1. IMPEP Process and Non-Common Indicator: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program
LLW Forum Meeting
October 16, 2017
Alexandria, Virginia
Paul Michalak, Branch Chief
Division of Materials Safety, State, Tribal, and Rulemaking Programs
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

2. Objectives
Overview of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) process
Objectives of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) disposal program IMPEP reviews
IMPEP performance indicators for the LLRW disposal program reviews
Trends in IMPEP results for the LLRW disposal programs reviews

3. What is IMPEP?
Periodic review of Agreement State programs conducted pursuant to Section 274j of the Atomic Energy Act.
Reviews Agreement State and NRC Regional material programs.
Jointly developed by NRC and States.

4. What is IMPEP (Cont.)
Routine on-site reviews normally conducted every four years - may be five years or more frequent based on program performance
Reviews scaled to the size of the Agreement State or NRC Regional program
Reviews conducted by team of NRC Office (NMSS and Regional) and Agreement State staff

5. IMPEP Historical Development
Past reviews of NRC regional programs and Agreement States were conducted differently, using different prescriptive criteria.
1993 GAO report. Common review approach needed to assess national performance.
1993 Congressional hearings. NRC’s review program ineffective in improving State performance.
Review program revised to address these concerns

6. IMPEP Overview
Focus on performance outcome, not how performance is achieved
Common Performance Indicators.
Non-Common Performance Indicators.
Performance Findings and Root Causes.
Ratings for each indicator and overall performance. 6

7. IMPEP Specifics Five common performance indicators
Technical Quality Staffing and Training
Status of Materials Inspection Program
Technical Quality of Inspections
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions
Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

8. IMPEP Specifics (cont.)
Non-common performance indicators, as applicable
Legislation, Regulations and other Program Elements Required for Compatibility
Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Uranium Recovery Program

9. IMPEP Specifics (cont.)
Draft IMPEP report sent for State/NRC Regional review for technical review and comments
Management Review Board (MRB)
Independent board which makes final determination of adequacy and compatibility based on IMPEP team’s report and information presented by Region or State.
Agreement State –Adequate and Compatible Finding
Region – Adequacy Finding only

10. IMPEP Specifics (cont.)
MRB Members
Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, Compliance, Administration, and Human Capital Programs
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Director, NRC Regional Program
General Counsel
Agreement State Program Manager Liaison (Non-voting)
At least one periodic one-day NRC/Agreement State meeting in years between IMPEP reviews

11. IMPEP Specifics (cont.)
Letter accompanying final IMPEP report issued to State management (typically, no additional action is needed if program is adequate and compatible).
Additional procedures if a State program has weaknesses:
Monitoring (SA-122)
Heightened Oversight (SA-122)
Probation (SA-113)
Emergency Suspension (SA-112)
Suspension of an Agreement (SA-114)
Termination of an Agreement (SA-115)

12. LLRW Disposal Program IMPEP Review
Uses Procedure SA-109 – for LLRW disposal program review
Determines if the LLRW disposal program is adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC’s regulatory program
Uses the elements of the five common performance indicators procedures
Takes into account where in the life cycle the LLRW disposal facility has been during the review period (i.e., operating or closed)

13. LLRW –Technical Staffing and Training
Uses NMSS Procedure SA-103
A well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy has been implemented
Qualification criteria for hiring new technical staff are established and are being followed
Any vacancies, especially senior-level positions, are filled in a timely manner
There is a balance in staffing between the licensing and inspection programs

14. LLRW - Technical Staffing and Training (Cont.)
Management is committed to training and staff qualification
License reviewers and inspectors are adequately qualified and trained to perform their duties
Personnel training and qualification program is adequate
Awareness of NRC’s risk-informed performance-based approaches and probabilistic risk assessment methods (e.g., NUREG-1573)

15. LLRW –Status of Materials Inspection Program
Uses NMSS Procedure SA-101 and Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2401
Primary purpose of the inspection program is to verify if the LLRW facility is operated and managed in a manner that provides protection from radioactivity
The review considers the current phase(s) of the program – pre-licensing/construction, pre- operation, operation, closure, and/or post- closure

16. LLRW – Status of Materials Inspection Program (Cont.)
Faculty routine inspections should include site security, trenches, disposal cells, and site boundary inspections
Facility non-routine inspections may include personnel exposures and dosimetry; radiological control for air monitoring; radiological control surveys; surface water and groundwater monitoring; waste receiving, treatment, storage, and disposal operations; and instruments calibrations.

17. LLRW – Technical Quality of Inspections
Uses NMSS Procedure SA-102
Inspections of licensed activities are focused on health and safety issues
Inspection findings are well founded and well documented in reports
Inspections are complete and reviewed promptly by supervisors
Procedures are in place and used to help identify root causes and poor licensee performance

18. LLRW – Technical Quality of Inspections (cont.)
The review should include:
Worker exposure records
Quality and adequacy of environmental monitoring data and analysis
Data on the quality and performance of liners and/or covers
Inspection records for waste shipments
Sufficient radiological monitoring and surveys
Inspection accompaniment(s)

19. LLRW – Technical Quality of Inspections
Uses NMSS Procedure SA-104
License reviews are thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable technical quality
Verify that essential elements of license applications have been submitted and meet current regulatory guidance
Health and safety issues are properly addressed

20. LLRW – Technical Quality of Inspections (cont.)
License conditions are stated precisely and can be clearly inspected
Deficiency letters are clear and used properly
Adequate financial assurance for the decommissioning and site closure has been established per regulatory requirements and is reviewed and maintained
Review of renewal applications consider licensees‘ inspection and enforcement history

21. LLRW – Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities
Uses NMSS Procedure SA-105
Actions taken in response to incidents or allegations
Appropriate - Well coordinated
Timely - Address health and safety issues
Appropriate incident and allegation response procedures are in place
Corrective actions and follow-up measures are appropriate, include root cause analysis, and receive an independent review

22. LLRW – Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities (cont.)
Proper notification and reporting of incidents
Uses STP Procedure SA-300, Reporting Material Events
Report to NRC Operations Center all immediate or 24-hour reportable incidents
Nuclear Materials Event Database (NMED)
Program is properly handling allegations, including those referred to the State from the NRC
Alleger identities are properly protected
Follow-up to allegers is sufficient

23. LLRW Disposal Programs – IMPEP Trends
Eight Agreement State Programs receive periodic LLRW disposal program reviews
Illinois – Sheffield – closed
Kentucky – Maxey Flats – closed
Nevada – Beatty – closed
New York – West Valley (SDA) and Cornell – closed
South Carolina – Barnwell
Texas – WCS
Utah – Clive
Washington – Hanford

24. LLRW Disposal Programs – IMPEP Trends
LLRW disposal licensees are unique
LLRW Programs typically found satisfactory
Over the recent 10-year period, the MRB found 17 of 18 IMPEP reviews for LLRW programs satisfactory, with one review finding satisfactory, but needs improvement
License applications/renewals are complex and take years to evaluate
Active facilities require frequent amendments
The four most active facilities are averaging between 1 to 4 amendments a year

25. Questions? 25