ML23206A210
| ML23206A210 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/05/2023 |
| From: | Adelaide Giantelli NRC/NMSS/DMSST |
| To: | Kevin Williams Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML23206A204 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML23206A210 (5) | |
Text
MEMORANDUM TO:
Kevin Williams, Director Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, And Tribal Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:
Adelaide Giantelli, Chief State Agreement and Liaison Program Branch Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL MATERIALS PROGRAM:
CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION This memorandum provides an overview of the joint U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Agreement State working groups evaluation of the National Materials Program (NMP) and its recommendations. The enclosed report describes the Future of NMP working group (the Working Group) evaluation and recommendations on the future structure and function of the NMP based on the changing number of Agreement State and NRC licensees.
BACKGROUND:
The NRC and the Agreement States continue to successfully implement the NMP through their partnership efforts. This success is due to the NRC and Agreement States intentional efforts to improve consistency through enhanced communication, collaboration, and knowledge management. The number of Agreement States is expected to be 42 when Indiana, Connecticut, and West Virginia obtain agreements. With the potential for additional Agreement States in the future, the NRC established this joint working group to evaluate and make recommendations on the future structure and function of the NMP and to assess areas for increased efficiency and effectiveness.
CONTACT: Huda Akhavannik, NMSS/MSST 301-415-5253 October 5, 2023 Signed by Giantelli, Adelaide on 10/05/23
K. Williams In the late 90s, a similar effort1 addressed the then increasing number of Agreement States and its potential impact to the NMP. In its 2001 final report,2 the group evaluated a range of potential NMP structural changes and recommended the Alliance option where states would share a greater proportional responsibility for development and maintenance of the national base of rules and guidance needed for an effective NMP. Thereafter, in SECY-002-0107,3 the NRC staff recommended the Commission adopt the blended option that would maintain the NRCs current relationship with the Agreement States and NRC and the States would look for opportunities to increase use of State experience and expertise in the development and maintenance of products for the NMP as envisioned under the Alliance option. Ultimately, in 2005,4 the Commission approved the staffs recommendation to continue the NMPs structure under a blended option where the NRC and Agreement States collaborate to establish national priorities, share resources, and develop regulatory products.
This working group leveraged the observations, Commission decision, and aspects of the previous working group, including:
Increasingly shifting technical experience from the NRC to the Agreement States; Increasing likelihood of new technologies emerging in Agreement States; Decreasing numbers of NRC licensees to support NRC fee-based activities; and Promoting consistent exchange of technical and regulatory information.
The NRC and Agreement States have increasingly collaborated on their joint oversight of the NMP through working groups to develop guidance and regulations, prioritization of regulatory and technical products, and enhanced communications. The NRC and Agreement States regularly collaborate to address technical and regulatory gaps and programmatic challenges. As part of developing recommendations, the working group considered the success of these important ongoing efforts and the current innovative culture of the NMP.
DISCUSSION:
As described in the charter, the Working Group identified potential future scenarios and analyzed the resulting impacts to radiation control program elements.5 As a result, the Working Group developed recommendations to improve the consistency and resource planning of the NMP.
In developing potential scenarios, the Working Group analyzed the quantity and type of licensees in the NMP.6 The analysis examined hypothetical scenarios of increasing Agreement States and the potential impacts to the NMP. After considering potential hypothetical scenarios for further analysis, the working group picked three scenarios: the present state including the states currently pursuing agreements, a significant decrease in the number of NRC licensees,7 and all states becoming Agreement States. This led to the formation of the following scenarios:
- 1. Scenario 1: 39 Agreement States + Connecticut + Indiana + West Virginia
- 2. Scenario 2: 39 Agreement States + Connecticut + Indiana + West Virginia + Michigan + Missouri
- 3. Scenario 3: All 50 States 1 SECY-99-250 (ML993330109) 2 SECY-01-0112 (ML011590431) 3 SECY-002-0107 (ML021580590) 4 SRM-SECY-04-0215 (ML050050563) 5 The Working Group charter (ML22112A112) provides an overview of the working group activities and members.
6 See generally Appendix A, Licensee Analysis in the enclosed report.
7 The second scenario represents an approximately 50% reduction in the current number of NRC licensees.
K. Williams Next, the working group identified radiation control program elements impacted by an increase in Agreement States under these scenarios.8 After evaluating the Agreement State Program Policy Statement (ML17262B205), the Program Element Table, and Section 274. of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA Section 274), the working group determined that 11 program elements could be impacted by an increase in Agreement States.
As described in the Radiation Control Program Element Evaluation, section of the report, program elements will be impacted differently with an increasing number of Agreement States.
Program element activities such as approving any new Agreement States or amendments to existing agreements, reviewing applicable Agreement State regulations for compatibility, performing IMPEP activities, and providing for some Agreement State training and travel will increase with an increasing number of Agreement States. Efforts associated with developing new regulations and guidance would increase as emerging technologies are developed.
However, NRC staff will have fewer licensing and inspection activities. A possible exception is reciprocity which may increase or decrease as a result of declining NRC jurisdictions and potential decrease of NRC licensees. Responding to events and allegations would decrease for the NRC. Efforts associated with updating current regulations and guidance would also continue.
As described in Appendix B, Outreach Activities, of the report, the working group obtained input from the Agreement States, NRC staff, licensees, and the public that helped refine the working groups final recommendations.
The working group identified 10 recommendations in two broad areas: maintaining consistency of regulation throughout the NMP and resource planning.
NMP Consistency The Working Group recognized the importance of maintaining consistency throughout the NMP and identified seven recommendations that could promote better knowledge management, communication, and collaboration. Recommendation No. 1 describes developing an agreed upon method and identifying tools to allow Agreement State and NRC staff to collaborate on the development of rules and guidance in near-real time. Currently, NRC and Agreement State staff may potentially collaborate on different versions of documents. Recommendation No. 2 proposes expanding centers of expertise for subject matter experts across the NMP to voluntarily provide feedback and support on important technical and regulatory topics. This promotes greater knowledge management and communication between the NRC and Agreement States. Recommendation No. 3 encourages greater Agreement State participation to lead Government-to-Government meetings. This can potentially increase the frequency of meetings and diversity of topics discussed across the NMP.
The Working Group also recognized the importance of a strong safety and organizational culture. Recommendation No. 4 considers making available and updating existing optional organizational and safety culture training resources to promote more consistent organizational and safety culture across the NMP. Recommendation No. 5 considers updating qualification training by incorporating compatible alternate options for qualification with Inspection Manual Chapter 1248. This could reduce the length of time to qualify a staff member. Recommendation No. 6 promotes improving access to information about upcoming joint working groups and IMPEP activities to improve the consistent identification of joint opportunities for NRC and Agreement States simultaneously. Finally, Recommendation No. 7 describes identifying a 8 The working groups evaluation is described further in the Radiation Control Program Element Evaluation, section of the report.
K. Williams method to appropriately prioritize updating NRC issued guidance that are a matter of compatibility with the Agreement States. This would focus resources on issues with most impact to the overall NMP.
From outreach efforts, the working group observed that ongoing and developing efforts across the NMP are promoting a culture of consistency. These recommendations to promote consistency can be implemented now to achieve a stronger NMP that can better support more Agreement States in the future.
NRC Resource Planning With decreasing NRC licensees and increasing Agreement States, maintaining fair and equitable fees for the NRC licensees and sufficient resources for the NRC to carry out its statutory functions for the NMP under the AEA will be challenging. As NRC licensees decrease, the fee recoverable activities required to maintain the NMP including generic activities like guidance and rulemaking will be borne by fewer licensees. Therefore, the Working Group developed three recommendations to support NRC resource planning as the number of Agreement States increases. Recommendation No. 8 suggests establishing of a working group to develop recommendations for structural, budget, and resource changes to the NRC materials program to improve the programs ability to maintain fair and equitable fees. Recommendation No. 9 describes developing options to increase flexibility and optimize resource expenditure through strategic contracting for temporary resource needs. Finally, Recommendation No. 10 suggests establishing a working group to consider options and develop recommendations to address the challenge of supporting the NMP through the fees of a decreasing number of NRC licensees. This working group can consider previous approaches, how to leverage fee-relief activities, and develop new approaches reflecting the current budgetary and fee-setting environment.
CONCLUSION:
The Working Group found that the NMP continues to be successful. After reviewing past efforts and performing licensee and program element analyses, the Working Group developed recommendations to improve the efficiency of NRC activities in leading the NMP and fulfilling its statutory obligations. These recommendations focus on strengthening the NRCs partnership with the Agreement States by promoting consistent regulation across the NMP and strategically planning NRC resources.
It is recognized that NRC senior management will discuss and establish the action plans for these recommendations as appropriate.
Enclosure:
The Future of the National Materials Program Working Group Report
ML232206A204 pkg and ML23206A210 letter OFFICE NMSS/MSST OGC NMSS/MSST NAME HAkhavannik NLO AGiantelli DATE 07/25/2023 09/28/2023 10/05/2023