMMISSION Volume 5: Governmerital Relations and Public Affairs (NMSSIOSP)

INTEGRATED MATElllAl.S 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 matnials programs and Agreement State radiation control programs in an integrated manner using common and non common performance indicators, to ensure that public health and safety is being adequately protected.

Objectives (5.6 02) .

e To establish the process by which the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguardn and the Office of State Programs conduct their periodic assessments to determine the adequacy of their programs in the NRC Regions and Agreement States. (021) e To provide NRC and Agreement State management with a systematic and integrated approach to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their nuclear materiallicensing and inspection programs. (022) e To provide significant input to the management of the regulatory decision-making process, and indicate areas in which NRC and the Agreement States should dedicate more resources or management attention. (023)

Organizational Responsibilities end Delegations of Authority (5.6 03)

Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs (DEDR)

(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) 1 a

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

(032) l e implement the IMPEP within NMSS and OSP Provide staffing support and training for review teams. (a)

~

e Establish a s'chedule and develop a detailed review regimen for conducting the l reviews in each Region and Agreement State. (b) e Monitor the IMPEP process; evaluate and develop IMPEP policy, criteria, and methodology, and assess the uniformity and adequacy of the implementation of the program. (c) e losue draft reports and prepare final reports for each Region and State for consideration by management review board and signature by the DEDR. (d) e Participate on management review boards. (e) e Coordinate with Agreement States to staff IMPEP reviews and the management review board with appropriate Agreement State representatives. (f)

General Counsel (033)

Participates on management review boards.

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

(034)

Participates on management review boards.

Regional Administrators (035)

Impleme'nt the IMPEP within their respective Regions. Provide staffing support for review teams, as needed.

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, 2

l 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 defines some of the key termWlogy.

References.

(5.6 06)

Code of FederalRegulations,10 CFR NRC Ir spection Manual, Chapter 0610,

• Inspection Reports."

NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1246, " Formal Qualification Program in the Nuclear Material and Safeguard Program Area."

NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2600, " Fuel Cycle Facility Operational Safety and

Safeguards inspection Program."

NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2004, " Licensee Performance Review."

I NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2005, " Decommissioning Procedures For Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees."

NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, " Materials Inspection Program."

NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2801, "11e.(2) Byproduct Nlaterial Disposal Site and Facility inspection Program."

NRC Inspection Manual, inspection Procedure 87104,

• Decommissioning Inspection Procedure For Materials Licensees."

NRC Inspection Manual, inspection Procedure 88104, " Decommissioning inspection Procedure For Fuel Cycle Facilities."

NRC Management Directive 5.9, " Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs."

" Final Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," dated [ insert effective date).

" Final ' Statement of Principle and Policy for the Agreernent State Program' and

' Procedures for Suspension and Termination of an Agreement State Program,'"

dated [ insert effective datel.

3 i -

i

e 9

s

• INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (IMPEP)

HANDBOOK 5.8 4

a b

9

. O t

4- -4 .g

PARTl Evaluation Evaluation Frequency (A) i 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 l conditions, this would allow evaluations of NRC Regions every 2 years, and Agreement States every 4 years. However, these frequenciere can be 6djusted 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 Headquarters functions on an as needed basis, Evaluation Process Sequence (B)

The typical evaluation process sequence for the IMPEP reviews is summarized below:

e Develop review schedule for the year. (1) ,

o Assemble and train team members. (2) e Designate team leader and rnembers for each scheduled review. (3) e Transmit questionnaires to affected Regions and States. (4) e Provide copy of questionnaire responses and most current information on the Region or Agreement State to team members. (5)'

e Assess a sample of inspections at different types of licensed facilities by accompanying inspectors. (6)

• Con' duct onsite portion of IMPEP, using the criteria specified in this handbook and any performance review procedures. (7) e Prepare draft IMPEP report, with recommendation for overall performance evaluation, for office director's signature. (8) e issue the draft report to Region or State. (9) e Review and consider written comments received from the Regions or Agreement States. (10) e Prepare proposed final report for consideration by the management review board (MRB). (11) e Conduct MRB meeting. (12)

• Iscue final reports, include the written comments received from the Region or Agreement State and any changes to the report based on consideration of the written responses, and a summary of MRB findings. (13) 1

0 PARTll Performance Indicators General (A)

A description of the common and non common performance indicators to be evaluatud, as appropriate, for each Region and each Agreement State is given in (B) of this part. The evaluation criteria (i.e., performance standards) against which these indicators are to be assessed are described in Part lll of this handbook. These reviews ensure Regional programs provide adequate public health and safety and determine program adequacy and compatibility in the Agreement States. The reviews 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 exist 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 could, nonetheless, be rated as strong overall, if there are sufficient mitigating f actors with respect to other indicators. (2)

Certain non reactor functions that continue to be conducted from NRC

, Headquarters, such as fuel cycle licensing, uranium and thorium milling licensing.

I sealed source and device reviews, and low level radioactive waste disposal licensing, are excluded from the set of common indicators b'ecause they are not common to Regional and Agreement State activities. These are incorporated, as f appropriate, as non common indicators contributing to a performance based evaluation of a program. (3)

For Agreement States, the non common indicators are legislation and program elements required for compatibility, sealed source and device evaluation program, low level radioactive waste disposal program and uranium recovery program. (4)

Common Performance Indicators (B)

Performance Indicator 1 Status of Materials Inspection Program (1)

Periodic inspections of licensed 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 NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, and is dependent on the amount and kind of material, the type of operation licensed, and the results of previous inspections. There must be a capability for maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the inspection program, information regarding the number of overdue inspections is a 1

significant measure of tne status of an Agreernent State's or NRC Region's materials inspection program; reviews should also examine specific cases in detail where the inspection frequency has been significantly exceeded (i.e., by more than 50 percent). The terms " materials inspection" and " overdue inspection" are defined in the Glossary to this handbook.

Perfermance Indicator 2 Technical Quality of Inspections (2)

This performance indicator provides the qualitative balance to Performance Indicator 1 above, which looks at the status of the inspection program on a quantitative basis. Review team members will accompany a semple of inspectors at different types of licensed f acilities 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 of licensee facilities. These reviews focus on the scope, completeness, and te'chnical accuracy of completed inspections and related documentation. Review teams will conduct indepth, onsite reviews of a cross section of completed inspection reports performed by different inspectors, in addition, review teams will verify that supervisors generally conduct accompaniments of inspectors on an annual basis to provide management quality assurance. <

Performance Indicator 3 Technical Staffing and Training (3)

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, and thus could affect public health and safety. (a)

For this performance indicator, qualitative as well as quantitative measures must be considered. In particuler, the reason for apparent trends in staffmg must be explored, is the rate of turnover and the degree of under staffing symptomatic of a chronic problem or is it merely a short term phenomenon? Why is turnover high?

What steps are being taken to address this? What impact is it having on other performance indicators? (b)

Review of staffing also requires a consideration and evaluation of the levels of training and qualification of the technical staff. Newly hired employees must be technically qualified. Professional staff should normally have a bachelor's degree or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences. Training requirements for NRC license reviewers and inspectors are specified in 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 upon their individual responsibilities, based on the types of licenses they review and/or inspect.

(c) 2

In addition, the qualification process for NRC materials program inspectors includes demonstration of knowledge of relevant sec*.lons of the Code of Federal Regulations, completion of a qualifications joumal, and appearance before a qualifications board. Although Agreement States need not follow NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1246, they should have an equivalent program for training and qualification of personnel, and it should be present and adhered to in Agreement State program.s. ,The evaluation standard measures the overall quality of training available to, and taken by, materials program personnel. The staff should be afforded opportunities for training that are consistent with the needs of the program, such as attendance at counterpart meetings, university programs and national conventions. (d)

Performance Indicator 4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (4)

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

This performance indicator evaluates the technical quality of the licensing program, based on an indepth onsite review of a representative cross section of licensing actions, and various types of licenses. Technical quality includes not only the review of the application and 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 should also capture a representative cross section as completed by each of the reviewers in the Region or State. (b)

Performance Indicator 5 Response to incidents and Allegations (5)

The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of a regulator's response to incidents and allegations of safety concerns can have a direct bearing on public health and safety.

A careful assessment of incident response and allegation investigation procedures, actualimplementation of these procedures, internal and external coordination, and investigative and follow up procedures will be a significant indicator of the overall quality o'f the program.

Non common Performance Indicators (C)

Performance Indicator 1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility (1)

State statutes should authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the Agreement. The statutes must authorize the State to promulgate regulatory requirements necessary to provide reasonable assurance of protection of public health and safety. The State must be authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements such as 3

regulations and licenses. State statutes should be consistent with Federal statutes, as appropriate. (a) in accordance with Management Directive 5.9, " Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," OSP Internal Procedures, D.7, " Reviewing State Regulations" and B.7 (Revision 1), " Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety identification f,or NRC Regulations and Other Program Elements," the State shall adopt legally binding requirements, such as regulations and other necessary program elements consistent with the above guidance. (b)

NRC regulations that should be adopted by an Agreement Stata for purposes of compatibility or heefth and safety should be adopted in a time frame such that the effective date of the State requirement is not later than three years after the effective date of NRC's final rule. (c)

Other program elements that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program should be adopted and implemented by an Agreement State within 6 months of such' designation by NRC. (d)

Performance Indicator 2 Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program' (2)

Adequate technical evaluations of sealed source and device (SS&D) designs are essential to ensure that SS&Ds used by both licensees and persons exempt from licensing will maintain their integrity and that the design features are adequate to protect public health and safety. Three subelements will be evaluated to determine if the SS&D program is adequate.

1. Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation Program (a)

The technical quality of the product evaluation program, based on an indepth onsite review of a representative cross section of evaluations performed, includes various types of products and types of actions. Product evaluations should be technically accurate and ensure that proper prototype tests or analyses have been performed and passed for the normal, and likely accidental, conditions of use, and that the safety features of the device are adequate to prot'ect public health and safety. Completed registration certificates, and the status of obsolete registration certificates and registration certificates for products having defects or involved in incidents, must be clearly and promptly transmitted among various interested parties. Vendors' quality assurance and control programs should be evaluated to ensure that products are built to the same specifications as those listed on the registration certificate. The commitments made in the registrant's application and referenced in the registration certificate must be enforceable. To the extent possible, the onsite 1 Agreement States with authority for Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Programs

. will need to have a program in place, regardless of whether or not the Agreement is cerforming SS&D reviews.

4

l review should also capture a representative cross section as completed by each of the reviewsrs in the State.

2. Technical Staffing and Training (b)

Evaluation of SS&D review staffing and trsining should be conducted in the same manne,r and as part of the common performance indicator, Technical-Staffing and Training, paragraph (B)(3)(a) & (b), except with a focus on training commensurate with the conduct of the SS&D reviews. (i)

Review of staffing also requires a consideration and evaluation of the levels of training and qualification of the technical staff, Newly hired employees need to be technically qualified. Professional staff should have a bacheior's degree or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences. Reviewers should be oble to: (1) understand and interpret, if necessary, appropriate prototype tests which ensure the integrity of the products under normal, and likely accidental, conditions of use; (2) understand and interpret test results; (3) read and understand blueprints and drawings; (4) understand how the device works and how safety features operate; (5) understand and apply the appropriate regulations; (6) understand the conditions of use; (7) understand external dose rates, source activities and nuclide chemical form; and (8) understand and utilize basic knowledge of engineering materials and their properties. (ii)

3. Evaluation of Defects and incidents Regarding SS&Ds (c)

Reviews'of SS&D incidents should be conducted in the same manner and as part of the common performance indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, to detect possible manufacturing defects and the root causes of such incidents. The results should be evaluated to determine if other products may be affected by similar problems. Appropriate action and notifications should take place.

Performance indicator 3 Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program (3)

Five subelements will be evaluated to determine if the performancs of the Agreement States' Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program is edequate.

1. Status of Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal inspection (a)

Periodic inspections of low level radioactive waste disposal facilities, from the pre operational through the post closure phase, are essential to ensure that activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety practices, inspections during siting and construction phases are essential to ensure the facility is being sited and constructed in accordance with regulatory and license requirements.

Operational phase inspections are essential for ensuring that disposal activities are being conducted in accordance with license conditions and regulatory requirements. Closure snd post closure inspections are essential to ensure 5

5

activities at closure are being conducted in compliance with the regulatory requirements and the facility is performing as expected. The frequency of inspections for operating low level radioactive waste disposal f acilities is specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, as yearly, inspection frequencies for non-operational phase inspections should be established. There foust be a capability for maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the inspection program for the low level radioactive waste disposal program.

2. Technical Quality of Inspections (b)

This subelement provides the qualitative balance to subelement 1 above, which looks at the status of the Inspection program on a quantitative basis, inspector accompaniments, including onsite resident inspectors, by review team members will be used to evaluate the knowledge and capabilities of Agreement State inspectors at low level radioactive waste disposal facilities during the inspections discussed in subelement 1 above. These accompaniments will usually occur at a time other than the onsite review of the Region or.

Agioement State. Reviews in this area focus on the scope, completeness, and technical accuracy of inspections and related documentation. Review teams will conduct indepth, onsite reviews of completed inspection reports.

3. Technical Staffing and Training (c)

Evaluation of staffing and training should be conducted in the same manner and as part of the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, l paragraph (B)(3)(a) (b), (c) and (d) (unless the Low Level Radioactive Waste

! Program is organizationally separate from the materials program). The staffing (which can include contractual support or support from other state agencies) should be sufficient to enable the program to complete ' review of a new application within 15 months, if practicable, per the Low Level Radioactive >

Waste Policy Amendments Act. Professional staff should normally have bachelor's degrees or equivalent training in the physical, life or earth sciences, or engineering. Staff and support contractors qualifications, training and i experience should also include the disciplines of health physics, civil or mechanical engineering, geology, hydrology and other earth sciences, and environmental science.

4. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (d)

An acceptable program for licensing low level radioactive waste disposal facilities ensures that the proposed waste disposal facilities will meet State licensing requirements for waste product and volume, qualifications of personnel, site characterization, performance assessment, facilities and equipment, operating end emergency procedures, financial qualifications and assurances, closure and decommissioning procedures and institutional arrangements in a manner sufficient to establish a basis for licensing action.

This may be accomplished through the preparation and use of internallicensing guides, policy memoranda, or use of NRC equivaient guides. Licensing 6

O O

decisions should be adequately documented through safety evaluation reports, or similar documentation of the license review and approval process.

Opportunities for public hearings are provided in accordance with applicable State administrative procedure laws during the process of licensing a low level radioactive waste disposal facility. Pre licensing interactions with the applicant should be conducted to ensure clear communication of the regulatory requirements.. (I)

To evaluate the technical quality of the licensing program, a review of a technical aspect of a radioactive waste disposallicensing action (such as health physics, hydrology, structural engineering, etc.) will be conducted in addition to an evaluation of the license review procese. Technical quality includes not only the review of completed actions, but also an examination of any ongoing requests for licenses or renewals that may have health and safety implications.

(ii)

5. Response to incidents and Allegations (e)

Reviews of low-level radioactive waste program incidents and allegations of safety concerns should be conducted in the same manner and as part of the common performance indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations (unless the Low Level Radioactive Waste Program is organizationally separate from the materials program).

Performance Indicator 4 Urnnium Recovery Program (4)

Five subelements, as an~c;:tt:. will be evaluated to determine if the performance of the Region IV or an Agreement StatG Uranium Recovery Program is adequate.

1. Status of Uranium Recovery inspection Program (a)

Per'adic inspections of licensed uranium recovery operations are essential to assure 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 2600, for insitu leac'h mining f acilities, and in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2801, for conventional uranium and thorium mills. Uranium recovery facilities that are on standby or under decommissioning siso should be inspected at that frequency.

Inspections should occur more freq itly if significant regulatory concerns develop, before major changes are m.de to operations, or if generic problems are identified. There must be a capability for maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the inspection program for the uranium and thorium program.

2. Tcchnical Qua'ity of Inspections (b)

This subelement provides the qualitative balance to subelement 1 above, which looks at the status of the inspection program on a quantitative basis. Inspector 7

i

I t

accompaniments by review team members will be used to evaluate the knowledge and capabilities of the Region and Agreement State inspectors at uranium recovery f acilities. These accompaniments will usually occur at a time other than the onsite review of the Region or Agreement State. An acceptable program for conducting inspections for radioactive materiallicenses includes preparation and use of internalinspection guides and policy memoranda to ensure technical quality in the inspection program (when appropriate, NRC guidance may be used). Reviews of this subelement fucus on the scope, completeness, and technical accuracy of completed inspections and related documentation. Review teams will conduct indepth, onsite reviews of completed inspection reports, in addition, review teams will verify that j supervisors generally conduct accompaniments of inspectors on an annual I

basis to provide management quality assurance.

3. Technical Staffing and Training (c)

Evaluation of staffing and training should be conducted in the same manner and as part of the common performance indicator, Technica! Staffing and Training, paragraph (B)(3)(a) (b), (c) and (d) (unless the Uranium Recovery Program is organizationally separate from the materials program). Professional staff should normally have bachelor's degrees or equivalent training in the physical

( sciences, life or earth sciences, or engineering. Staff and support contractors qualifications, training and experience should include the disciplines of health physics, civil or mechanical engineering, geology, hydrology and other earth sciences, and environmental science.

4. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (d)

An acceptable program for licensing uranium recovery activitlec ensures that essential elements of NRC licensing requirements for radiation protection, qualifications of personnel, facilities and equipment, operating and emergency procedures, financial qualification and assurance, closure and decommissioning procedures, and institutional arrangements are met in a manner sufficient to establish a basis for licensing action. This may be accomplished through the preparation and use of internallicensing guides and policy memcranda to ass 6re technical quality in the licensing program (when appropriate, NRC Uranium Recovery Program Policy and Guidance System Guides may be used).

Prelicensing inspection of complex facilities are conducted, when appropriate, li)

To evaluate the technical quality of the Agreement State licensing program, an indepth review of an aspect of the uranium recovery license (such as radiation protection, hydrology, or geotechnical engineering) will be conducted.

Technical quality includes not only the review of completed actions, but also an examination of any ongoing requests and license renewals that may have h: "h and safety implications. Technical quality includes review of the State's compliance with the statutory requirements or prohibitions in Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. (ii) 8 I

_o

5. Response to incidents and Allegations (e)

Reviews of uranium recovery program incidents and allegations of safety concerns should be conducted in the same manner and as part of the common  !

performance indicator, Resp;nse to incidents and Allegations (unless the Uranium Recovery Program is organizationally separate from the materials program)., ,

Performance Indicator 5 Regional Fuel Cycle inspection Program (5)

Five subelements, as appropriate, will be evaluated to determine if the performance of the Regional Fuel Cycle Inspection Program is adequete.

1. Status of Fuel Cycle inspection Program (a)

Periodic inspections of licensed operations are essential to ensure that activities ere being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and license commitments, and in an overall safe and adequate manner. (i) j The appropriate frequencies of inspections for established procedures are j discussed in NRC Inspecticn Manual, Chapter 2600. NRC Inspection Manual, l Chapter 2600 04.02, provides the responsible Headquarters and Regional f offices flexibility to adjust the frequencies, focus, and intensiveness of

! inspections for different functional areas at a licensed f acility, taking into l

account the complexity, risk level, and previous operating history of the facility.

These adjustments are generally deterrnined by consensus of Headquarters and Regional management during the Licensee Performance Review (LPR) process, or in response to significant f acility events or conditions be. tween LPRs. (ii)

The lovel of recources provided for an inspection may also be adjusted.

Unexpected externalinfluences (e.g., turnover of key staff, diversion of staff for AIT inspections in response to incidents, accretion of new regulatory responsibilities without timely provision of additional resources) may occasionally affect the frequencies with which routine inspections can be conducted, or level of resources available for routine inspections. These should be documented and reviewed on a regular basis, and integrated into each facility's portion of the Fuel Cycle Master Inspection Plan. The Master Inspection Plan should also include scheduling of LPRs according to the frequencies specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2604. (iii)

Inspecticn scheduling and planning should consider the resource requirements for both routine and reactive inspection effort, preparation for and documentation of Inspections, and participation in other programmatic duties, such as training, licensee performance review, licensing support, participation in, or support for, enforcement conferences, etc. This planning should permit adequate time for inspectors to complete inspection reports in sufficient time so that the reports can be issued in accordance with the timeliness requirements contained in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 0610. Other 9

~

planning and scheduling factors iriclude concern for unusual impacts on licenseas, and exchanges of inspection resources between different Regions.

The established fuel cycle inspection schedule for the Region should reflect these considerations, (iv)

Regional management should monitor the Region's inspection program to determine.that the current program is being implemented in accordance with the requirements of the fuel facility inspection program described in NRC l Inspection Manual, Chapter 2600, the documented inspection plan for each facility, and overall Regional objectives. There should be a capability for maintaining and readily retrieving (without additional analytical effort) the

.necessary information for demonstrating the extent to which established i inspection program objectives are being met. (v) l There should be a means for maintaining and readily retrieving Regional performance information for each facility. This information may reside in

! inspection reports, correspondence files, the inspection Follow up System, the Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED), etc. Where there are several different inspectors inspecting each facility, the Region may find it more practical to maintain its own summary information files (e.g., cite issues matrices, incident analysis summaries, enforcement histories), to assemble the kind of information needed to support the Fuel Cycle Licensee Performance Review Program and to justify any changes in the inspection program for a facility as they occur. (This would prevent the loss of summary information valuable to the LPR, which is normally provided by the inspectors, if they are not available at the time the LPR is conducted.) Such programmatic changes should be documented at the time they are made. LPRs should be conducted in cooperation with Headquarters according to the schedule included in the Fuel Cycle Master Inspection Plan. (vi)

The reviewer should examine specific instances in which established inspection program objectives appear not to be met, and determine if mitigating circumstances may have been documented to offer justification for departures from the established plans. (vil)

2. Technical Quality of Inspections (b)

This subelement provides the qualitative balance to the subelement 1 above, which looks at the status of the inspection program on a quantitative basis. (i)

Reviews of programs under this performance indicator subelement focus on the scope, completeness, and technical accuracy of completed inspections and related docuraentation. The reviewer will conduct indepth, onsite reviews of a cross section of completed inspection reports, selecting from among those performed by differert inspectors, if applicable. The reviewer may also interview the respective inspectors, if available. (ii)

The reviewer will verify that supervisors conduct accompaniments of 10

inspectors on an annual basis to provide management quality assurance. (iii)

Inspection efforts should focus on the performance of the licensee in assuring the safety and safeguarding of operations, inspection te ports should reflect this focus by addressing licensee performance issues for plant operations posing the greatest safety or safeguards risks and where previous performance issues have been identified as requiring greater attention, consistent with the inspection p.rogram previously documented for the facility. (iv)

Conversely, the results of inspections should be summarized and appropriately documented for later reference (e.g., for support of the Licensee Performance Review Program). (v)

Only qualified NRC Inspectors are to conduct inspections on their own. When inspector trainees or contractors are included in an inspection visit, at least one qualified NRC inspector should be designated to lead the inspection. In such cases, the qualified inspector leading the inspection should provide guidance to such personnel, to ensure that their activities are appropriate to an NRC inspection. (vi)

3. Technical Staffing and Training (c)

The ability to conduct effective inspection. programs is largely dependent on having a sufficient number of experienced, knowledgeable, well trained technical personnel. Fuel cycle inspectors generally require extensive training in specialized technical areas, in addition to meeting academic requirements.

This often results in significant time delays before newly hired inspectors can become certified as qualified NRC Fuel Cycle inspectors. Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect.on the implementation of a Region's fuel cycle inspection program, and thus could affect public health and safety. For small programs, their viability may depend upon the continued availability of a single individual with skills and experience that would be difficult to replace with another individual. (i)

P!ans should be in place to replace the functional capabilities required for each aspect of the program (perhaps by contributions from several different individuals), in case a key inspector becomes unavailable (e.g., cross training of other staff in the same organization; identification of individuals with required skills and qualifications in other NRC organizations; identification of possible outside contractors with suitable experience or expertise to augment specified types of inspections, if needed, etc.) (ii)

For this performance indicator subelement, 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 tumover or the degree of under-staffing symptomatic of a chronic problem, or is it merely a short term phenomenon? Why is turnover high? Are inspectors being overburdened? Is high turnover related to a morale problem? What steps are being taken to address the basic problem? What impact is high turnover having on other 11

..w,

. --y. _._.

- ~--

performance indicator tubeiements? (iii)

Review of staffing also requires a consideration and evaluation of the levels of training and qualification of the technical staff and management. New hires need to be technically qualified. Professional staff should normally have bachelor's degrees or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences, or related engin.eering fields. Training requirements for NRC fuel facility specialist inspectors are specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1246. The requirements include a combination of classroom requirements and practical on-the-job training. In addition, the qualification process includes demonstration of knowledge of relevant sections of the U. S. Code of Federal Reculatim;;,

completion of a Qualifications Journal, and satisfactory review beb9 a Qualifications Board. There are also refresher tra!ning and retraining requirements, including taking new fuel cycle related courses as they ace developed. (iv) >

The small number of fuel cycle facility inspectors who may need training at any one particular time pose unique challenges to arranging for the proper training of these individuals on a cost effective basis. The Region may have to seek outsido training opportunities to provide inspectors with specific safety knowledge needed for unique aspects of their f acilities (e.g., heavy duty overhead cranes). (v)

After an inspector is trained and initially qualified to perform inspections in a specific technical area, providing additional cross training opportunities for inspectors willincrease the ability of the inspection organization to better respond to f acility incidents, unecected staff turnover, or other unasual situations. (vi) l 4. Response to Incidents and Allegations (d)

The quality, thoroughnees, and time!! ness of a regulator's response to incidents and allegations can have a direct bearing on public health and safety. (!)

Significant indicators of the overall quality of the fuel cycle facility inspection program willinclude detailed written procedures for incident response, and the maintenance of records and reports of actur.1 incidents, focusing on internal and external coordination, and analytical, investigative, and follow up procedures. (ii)

The Region should exhibit a readiness to respond, in conjunction *:ih Headquarters, to major incidents that may arise at a facility. This willinclude a review of preparations in place at the Region's incident Response Center (e.g.,

identification of individuals with required skills, facility data for use during emergencies, detailed preparations for responding to the highest risk types of incidents postulated for the facility, based upon known facility processes and source terms, etc.). (iii) 12 j

The Region, possibly in coordination with Headquarters, should conduct, or participate in, documented follow up self assessments of drius and responses to any major incidents that involved activation of the Region's incident Response Center. (iv)

The Region's responses to any allegations involving fuel cycle facilities should be ground _ed.in established inspection procedures and good technical and regulatory analysis to determine if regulations were followed or may be ,

deficient and in need of revision with regard to a significant safety issue brought to light by the allegation. (v)

Performance Indicator 6 Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) (6)

Six subelements, as appropriate, will be evaluated to determine if the performance of the Regional Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) is adequate.

1. Quality of SDMP Decommissioning Reviews (a)

Planned, significant decommissioning actions at facilities that are listed on the SDMP are reviewed and approved by the NRC staff in advance of decommissioning. Decommissioning plan reviews are conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2605, current NRC policies, standard review procedures, and other regulatory guidance. Reviews are documented as outlined in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2605 using, as appropriate, Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, Safety Evaluation Reports, checklists, interrogatories, and other written correspondence.

2. Financial Assurance for Decommissioning (b)

Adequate financial assurance for the decommissioning of SDMP sites has been established in accordance with regulat; >y requirements and applicable guidance. Financial assurance is provided for estimated costs for an independent, third party to perform decommissioning with the objective of releasing the site for unrestricted use, unless alternative arrangements have bee'n approved by the regulator. Financial assurance mechanisms are reviewed and maintained to ensure that they would be executable and provide sufficient funding for decommissioning in the event that the licensee liquidates or is otherwise unable to pay for decommissioning.

3. Termination Radiological Surveys (c)

Sufficient radiological surveys are required prior to license termination and site release, as outlined in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2605, to ensure that residual radioactivity levels comply with release criteria. Licensee survey results are validated through a closecut inspection or confirmatory survey, as outlined in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2605, given the extent and t'anificance of any residual contamination.

13

__ _ _ J

r

4. Inspections (d)

Decommissioning projects are inspected in accordance with established frequencies and with written inspection procedures to confirm the safety of-decommissioning procedures, inspections are documented and carried out in accordance with inspection Procedures 87104 and 88104, inspections focus on safety pf 1.icensee procedures, release of effluents to the environment,

- pu,lic and worker exposure, and suitability of decontaminated areas and structures for release.

5. Staff Qualificatione-(e)

Lir'anse reviewers and inspectors are qualified through training and experience

. tt +aview the safety'of decommissioning. Qualifications for license reviewers and inspectors are established and reviewed. Staff members are qualified to perform licensing reviews and inspections related to decommissioning through training and documented work experience. Non qualified staff members are subject to the direct supervision of qualified managers; this supervision is evidenced by concurrence on inspection reports and licens!ng documentation.

! 6. SDMP Milestones (f) s L ~

l The decommissioning milestones summarized in the SDMP are being met. If not, delays are identified and there is a mechanism in place to ensure that any appropriate corrective actions are taken. Policy issues affecting the decommissioning of SDMP sites are being identified. Staff is updating the SDMP database in a timely manner.

t 4

14

'b

e 0-PART lli I Evaluation Criteria NRC Regions and Agreement States will be evaluated in their ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs using the common and non common performance indicators as appropri.att, described in Part 11 of this handbook. The evaluation criteria for each performance indicator are given below.

Common Performance indicator 1 - Status of Matedals 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 between working staff and management. Deviations are generally the result of joint decisions that consider the risk of licensee operation, past licensee performance, and the need to temporarily defer the inspection (s) to address more urgent or more critical priorities. (b) e There is a plan to reschedule any missed or deferred inspections or a basis established for not rescheduling. (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)

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 new licensees are frequently not conducted within 6 months of license approval. (b) e Many of the inspection findings are delayed, or not communicated to licensees within 30 days. (c) 1

Unsatisfactory (3)

• More than 25 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 new licensees are frequently delayed, as are the inspection nndings. (b)

Category N (4)

Special conditions exist that provide adequate justification for withholding a rating.

For example, an unforeseen event or emergency with significant health and safety consequences may have requited a temporary diversion of resources from the core inspection program. However, these programmatic adjustments are well thought out, and properly coordinated with Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) or Agreement State management.

Common Performance Indicator 2 - Technical Quality of Inspections (B)

Satisfactory (1)

• Review team members accompanying inspectors combined with an onsite review of a representative cross soction of completed inspection reports indicates inspection findings are usually well founded and well-documented throughout the assessment. (a)

• A review of inspector field notes or completed reports indicates that most inspectinns are complete and reviewed promptly by supervisors or management. (b)

• Procedures are in place and normally used to help identify root causes and poor licensee performance. (c) e in most instances, follow up inspections address previously identified open iterris and/or past violations. (d)

• = Inspection findings generally lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action.

(e)

• Supervisors accompany nearly allinspectors on an annual basis. (f)

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (2)

• Review indicates that some inspections do not address potentially important health arid safety concerns or it indicates periodic problems with respect to completeness, adherence to procedures, management review, thoroughness, technical quality, and consistency. (a) 2

e

• Review indicat'es that findings in inspection reports and inspection files are, on occasion, not well founded or well-documented. (b)

• Review does not demonstrate an appropriate level of management review, (c) e Accompaniment of inspectors by supervisors is performed non systematically.

(d) .

• Follow up actions to inspection findings are often not timely. (e)

Unsatisfactory (3)

• 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)

• Supervisors infrequently accompany inspectors. (b) o Follow-up actions to inspection findings are often not timely and appropriste.

(c)

Category N (4)

Not applicable.

Common Performance Indicator 3 - Technical Staffing and Training (C)

Satisfactory (1)

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

• Bala,nce in staffing the licensing and inspection programs. (a) e Few, if any, vacancie::, especially at the senior level positions. (b)

• Prompt management attention and review, such as development of a corrective action plan to address problems in high rates of attrition or positions being vacant for extended periods. (c)

• Qualification criteria for hiring new technical staff have been established and are being followed. (Staff would normal'y be expected to have bachelor's degrees or equivalent training in the physical and/or life sciences. Senior personnel should have additional training and experience in radiation protection commensurate with the types of licenses they issue or inspect.) (d) 3

o License reviewers and inspectors are trained and qualified in a reasonrible time period.8 (e) e Management commitment to training is clearly evident. (f)

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (2)

Review deterniine's the presence of some of the following conditions:

e 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 lack 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) e The training and qualificetion standards include areas needing improvement. (e) e Some of the new staff is 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 likel impacts on other performance indicators:

e Significant staff turnover relative to the size ol the program. (a)

• Most vacant positions not filled for extended periods. (b) e Little evidence of management attention or actions to deal 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) 2 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, Chapter 1246, and the applicable qualifications journals, or to receive equivalent training elsewhere. For the Agreement States, equivalent requirements should be in place and followed.

O

• New staff members are hired without having scientific or technical backgrounds that would equip them to receive technical 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 Office of State Programs (OSP) has been kept informed of the situation, and discernable recent progress is evident.

Common Performance Indicator 4 - Technical Quality of Licensing (D)

Satisfactory (1) l

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

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

• License reviewers have the proper signature authority for the cases they review independently. (c) e Speciallicense tie-down conditions are usually stated clearly and are inspectable. (d)

• Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time. (e) ,

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

• Applicable guidance documents are available to reviewers and are followed. (g)

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

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (2)

Review indicates that some licensing actions do not fully address health and safety concerns or indicates repeated examples of problems 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 respect to thoroughness, 5

1 __o

completeness, consistency, clarity, technical quality, and adherence to existing guidance in licensing actions.

Category N (4)

Not applicable.

Common Performance Indicator 5 Response to incidents and Allegations (E)

Satisf actory (1) e incident response and allegation procedures are in place and followed in nearly all cases. (a) e Actions taken are appropriate, well coordinated, and timely in most instances.

)

(b) e Level of effort is usually commensurate with potential health and safety significance of an incident. (c)

• Investigative procedures are appropriate for an incident. (d) e Corrective (enforcement or other) actions are adequately identified to licensees prornptly and appropriate follow up measures are taken to assure prompt compliance. (e) e Follow up inspections are scheduled and completed, if necessary. (f)

• Notification to NMSS, the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD), or OSP, and others as may be appropriate, is usually performed in a timely f ashion. (g)

Satisfactory with Recommendations for Improvement (2) e incident response and allegation procedures are in place but occasionally not practiged in a detailed fashion. (a)

• Performance is marginalin 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) e infrequent failure to notify NMSS, AEOD, or OSP, and others, as appropriate, of incidents. (c)

Unsatisfactory (3)

• Review indicates frequent examples of response to incidents or allegations to be incomplete, inappropriate, poorly coordinated, or not timely. As a result, 6

potential health and safety problems persist. (a)

• Failure to notify NMSS, AEOD, or OSP, and others, as appropriate, of incidents.

(b)

Category N (4)

Not applicable.' '

Non common Performance Indicator 1 Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility (F)

Satisfactory (1)

• State statutes authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the Agreement. (a)

• The statutes authorize the State to promulgate regulatory requirements necessary to provide reasonable assurance of protection of public health and safety. (b)

• The State is authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements such as regulations and licenses. (c)

• State statutes are consistent with Federal statutes, as appropriate. (d)

• The State has existing legally enforceable measures such as generally ~

applicable rules, license provisions, or other appropriate measures, necessary to allow the State to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety in the regulation of agreement material. (e)

• The State has adopted legal binding requirements, regulations, and other program elements in accordance with Management Directive S.9, " Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," OSP Internal Procedures, D 7, " Reviewing State Regulations" and B.7 (Revision 1), " Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety identification for NRC Regulations and Other Program Elements," with only minor discrepancies. (f)

• NRC regulations, that should be adopted by an Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety, are adopted in a time frame such that the effective date of the State requirement is not later than three years after the effective date of NRC's final rule. (g)

• Other program elements that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program should be adopted and implemented by an Agreement State within 6 months of such designation by NRC. (h) 7 2

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (2)

• The State has adopted legal binding requirements, regulations, and other program elements in accordance with Management Directive 5.9, " Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," OSP Internal Procedures, D.7, " Reviewing State Regulations" and B.7 (Revision 1), " Compatibility Categorie_s and Health and Safety Identification for NRC Regulations and Other Program Elements," but there are compatibility or health and safety discrepancies that need to be addressed. (a)

• Several NRC regulations that should be adopted by an Agreement State are adopted in a time frame such that the effective date of the State requirement is greater than three years after the effective date of NRC's final rule. (b)

• Several program elements that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program have been adopted and implemented by the Agreement State,in a time frame greater than 6 months of such designation by NRC. (c)

Unsatisfactory (3)

• State no longer has statutes that authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility under the Agreement. (a) l

• The State is not authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements such as regulations and licenses. (b)

• State statutes are in conflict with, or do not sufficiently reflect scope of Federal

( statutes. (c)

• The State does not have existing legally enforceable measures such as generally applicable rules, license provisions, or other appropriate measures, necessary to allow the State to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety in the regulation of agreement material. (d)

• The State has not adopted significant legal binding requirements, regulations, and other program elements in accordance with Management Directive 5.9,

" Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," OSP Internal Procedures, D.7, Reviewing State Regulations" and B.7 (Revision 1),

" Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety Identification for NRC Regulations and Other Program Elements." (e)

• Most NRC regulations that should be adopted by an Agreement State are consistently adopted in a time frame such that the effective date of the State requirement is significantly greater (many months or years) than three years after the effective date of NRC's final rule. (f) 8 m

• Most program elements that have been designated as necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program have been adopted and implemented by the Agreement States in a time frame significantly greater (many months or years) than 6 months of such designation by NRC. (g)

Category N (4)

Not applicable.

Non common Performance Indicator 2 Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program (G)

1. Technical Quality of the Product Evaluation Program (1)

Satisfactory (a) ,

o Review of a representative sample of SS&D evaluations completed during the review period indicates that product evaluations are thorough, complete, consistent, of acceptable technical quality, and adequately address the integrity of the products. (i)

• Health and safety issues are properly addressed. (ii)

• Registrations include complete summaries'of the product evaluations and include approp&.^e signature (s) having the proper qualifications and training l with documentation that confirms that an independent technical review was conducted by a second reviewer. (iii) l

• All registrations clearly summarize the product evaluation and provide license reviewers with adequate information to license possession and use of the product. (iv)

• Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time. (v)

• An independent technical review of the application and proposed certificate of registration is performed by a second individual which supports the finding that the product is acceptable for licensing purposes. (It is important to keep in mind that the independent technical reviewer must concur with the initial review.) (vi)

• Applicable guidance documents are followed, unless approval to use alternate procedures is obtained from management. (vii)

• Completed registration certificates, and the status of obsolete registration certificates, are clear and are promptly transmitted to interested parties. (viii)

• Reviewers ensure that registrants have developed and implemented adequate quality assurance and control programs. (ix) 9 i 1

1 l

• There is a means for enforcing commitments made by registrants in their applications and referenced in the registration certificates by the program. No potentially significant health and safety issues can be linked to a specific product evaluation that was improperly conducted. (x)

Satisfactory with Recommandations for Improvement (b)

' ~

• Review indicates that some SS&D evaluations do not fully address important health and safety concerns or indicates repeated examples of problems with respect to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, clarity, technical quality, adherence to existing guidance in product evaluations, and addressing the

. integrity of the products. (i)

• Not all registrations clearly summarize the product evaluation and not all provide license reviewers with adequate information to license possession and use of the product. (ii)

• Reviewers do not follow all appropriate guidance documents. (iii)

• Independent review of the reviewer's evaluation is not always performed by either management cr staff having proper SS&D qualifications and training. (iv)

• Completed registration certificates, and the status of obsolete registration certificates, are not always clear or are not always promptly transmitted to interested partiea. (v)

• Not all product evaluations include an evaluation of proposed quality assurance and control programs. (vi) .

• Commitments made by registrants in their applications, and referenced in the registration certificates, cannot be enforced for all registrations. (vii)

Unsatisfactory (c)

• Rev,iew indicates that SS&D evaluations frequently f ail to address important health and safety concerns or indicates chronic problems with respect to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, clarity, technical quality, adherence to existing guidance in product evaluations, and adequately addressing the integrity of the products. (i)

• Registrations often do not clearly summarize the product evaluation and do not provide license reviewers with adequate information to license possession and use of the product. (ii)

• Reviewers often do not follow appropriate guidance documents. (iii) 10 l

• Completed registration certificates, and the status of obsolete registration certificates, are unclear and are not promptly transmitted to interested parties.

(iv)

-e Product evaluations often do not include an evaluation of proposed quality assurance and control programs. (v)

• Commitm'ents made by registrants in their applications, and referenced in the registration certificates, often cannot be enforced. (vi) '

• The review has identified potentially significant health and safety issues linked to a specific product evaluation. (vii)

Category N (d)

Not applicable.

2. Technical Staffing and Training (2)

1. - . Satisfactory (a)

The technical review and audit are performed by staff having proper training and qualifications.

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b)

Some reviewers do not have the proper qualifications and training.

Unsatisfactory (c)

Technical review of the reviewer's evaluation is either not performed or not performed by managemen; or staff having proper qualifications and training.

Category N (d)

Not applicable.

3. Evaluation of Defects and incidents Regarding SS&Ds (3)

Satisfactory (a)

The SS&D evaluation program routinely evaluates the root causes of defects and incidents involving SS&D evaluations and takes appropriate actions, including modifications of SS&D sheets and notification of affected parties and other regulatory authorities.

11

d' Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b)

The SS&D evaluation program does not fully evaluate the root causes of all defects i

.and incidents involving SS&D evaluations, or when performed, the programs do not always take appropriate actions, including notification of interested parties.

- Unsatisfactory,(c) l The SS&D evaluation program does not ensure avaluation of the root causes of defects and incidents involving SS&D evaluations, or if performed, does not ensure  ;

appropriate actions are taken, including notification of interested parties. 1 Category N (d)  ;

Not applicable.

Non-common Performance Indicator 3 Low Level Waste Radioactive Waste Disposal -  ;

Program (H)

1. Status of Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Inspection (1)

Satisf actory (a) e Low level radioactive waste disposal licensees are inspected at regular intervals in accordance with frequencies prescribed in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800.(i)-

o -Deviations from these schedules are normally coordinated between working staff and management. (ii) e The inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar days as specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 0610-10). (iii) e All non-operational phase inspections are conducted at the State's prescribed frequency. (iv)

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b) -

e; The licensee is inspected at intervals that exceed the NRC Inspection Manual,-

Chapter 2800, frequency by more than 25 percent. (i)

• - All non-operational phase inspections are conducted at intervals that exceed

- the State frequencies by more than 25 percent. (ii) --

• - -. Some of the inspection findings are delayed, or not communicated to licensees within 30 days. (iii) 12

4 Unsatisfactory (c) e The licensee is inspected at intervals thm exceed the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, frequency tr/ more than 100 percent. (i) e Non operational phase inspections are conducted at intervals that exceed the State frequencies by more than 100 percent. (ii) e inspection findings are frequently delayed. (iii)

Category N (d)

Not applicable.

2. Technical Quality of Inspections Satisfactory (2)

Satisfactory (a) e Accompaniments of inspectors combined with an onsite review of ccmpleted inspection files indicate inspection findings.cre usually well founded and well-documented throughout the assessment period. (i)

• A review of inspector field notes or completed reports, as appropriate indicates that most inspections are complete and reviewed promptly by supervisors or management. (ii) e Procedures are in place and normally used to help identify root causes and poor licensee performance. (iii) e in most instances, follow up inspections address previously identified open items and/or past violations. (iv) e inspection findings generally lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action.

(v) e Sup'ervisors accompany nearly allinspectors on an annual basis. (vi)

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b) e Review indicates that low-level radioactive waste disposal inspections do not fully address potentially important health and safety concerns or it indicates periodic problems with respect to completenass, adherence to procedures, r,nanagement review, thoroughness, technical quality, and consistency. (i) e Review indicates that findings in inspection reports and inspection files are, on occasion, not well founded or well-documented. (ii) 13

.O p- e .The review does not demonstrate an appropriate level of management review.

!: (iii) e . Accompaniments of inspectors by supervisr are performed non-systematically. (iv) e Follow up ac.tione to inspection findings are often not timely. (v)

Unsatisfactory (c) e - Review indicates that inspections (including construction phase and closure / monitoring phne) 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. (i) e Accompanimenu of inspectors are infrequently performed. (ii) e Follow up actions to inspection findings are often not timely and appropriate.

(iii)-

Category N (d)'

Not applicable. '

3. Technical Staffing and Training (3)

Satisfactory (a) ,

e Review inweates that the qualifications of the technical staff are commensurate with expertise identified as necessary to regulate a low level radioactive waste disposal f acility. (i) '

e The management has developed and implemented a training program for staff.

- (ii) ,

e~ Staffing trends that could have an adverse impact on the quality of the program are tracked, analyied and addressed. (iii)

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b)

• There is some staff turnover that could adversely impact the low-level radioactive waste disposal program. (i) e Some vacant positions are not readily filled. (ii) e' There is some evidence of lack of management attention or action to deal with staffing problems. (iii) 14 l

'1

o Some of the licensing and inspection personnel in the Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program are not making prompt progress in completing all of the training and qualification requirements. (iv) e The training and qualification standards include areas that could be improved.

(v)

' ~

e Some of the new staff is hired with little education or experience in physical and/or life sciences, materials licensing and inspection, civil or mechanical engineering, geology, hydrology and other earth sciences, and environmental science. (vi)

Unsatisf actory (c) e There is significant staff turnover relative to the size of the program. (i) e Most vccan?, positions are not filled for extended periods. (ii)

e. There is little evidence of management attention or actions to deal with staffing problems. (iii) e Most of the licensing and intpection personnel are not making prompt progress in completing all of the training and qualification requirements. (iv)

• New staff members are hired without having education or experience in physical and/or life sciences, materials licensing and inspection, civil or mechanical engineering, geology, hydrology and other earth sciences, and environmental science. (v)

Category N (d)

Not applicable.

4. Technical Quelity of Licensing Actions (4)

Satisfactory (a) e Pre-licensing interactions with the applicant are occurring on a regular basis. (i) e Speciallicense tie-down conditions are usually stated clearly and are inspectable. (ii) e - Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time. (iii) e Reviews of amendments and renewal applications demonstrate thorough analysis of a licensee's inspection and enforcement history, if applicable. (iv) 15 Y

i

• Applicable guidance documents are available to reviewers in most cases, and are generally followed. (v)

• - Public hearings in accordance to the State administrative laws have occurred.

(vi)

• Review of,ce.rtain technical aspects of the low level radioactive waste license files indicates that aspect of the license review is generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality. (vii)

• Health and safety issues are properly addressed. (viii)

• An evaluation of the license review process indicates that the process is thorough and consistent. (ix)

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

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b)

• Review indicates that some technical aspects of licensing do not fully address health and safety concerns or indicates problems with respect to thoroughness,

, completeness, consistency, clarity, technical quality, and adherence to existing guidance in licensing actions. (i)

• Some aspects of the public hearings are not consistent with State administrative law or do not address some aspects of the licensing of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. (ii) , ,

Unsatisfactory (c)

• Review indicates that technical aspects of the licensing actions frequently fall to address important health and safety concerns or indicates chronic problems with respect to thoroughness, completeness, consistency, clarity, technical qual,ity, and adherence to existing guidance in licensing actions. (i)

• Public hearings are not consistent with State administrative law or f ail to address aspects of the licensing of a low level radioactive waste disposal facility. (ii)

Category N (d)

Not applicable.

16

O

5. Response to l'ncidents and Allegations (5)

Satisf actory (a)

Meets the performance for "Satisf actory" for the Response to incidents and l Allegations common performance indicator criteria, E (1), as applied to the Response to incidents and Allegations subelement for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program.

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b)

Meets the performance for " Satisfactory with Recommendations for Improvement" for the Response to Incidents and Allegations common performance indicator criteria, E (2), as applied to the Response to incidents and Allegations subelement for Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program.

Unsatisfectory (c)

Meets the performance for " Unsatisfactory" for the Response to incidents and Allegations common performance indicator criteria, E (3), as applied to the Response to incidents and Allegations subelement for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program.

Category N (d)

Not applicable.

Non common Performance Indicator 4 - Uranium Recovery Program ,(1)

1. Status of Uranium Recovery inspection Program (1)

Satisfactory (a)

• Uranium recovery licensees are inspected at least once a year as prescribed in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapters 2801 and 2600. (i)

• Deviations are generally the result of decisions which consider the risk of licensee operation, past licensee performance, and the need to temporarily defer the inspection (s) to address more urgent or more critical priorities. (ii)

• There is plan to reschedule any missed or deferred inspections or a basis established for not rescheduling. (iii)

• Inspection findings are communicated to licensees at the exit briefings and confirmed formally in writing in a timely manner (30 calendar days as specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 0610-10). (iv) 17

)

_ ___0

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b) e The licensees are inspected at intervals which exceed the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2801, frequencies for conventional uranium mills or the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2600, frequencies for insitu leach facilities by more than 25% (i) ,

e Some of the inspection findings are delayed, or not communicated to licensees within 30 days. (ii)

Unsatisfactory (b) e The licensees are inspected at intervals which exceed the NRC inspection Manual, Chapter 2801, frequencies for conventional uranium mills or NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2600, frequencies for insitu leach facilities by more than 100% (i) e Inspections findings are frequently delayed. (ii)

Category N (c)

~

Not applicable.

2. Technical Quality of Inspections (2)

Satisf actory (a) e Accompaniments of inspectors combined with an onsite review of a representative cross section of completed inspection files indicate inspection findings are usually well-founced and well documented throughout the assessment period. (i) f e Licensing history and status are incorporated into the inspection program as demonstrated through accompaniments and procedures in place. (ii) e A r5 view of inspector field notes or completed reports indicates that most inspections are complete and reviewed promptly by supervisors or management. (iii) e Procedures are in place and normally used to help identify root causes and poor licensee performance. (iv) e- In most instances, follow-up inspections address previously identified open items and/or past violations. (v) e Inspection findings generally lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action.-

(iv) 18

e Supervisors accompany nearly allinspectors on an annual basis. (vii)

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b) e Review indicates that uranium recovery inspections occasionally do not address potentially important health, safety, and environmental concerns or it indicates periodic problems with respect to comp:eteness, adherence to procedures, management review, thoroughness, technical quality and consistency. (i) e Review indicates that findings in inspection reports and inspection files are, on occasion, not well-founded or well-documented, and the review does not demonstrate an appropriate level of management review. (ii) e Accompanirnent of inspectors by supervisors is performed non systematically.

(iii) e Follow-up actions to inspection findings are often not timely. (iv)

Unsatisfactory (c) e Review indicates that uranium recovery inspections frequently fail to address potentially important health, safety, and environmental concerns or it indicates chronic problems exist with respect to completeness, adherence to procedures, management review, thoroughness, technical quality and consistency. (i) e Accompaniments of inspectors are infrequently performed. (ii) l e Follow-up actions to inspection findings are often not timely and appropriate.

l (iii) l

)

Category N (d)

Not applicable.

3. Technical Staffing and Training (3)

Satisf actory (a) e Review indicates that the qualifications of the technical staff are commensurate with expertise identified as necessary to regulate uranium recovery f acilities.

(i)

• The management has developed and implemented a training program for staff.

(ii) e Staffing trends that could have an adverse impact on the quality of the program are tracked, analyzed and addressed. (iii) 19 l

l

Satisfactory with Recommendations for Improvement (b)

• There is some staff turnover which adversely impacts the uranium recovery program. (i)

• Some vacant positions, necessery for continued program effectiveness, are not readily fill.ed. (ii)

• There is some evidence of lack of management attention or action to deal with staffing problems. (iii)

• Some of the uranium recovery licensing and inspection personnel are not making prompt progress in completing all of the training and qualification requirements. (iv)

• The training and qualification standards include areas that could be improved.

(v)

• Some of the new staff are hired with little education or experience in physical and/or life sciences, materials licensing and inspection, civil or mechanical engineering, geology, hydrology and other earth sciences, and environmental science. (vi)

Unsatisfactory (c)

• There is significant staff turnover relative to the size of the program. (i)

{

• Most vacant positions are not filled for extended periods. (ii)

• There is little evidence of management attention or action to deal with staffing

! problems. (iii)

• Training program is not in place. (iv)

• Most of the licensing and inspection personnel are not making prompt progress in c'ornpleting all of the training and qualification requirements. (v)

• New staff members are hired without having education or experience in physical a:nd/or life sciences, materials licensing and inspection, civil or mechanical engineering, geology, hydrology and other earth sciences, and environmental science. (vi)

Category N (d)

Not applicable.

20

j

4. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions (4)

Satisfactory (a) 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. (i)

• Health, safety, and environmental issues are properly addressed. (ii)

• License reviewers almost always have the proper signature authority for the cases they review. (iii)

• Speciallicense tie down conditions are usually stated clearly and are inspectable. (iv)

• Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and ere used at the proper time. (v)

,

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

• Applicable guidance documents are available to reviewers in most cases, and are generally followed. (vii)

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

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b)

Review indicates that some licensing actions do not fully address health, safety, and environmental 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 (c)

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

Category N (d)

Not applicable.

21

5. Response to incidents and Allegations (5)

Satisfactory (a)

Meets the performance for " Satisfactory" for Response to incidents and Allegations common performance indicator criteria, E (1), as applied to the Response to incidents and, Allegations subelement for the Uranium Recovery Program.

Satisfactory with ' Recommendations for improvement (b)

Meets the performance for " Satisfactory with Recommendations for Improvement" for the Response to incidents and Allegations common performance indicator criteria, E (2), as applied to the Response to Incidents and Allegations subelement for the Uranium Recovery Program.

Unsatisfactory (c)

Meets the performance for

• Unsatisfactory" for the Response to incidents and Allegations common performance indicator criteria, E (3), as applied to the

. Response to incidents and Allegations subelement for the Uranium Recovery Program.

Category N (d)

Not applicable.

Non common Performance Indicator 5 - Regional Fuel Cycle inspection Program (J)

1. Status of Fuel Cycle Inspection Program (1)

Satisfactory (a)

• Licensee f acilities are inspected at regular intervals in accordance with frequencies prescribed in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2600, with appropriate documented adjustments to reflect licensee performance and the inherent risk of licensee operations. The schedules for facility inspections are appropriately updated and maintained in the Fuel Cycle Master Inspection Plan.

The inspections scheduled for each facility are consistent with the requirements of NRC Inspection Menual, Chapter 2600, with appropriate adjustments. There are few differences between the inspections planned and scheduled for the current fiscal year, and the inspection program currently intended for each facility for the fiscal year. Changes in the Fuel Cycle Master Inspection Plan are documented when they occur and generally are the result of joint decisions between management and staff in the Regions and Headquarters. Changes in the Region's inspection program for each facility are well-documented and primarily based on the inherent risks of licensee operation, past licensee performance, and the need to address more urgent or more critica! priorities or deal with unioreseen resource limitations. (i) 22

0

• There is evidence that Regional management periodically ascensins the status of the inspection program and acts swiftly to resolve problems affecting performance, when necessary. Management is confident that the existing inspection schedule adequately reflects the Region's stated objectives for each f acility's inspection program. Management also is aware of the comparison between planned inspections and actuel performance of inspections, and is confident that the objectives for each facility's inspection program are being met. (ii) e There is clear evidence of an ongoing process to reschedule any missed or deferred inspections, and to optimize the ability to meet the stated objectives.

(iii) ,

e The scheduling and performance of inspections optimizes the utilization of inspection resources so that inspectors are permitted sufficient time to prepare for and dc.cument inspections. The percentage of time inspectors spend on routine inspections, reactive inspections, preparation and documentation, and other progranimatic activities, is close to that originally planned in accordance with stated objectives. Significant departures from what was originally planned, and the reasons for their occurrence, are documented as they become apparent. (iv) e Inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (normally within 30 calendar days, or 45 days for team inspections, as specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 0610-10, unless there are legitimate documented l

reasons for delays). (v) e The Region adequately maintains document,ation of licensee performance in support of the Licensee Performance Review Program. (vi)

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b) e Licensees are inspected at greater intervals than specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2600, absent timely written documentation of the intention to do so. Objectives for the inspection of some of the Region's facilities are not documented in an inspection plan for each facility, or they are not in sufficient detail to adequately express the inspection requirements for each facility in terms of licensee performance or inherent facility risk. The inspections scheduled in the Fuel Cycle Master Inspection Plan for a f acility do not correspond to the objectives previously documented for the f acility's inspection program, and the reasons for the discrepancies have not been documented adequately. The inspections scheduled in the Fuel Cycle Master inspection Plan for one or more facilities do not reflect the requirements contained in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2600, and no timely documentation exists to justify the discrepancies. (i) e Reliable documentation regarding the conduct of the Region's inspection program cannot be readily produced, and the Region cannot confirm within a 23 l

l

reasonable tirrie that the inspection program meets the requirements of NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2600, or the objectives previously documented for each facility's inspection program. (ii)

• Regional management is slow to react to problems affecting performance of planned inspections, with the result that the inspections contained in the Fuel Cycle Master Inspection Program no longer correspond to the inspection direction needed to focus on changes in licensee performance. (iii)

• Some inspectors are underutilized or over utilized for routine inspections to the extent that their onsite inspection hours do not correspond to the Region's

. stated objectives for utilization of inspection resources, with no adequate documentation to justify the discrepancies. (iv)

• Some of the inspection findings are delayed, or not communicated to licensees within 30 days (45 days for team inspections), without adequate documentation of justification or legitimate reasons for such delays or deletions (as in the case of pending escalated enforcement). (v)

• Documentation in support of the observations required to be formulated for the Licensee Performance Review Program do not exist, of are not easily located.

(vi)

Unsatisf actory (c)

• -Licensees are inspected at intervals that frequently exceed the NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2600, frequencies, irrespective of licensee performance or facility risk, without adequate documentation or justification for such

, departures. (i) i

• Objectives for each facility's inspection program have not been documented, or do not adequately consider NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2600, requirements, licensee performance, or the inherent risk of licensee operations.

(ii)

• Management cannot readily demonstrate that the existing Regional fuel cycle inspection schedule, in combination with the recent history of completed inspections, support the inspection objectives described in the inspection programs for each facility. (iii)

• Inspections of licensees or communications of the inspection findings are frequently delayed, without adequate documentation or justification. (iv)

• The Region does not adequately maintain documentation necessary to document licensee performance in support of the Licensee Performance Review Program. (v)

• Observations provided to support the Licensee Performance Review Program i 24

cannot be supported by existing documentation. (vi)

Category N (d)

Special conditions exist that provide adequate justification for withholding a rating.

For example, an unforeseen event or emergency with significant health and safety consequences may have required a temporary diversion of resources from the core inspection program. However, these programmatic adjustments are well-founded and properly coordinated with NMSS management.

2. Technical Quality of Inspections (2)

Satisfactory (a)

• 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 period. (i) e A review of completed inspection reports indicates that most inspections are complete, consistent with the requirements of NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 0610. and reviewed promptly by supervisors or management. (ii) e inspection efforts focus on the safety or safeguards significance of licensee performance, while maintaining alertness to possible trends and patterns of poor licenseo performance. Plant operations addressed and performance areas

! emphasized correspond closely to the objectives documented for the Region's inspection program for the facility. (iii) e in most instances, follow up inspections address previously identified open items and/or past violations. (iv) e Inspection findings generally lead to prompt and appropriate regulatory action.

(v)

• Allinspections are conducted or led by qualified NRC inspectors. Contractors and' inspector trainees, augmenting inspections, are provided proper guidance by the inspec'.;on leader during onsite inspections, resulting in good integration of the efforts of these personnel with those of the other qualified inspectors.

(vi)

• Supervisors accompany allinspectors on at least an annual basis, with greater emphasis on the less-experienced inspectors. (vii)

Satisfactory with Recommendation's for improvement (b) e Review indicates that findings in inspection reports and inspection files are, on occasion, not well-founded or well-documented, or the review demonstrates an inappropriate level of management review. (i) 25 l

l

• Review indicates that some inspections do not oddress potentially important health and safety concerns, or indicates recurring problems with respect to completeness, adherence to procedures, management review, thoroughness, technical quality, or consistency, relative to the requirements specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 0610. (ii)

• Inspectiory efforts do not always focus on the safety o6.9afeguards significance of licensee performance, inspection reports do not attelt,pt to address possible trends or patterns of poor licensee performance. Plant operations addressed and performance areas emphasized do not always correspond closely to the objectives documented in the Region's inspection prograrr, for the facility. (iii)

• An instance occurs in which a contractor or inspector trainee, augmenting an inspection, is not provided proper guidance by the inspection leader during an onsae inspection, resulting in inappropriate activity by the contractor that is not immediately corrected when discovered. (iv) l

• Accompaniments of inspectors by supervisors are not performed systematically to assure at least annual frequency, but the more recently hired, inexperienced inspectors are accompanied at least anr sally. (v) i

• Follow up actions to inspection findirigs often are not timely, or not appropriate. (vi)

Unsatisfactory (c)

• Review indicates that inspections frequently fail to address potentially important health and safety concerns, or indicates that chronic problems exin x with respect to completeness, adherence to procedures, management review, thoroughness, technical quality and consistency, relative to the requirements specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 0610. (i)

• Inspection efforts typically do not focus on the safety or safeguards significance of licensee port :nant,e. Inspection reports do not attempt to address possible trends or pa&rns of poor licensee performance. Plant ope' rations addressed and performance areas of emphasis typically beer little correspondence to the objectives documented in the Region's inspection program for the facility, or such documentation does not exist. (ii)

• More than one instance occurs in which a contractor, augmenting an inspection, is not provided proper guidance by the inspection leader during an onsite inspection, resulting in inappropriate activity by the contractor that is not immediately corrected when discovered. (iii)

• An inspection is conducted solely by an individual who is not a qualified NRC inspector, or is led by an individual who is not a qualified NRC inspector. (iv)

• Accompaniments of inspectors are performed infrequently, and those that are 26

performed fail to involve the more recently hired, less experienced inspectors.

(v)

• Follow up actions to inspection findings are often not timely or appropriate. (vi)

Category N (d)

Not applicable'.

3. Technical Staffing and Training (3)

Satisfactory (a)

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

• Prompt management attention and review to recognize staffing or training problems (e.g., high rates of attrition, positions being vacant for extended periods, lack of adequate training opportunities), and to develop appropriate corrective action plans. (i)

• Qualification criteria for hiring new technical staff have been established and are being 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 beyond their original area of specialization to reflect the broador area of responsibility in their organization. (ii) e inspectors are trained and qualified in a reasonable time period, despite difficulties which may be encountered in the availability of training opportunities provided by NRC, or of aiternativa outside training opportunities determined by the Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards (FCSS) to meet requirements specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1246. Training plans and schedules for qualification are established, maintained, and perso,nally reviewed by the inspector and management. (iii)*

• Management ensures that inspectors avell themselves of opportunities for required training infrequently provided by NRC, or identifies to FCSS alternative outside training opportunities that can be determined by FCSS to meet NRC Inspection Manual. Chapter 1246, requirements, resulting in trainees reaching qualification without undue delays. (iv) 3 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, Chapter 1246, and the applicable " Qualifications Journals," or to receive equivalent training elsewhere.

27 l

l

• Management commitment to training is clearly evident. (v) e inspectors are provided cross training opportunities to develop skills necessary to substitute for or assist other inspectors in functional areas outside their normal assignments. (vo e inspectors are current with regard to required retraining and refresher training.

(vil)

• Recordo are kept to keep track of how training requirements are satisfied for those requiring training, provide reminders of when refresher trt.ining is due, and to provide reliable and accurate statistics on the status'of the training program. (viii)

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b)

• Some unanticipated staff turnover has occurred, that could adversely affect the ability of remaining staff to conduct the inspection program, and rnanagement has not taken immediate steps to adjust inspection planning accordingly, or begin the process of replacement. (i) e Some vacant positions have not been readily filled. (ii)

• Some evidence of management attention or actions to deal with staffing problems that may have arisen, but problem still persists. (iii) e Some of the inspection personnel are not making reasonable prcgress in completing the training (or retraining) and qualification requirements, despite allowing for difficulties in arranging for NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1246, required courses infrequently provided by NRC. (iv)

• Management permits severalinstances to occur, in which inspectors do not avail themselves of opportunities for required training infrequently provided by NRC, resulting in extensions of the time needed for trainees to reach qualification. (v) e The Region's training and qualification standards do not completely correspond to functional requirements for inspections. (vi)

• Minor difficulties arise when attempting to accurately determine the status of training, retraining, and refresher training tequirements and accomplishments for those requiring such training. (vil)

• Some of those requiring retraining or refresher training are not current there is an effort to track and schedule the required training, but there is no documentation to explain why the necessary training has not been provided.

(viii) 26

- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

Unsatisf actory (c)

Review determines the presence of chronic or acute problems related to some of the following conditions, which cause concerns about their likely impacts on other subelements of this performance indicator.

• Significant unanticipated sthff turnover relative to the size of the program, the

! causes of which cannot all be attributed to normal attrition. (i)

• Many vacant positions remain unfilled for extended periods. (ii) l

• Little evidence is exhibited of management attention or actions to deal with l staffing problems found to exist. (iii)

• Many of the insper: tion personnel have not met their schedules for qualification, or met refresher training requirements, falling short of written plans and schedules to do so. (iv)

• Some opportunities for taking NRC Inspect!on Manual, Chapter 1246, required training courses infrequently provided by NRC, or alternative outside training opportunities identified by FCSS as meeting such requirements, were not attended by inspectors needing such courses for qualification, contributing to f ailure of inspector trainees to meet established schedules for qualification. (v) e New staff members are hired without having adequate scientific or technical backgrounds. (vil

• Management is unable to determine within a reasonable time the status of training, retraining, and refresher training for those requiring such training. (vil) e inadequate or no tracking or scheduling for those requiring retraining or refresher training. (viii)

• Newly hired inspector trainees are not provided sufficient onsite training experience, or they are not provided proper guidance by inspection leaders or sup'ervisors while directly contributing to inspections. (ix)

• Management consistently withdraws inspection personnel from required training activities to participate in other activities, with the result that established schedules for qualification of inspection personnel are not met. (x)

Category N (d)

Special conditions exist that provide justification for withholding a rating. For

• example, there has been a substantial management effort to deal with staffing problems, or the mission of the organization has changed too rapidly for training programs to adjust. NMSS has been kept informed of the situation, and discernable recent progress is evident.

29

4. Memponse to incidents and Allegations (4)

Satisfactory (a) e incident response and allegation procedures are in place. (i) e incident f.esponse and allegation procedures are appropriately followed in nearly all cases. Actions taken are well coordinated with Headquarters, as appropriate, and timely in most instances. Level of effort investigating incidents is usually commensurate with potential health and safety significance l of incident. (ii) l e Corrective (enforcement or other) actions are adequately identified to licensees promptly, and appropriate follow up measures are taken,in coordination with Headquarters, as appropriate, to ensure prompt compliance and protection of public health and safety. (Ill) e Follow up inspections are scheduled, if necessary, and completed within a reasonable time. Notification to NMSS, AEOD, and others, as may be appropriate, are usually provided in a timely f ashion. (iv) e Preparations for the Region's portion of the response to major incidents are appropriate to the types of incidents that may occur at the Region's facilities.

Sufficient documentation exists to identify individuals with required skills and experience to be summoned to respond in an emergency, and potential Regional participants have been trained to respond to worst case scenario incidents. (v)

~

e Procedures are in place to periodically check for comple'teness of materials needed for emergency response and to occasionally update these rnaterials when circumstances change (e.g., staff turnover, completion of training '

requirements by staff who would respond, change in processes conducted at facilities, or addition or deletion of a facility). (vi) e The Region's portion of self assessment activities following a drill or actual eve'nt are comprehensive in recognizing problems that arose during the subject activity. Recommendations for improvement erlsing in self assessment studies are tracked to ensure further study or implementation. (vil) e inspection activity conducted as follow up to receipt of allegatioris is technically sound and successfulin determining the safety implications of the allegations, as appropriate. (viii)

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b) e The Regional portions of incident response and allegation procedures are in place, but occasionally are not adhered to in detail. (1) 30

i e Resolution of' potential public health and safety issues is marginal, with problems in coordination, or timeliness. (ii)

• Preparations for the Regional portions of emergency response lag behind changes in circumstances (as described above). Some lapses in training, background, or experience needed to deal with identified types of incidents requiring fesponse, or some types of incidents have been analyzed at the Region's facilities but are not recognized in the Region's portion of emergency response plans. (iii) e Region's portion of self assessment activities following a drill or actual event are shallow in some areas,in not recognizing or further analyzing problems that .

arose during the subject activity. Some recommendations for improvement in self assessment studies are not tracked to ensure further study or implementat!on. (iv) e Regional portion of inspection activity conducted as follow up to receipt of allegations falls to completely address the safety implications of the allegations.

(v)

Unsatisfa:: tory (c) e Review indicates frequent examples of Regional portion of response to incidents or allegations to be incomplete, inappropriate, poorly coordinated, or not timely. As a result, the identified potential health and safety problems persist. (i)

• Through Regional direction, excessive effort is allocated to the investigation of relatively minor safety issues to the detriment of addressing more significant ones. (ii) e There is a failure of the Region to adequately prepare for significant incidents that could occur at the Region's facilities, despite existing documentation or analyses that indicate they could occur. (iii) e Inspection activity is not conducted as a follow up to receipt of an allegation, though there was a clear need to investigate the safety implications of the allegations. (iv)

Category N (d)

Not applicable.

31

4 Non common Performance indicator 6 Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP)

I (K)

1. Quality of SDMP Decommisslor.Ing Reviews (1) l

! Satisfactory (s)

I Nearly all deco'mthissioning plans are reviewed in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2605, and these reviews are documented as outlined in NRC inspection Manual, Chapter 2605. ,

Satisfactory with Recommendations for Improvement (b) if i

Most decommissioning plans are reviewed in accordance with NRC Inspection i _ Manual, Chapter 2605 and these reviews are documented as outlined in NRC i inspection Manual, Chapter 2605.  :

1 l_ Unsatisfactory (c)

Decommissioning plans are not being consistently reviewed in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2605, or documented as outlined in NRC Inspection

Manual, Chapter 2605.

Category N (d)

Special conditions exist that provide justification for withholding a rating for one or

! more evaluation criteria.

l 2. Financial Assurance for Decommissioning (2) 4 l Satisfactory (a) l

• For nearly all sites, financial assuranen is provided 'or the estimated costs for j en independent, third party to perform decommissioning with the objective of releasing the site for unrestricted use. (i). ' '

l i e For sites where financial assurance has not been provided, alternative

arrangements have been approved by the regulator. (ii) j e Financial assurance mechanisms are reviewed and maintained to ensure that they are executable and provide-sufficient funding for decommissioning-in the

event that the licensee liquidates or is otherwise unable to pay for

, decommissioning. (111) g ' Satisfactory with Recommendations for Improvement (b) o For most sites, financial assurance is provided for the estimated costs for an .

independent, third party to perform decommissioning with the objective of 32

-w-re,-, w ~ w .w.- *.w. ,ew. - - - - - ~--r - e . .w.-, ,-e. . - -,--,--,,.yww, - . -,- ,r. ,e-< - - - - , -f . , r--m.-w,-,-w~v

releasing the site for unrestricted use. (i) e For most sites where financial assurance has not been provided, alternative arrangements have been approved by the regulator. (ii) e For most sites, financial assurance mechanisms are reviewed and maintained to ensure that they are executable and provide sufficient funding for decommissioning in the event that the licensee liquidates or is otherwise unable to pay for decommissioning. (iii)

Unsatisfactory (c) l

• Financial assurance is not consistently provided for the nstimated costs for an independent, third party to perform decommisaloning with the objective of releasing the site for unrestricted use. (i) e For sites where financial assurance has not been provided, alternative arrangements have not been always approved by the regulator. (ii) e Financial assurance mechanisms are not being consistently reviewed and maintained to ensure that they would be executable and provide sbtficient funding for decommissioning in the event.that the licensee liquidates or is otherwise unable to pay for decommissioning. (iii)

Category N (d) t Special conditions exist that provide justification for withholding a rating for one or more evaluation criteria.

3. Termination Radiological Surveys (3)

Satisfactory (a) e For nearly all SDMP sites, sufficient radiological surveys are being performed prior to license termination and site release, as outlined in NRC inspection Manual, Chapter 2605, to ensure that residual radioactivity levels comply with release criteria. (i) e Licensee survey results are routinely validated through a closeout inspection or confirmatory survey, as outlined in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2005, given the extent and significance of any residual contamination. (ii)

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b) '

• For most SDMP sites, sufficient radiological surveys are being performed prior to license termination and site release, as outlined in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2605, to ensure that residual radioactivity levels comply with release criteria. (i) 33

~ . .

e e Licensee survey results are usually validated through a closeout inspection or confirmatory survey, as outlined in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2605, given the extent and significance of any residual sontamination. (ii) l Unsatisfactory (c) l Sufficient radiplogical surveys are not consistently being performed prior to license termination and site release, as outlined in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2605, I to ensure that residual radioactivity levels comply with release criteria, or survey l results are not normally validated through a closeout inspection or confirmatory l survey, as outlined in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2005, given the extent and significance of any residual contaminatic,n.

Category N (d)

Special conditions exist that provide justification for withholding a rating for one or more evaluation criteria.

4. Inspections (4)

Satisfactory (a) e At nearly all SDMP sites, inspections are carried out in accordance with established frequenc!es. (1) e SDMP sites are inspected at least once during decommissioning, and at all significant milestones in the decommissioning process, in addition to the close out inspection prior to license termination. (ii) e inspections are documented and carried out in accordance with inspection procedures 87104 and 88104. (iii)

Satlafectory with Recommendations for improvement (b)

• At most SDMP sites, inspections are carried out in accordance with established frequencies. (i)

• SDMP sites are inspected at least once during decommissioning, and at most significant milestones, in addition to the close out inspection prior to license termination. (ii)

• At most SDMP sites, inspections are documented and carried out in accordance with inspection procedures 87104 and 88104. (iii)

Unsatisfactory (c)

• Inspections are not consistently being carried out in accordance with established frequencies. (i) 34 4 W

O e

e SDMP sites are not inspected at least once during decommissioning, or at significant milestones, in addition to the close out inspection prior to license termination. (ii) e inspections are not consistently being documented and carried out in accordance with inspection procedures 87104 and 88104. (iii)

Category N (di l

l Special conditions exist that provide justification for withholding a rating for one or more evaluation criteria.

5. Staff Qualifications satisfactory (a) e Qualifications for license reviewers and inspectors are established and reviewed

. annually. (i) e Nearly all staff members are qualified to perform licensing reviews and Inspections related to decommissioning through training and documented work j experience. (ii)

• Non-qualified staff is subject to the direct supervision of qualified managers; this supervision is evidenced by concurrence on inspection reports and ilcensing documentation. (iii)

Satisfactory with Recommendations for improvement (b) e Qualifications for license reviewers and inspectors are established and reviewed every 2 3 years. (i) e Most staff members are qualified to perform licensing reviews and inspections related to decommissioning through training and documented work experience.

(ii) ,

e Non-qualified staff is usually subject to the direct supervision of qualified managers; this supervision is evidenced by concurrence on hspection reports and licensing documentation. (iii)

Unsatisfactory (c) e Qualifications for license reviewers and inspectors are not established or if established, these qualifications are not reviewed. (i) e The majority of staff is not qualified to perform licensing reviews and inspections related to decommissioning through training and documented work experience. (ii) 35

)

J

• Non qualified staff is not typically subject to direct supervision of qualified managers. (ill) l Category N (d)

, Special conditions exist that provide Jut,tification for withholding a rating for one or l more of the evaluation criteria.

6. SDMP Milestones (6)

Satisf actory (a)

• At nearly all SDMP sites, the decommissioning milestones summarized in the SDMP are being met or delays are identified and a mechanism is in place to ensure that any appropriate corrective actions are taken. (i)

• Policy issues affecting decommissioning of SDMP sites are being identified. (ii)

• Staff is updating the SDMP database in a timely manner. (iii)

Satisfactory with Recornmendations for improvement (b) ,

• For most SDMP sites, the decommissioning milestones summarized in the SDMP are being met or delays are identified and a mechanism is in place to ensure that any appropriate corrective actions are taken. (i)

• Staff routinely identifies policy issues affecting the decommissioning of SDMP sites in a timely manner. (ii)

• Staff is updating the 3DMP database for most sites in a timely rnanner. (iii)

Unsatisfactory (c)

• The decommissioning milestenes summarized in the SDMP are not routinely being met or delays are not being identified and a mechanism is not in place to ens'u re that any appropriate corrective actions are taken. (i)

• Policy issues affecting the decommissioning of SDMP sites are not typically being identified in a timely manner. (ii)

• Staff is not r .utinely updating the SDMP database in a timely manner. (iii)

Cat *gery N (d)

Special conditions exist that provide justification for withholding a rating for one or more evaluation criteria.

36

PART IV Programmatic Assessment General (A)

A management review board (MRB) will make the overall assessment 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. (1) l The MRB will consist of a group of senior NRC managers, or their designees, to l Include the: (2) e Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs (a) e Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (b) e Director, Office of State Programs (c) e Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (d) e General Counsel (e)

The Agreement States also will be invited to nominate a representative to

- participate in MRB meetings, as a non voting 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 to NRC. (3)

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

Findings for Ag'reement State Programs (B)

Finding 1 - Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and Compatible (1) e if NRC finds that a State program has met all the Agreement State program review criteria or that only minor deficiencies exist, the Commission will find that the State's program is adequate to protect public health and safety. (a) e if the NRC determines that a State program does not create conflicts, gaps, or disruptive duplication in the collective national effort to regulate Atomic Energy Act materials, the program would be found compatible. (b) 1

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

• 11 NRC finds that a State program has met all the Agreement State program review criteria or that only minor deficiencies exist, tho Commission will find that the State's program is adequate to protect public health and safety. (a)

• If NRC deter. mines that a State program creates unnecessary gaps, conflicts, or disruptive dcplication in the collective effort to regulate Atomic Energy Act materals, the program would be found not compatible. (b)

Finding 3 Adequate, But Needs improvement and Compatible (3) e if NRC finds that a State program protects public health and safety, but is deficient in meeting some of the review criteria, NRC may find that the State's program is adequate, but needs improvement. NRC would consider, in its l determination, which deficiencies noted during the review that the State has to address. (a) e in cases wher6 less significant State deficiencies previously identified have been uncorrectad for a significant period of time, NRC also may find that the program is adequate but in need M improvement. (b)

• If the NRC determines that a State program does not create conflicts, gaps, or disruptive duplication in the collective national effort to regulate Atomic Energy Act materials, the program would be found compatible. (c)

I Finding 4 Adequate, But Needs improvement and Not Compatible (4)

• If NRC finds that a State program protects public healtti and safety, but is deficient in meeting some of the review criteria, NRC may find that the State's ,

program is adequate, but needs improvement. NRC would consider, in its j determination, which deficiencies noted during the review that the State has to address. (a) e in cases where less significant State deficiencies previously identified have bee'n uncorrected for a significant period of time, NRC also may find that the i program is adequate but in need of improvement. (b) e if NRC determines that a State program creates unnecessary gaps, conflicts, or disruptive duplication in the collective effort to regulate Atomic Energy Act materials, the program would be found not compatible. (c)

Finding 5 Inadequate to Protect Public Health and Safety and Compatible e if NRC finds that a State program is significantly deficient in some or all the review criteria, NRC would find that the State's program is inadequate to protect public health and safety. (a) 2

- 7_

l e if the NRC determines that a State program does not create conflicts, gaps, or disruptive duplication in the collective national effort to regulate Atomic Energy Act materlats, the program would be found compatible (b) l Finding 6. Inadequate to Protect Public Health and safety and Not Compatible e if NRC firids.that a Stato program is significantly deficient in some or all the review criteria, NRC would find that the State's program is inadequate to ,

protect public health and safety. (a) I e If NRC determines that a State program creates ennecessary gaps, conflicts, or )

l- disruptive dup!Ication in the collective effort to regulate Atomic Energy Act '

materials, the program would be found not compatible. (b)

Findings for NRC Regional Programs (C) 1 l The MRB findings for Regional programs will be the same as those listed above for Agreement States with the exclusion of the findings for compatibility.

L l

I I

i l

I i

l l

l i

c i

.i 3

4

+ - . . - , ,..w-,. -, .., . , - _,- - . -_. ..w - ,

.w.. .- -. -

n. ,

Glossary it is necessary to note that some Agreement States or NRC Regions may not define these terms identically, in such cases, the review team will highlight any differences in its review, but draw its conclusions and make its assessments based on the definitions used by that State or Region at the time of the review.

Allegation. A' declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy associated with regblated activities, the validity of which has not been established.

This term includes all concerns identified by sources such as the media, individuals, or organizations, and technical audit efforts from Federal, State, or local government offices regarding activities at a licensee's site. Excluded from this definition are matters being handled by more formal processes such as 10 CFR 2.206 petitions, hearing boards, appeal boards, and so forth.

Fuel Cycle inspections. The definition of " Inspections" in 10 CFR 170.3 should be used to determine what constitutes a fuel cycle inspection. The term includes both routinely scheduled and reactive inspections.

, . Incident. An event or condition that has the possibility of affecting public health l and safety such as described in 10 CFR 20.2201,10 CFR 20.2202,10 CFR i

20.2203,10 CFR 20.2204,10 CFR 30.50,10 CFR 34.25,10 CFR 34.30,10 CFR 35.33,10 CFR 36.83,10 CFR 39.77,10 CFR 40.60,10 CFR 70.50,10 CFR i 71.97, or the equivalent State regulations.

l l Materials inspection. The definitions in 10 CFR 170.3, and in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, Sections 03.03 and 07.01, should be used to determine what constitutes an inspection, in addition, Agreement State hand delivery of new licenses may constitute initialinspections. The term includes both routinely scheduled and re6ctive 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:

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

An existing core license is more than 25 percent beyond the interval defined in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, Enclosure 1. An existing non core license is more than 1 year beyond the interval. (An inspection will not be considered overdue if the inspection frequency 1

0 has been extended in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2800, Section 05.01, based on good licensee performance.)

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

!6

a.e a A,aa& 4 M A. >*M+ Media',- 4W M M-+ SM41.Sh 46 E h4 - wh - -^

4h6_h454db 4 Ar.4 M WJP A 4 444@ ae A. h h m -4 6.dw 4Sh44m a eM 4.h d4ha.

• I i

• l

• i I

!' I t

t 4

4 i

I i

i

. I L

, t i

l I

J i

t i

j

.I i ,

I i

=

'l >

b l ATTACHMENT 2 -

i .

t 5

i REGIONAL COMMENTS i

i 1

l i

d 4

i e

J i

4 1

,i 4

- ~ ... . . . . . , . . . _ _ . ,._ ._ .. _ _ _ . . . . . _ , . . _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _. _,__ . . _ . .._._ _ . _ . _ . . .

i f

t From Ronk1d Bellamy ,

Yes TWD2.TWPS.SWM Date:- 4/22/97 5:05pm  ;.

Subjoett Conenents on IMPEP 2ndicators Region I has reviewed the IMPEP non common performance indicators for the SDMP and Puel cycle programs, and believe that they provide sufficient structure ,

and guidance for both regional preparation for an IMPEP visit and for the IMPEP team to inplement. Specific comments are attached. Please contact me j if there are any questions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

• Ron sellamy cca TWD2.TWPS.DAC, ARS, atdl. ATP1.SSill, CHD1.CHP2.RJC1. . .

I

%+

I S b

e e

4 l

l g/ Q J

REGION l COMMENTS ON IMPEP NON COMMON INDICATORS FOR SDMP AND FUEL FACILITY ACTIVITIES i

1. On page 7, first full paragraph. Eliminate the word " generally" in the first sentence.

Suporvisors should accompaay each inspector at least once annually to assess performance, provide-feedback and maintain the necessary management quality assurance.

2. On page 7, the fourth full paragraph. When inspections are conducted by teams, there a

can only be one leader. To say that at least one certified NRC inspector should be designated as team leader implies you can have more than one leader. Recommend reword to say that'there should be a designated team leader, and this individual must be a qualified NRC inspector (not certiflod).

3. On page II, first full paragraph. Pending escalated enforcement is generally not a good reason to delay communicating inspection findings to a licensee, if findings are of such significance that they may lead to escalated enforcement, licenses should be made aware of them in a timely manner. The results of the enforcement action may walt, but the technical findings should not be delayed.

4. On page 17, last paragraph. Eliminate the word "nearly" in the first sentence for the  !

same reason as explained in Comment Number One above.

i 4

4 d

I i

W n y ..e., _ . - .,..~,-.-..-%.. , - , y , < - , , ..._,y_ _ , ._r . -.. - ..,_--.w, , . .w.,_ ..^ __ ,,-,w..

e UNrtfDSTATil

. . /pg68 88sg'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY C:MMISSION

• TL.A RA GE ?A

• ,,,e April 30, 1997 HEMORANDUM T0: Donald A. Cool, Director Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Bruce S. Hallett, Director V) yI k,m FRON: .

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

\

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE IMPEP NON. COMMON INDICATORS FOR THE SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THE REGIONAL' FUEL FACILITY PROGRAM This'is in response to your request of March 5,1997, to review and comment on the subject draft non comon performance indic.ators. We believe they are appropriate in depth and provide an appropriate level of detail to sufficiently address their respective program' areas and to fit into the larger IMPEP program guidance.

We recomend two enhancements:

1. Define " appropriate adjustments" to inspections in fuel cycle inspection program, Criteria 1. The satisfactory rating and satisfactory with recomendations rating should allow for changes to IMC 2600.due to emphasis to respond to events and reduction based on Licensee Performance Reviews,

2. There are semi quantitative descriptive words which appear throughout the document. These words, such as.

• frequently,"

• periodically "

• • riequately," " prompt.' etc. could become a basis for misunderstandings.

To avo'id such misunderstandings, we suggest that an attempt be made to provide definitions or bounds for them.

If you have any questions, contact Ed McAlpine at (404) 562 4711. '

cc: L. Ten Eyck. W6S W. Brach, NMSS P. Ting. NMSS A. Blough, RI R. Caniano, RIII R. Scarano, RIV I '

..~

&& bf'

1. e,e**4% UNITEo STATS 3

\, NUCLEAR RE ULATORY COMMCSION

. [ O RECON IX 5  !

act WAnntwittr 8040 UsLE. ILUNots 00632-4361 April 28,1997 MEMORANDUM TOf onald A. Cool, Director Division of industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards FROM:

vwk Roy J. Canlano, Acting Director Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,

(

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON Tile IMPEP NON COMMON INDICATORS FOR THE SITE DECOMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THE REGIONAL FUEL CYCLE PROGRAM (Rlli AITS #97 0039)

This is in response to your memorandum to C. D. Pederson dated March 5,1997, requesting regional review and comment concerning the draft non common performance indicators for reviews of the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) and the Fuel Cycle Program as part of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP).

As suggested in your memo, we focused our review on issues of proper depth and detail for the indicators, to sufficiently address the target focus areas and,to fit into the overall IMPEP guidance.

Overall, we concluded tiist the indicators were well constructed from the perspective of depth and detail and we believe they address the target focus areas qults well. They '

include sophisticated guidance involving trend and root cause reviews where eppropriate.

In addition, they appear to fit well into the overall IMPEP review structure.

The attachment'to this memorandum contains our specific comments, along with notes of a minor, editorial nature.

We appreciated the opportunity to provide feedback on this document. An electronic copy of these comments was forwarded to Scott Moore on the date of signature.

Attachment:

as stated cc w/stt: A. Randolph Blough, Rl Bruce S. Mallett, Ril Ross A. Scarano, RIV John T. Greeves, DWM CONTACT: B. L. Jorgensen (BLJ) 630/829 9615 4 / .

,h* T Y f - _ _ . . ._

COMMENTS ON IMPEP NON COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES AND SDMP PROJECTS General

1. For the Fuel Cycle program, Part ll (page 6) recognizes the difficuttles in scheduling and paying for specialized courses for the small number of fuel facilities inspectors who may need unique training at any one time. The same sort of consideration should be included in the Part lil Evaluation Criteria for staff training and qualification.

, 2. Both Part ll and Part lll should, in addressing response to incidents (pages 7 and 20, respectively) make reference to regional capabilities to respond in conlunction with

! NMSS. These are mutual responsibilities: the region should be judged on holding up

. Its end.

3. Accountability for SDMP project management functions is assigned to the Division 4

of Waste Management: Part ll should limit its focus to those responsibilities assigned to the Region.

Editorial Attachment 1

1. Page 2, third paragraph, first line: 'sub element'

2. Page 3, second last line: 'lMC Q610'

3. Page 9, third last line: suggest "anorocriatelv updated

• vs.

• frequently *

4. Page 10, first full sentence: replace with 'There are few differences inspections scheduled and completed and what is currently intended for each of the facilities.'

5. Page 18, second last line of first bullet: ' demonstrates

• i Attachment 2

6. Page 1, Jtem 1, second-last line: '... Statements, Safety ...'

7. Page 3, second line: delete repetitive *:liscussion of the'

8. Page 3, item 3,last lino: add space before the word " clarity" t

l

- - . - - , , n.,.- , , . . , .

. 0 km asse UNITED sTAfis

/$ k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N

,E, -

,, I R80loN iV .

8 4

N h s11 RYAN PLAEA DRIVE.sulTE 400

%,* " ** / AR LINGToN. TEXAS 7e0114064 APR I 71997 MEMORANDUM T,0: , Scott Moore, Chief (MS: 8F5)

Programmatic Safety and Procedures Section O rati,o s ran l NS ,

FROM: hRoss . caran , ir et r i

i Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON THE IMPEP NON COMMON INDICATORS FOR THE SDMP AND THE REGIONAL FUEL CYCLE PROGRAM Donald Cool's memo of March 5,1997, requested comments on the subject non common

_ performance indicators. Per the request, the enclosed comments are being sent to you.

Attachment 1 contains comments on the Fuel Cycle Program, and Attachment 2 contains comments on the Site Decommissioning Management Plan,-

We appreclate the opportunity to provide these comments.

Enclosures:

As stated O

e 4

4 e

- 17073lonf I% _ _ _

i

.' l

. l ATTACHMENT 1 RIV COMMENTS REGIONAL FUEL CYCLE PROGRAM As a general comment,'we are in agreement with t!ie Indicators chosen for evaluation and the evaluation criteria used. The description of the indicatois are clear, and the evaluation criteria amply distinguishes between the levels of performance, However, RIV has a serious reservation as described in Comment 1 below and a less significant comment, as provided in 2, below,

1. The inspection program for fuel facilities is jointly managed by HQ and the regions.

Chemical Safety, MC&A and much of the criticality safety program are now inspected by HQ. Additionally, the master schedule for the inspection program is controlled by HQ, cross inspections between regions and joint inspections with HQ have become common, and licensee performance reviews are a joint HQ and regional effort. In effect, the inspection program for the fuel cycle facilities has evolved into a much more centralized process with close HQ involvement and oversight. As such, the objectives of the fuel cycle non common performance Indicators may need to be re evaluated. A mere review of a region's performance will only provide limited and perhaps misleading conclusions regarding the overall effectiveness of the NRC's fuel facility inspection program. The past practice of the region having sole inspection responsibility with periodic reviews by HQ becomes somewhat clouded with the amalgamation of the inspection program. Region IV requests that this issue be considered and f actored into the fuel cycle IMPEP process.

2. Several places in the indicators and evaluation criteria imply 1 hat the region should be maintaining readily retrievable data banks for information to be used in the LPR process. For example, the statement appears under " Status of Fuel Facility Inspection Program": "There should be a means for maintaining and readily retrieving regional performance information for each f acility (e.g., site issues matrices, incident analysis surnmaries, enforcement histories) to support . . . LPR," and under

" Technical Quality of Inspections": " . . . the results of inspections should be sommarized and appropriately documented for later references . . . ." The evaluation criterla key results on the existence of such data. Manual Chapter 2604, " Licensee Performance Review," does not require specialized data summaries be maintained for the LPR process, and it is inappropriate to impose such a requirement by the IMPEP process. The creation of special summaries of inspections, incident summaries, and site issues matrices would impose a significant administrative burden on the Region.

All such data is already captured in inspection reports, the IFS System, Preliminary Notification files, etc., and it should not be necessary to maintain separate data banks RIV requests that all such references to this matter be deleted from the document.

ATTACHMENT 2 RIV COMMENTS REGl0NAL SDMP PROGRAM We agree in general with Parts ll and 111 relating to the non common performance indicators for Site Decommissioning Management Plan in the case of Region IV, all project management for Region IV SDMP sites rests in Headquarters. Because of this, several of the performance indicators such as Decommissioning Plan reviews, license review work, financial assurance, and SDMP milestones are not directly applicabla to the Region's activities. The Region's activities on these sites are related mostly to inspections and surveys. Nevertheless, regional staff are responsible for maintaining a close working relationship with the project managers and their management to ensure coordination of regional SDMP related activities. Similarly, the regional inspection staff routinely provide comments and concurrence on review activities undertaken by the project office. These coordination activities between the Region and the project offices do not appear to be captured by any of the performance Indicators.

B 8 9 9

4' e

i T

1 4

i i i N

i 1

i i

ATTACHMENT 3 d.

! 1 RESOLUTION OF REGIONAL COMMENTS 4

I i

I i

i 4

7

)

4 4

4 1

- - - - - --,e -.w-,-- -- , , , ,.,. , -- p -- ,---,,,,,m, ,--.. . -- ,,4.- .-, . - . , ---,--,

Reabonses to Realonal Comments on IMPEP Non Common Performance Indicator for Realonal Fuel Cvele insoection Proarams Realon 1

1. On page 7, first full paragraph. Eliminate the word " generally"in the first sentence.

Supervisors shobid accompany each inspector at least once annually to assess performance, provide feedback and maintain the necessary management quality assurance.

Adopted. The word " generally" was removed.

2. On page 7, the fourth paragraph. When inspections are conducted by teams, there can only be one team leader... Recommend reword...

Adopted. The paragraph was reworded to indicate more clearly that at least one member of a group on an inspection visit must be a cualified inspector.

3. On page 11, first full paragraph. Pending escalated enforcement is generally not a good reason to delay communicating inspection findings to a licensee....

Adopted. The example of pending escalated enforcement was removed, but there is still provision for delays for legitimate documented reasons.

4. On page 17,last paragraph. Eliminate the word "nearly" in the first sentence...

Adopted. The word "nearly" was removed.

Realon 2 We recommend two enhancements"

1. Define " appropriate adjustments" to inspections in fuel cycle inspection prograrn.

Crheria 1l The satisf actory rating and satisf actory with reenmmendations rating should allow for changes to IMC 2600 due to emphasis to respond to events and reduction based on Licensee Performance Reviews Isic).

Adopted. The following text has been added to the performance indicator to specify how the adjustments are made:

• These a4ustmentsfore^ generally l determined bv sonneriossof Headquarters and regional management during #w Lloonsee Performance Review.(LPR) proceos, orLin response,to. feelHty

, events or consstions betweertLPRs."

2. There are semi quantitative descriptive words which appear throughsut the document. These words, such as, " frequently," " periodically," " adequately,"

" prompt," etc., could become a basis for misunderstandings. To avoid such misunderstandings, we suggest that an attempt be made to provide definitions or bounds for them, 4

• w,

, - , .. pgy v y--w -- -- --

r,-

_ __. ._.__.._____._______.___._._____...__.m.__ _ _ . _ _

i i

i, 2

i l'

Not adopted. Terms such as

• frequently," " periodically,"

• adequately,"

• prompt,"

etc., currently are used throughout NRC Management Directive (MD) 5.6. The

. altemative to using these approximate terms is to use quantitative terms such as

*95%," *within three weeks," etc. These terms may be more specific, but they j imply a process of quantification or measurement that may be even more difficult to j justify In terms of effort or significance. Also, it would be difficult to adopt specific numerical values that would be appropriate for a wide verlety of different cases and

circumstances. Exceptions could not easily be made to deal with unusual i

situations, and where numbers were small. The final arbiter of possible co;)fuelon in the use of the evaluation criteria would be the Management Review Board, who would hear the views of both the region and the IMPEP Review Team, interpret the significance of any specific numerical measures considered, and resolve as~

misunderstandings.

l ,

Realon 3 l'

General i

l 1. ...Part 11 (page 6) recognizes the difficulties in scheduling and paying for specialized i courses for the small number of fuel f acilities inspectors who may need unique ,

l training at any one time. The same sort of consideration should be included in the l Part lil Evaluation Criteria for staff training and qualification.

{

j Adopted. The evaluation criteria in Part 111 have been amended to reflect such ,

training difficulties.

1 .

l 2. Both part ll and Part 111 should, lei addressing response to incidents ... make i references to regional capabilities to regond in conlunction with NMSS. These are

! mutual responsibilities; the region should be judged on holding up its end.

1 i Adopted. Appropriate language has been placed in Parts il and lil to reflect the fact i that the region acts in conjunction with Headquarters to respond to incidents.

Editorial *

1. Ty, 'dopted

2. Typo, Adopted i.

3. Page 9, suggest " appropriately updated" vs.

• frequently updated"

Adopted

4. Page 10, first full centence: replace with "There are few diff'erences inspections scheduled and completed and what is currently intended for each of the facilities."

[ sic)

Adopted. The subject sentence wat replaced by, "There are few differences

• k i

-n.,.7, ...n. , , , . - -.n.e , , . - , . ,_,.-e., . . , , , - , . ,v. ,__v,, a -

-m.,,,-_,,,, , , ,--.,m,., - -, ,,.e,.

3 between the inspections planned and scheduled for the current fiscal year, and the

-Inspection prograrn currently intended for each facility for the fiscal year."

5. Typo, Adopted Realon 4

1. The inspection program for fuel cycle facilities it; jointly managed by HQ and the regions... In effect, the inspection program for the fuel cycle facilities has evolved into a much more centralized process with close HQ involvement and oversight. As such, the .a,jectives of the fuel cycle non-common performance indicators may need l to be re-evaluated. A more review of a region's performance will only provide limited and perhaps misleading cowlusions regarding the overall effectiveness of the NRC's fuel faci!ity inspection program... 'Aegion IV requests that this issue be considered and factored into the fuel cycle lMPEP process.-

l i

Partially adopted. FCOB only partially agrees with the statement that a review of the region's performance will only provide limited and perhaps misleading conclusions regarding the overall effectiveness of the NRC's fuel facility inspection program. The regional IMPEP review is not intended tu draw conclusions about the overall program, just the particular contribution made by the subject region. The wording of the general statement in Part il of the indicator has been modified to better reflect this,

... the presence of these (satisfactorily implemented) elements in a regional fuel cycle inspection program should provide assurance to senior NRC management, and to the public, that the inspional program is effective."

The purpose of IMPEP originally was to use common performance indicators to evaluate both the regional NRC materials programs and those of the Agres;nent States on a comparable basis. The non common indicators were added to evaluate the performance of the remaining aspects of the regional programs under NMSS oversight that were not in common with Agreement State programs. It is true that a self assessm'o nt program by NMSS to review the Headquarters portion of the fuel facility inspection program may shed more light on the performance of the fuel cycle inspection program overall, but such a program is beyond the scope of IMPEP. The current non common performance indicator for the fuel cycle inspection program attempts to focus on only the region's performance as part of an integrated program across all regions and Headquarters. The entire Appendix on the non-common performance indicent for regional fuel cycle inspection programs has been reviewed to ensure that it is only regiond performance that is at issue in an IMPEP review, so'

' ti.ct no region will be held responsible for actions or decisions affecting the region's fuel cycle inspection program not its own.

2. Several places in the indicators and evaluation criteria imply that the region should

, be maintaining readily retrievable data banks for information to be used in the LPR process.... Manual Chapter 2SO4, Licensee Performance Review," does not require i

p __

4 4

specialized data summaries be maintained for the LPR process. The creation of special summaries of inspections, incident summaries, and site issues matrices would impose a significant administrative burden on the Region. All such data is already captured in inspection reports, the IFS system, Preliminary Notification files, etc., and it should.not be necessary to maintain separate data banks. RIV requests that all such references to this matter be deleted from the document.

l Partially adopted. The content of the non-common performance indicator for regional fuel cycle inspection programs should not be construed as requirements.

The indicator describes the essential elements of an effective fuel cycle inspection program on a generic basis. Region IV is, in particular, a special case in that it has only one fully operational fuel cycle facility, and one fuel facility inspector.

l Therefore, the task of organizing raw data to develop summary information L regarding fuel facility licensee performance, at the time en LPR is conducted, would be less onerous in M*.glon IV than it would be in Regions 11 and Ill. In general, raw data, such as inspection reports, Preliminary Notification and Moming Report files, the IFS system, etc., do not capture the expert judgement that could be assembled in summaries of regional performance information, such as site issues matrices, that are in fact maintained in other reginns, and considered to be a good practice, though not specifically required in ;#lC 2600 or 2604. Such summaries help to collect the informed opinions of several different inspectors who may visit a particular facility at different times over a two year period between LPRs. At the time an LPR is to be conducted, these inspectora may be unavailable, and the tabk of constructing a summary review of the licensee's performance based on raw data alone could be onerous and result in an untimely LPR. ,

The performance indicator subelement for " Status of Fuel Cycle inspection Program" has been modified to clarify that specialized summary information files (e.g., site issue matrices, etc.) are not required, but that they may be practical altamatives in some situations. Since the IMPEP review is focused on regional performance, Region IV would not be penalized if it were demonstrated through good performance that the LPR for its lone facility could be conducted satisfactorily without its having had to maintain specialized s'ummary information files on licensee performance.

i 6

OWM RESPONSES 10 ComENTS ON THE DRAFT IMPEP.NON-COMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE SDMP i

REGION I COMENTS Region I did not comment on the 50MP non-common performance indicators l

REGION II CGMENT:

"There are semi-quantitative descriptive words which appear throughout the document. These words, such as, " frequently," " periodically," " adequately,"

" prompt,"~ etc. could become a basis for misunderstandings. To avoid such misunderstandings we suggest that an attempt-be made to provide definitions or bounds for them."

2GLBESPONSE: Initially, DWM agreed with the Region's comments. However, discussions with NMSS indicated that it was-more appropriate to provide the staff with the flexibility-to evaluate the SDMP consistantly with other IMPEP Common and Non-cosmon indicators. Therefore, we have revised the evaluation criteria-for the SDMP program to be consistant with other IMPEP program

l. elements.

REGION III COMENTS: . .

" Accountability for SDMP project management-functions is assigned to the Division of Waste Management; Part 11 should limit its focus-[to) those responsibilities assigned to the Region DWM RESPONSE: As stated in NRC-Inspection Manual Chapter 2605 (Decommissioning 'rocedures for Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees) "The ,

responsibility for implementing the decommissioning proaram at nuclear facilities resides with the NRC regional: office in which the facility is located, or NMSS, as appropriate. The lead office has the responsibility-for coordinating the impleeentation of the decommissioning program at the- facility

-within NRC. In general, the regional office will assume lead responsibility for most licensed sites undergoing decommissioning. NMSS will provide overall program and-policy direction "or the regional offices for decommissioning factlities. NMSS will also provide oversight guidance.and site-specific support to-the regions for all decommissioning facilities to ensure that-licensees are conducting the decommissioning in-a consistent manner. NHSS an.y

-(emphasis added) assume oversight responsibility for sites listed on the SDMP,

- or others,' after consultation with the regional office." For those 50MP sites where the Regional office has-lead responsibility for coordinating the

-management of the decommissioning project within NRC, the performance of the Regional SOMP program will be evaluated using the Performance . Indicators in Part II. - For SOMP sites where DWM has lead responsibility for the Jdecommissioning project, only those functions assigned to the Region-(e.g.,

/ / m __ ,

l inspections) will be evaluated using the Performance Indicators in Part II.

REGION III EDITORIAL C0fgiENTS:

DWM staff agrees with the Region's suggested revisions.

REGION IV C0fgiENT:

'We agree in general with Parts !! and III relating to the non-common performance indicators for (the) Site Decommissioning Management Plan. In the case of Region IV, all project management for Region IV SDMP sites rests in Headquarters. Because of this, several of the performance indicators such as L Decommissioning Plan reviews, license review work, financial assurance, and SDMP milestones are not directly. applicable to the Region's activities. The Region's activities on these sites are related mostly to inspections and

- surveys. Nevertheless, regional staff are responsible for maintaining a close

' +

working relationship with the project managers and their management to ensure-coordination of regional SDMP related activities. Similarly, the regional inspection staff routinely provide connents and concurrence on review activities ur.dertaken by the project office. These coordination activities between the Region and the project offices do not appear to-be captured by any of the perfomance indicators."

DWM RESPONSE: DWM believes that coordination of decommissioning of SDMP sites with Regional staff is critical to ensuring that sites are decommissioned safely and in accordance with applicable NRC regulations and the approved decommissioning plan. The Regional staff routinely provide Project Managers with-invaluable information throughout the deconmissioning-process through reviews of-proposed decommissioning actions, responding to emergencies, inspections and surveys.

NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2605,"Deconnissioning Procedures for-Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees" recognizes-that coordination between HQ and Regional staff-ic vital to the success o ul completion of the decommissioning project and

- the Performance Indicators specifically cite adherence with requirements in Manual Chapter 2605 in evaluating SDMP programs. The Manual Chapter places the responsibility for ensuring that all aspects of the decommissioning project are appropriately coordinated, both within and without NRC, on-the 4 License Reviewer / Project Manager for the project. As such, DWM believes that it is appropriate to evaluate this as part of the evaluation of the lead office'for the decommissioning project.

Y ATTACHMENT 4 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE

'l NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WNSTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM SEALED SOURCE AND DEVICE DISPOSAL PROGRAM URANIUM RECOVERY PROGRAM

• s,

.A

SUMMARY

OF COMMENTS ON NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Discosal Proaram Sent to the Agreement States for Comment: June 3,1996 (SP 96-059)

Comments Received: lilinois, 7/30/96 Texas (TNRCC), 8/9/96 Kentucky, 6/6/96 Response to/ Resolution of Comments:

KENTUCKY SUPPORTED LLRW NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR - NO COMMENTS RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS' COMMENTS ON IMPEP LLRW NON COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR -

Comment:

i The only area that could be problematic is the second area, technical staffing and training.

The training requirements are very unique and subject to a wide variety of interpretations, in NUREG 1274, the NRC estimated that twenty two technical disciplines were required for the review of a low level radioactive waste disposal facility license application. Many of these disciplines will be satisfied by the regulatory agency by using contractual staff and/or personnel from other regulatory agencies. A strict enforcem,ent of provisions contained in the draft document such as "The staff should be afforded opportunities for training that are consistent with the needs of the low level waste program, such as attendance at counterpart meetings, university programs and national conventions" (page 2 ,

of the draft document in the section entitled Technical Staffing and Training) could be subject to a wide degree of interpretation by the review team. Whether or not a contract geologist, for example, is afforded the opportunity to participate in a national convention would probably have little to do with the effective licensing review of an application. It appears that a reasonable interpretation of the staffing and training provisions prevailed during the North Darolina IMPEP review, but the potential for problems in this area exists as written in the draft document.

Response

The IMPEP review process is to be performance based and not prescriptive, therefore, we agree whether a contact geologist is afforded the opportunity to participate in a national convention may have little to do with effective licensing review. The NRC/OAS training working group's results will also be factored into this area with respect to training.

1

Comment:

The only other area of note in the draft document concerns editorial problems in Part Ill, Evaluation Criteria. For example, "is" should be changed to "are" in the last sentence on page 1. In the paragraph beginning with " Pre licensing interaction." Another example can be found on page 2, fourth bullet, the words " low level" should be deleted. There are several other obvious, er,rors that should be corrected before finalizing the document.

Response

The changes have been made in the revised document.

RESPONSE TO TEXAS' (TNRCC) COMMENTS ON IMPEP LLRW NON COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comment 1:

Part II: In item 1 (status of LLW disposal inspection), there is a statement that siting and construction phase are essential to ensure the facility is being sited and constructed in accordance with regulatory requirements and good safety practices. Clarification of the meaning of " siting inspection" is needed, is this referring to whether facilities are actually being constructed at the specific locations applied for and in accordance with specifications authorized in the license? Or,is this referring to the evaluation of the suitability of the proposed site during the license application phase? If the latter is intended, then this should more appropriately be made part of item 3 relating to licensing actions.

Response

The revised document has been revised to clarify that pre licensing inspections during siting and construction phases are essential.

Comment 2:

Part II: In item 3 (technical quality of licensing actions), second paragraph, the last sentence regarding examination of ongoing requests may require clarification. Is the intent that licensing actions that are in progress will gnty be reviewed if there are some carticular health and safety implications and not otherwise?

Response

It is the intent to examine the State's performance in licensing. Normally, those licensing actions that are not health and safety matters, would not necessarily be reviewed.

2

0 Comment 3:

Part lli. Under Satisf actory section, third paragraph, there is a statement " Reviews of amendments and renewal applications demonstrate thorough analysis of a licensee's inspection and enforcement history." This statement should be modified by adt 'g the words "if applicable" at the end. With respect to license amendments, there may be instances of routine amendments for which analysis of a licensee's inspection or enforcement history is not relevant and will not be done. A state regulatory program should not be put in the position of having to do unnecessary analysis of inspection and enforcement history when it is not applicable to an amendment, in order to fulfill NRC's evaluation criteria.

Response

This change has been made in the revised document.

Comment 4:

Part 111. Under Satisf actorv section, fourth paragraph, there is a statement " Supervisors accompany nearly allinspectors on an annual basis." Clarification of this is needed. For example, does the accompaniment have to be on a low level waste disposal license inspection? . If so, and an inspection is required only annually by the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2800, then in effect, tne supervisor svould have to accompany on each low-level disposal facility inspection. Texas statutes require a resident inspector at the proposed Texas LLW disposal facility, and periodic accompaniment by the supervisor i would be possible, in general, however, we suggest that annual accompaniment of an inspector on inspections of any other types of licenses should be satisfactory to fulfill the evaluation criteria for the LLW program, l

Response

For the resident inspector, an annual accompaniment would be expected. For other inspectors, an annual accompaniment on other complex types of licenses would be satisfactory. Note, an inspector qualified for medicalinspections may not be an acceptable inspector for a low level waste disposal f acility, where an inspector with uranium recovery qualifications v0ould be.

3

~

t ,

___w

Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Proaram Sent to the Agreement States for Comment:- January 5,1996 (SP 96-002)

Comments Received:- Illinois, 2/27/96 Washington, 2/7/96 Response to/Resolutl'on'of Comments:

RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS' COMMENTS ON IMPEP SS&D NON COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comment A:

Regarding item 1 of your letter, the second paragraph of the letter to which this is attached addresses our concerns regarding the non common performance indicators for SS&D programs. The Department believes that these additional indicators are unnecessary. A listing of standards, SRP's and guidance documents that must be used to evaluate SS&D programs against, would be much more useful tools for evaluating performance.

Response: (Letter sent to Illinois on July 2,1996)

The draft non common performance indicator - Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program defines the criteria for evaluating the performance of Agreement State programs in this area. 'It is directed at helping ensure consistency in the scope and findings of IMPEP team reviews. The IMPEP review teams will use current standards, SRPs and guidance documents as tools in evaluating the performance of a State program in this area, but the primary focus will be on program performance. We rec,ognize the potential for redundancy in some areas such as training and 3, alifications of staff and we will take that comment along with other comments receiveo and our experience in conducting these reviews into consideration when preparing finalIMPEP procedures. At that time, we will also determine the need to revise the IMPEP Indicators to clarify all requirements and to eliminate any duplication.

Comment B: ,

in item 2 of your letter, you have addressed Part 21 concerns to a degree. However, you still have not indicated whether or not the states will be held to some portion or all of Part 21 during these program reviews. Your indicators imply that we will. Department staff was given the same impression at the September workshop.

Response

Per Office of State Programs Procedure B.7 (Revision 1), " Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety identification for'NRC Regulations and Other Program Elements:"

The provisions in Part 21 derive from statutory authority in the Energy Reorganization Act, not the AEA, that does not apply 4

e- .a

- to Agreement States. Therefore, this Part cannot be addressed under either compatibility or adequacy. . While it may be argued -.

that there are health and safety reasons to require States to adopt the provisions of Part 21, States may not have the statutory authority to do so.

- Comment C: ,_,

Regarding item of your letter, the Department believes that states generating NARM sheets need to be included in your audit and SRP's. - We understand that this materialis

'not under your jurisdiction, but if these certificates are to serve any useful purpose they must be held to the same standard as other SS&D sheets.

Response: - .

l-l We will continue to include NARM certificates in the SS&D database, however, due to the fact that our authority is limited to Atomic Energy Act material and because of resource-restrictions, we cannot support auditing NARM c.ortificates for States that issue NARM -

certificates.

Comment D:

Regarding item 8 of your letter, you have indicated that inspections of SS&D activities-

- evaluated in other states would be difficult, However, they could be performed by the

" contracting" state in much the same way that NRC will have to perform inspections in states relinquishing SS&D evaluation authority.

Response

We have no objection to States contracting among themselves in this area provided that the manufacturers'/ distributors' commitments are enforceable by the licensing State. You should note that in States where SS&D authority has been relinquished, the manufacturers /

distributors are directly subject to NRC regulations if they want their products listed in the registry.

~

RESPONSE TO WASHINGTON'S COMMENTS ON IMPEP SS&D NON-COMMON'-

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comment 1:

page 1 - the _first paragraph clearly and appropriately notes that the - performance. indicators

- contained herein are to be used to evaluate both Agreement States and the NRC .

Headquesters SS&D programs. However, from this point forward the document only refers to the Agreement States. This should be corrected by specifically mentioning the

_ Headquarters program throughout whenever the Agreement States program is referenced.

(Alternatively, a general reference to "SS&D programs" could be substituted for

" Agreement State programs" in the following' references).

5 l

e e

al page 1, third paragraph, 5th line: "In crder to evaluate the performance of Agreement State and NRC Headquarters programs, three areas ..."

b) page 2, top,4th line: "...as completed by each of the reviewers in the State or NRC Headquarters."-

c) page 3, top, li.ne,1: " States and NRC Headquarters will be evaluated..."

Response

i The first paragraph was incorrect and should not have indicated that the NRC Headquarters program wou!d be evaluated against these indicators as a non-common performance l indicator. At this time, NRC committed to a review of the Headquarters program, but not necessarily a review through IMPEP.

Comment 2:

Page 3 - about the middle of the page this sentence appears: " Applicable guidance documents are followed, unless approval to use alternate procedures is obtained." The question is "obtained from whom?" This should be clearly specified.

Response

Approval to use alternate procedures should be coordinated with management. This change has been made in the revised document, s

Comment 3:

Page 4 " Category N"-- this appears out of context. Can you telime what it is? If it is not applicable, why mention it?

Response

Category N is included for certain performance indicators where there exist adequate justification for, withholding a rating.

6

.Q..

p- .

9-Uranium Recovery Proaram Sent to the Agreement States for Comment: October 7,1996, (SP 96109)

Sent to Regions for Comment: February 4,1997 Comments Reconved: , , Colorado (11/20/96)

Region'lV (2/27/97) 1 Response to/ Resolution of Comments:

RESPONSE TO COLORADO'S COMMENTS ON IMPEP URANIUM RECOVERY PROGRAM

' Comment:

Our only comment is with regard to the need for " maintaining and retrieving statistical data on the status of the inspection program," found on page one of the document, under the L section " Status' of Uranium Recovery inspection Program." It is unclear what measures

- need to be tracked is it frequency of inspection, number of violations or some other

- parameter? . it is also unclear as to what statistic will be used (e.g. Student's t, or F or some other statistic)? The use of this statistical database needs to be explained and clarified. .

Response: 1 This is language consistent with the common indicators which refers to the number of overdue inspections.

RESPONSE TO REGION IV'S COMMENTS ON IMPEP URANIUM RECOVERY PROGRAM Comment:

This is in response to NMSS's memo dated Februar/ 4,1997, regarding non-common

-. performance indicators (Part II) and evaluation criteria (Part lill for UR. (There was no Part I with the memo.) -The only comment we have relates to Part il, Page 1, Area 1, which states, in part, that the frequency of inspections for production facilities as specified in MC's 2600 and 2801 is yearly. Actually, the NORMAL interval specified is twice per year, and as you know, that has been our practice in Region IV. No other comments.

Response

Part 11 has been revised to clarify.that the frequency for these types of facilities is specified in NRC Inspection Manual, Chapters 2600 and 2801, and the reference to a yearly internal has been deleted.

1 7

.,.