Detailed Information on the
Decommissioning and Low Level Waste Assessment

Developing additional efficiency measures, including the updating of baseline data, to provide a means to systematically measure and monitor efficiencies through tracking labor effort in support of major milestones and establishing targets that demonstrate improved efficiency or cost effectiveness over the previous year.

Developing better linkage of budget requests to the program's success in accomplishing annual and agency long term goals. In reviewing the budget, the program tracks many measures, but there needs to be a clear connection of how funding impacts goal achievement.

Measure: 1. First Long-Term Measure: No acute radiation exposures resulting in fatalities.

Explanation:

Measure: 1.1 Annual Outcome Measure: Number of events with radiation exposures to the public and occupational workers that exceed Abnormal Occurrence Criteria 1A.

Explanation:An abnormal occurrence is defined as an unscheduled incident or event that is significant in terms of public health or safety. Criteria 1A provides specific limits for human exposure to radiation from licensed material. These types of exposures are tracked to help ensure that no acute exposures resulting in fatalities occur.

Measure: 2. Second Long-Term Outcome Measure: No releases of radioactive materials that result in significant radiation exposures.

Explanation:Significant radiation exposures are defined as those that result in unintended permanent functional damage to an organ or physiological system.

Measure: 2.1 Same Annual Outcome Measure as 1.1

Explanation:

Measure: 3. Third Long-Term Measure: No releases of radioactive materials that cause significant adverse environmental impacts.

Explanation:

Measure: 3.1 Annual Outcome Measure: Number of radiological releases to the environment that exceed applicable regulatory limits.

Explanation:

Measure: 4. Fourth Long-Term Measure: No instances where licensed radioactive materials are used domestically in a manner hostile to the security of the United States.

Explanation:

Measure: 4.1 Annual Outcome Measure: Number of significant unauthorized disclosures of classified and/or safeguards documents.

Explanation:

Measure: 5. Fifth Long-Term Measure: Stakeholders are informed and involved in NRC processes as appropriate.

Explanation:

Measure: 5.1 Annual Outcome Measure: Percentage of selected openness output measures that achieve performance targets

Explanation:The Agency has 10 output measures that apply, but only 2 output measures apply to the DECLLW program and these were met (percentage of stakeholders that believe they were given sufficient opportunity to ask questions or express their views; and, at least 90 percent of Category 1,2 and 3 meetings on regulatory issues for which public notices are issued 10 days in advance of the meeting). The agency as a whole did not meet this goal for FY 2006. However, the 3 output measures, which were not met, are not measures that the DECLLW program directly supports.

Measure: 6. Sixth Long-Term Measure: No significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive materials.

Explanation:

Measure: 6.1 Annual Outcome Measure: Decommissioning License Termination Review: Improve the timeliness of the review process for nuclear power reactor License Termination Plans by at least 30% over 3 years as compared to the historical average.

Explanation:This is an efficiency measure for the DECLLW program. The review and approval of a license termination plan, demonstrating that the decommissioning can be conducted safely, is the most critical factor impacting the timing of decommissioning of a facility. Quicker reviews are a key measure of efficiency for this program because they result in the licensee beginning the site cleanup faster, completing cleanup and returning sites to beneficial use earlier than in previous years, reducing the cost for licensees, and freeing up NRC staff resources for additional project work The target for improving the review and approval of License Termination Plans by 30% over 3 years (from a high of 37 months and a historical average of 26 months) to the current target of 18 months will represent a significant improvement in review timeliness.

Measure: 6.2 Annual Outcome Measure: No more than one instance per program where licensing or regulatory activities unnecessarily impede the safe and beneficial use of radioactive materials.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The mission of the Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste (DECLLW) Program is to ensure that sites undergoing decommissioning, sites that currently, or previously, processed uranium ore, low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities and certain Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, are managed by licensees in a manner that protects the public health and safety and the environment and promotes the common defense and security. [1]

The four sub-programs (outlined below) accomplish this mission by ensuring the safe management and cleanup of various facilities and sites that use radioactive material and by ensuring that radioactive waste is disposed of safely. Resources are distributed in these 4 sub-program as follows: Decommissioning 70%, Uranium Recovery 11%, WIR 11% and LLW 8 %.

The purpose of the decommissioning sub-program is to ensure that NRC-licensed sites, and sites that were, or could be, licensed by NRC, are decommissioned in a safe, timely, and effective manner, so that they can be returned to beneficial use, and that stakeholders are informed and involved in the process, as appropriate. [2]

The purpose of the Uranium Recovery sub-program is to ensure that the process of transforming ore into uranium product, and the subsequent decommissioning of these facilities, is carried out in a manner that is protective of public health, safety, and the environment [3,4] and to ensure that the public health and safety is protected at non-operational uranium mill sites by reviewing and concurring in DOE actions at these mill sites. [5]

The purpose of the Low-Level Waste (LLW) sub-program is to ensure that LLW radioactive waste is disposed of in a manner that is protective of the public health and safety and the environment by providing a regulatory framework, technical assistance, and oversight of Agreement States that license the LLW sites.[6]

The purpose of the Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) sub-program is to consult with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on its incidental waste determinations for material in Idaho and South Carolina to ensure that certain materials are dispositioned in a manner that is protective of public health and safety. [7,8]

Evidence:

[1] Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection Functional Statement

[2] NUREG 1814, Status of the Decommissioning Program - 2006 Annual Report, Revision 1, page 1, paragraph 2

[3] Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, Title II, Section 202(a)(1)

[4] Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Chapter 7, Section 103 & Chapter 8 Section 81 & 83

[5] Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Title I, Section 108(a)(i)

[6] Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, Section 3

[7] Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005, Section 3116

[8] Decommissioning Criteria for the West Valley Demonstration Project (M-32) at the West Valley Site, Final Policy Statement - 67 FR 5003, Friday February 1, 2002

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Decommissioning, uranium recovery, and low-level waste sites can pose a threat to public health and safety, if the activities at these sites are not performed by licensees in a safe and secure manner. In FY 2008 the Program will oversee approximately 85 decommissioning and uranium recovery sites, 3 low-level waste sites and 4 DOE sites. There is a continuing need for this oversight because all nuclear reactors and non-reactor facilities will eventually require decommissioning. In addition the increasing price of uranium is expected to result in an increase in the number of operating uranium recovery facilities regulated under the Program [1]. The Program, through its regulatory oversight of its licensees at these sites and assistance to the Agreement States, ensures that these sites do not pose a threat to the public health and safety during operation or after they have been decommissioned and the licenses have been terminated.

It has been recognized since the late 1980s that the safe and timely decommissioning of sites is critical to the protection of the public health and safety and the environment [2]. NRC=s decommissioning sub-program ensures that sites that could pose a threat to public health and safety and the environment are decommissioned by licensees in a safe and effective manner, are returned to beneficial use in a timely manner and that stakeholders are informed and involved in the process, as appropriate [3,4].

The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) was enacted in 1978 for the protection of the public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards at inactive uranium mill tailings sites [5]. It ensures that tailings at inactive sites are stabilized, controlled, and disposed in a safe, environmentally sound manner. It ensures that uranium recovery activities at active, and future, sites meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40 during operations, and after termination of operations, and the tailings or wastes are stabilized and controlled in a safe, environmentally sound manner.

The purpose of the Low-Level Waste (LLW) sub-program is to ensure that disposal of low-level radioactive waste occurs in a manner that is protective of public health and safety and the environment by providing a suitable regulatory framework for the nation, and by providing technical assistance to and oversight of Agreement States that license the LLW sites in the U.S. The need for these actions became most apparent in the 1970's when three of the six operating LLW disposal sites at that time (all licensed by Agreement States) were closed, in part because of safety and environmental protection issues. The need continues as States and LLW generators attempt to mitigate the effects of limited and costly disposal capacity by requesting NRC endorsement of more risk-informed approaches for safely disposing of LLW [6].

The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act gave the NRC consultation and monitoring responsibilities with respect to DOE waste management activities for certain wastes resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in the states of South Carolina and Idaho [7]. The NRC is responsible for providing an independent assessment of whether DOE activities will protect public health and safety by evaluating whether dose limits will be met for members of the public as well as workers, and whether the site will remain stable over the long time periods necessary to safely dispose of this waste.

Evidence:

[1] NUREG 1100, volume 23, USNRC Performance Budget - FY 2008, pp 70

[2] 1989 GAO Report: "NRC's Decommissioning Procedures and Criteria Need to be Strengthened" - Executive Summary, et al

[3] NRC's decommissioning regulations in 10 CFR 20 1003, 10 CFR 20 Subpart E, 10 CFR 30.4, 30.35, 30.36, 40.4, 40.36, 40.42, 50.2, 50.82, 50.83, 51, 70.4, 70.25, 70.38, 72.3, 72.30, 72.54

[4] NUREG 1757, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance

[5] Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Section 2022 (a)

[6] Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 2d

[7] Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The DECLLW Program does not overlap with other Federal or State programs because, under its various authorizing statutes, NRC has clear responsibility at NRC-licensed nuclear facilities, uranium recovery sites, LLW sites and certain DOE facilities. These statutes also clearly define the roles and responsibilities for other Federal or State programs.

Under the AEA, NRC has sole regulatory responsibility for decommissioning at NRC-licensed nuclear facilities. Clear roles for NRC and States are also defined by Section 274 of the AEA [1], wherein the Agreement State regulatory authority is responsible for oversight at most sites undergoing decommissioning in their State.

In those States where the State has developed a program for the regulation of non-AEA material, NRC regulations and the decommissioning program's project management approaches for obtaining input from stakeholders, including other regulatory authorities, ensure that decommissioning is completed in a manner that is not duplicative or redundant [2,3].

At sites where other regulatory authorities may be involved, NRC has developed Memoranda of Understanding with these authorities to ensure that redundant or duplicative requirements are eliminated and to enhance communication and coordination. [4,5,6].

For the UR activities, clear and separate statutory roles have been defined for NRC [7], DOE [8] EPA [9], and the States [10] through the requirements of UMTRCA.

The NRC LLW activities support the three States that regulate LLW disposal facilities. States have a primary role in LLW disposal because of the responsibilities for developing new sites given to them in the LLRWPAA. The current disposal facilities are all located in Agreement States. [11,1].

For WIR, NRC's consultation and monitoring responsibilities are unique and specifically defined in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005 (NDAA). These responsibilities are defined in relation to DOE's role, and do not overlap. [12]

Evidence:

[1] Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 274

[2] 10 CFR 20.1405, 50.82(4)(ii), 50.82(9)(iii)

[3] NUREG 1757, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Volume 1,rev 2, page 10-4

[4] EPA/NRC Memorandum of Understanding - Consultation and Finality on Decommissioning and Decontamination of Contaminated Sites, September 2002

[5] NRC Decommissioning Website

[6] Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Coordination of Cleanup & Decommissioning of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) Sites With NRC-Licensed Facilities, July 2001

[7] Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 Title 1 Section 108, Title II Section 202

[8] Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 Title I Section 102 & 108

[9] Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 Title I Section 108 & Title II Section 206

[10] Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 Title I Section 108

[11] Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, Section 3

[12] Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005, Section 3116

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The basic program design is free of major flaws that would limit its effectiveness or efficiency. The design of the program, as with any NRC regulatory program, includes three elements: 1) a sound regulatory basis in the form of statutes and regulations; 2) accepted, transparent guidance on how to demonstrate compliance with the regulations; and 3) effective processes such as inspections, to evaluate whether the regulated entity has complied with the regulations, and the authority to enforce the requirements of the regulations. This basic design approach is used in other regulatory programs in the U.S. and internationally [1].

Implementation experience by NRC, licensees and Agreement States, since 1997 (when the last major regulation for decommissioning was finalized in the License Termination Rule in 10 CFR 20 Subpart E), and interactions with industry groups, NRC's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) and stakeholders has not identified major flaws in the three-element design of the decommissioning sub-program or other alternative approaches that would be more efficient or effective. In 2003 NRC conducted a comprehensive program evaluation and an analysis of the regulations for implementation issues. Issues were identified by these studies but are not considered major program design flaws. Rather, the resolution of the issues are improvements for program management or regulatory implementation [2,3].

UMTRCA establishes two separate responsibilities for the uranium recovery sub-program, oversight and eventual licensing of DOE's remedial actions at old abandoned mill tailings sites and regulation of existing uranium recovery facilities [4]. Implementation experience by NRC, licensees and Agreement States, and interactions with industry groups, NRC's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) and stakeholders has not identified major flaws in the design of the uranium recovery subprogram or other alternative approaches that would be more efficient or effective. In FY 2006 the uranium recovery sub-program performed an evaluation and concluded that the sub-program was being conducted in an effective manner with only a few recommendations for program management improvements [5].

LLW consists of a relatively small number of activities and no major flaws have been identified. A Strategic Assessment is currently underway to identify the most effective use of resources and to position the LLW program to meet current and future challenges. As part of the Strategic Assessment, and other LLW program analyses, NRC has noted changes to make the national program more risk-informed and reliable; however, these are not considered to indicate major flaws in the regulatory program, but simply continuing improvements and/or difficulties in implementation due to political and public considerations.

Evidence:

[1] IAEA Safety Requirements WS-R-5 Decommissioning of Facilities Using Radioactive Material, page 6

[2] Memorandum from R.L. Johnson to M.J. Virgilio dated 9/29/03 "Evaluation of Changes to the Decommissioning Program", page 11, para 1

[3] SECY-03-0069 "Results of the License Termination Rule Analysis" May 2, 2003

[4] NRC Fact Sheet on Mill Tailings

[5] Memorandum from R.C. Pierson to J.R. Strosneider dated 9/29/06 "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Uranium Recovery Program"

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The statutory authority for the Program's design ensures that resources are being used to protect public health, safety and security by targeting resources to the regulation of those licensees that are conducting decommissioning and uranium recovery (UR) activities, providing assistance to States for low-level waste (LLW) disposal and the review of Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) determinations [1]. Licensees are assessed fees for NRC oversight of their facilities and activities and licensees are responsible for funding the cleanup of their sites. Some resources are also targeted to support regulatory activities such as the rules or guidance that licensees use. Therefore, licensees involved with this program are the immediate beneficiaries of NRC's regulatory activities. There are no subsidies related to this program because all resources are for NRC's regulatory oversight of licensee activities.

For decommissioning, NRC's regulations, guidance, and processes properly target resources to directly enable licensees to conduct decommissioning safely and complete decommissioning so that licenses can be terminated and sites made available for safe future use. Therefore, the eventual beneficiaries are the members of the public particularly in the local communities who might benefit the most from reuse of the sites after license termination. NRC's licensing and inspection activities and resources are further targeted based on the steps in NRC's decommissioning process that licensees are required to follow while conducting and completing decommissioning. NRC's resources are also targeted to be responsive to each licensee's activities and stage in the decommissioning process, such as NRC reviews of submitted licensee decommissioning plans or final radiological survey reports.

For UR activities the direct beneficiaries of NRC's oversight are licensees and members of the public. Consistent with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and NRC's implementing regulations NRC's resources are properly targeted to review UR license applications and subsequent license amendments, oversee and inspect ongoing uranium recovery operations to ensure protection of public health, safety and the environment, and review and approve facility reclamation and decommissioning plans, ultimately leading to license termination. Reclaimed conventional mills with tailings impoundments are turned over to the DOE for long-term care and the public is the beneficiary of this perpetual oversight. In-situ leach facilities are returned to their pre-operational conditions so that the public may benefit from its future use. NRC's oversight of the UR industry ensures that uranium product is produced in a safe and environmentally sound manner and the public ultimately benefits from the electricity that is generated from this product.

NRC's LLW resources are targeted to support States, DOE and NRC licensees in their efforts to dispose of LLW. In this case the beneficiaries include the States, DOE, the licensees, and the public. States request assistance from NRC in interpreting the disposal regulations. DOE has responsibility for disposal of Greater than Class C LLW in a facility to be licensed by NRC. NRC licensees periodically request NRC authorization for import or export of waste, or other disposal approvals. All LLW resources are specifically aligned directly with one or more of these activities, and budget requests are based on recent and current activities, and projected future improvements.

WIR activities are directly targeted to DOE consistent with the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). NRC's resources for its NDAA activities are "fenced" and not subject to the agency's prioritization of resources during the budget process. NRC and DOE staffs consult regularly to ensure alignment on work priorities [2]. Here the beneficiaries are DOE and the public.

Evidence:

[1] NUREG 1100, volume 22, USNRC Performance Budget - FY 2007

[2] Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005, Section 3116

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The NRC's Strategic Plan and Performance Budget define a limited number of strategic outcomes (long-term performance measures) relevant to the DECLLW program. The primary measures include: 1) no acute radiation exposures resulting in fatalities; 2) no releases of radioactive materials that result in significant radiation exposures; 3) no releases of radioactive materials that cause significant adverse environmental impacts, 4) no instances where licensed radioactive materials are used domestically in a manner hostile to the security of the United States. The program also supports two long-term performance measures to achieve openness and effectiveness as a means to supporting the agency's primary goals of safety and security: 5) stakeholders are informed and involved in NRC processes as appropriate; and 6) no significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive materials. [1] [2]

Although these long-term performance measures are ambitious, and many of the targets are zero, making it difficult to show improvement over time, each long-term measure has associated annual outcome and output measures that enable the program to track its progress as a means for ensuring that the program will continue to achieve the long-term measures. Annual outcomes and outputs associated with each long-term measure also allow the program to estimate what impact changes in resource allocations have, and can be used to demonstrate gains from efficiency efforts.

Evidence:

[1] NRC's Strategic Plan for FY2004-FY2009, page 7

[2] NUREG 1100, Volume 22, USNRC Performance Budget for FY2007, page 73 and pp. 88-93

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The targets for the long-term performance measures are ambitious. The targets (and baselines) for safety and security are zero (zero deaths, zero releases, zero instances of hostile uses), reflecting the Agency's zero-tolerance approach towards nuclear-related incidents that could jeopardize public health and safety and the environment or national security. These measures also generally have unlimited time frames. These targets and time frames are appropriate given the extremely low frequency and severe consequence of the events tied to these performance measures. [1]

The target of "[n]o significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive materials" is challenging for the DECLLW program. For example there are 75 sites being managed by the decommissioning and uranium recovery sub-programs in 2007 and as many as 25 complex materials and reactor sites will be completing decommissioning activities and requesting license termination during the next few years. As described in NRC's decommissioning program evaluation, we expect a variety of challenging regulatory and technical issues will need to be resolved by NRC and the licensees during the decommissioning process at these sites. [2] In this case, if the NRC staff does not perform decommissioning plan reviews and license termination plan reviews in a timely manner, or in accordance with agreed upon schedules, they delay the licensee's plans, and licensee staff scheduled to perform decommissioning activities are unable to do so. This would represent a distinct impediment to safe use of radioactive materials.

A second example is that during the next two years under the uranium recovery sub-program, staff expects to receive approximately nine new facility license applications and several large complex amendments of existing licenses, as the industry expands in response to the increasing price of uranium.

For both listed sub-programs, performing licensing actions (i.e., DP, LTP and UR license application reviews and approvals, and terminating licenses) within internal timeframes and in accordance with agreed upon licensee schedules, ensures that staff actions do not impede the safe use of radioactive material. This is challenging due to the number of concurrent reviews, the technical nature of the evaluations that must be performed, and the sometimes competing schedules for technical review resources.

Evidence:

[1] NRC's Performance Budget for FY 2007, page 73 and pages 88-97

[2] Memo from D.A. Orlando to D. Gillen dated 12/14/05 "Evaluation of Efficiencies in the Decommissioning Program, pages 14-15

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The annual performance measures relevant to the DECLLW program are: 1) number of events with radiation exposures to the public and occupational workers that exceed Abnormal Occurrence Criterion IA; 2) number of radiological releases to the environment that exceed applicable regulatory limits; 3) number of significant unauthorized disclosures of classified and/or safeguards information; 4) percentage of selected openness output measures that achieve performance targets; and, 5) the percentage of selected processes that deliver desired efficiency improvement is > 70%, and 6) no more than one instance per program where licensing or regulatory activities unnecessarily impede the safe and beneficial use of radioactive materials. [1] These annual performance measures are indicators of progress toward achieving the long-term measures and ensuring that program activities are conducted in a safe, timely and effective manner. These annual measures focus on outcomes and are measurable and quantifiable.

The first two annual performance measures directly support the first three long-term performance measures (i.e., no fatalities, no significant exposures, and no significant adverse environmental impacts). The third annual measure supports the fourth long-term performance measure (security). The fourth annual measure supports the public openness long-term measure, and the fifth and sixth annual measures support the long-term measure for no significant licensing or regulatory impediments.

The decommissioning sub-program supports the sixth, agency-wide annual measure with a specific efficiency measure for License Termination Reviews, with a target to "improve the timeliness of Decommissioning License Termination Plan Reviews by 30% over three years" as compared to the historical average. This measure contributes directly to achieving the long-term measure of no significant licensing or regulatory impediments. There is one additional annual output measure for FY2007: complete high-priority licensing actions as scheduled in the Decommissioning Operating Plan (i.e., DP and LTP approvals and license terminations). [1] Note also that these output measures result in outcomes for licensees. The approved plans allow decommissioning to begin, and to be conducted safely. License Termination allows the release of a site for beneficial and safe reuse.

In addition, for the sixth annual measure of no significant licensing or regulatory impediments, the decommissioning sub-program ensures that licensing actions (i.e., DP, LTP and UR license application reviews and approvals, and terminating licenses) are conducted in accordance with internal timeliness metrics and are aligned with agreed upon licensee schedules.

For the Low-Level Waste (LLW) sub-program, there are three additional output measures: 1) provide technical assistance to Agreement States 90% of the time within the agreed-upon schedule, 2) complete an annual review on the need for rulemaking or guidance on extended storage and assured isolation of LLW, 3) to complete high-priority licensing actions in accordance with schedules defined in the Division Operating Plan. [1]

There are no WIR-specific long-term or annual performance measures in the FY2007 Performance Budget, since it was in development at the same time as NRC was being given responsibility under the new NDAA for WIR. Staff has established specific measures and outputs for WIR activities in the Division Operating Plan, and a new output measure for FY08; DOE waste incidental to reprocessing (WIR) reviews completed. [1] Staff will develop any additional measures as appropriate as the program becomes fully established.

Evidence:

[1] NUREG 1100, Volume 22, USNRC Performance Budget for FY 2007 pp. 73, 75, and 88-93

[2] DWMEP Operating Plan (OFFICIAL USE ONLY)

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Annual targets and actual events are listed in the FY2007 Performance Budget for the previous five fiscal years, and many of the measures have been tracked for longer than that, effectively establishing baseline information. New metrics are noted in the document; although they are "new," they have often been tracked less formally (for example through Office or Division Operating Plans, etc.) prior to being incorporated in the formal budget document. Future targets for the DECLLW program are already available in the FY2008 budget documents. Note that the initial FY2008 Performance Budget was drafted in September 2006, effectively establishing targets for 2 years in the future. [1]

The Decommissioning sub-program provides examples of the ambitiousness of program targets for annual measures. Specifically, for the sixth annual measure, the target for improving the timeliness of the License Termination Plan (LTP) review process by 30% over 3 years will be a significant improvement over the historical baseline of 26 months (target is 18 months) and is particularly challenging given the uncertainty and variety of issues associated with these reviews. In addition, the target of only one instance for decommissioning where licensing or regulatory activities are unnecessary impediments to decommissioning is challenging because there are 75 sites being managed by the decommissioning and uranium recovery sub-programs in 2007 and as many as 25 complex materials and reactor sites will be completing decommissioning activities and requesting license termination during the next few years. As discussed in the response to Question 2.2, completing the major licensing actions in accordance with the NRC/licensee agreed upon schedule ensures that the staff's actions do not provide significant licensing or regulatory impediments. [1]

Evidence:

[1] NUREG 1100, Volume 23, USNRC Performance Budget for FY 2008, page 93

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Program does not have any partners. NRC and the Agreement States with licensing authority for decommissioning, uranium recovery activities, and low-level waste sites have similar programs, but they are not considered partners because the NRC has relinquished its authority over certain radioactive materials to those States. The Agreement State then has full authority to regulate the materials covered by the agreement. Therefore, NRC and the Agreement States have separate, but compatible, licensing programs for decommissioning, uranium recovery, and for low-level waste. Further, Agreement States do not receive any program funding, nor are they required to commit to or monitor all DECLLW performance measures. [1]

In addition, neither licensees nor contractors are considered partners for the DECLLW program. Contractors commit only to the activities and products agreed to in the contract vehicle. Contractor support to the DECLLW program is in narrow technical areas such as conducting confirmatory radiation sampling, reviewing financial assurance documents, researching specific technical issues (like cement performance) and preparing regulatory analyses for the rulemaking on preventing future decommissioning problems. They are funded by NRC, but do not commit to, or monitor program performance measures. Similarly, licensees do not receive any program funding, nor do they commit to NRC goals. They commit only to the activities delineated in their licenses.

Evidence:

[1] Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 274

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Several independent and high quality evaluations of the program have been conducted as needed over the past three years and are planned to continue. Results of these evaluations are summarized in Question 4.5. In the aggregate, these evaluations have been of sufficient scope and rigor to impact key program improvements and enhance program effectiveness.

In FY 2005, NRC's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit of the decommissioning subprogram.[1] The scope of the audit was to: 1) verify whether the program achieves its performance results and 2) determine whether the staff completed its planned program improvements. In addition, three evaluations were conducted by NRC's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW), which is an independent group of technical experts external to NRC who report directly to the Commission. The first evaluation included a special working group of five invited decommissioning experts external to NRC with practical industry and State regulatory experience to supplement the expertise of the ACNW five members and enhanced the quality and rigor of the evaluation. [2, 3] This evaluation was conducted during two full day meetings during FY 2005 to FY 2007 to support the schedule for the ongoing improvements to the regulatory framework. The evaluation focused on regulatory guidance to resolve key issues that have delayed licensee decommissioning and the program's goal of releasing sites for reuse. The resolution of these issues also impact the efficiency of NRC and licensee decommissioning and can result in lower cleanup costs. ACNW reviewed the NRC approaches taken in the draft guidance, responses to public comments, and final guidance to resolve six key issues: 1) institutional controls; 2) realistic exposure scenarios, 3) onsite disposals; 4) intentional mixing of contaminated soil; 5) removal of material after license termination; and 6) engineered barriers. The second evaluation focused on NRC's approach for a new rulemaking to prevent future decommissioning problems from groundwater contamination and insufficient funding for cleanup [4]. This evaluation will continue as the rulemaking is developed during FY 2007 and FY 2008. In FY 2007, the ACNW began a third evaluation of decommissioning lessons learned and has committed to develop a white paper that integrates its views of decommissioning. [5]

For the Low Level Waste (LLW) subprogram, in 2005 the ACNW conducted an evaluation that incorporated input from a wide range of stakeholders [6]. This evaluation focused on the regulatory framework and opportunities to better risk-inform and improve the effectiveness of LLW management and regulation. This evaluation supports NRC's ongoing strategic assessment to identify and prioritize NRC's LLW activities that could make the program more efficient and effective.

In addition, the Commission has directed the Program to contract with an outside independent organization to conduct evaluations of the Program, with funding available in 2008 [7]. This Commission direction is part of an Agency-wide initiative to have regularly scheduled independent program evaluations of sufficient scope and quality to effectively identify any implementation actions that have the potential to improve the Program's performance. The Program would tentatively have such an evaluation in 2010.

Evidence:

[1] OIG report 9/21/05 "Audit of NRC's Decommissioning Program"

[2] ACNW letter report 9/12/05 "Draft Revised Decommissioning Guidance to Implement the License Termination Rule"

[3] ACNW letter report 6/9/06 "Revised Decommissioning Guidance to Implement the License Termination Rule"

ACNW's evaluations supported the approaches NRC took for guidance to resolve the six key issues. ACNW concluded that NRC 's guidance on a graded approach for institutional controls and engineered barriers was risk-informed and that NRC had adopted all of its recommendations

[4] ACNW letter report, 9/17/06, "Prevention of Legacy Sites,"

ACNW supported NRC's approach to reduce the potential for decommissioning problems at future sites due to groundwater contamination or insufficient funds for cleanup. NRC's approach includes requiring licensees to identify, document, report, and minimize contamination on site and in the subsurface. The approach also requires licensees to report estimated cleanup costs for subsurface contamination and modifying some existing financial assurance mechanisms. ACNW also made recommendations, e.g., future guidance should identify potential causes of increased decommissioning costs and how to avoid them using contaminant release prevention and early detection. NRC plans to address ACNW recommendations in its guidance.

[5] ACNW letter report 1/08/07 "Working Group Meeting on Decommissioning Lessons Learned"

ACNW recommended that NRC should continue its lessons learned efforts and consider future guidance to help plan new facilities e.g., designs that provide access to inspect and maintain piping. ACNW's evaluation also documented ACNW and stakeholder lessons learned that the staff will evaluate in FY 2007.

[6] ACNW letter report 12/27/05 "Opportunities in the Area of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management"

ACNW's evaluation included an examination of the history/status of NRC's Low-Level Waste (LLW) subprogram, preparation of a white paper, and consideration of stakeholder recommendations. ACNW concluded that current regulations are fully protective of the public and worker health and safety. However, ACNW identified opportunities to better risk-inform and improve the effectiveness of the regulation e.g.,: risk-inform human intrusion guidance; update NRC criteria to use new International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations; quantify and risk inform siting criteria; collect environmental monitoring data; and consider credit for engineered barriers. NRC has included these recommendations in its strategic assessment of the LLW subprogram that identifies and prioritizes a number of improvements that could make it more efficient and effective.

[7] SECY-06-0181 "Independent Evaluation of NRC Programs" (official use only)

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The program budget fails to define the relationship between 1) annual and long-term performance targets and 2) resources. In addition, the program budget and performance presentation fails to make clear the impact of funding decisions on expected performance and does not provide evidence that the requested performance/resource mix will enable the program to achieve its performance goals. The NRC's Strategic Plan describes our mission and establishes the Commission direction by defining a vision, strategic objective, goals, strategic outcomes and strategies. The performance budget integrates the agency's Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management (PBPM) functions by aligning resources with the agency's goals and establishing performance measures to enable periodic measurement and monitoring of program execution. [1] The NRC's Performance Budget to Congress, beginning with FY 2007, explicitly and clearly ties the agency's budget request to its Strategic Plan goals and strategic outcomes, as well as to the performance measures and output measures contained in the budget document. [2] The FY 2007 Performance Budget identifies what long-term strategic outcomes and performance measures are supported by the Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste program, as well as what performance measure(s) are supported by each output measure under the activity. [3] While it is difficult to achieve a close correlation between outcomes and resources in regulatory programs, the components of the NRC's PBPM process are closely linked and complementary, reflecting a continuous cycle of performance management centered on outcomes.

Annually, the Commission provides guidance on the agency's outcome-based performance measures, which indicate the level of success needed to achieve the agency's goals. In addition, the NRC identifies which activities under the agency's two major program areas support the NRC's outcome-based performance measures, and uses these as guides to formulate the budget.

Adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment has always been, and continues to be, the NRC's primary goal. Accordingly, safety is the most important consideration in evaluating license applications, licensee performance, and proposed changes to the regulatory framework. Because security is essential to the NRC's mission and linked with safety, it is also an important consideration in the agency's actions. The agency continuously works to improve its openness, effectiveness and efficiency, and management excellence consistent with its safety and security mission. The NRC's resources are allocated to its Nuclear Reactor Safety Program and Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program areas in alignment with the agency's goals of Safety and Security.

NRC performs an environmental scan and develops key planning assumptions which identify major program drivers that would significantly influence the NRC's work activities and resource requirements. For each major activity, the agency identifies the major program outputs and output-based measures needed to achieve the outcome-based performance measures, taking into consideration the key planning assumptions. The NRC also identifies and prioritizes planned activities needed to achieve the outputs in each major activity, and prioritizes them based on their contribution to goals. Lastly, the NRC determines the resource requirements to achieve each planned activity, forming the basis for developing the agency's budgetary requests for each program area.

The FY 2007 Performance Budget identifies the agency's infrastructure and support costs and distributes them to programs as a portion of the total program cost. The allocation methodology is consistent with the methodology used for preparing the agency's financial statements.

Evidence:

[1] NUREG 1100, volume 22, USNRC Performance Budget for FY 2007, and NUREG 1100, volume 23, USNRC Performance Budget for FY 2008

[2] NUREG 1100, volume 22, USNRC Performance Budget for FY 2007, pp. 84-86

[3] NUREG 1100, volume 22, USNRC Performance Budget for FY 2007, pp. 74, 75

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The DECLLW program and the Agency have identified and corrected strategic planning deficiencies. In FY 2003, NRC conducted a decommissioning program evaluation of the decommissioning subprograms' effectiveness that identified deficiencies and recommended improvements to resolve these deficiencies. [1] Some of these improvements were at the strategic planning level such as: revise annual budget output measures, conduct independent program evaluations, and develop baseline cost information and methods to measure efficiency for decommissioning sites. Other improvements were related to program management and are addressed in question 3.7. The plans for all of these improvements were included in the Integrated Decommissioning Plan Rev. 1 in March 2005. [2] Completion of the improvements that have resolved these deficiencies is described the September 2005 Continuous Improvement Report. [3] For example, annual output measures were revised to focus on the more significant annual program outcomes such as: 1) approving decommissioning plans so that licensees can begin cleanup and 2) terminating licenses after completion of decommissioning so that sites can be released for beneficial reuse. To help address the need for independent evaluations, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) was scheduled to conduct an audit of the decommissioning program which it completed in FY 2005. The end result of the OIG audit process (including NRC's response to the audit findings, and OIG analysis) concluded that: 1) all 21 program improvements had been completed; 2) the program evaluates its effectiveness by using outcome, performance and output measures; and 3) the program is meeting its performance measures. However the OIG audit identified a deficiency for generating and maintaining supporting documentation of performance data. As a result, a procedure that describes how to collect, report, and retain performance data was developed by NRC to resolve this deficiency. In addition, during FY 2005, the program began an effort to explore the feasibility of quantitative approaches to measuring efficiencies within the program, including review time and quality of reviews. This analysis also developed baseline data and insights used to establish a new efficiency measure for the decommissioning program related to improving the review time of LTP by 30% over a three year period above the historical average. This improvement is discussed further in question 4.3. The agency's Performance Budget was revised to identify the agency's infrastructure and support costs and distribute them to programs as a portion of the total program cost. The allocation methodology is consistent with the methodology used for preparing the agency's financial statements. Beginning in FY 2007, the NRC's Performance Budget to Congress was revised to explicitly and clearly tie the agency's budget request to its Strategic Plan goals and strategic outcomes, as well as to the performance measures and output measures contained in the budget document. [4]

Evidence:

[1] Memorandum from R.L. Johnson to M.J. Virgilio dated 9/29/03, "Program Evaluation of Changes to the Decommissioning Program, " pp. 15-17

[2] Memorandum from D.M. Gillen to Distribution dated 3/29/05, "Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP), Revision. 1,"

[3] "Decommissioning Program Continuous Improvement Report for FY2004-2005,"

[4] NUREG-1100, Volume-22, "Performance Budget Fiscal Year 2007," pp. 84-86

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: NRC procedures that implement Executive Order 12866 ensure that only those regulations that are absolutely necessary to accomplish the programs goals are promulgated. Before a proposed rule is developed, a rulemaking plan is prepared for Commission approval that describes the regulatory issue to be resolved, analyzes options, identifies resource impacts, and describes how the rule would support achievement of the Program's strategic goals [1]. To ensure that stakeholders have the opportunity to affect the promulgation of a rule, including its necessity, NRC regulations and procedures provide for early stakeholder input on the proposed rule [1,2]. NRC publishes each proposed rule in the Federal Register and stakeholders are asked to provide comments. Federal Register notices for each proposed rule include a Supplementary Information section (called the Statements of Consideration (SOCs) that provide background information, a summary of the regulatory action, and a discussion as to why the NRC is taking the regulatory action [3]. This information helps the public understand why NRC is proposing to take that action to achieve the Program's goals.

The existing decommissioning regulations are considered necessary to accomplish the programs goals because they were promulgated to address gaps in the regulations that were impeding the NRC's ability to ensure the safe and timely cleanup of sites, such as timely decommissioning, radiological criteria for license termination, financial assurance, and record keeping. These gaps were identified by the Government Accounting Office [4] and NRC evaluations in 1990 [5] 1992 [6] and 2003 [7,8].

In addition, as the Program evolved over time, staff identified additional areas where regulations did not adequately address issues associated with decommissioning. For example, the staff identified shortfalls in the financial assurance requirements for decommissioning certain facilities, as well as a need to allow the release of a portion of a power reactor site prior to approving the License Termination Plan. In 2003 NRC promulgated regulations that aligned the financial assurance requirements with current costs, added additional requirements for certain types of facilities and established a process to release a part of a reactor site prior to the submission of an LTP [9,10].

There is a rulemaking currently underway that illustrates how the decommissioning program has been proactive in evaluating its existing regulations and initiating proposed amendments to resolve significant and emerging issues. In FY 2003, the LTR Analysis in SECY-03-0069 [7] and RIS-2004-08 [8] identified the need to take a variety of regulatory actions including rulemaking to resolve issues with financial assurance and operating facilities that are necessary to reduce the potential for future decommissioning problems such as insufficient licensee funding. The proposed rule is planned to be completed in FY 2007. It will include a justification for the rulemaking and a description of how the rule contributes to the decommissioning goal by ensuring sufficient licensee funding for decommissioning.

Evidence:

[1] Management Directive 6.3 Part II "Components of a Rulemaking Plan" pp 7-10

[2] 10 CFR 2.804 & 2.805

[3] NUREG/BR 0053, rev 6 "USNRC Regulations Handbook" pp 21

[4] 1989 GAO Report: "NRC's Decommissioning Procedures and Criteria Need to be Strengthened" - Executive Summary, et al

[5] SECY 90-121 "Site Decommissioning Management Program" March 29, 1990 pp 13

[6] "Action Plan to Ensure Timely Remediation of Sites Listed in the Site Decommissioning Management Plan" April 16, 1992 pp

[7] SECY-03-0069 "Results of the License Termination Rule Analysis" May 2, 2003 pp 5

[8] Regulatory Issues Summary 2004-08 "Results of the License Termination Rule Analysis" pp 3

[9] 68 FR 57327 October 3, 2003

[10] 68 FR 19727 April 22, 2003

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The program regularly collects both NRC staff and licensee performance information to manage its activities and improve its performance. This information is used to adjust program priorities, allocate resources, and to make management decisions.

Data on meeting NRC performance measures, milestones, and schedules is documented in the internal operating plans for the program and evaluated on a monthly basis by Directorate and Division level management and on a quarterly basis by Office and Deputy Executive Director level management [1]. Adjustments are made as needed to meet annual targets and improve effective resource use.

NRC also routinely and systematically assesses licensee performance through safety inspections of decommissioning and uranium recovery sites [2]. Findings are used to adjust site-specific inspection plans/schedules to ensure that resources focus on sites requiring attention. Licensee performance data for NRC's annual performance measures is documented in NRC's Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED). The staff routinely evaluates the information in the NMED to determine trends in licensee performance [3].

Both NRC and licensee operational, policy and technical performance information is assessed at bi-monthly Decommissioning Management Board meetings. Information from these meetings is used to develop solutions to, and if necessary adjust, resources to address emerging issues that may impact performance [4].

NRC used licensee performance information to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Decommissioning Plan (DP) and License Termination Plan (LTP) reviews. For example, based on poor quality submissions in the past, staff now conducts early and frequent meetings with licensees during the development of the DP, LTP or responses to requests for additional information, ensuring that the quality of the DP, LTP or additional information is sufficient and that licensees fully understand the information needs of the NRC [5]. Based on staff reviews of DPs and LTPs, in which the initial scope, quality or technical basis did not support the approval of the DP or LTP, the staff developed an expanded acceptance review approach to determine if a DP or LTP is of sufficient scope and quality to warrant an in-depth technical review. The results of this 90-day review can be the basis for rejecting a DP or LTP [6,7]. Previously, staff would have performed a 30-day review and may have accepted a poor DP or LTP that required numerous requests for additional information to ensure that it was adequate to support the decommissioning project. This 90-day review helps to reduce staff time for the review and approval of DPs and LTPs.

Evidence:

[1] DWMEP Operating Plan/Briefing package (Internal use only)

[2] Fermi Unit 1 Master Inspection Plan - Fiscal Year 2007; Inspection Report 050-00016/06-007 ; 040-7580/06-002; 040-08943/06-001 ;

[3] "Verification of Green Book Performance Measures for Annual Performance and Accountability Report," DWMEP Operating Procedure 1.10

[4] D-Board Charter

[5] NUREG-1757, Vol 2, rev 1, Appx O, p O-10, Lesson 1

[6] Memo from J.T. Greeves to M.J. Virgilio, dated 4/11/01 "Expanded Acceptance Reviews"

[7] NUREG 1757, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, volume 1, rev 2, pp. 5-9 & 11-3

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Each Senior Executive Service manager in the program is directly responsible for development, management and successful implementation of activities in the program's operating plan to achieve program performance goals and outcomes. Manager effectiveness in achieving these goals is reflected in their Senior Executive Service (SES) performance plans and appraisals. In FY 2004, the SES appraisals were modified to clearly link individual goals to NRC goals, providing a tangible link between NRC and program goals and manager performance. OPM/OMB provided provisional certification of its Senior Executive Service Performance Management System in 2005. Renewal of this certification for 2007 and beyond will be requested in May 2007, and NRC has been working closely with OPM to ensure that the criteria to receive this certification is received. Managers are identified at the operating level for each activity supporting a program goal and are held accountable for successfully meeting the activity milestones, cost, schedule and performance results. As a result, managers must develop and implement strategies and measures to meet Program level outputs and outcomes that roll up to the NRC Strategic Plan goals. [1]

Evidence:

[1] Management Directive 10.137, Senior Executive Service Performance Management System, page II-2, Critical Element I

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: NRC systems for budget execution and the administrative control of funds comply with the requirements set forth in OMB Circulars, the Antideficiency Act, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. Agency policies and procedures are documented in NRC Management Directive Vol. 4, "Financial Management." [1] There are no partners for this program.

The NRC system for budget execution assures that a limited amount of funds remain unobligated at the end of the fiscal year. All NRC Program managers have a target of 65% for fund obligations by mid-year, and an expenditure target of the total of the number of months remaining in the fiscal year plus four additional months, to allow ongoing work to continue, uninterrupted into the next fiscal year [2]. NRC Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) monitors commitments, obligations, and expenditures on a monthly basis and reports findings in the monthly Budget Execution Report. [3] CFO tracks fund usage in computerized financial control systems that allow a forecast of spending through the fiscal year. Measures and/or targets are established for carryover of contract funding, training, and travel resources.

Program funds are obligated consistently with the overall program plan. Prior to the start of each fiscal year, the Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection (DWMEP), in coordination with the Office of Federal and State Material and Environmental Management Programs (FSME) develops a Project Action Summary that outlines a schedule for the obligation of contract funds. [4] The schedule is based on projected workload and spending plans for the fiscal year. If the contract workload changes prior to the scheduled contract obligation, DWMEP adjusts the scheduled contract obligations as necessary. This approach ensures that funds are obligated consistent with program needs. By incrementally obligating funds through the year when final program requirements are more definite, the agency is well positioned to address changing programmatic needs. For instance, if funding needs for a project has decreased, subsequent obligations are revised and excess funds can be reprogrammed to other projects that need additional funds or returned to the CFO.

At the end of FY 2006, 99 percent of FSME funds were committed and 94 percent were obligated. [3] Because several contract actions were not completed during FY 2006, $1.8 million of the $2.1 million unobligated funds were placed on the committed carryover list. Otherwise, 99 percent of funds would have been obligated.

NRC has specific requirements to review actual expenditures and compare them against the intended use. Routinely, all managers of contract funds are required to review contractor status reports that describe, among other things, the work activities carried out during that period, the amount billed, potential project problems, contract required deliverables, and schedule changes. All managers of contract funds are required to perform a technical analysis of unpaid invoices to assess whether the billed costs are commensurate with the level of effort. This process allows contract managers to determine, prior to payment, that the contract funds are being used as intended.

Additionally, management reviews contract funds at the Division (monthly), Office (quarterly), and executive (mid-year) level to ensure rigorous accountability, agency-wide consistency, targets are met, and funds are spent for the intended purpose. [5]

Evidence:

[1] MD 4.0, "Financial Management"

[2] MD 4.2, "Administrative Control of Funds," pp. IV-6 to IV-8; MD 11.1, pp. 11-3, 11-8, 11-10

[3] NRC Budget Execution Report September 2006, p. 24 (internal)

[4] FY 2007 Program Action Summary Report (internal)

[5] Director Monthly Operating Meeting Package (internal)

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program has several procedures in place to ensure that the oversight of the decommissioning of licensed sites is performed in an efficient and effective manner. Since 2000, the decommissioning sub-program implemented several procedures to improve efficiency and increase the effectiveness. These include: (a) assuming a more pro-active role in interacting with licensees undergoing decommissioning by meeting early and frequently with licensees to discuss technical and policy issues impacting decommissioning; (b) expanding the acceptance review process for Decommissioning Plans (DPs), License Termination Plans (LTPs) and major uranium recovery applications from 30 to 90 days, to determine if the information in the DP, LTP or application is of sufficient scope and quality to begin a detailed technical review; (c) ensuring that institutional controls and financial assurance requirements necessary to maintain sites with restrictions on future site uses are adequate before a technical review of the DP to reduce the need for additional rounds of questions; (d) conducting confirmatory surveys to verify the licensee's data at the same time as the licensee to reduce the need for confirmatory surveys at the completion of decommissioning; (e) relying more heavily on licensees' quality assurance programs, rather than conducting large-scale confirmatory surveys to reduce costs and time, and; (f) developing standard cleanup values for soil and building surfaces to provide licensees with an option other than the development of site-specific cleanup values to ensure that the site meets NRC's cleanup criteria [1,2].

In 2003, the staff developed and implemented the Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP) that integrated the plans for completing both regulatory and program management improvements. The IDIP established a procedure to achieve continuous improvement for the decommissioning program using a cycle of evaluating the program, planning future improvements, and implementing planned improvements. A formal procedure for this process was developed and included in the IDIP [3]. In late 2005 the staff performed an analysis to determine how to quantitatively measure efficiencies and effectiveness within the decommissioning program from 2000 through 2005. DP and LTP reviews were the two major program actions selected for analysis. Data for review times, resource expenditure, and submission quality were collected and compared. This analysis indicated that the program appears to be more effective in achieving its outcomes, as evidenced by reduced review times for DPs and LTPs and due to higher quality submissions by licensees. However the limited number of reviews and the large number of variables in site reviews, introduce uncertainty in results which makes accurate quantification of effectiveness or efficiency challenging. The review and approval of a decommissioning or license termination plan demonstrating that the decommissioning can be conducted safely, is the most critical factor impacting the timing of decommissioning of a facility. More timely reviews due to higher quality DPs and LTPs allows the licensee to begin the cleanup of residual radioactive material at the site in a more timely manner [4].

Based on this evaluation, a new efficiency/effectiveness measure has been established for decommissioning as one of the annual performance measures documented in NRC's Performance Budget for FY 2007 [5]. This new measure is the Decommissioning License Termination Review and the target is to improve the timeliness of the review process for nuclear power reactor LTPs by at least 30% over 3 years as compared to the historical average of 26 months (target is 18 months). In addition, the program also established an internal DWMEP Operating Plan target of reducing Decommissioning Plan review time to one year from a pre 2004 average of 19 months.

Evidence:

[1] NUREG 1727 "NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review Plan" pp 0.6 to 0.9

[2] NUREG 1757, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Vol 1, rev 2, pp 1-7, 5-9, 6-3

[3] IDIP FY 2007-2009 Rev 2, March 2007

[4] Memo from DA Orlando to D Gillen dated 12/14/05 "Evaluation of Efficiencies in the Decommissioning Program"

[5] NUREG 1100, volume 22, USNRC Performance Budget - FY 2007, pp 92

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Program effectively collaborates and coordinates with numerous related programs conducted by other Federal agencies, States and international decommissioning authorities. For example, the decommissioning sub-program has established an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that describes a process for consultation and cooperation between NRC and EPA on specific decommissioning sites [1]. It ensures that dual regulation is avoided and, to date, the MOU has contributed to the successful completion of decommissioning at several sites [2].

The uranium recovery sub-program has an MOU with the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide an orderly process for executing respective statutory responsibilities under Title I of the UMTRCA [3]. The program has actively participated with DOE, EPA and other agencies to develop various multi-agency guidance documents relevant to decommissioning, such as radiological surveys [4] and radiation laboratory analytical protocols [5]. These documents establish guidance for use by Federal agencies to consistently manage the cleanup of contaminated sites.

Regular coordination with Agreement States occurs at annual meetings and monthly teleconferences for selected program topics or issues (e.g., EPA MOU, License Termination Rule Analysis, Ohio possession-only license, and decommissioning lessons learned). States have participated in the development of NUREG-1757, the principal decommissioning guidance [6]. States are also are invited and participate on NRC working groups to develop decommissioning rulemakings which the Agreement States are required to implement. This allows consideration of technical and programmatic issues important to the Agreement States in the rules.

At sites where non-Agreement States have expressed interest or concern about the decommissioning, the Program actively coordinates with those States. For example, in Pennsylvania NRC has signed an MOU with the State to "facilitate the safe and timely remediation and decommissioning of Site Decommissioning Management Plan and other decommissioning sites in Pennsylvania at which both agencies exercise regulatory authority" [7]. This MOU helps to ensure that the State's issues are addressed as part of the overall decommissioning project. In those States where the State has developed a program for the regulation of non-AEA material, NRC regulations and the decommissioning program's project management approaches ensure that decommissioning is completed in a manner that is not duplicative or redundant.

NRC's decommissioning procedures require that the staff seek stakeholder input, including State regulatory authorities, on decommissioning plans and license termination plans, and environmental assessments [8]. NRC staff project managers typically work closely with State regulatory authorities including those responsible for radiation, hazardous material, occupational safety and historical and cultural resources in reviewing and approving decommissioning submittals to ensure that the requirements of these authorities are met by the licensee. NRC is a co-Chair of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS), and coordinates decommissioning and LLW activities with other Federal agencies through this organization. ISCORS' goal is to improve consistency in Federal radiation protection programs.

NRC also cooperates with individual nations, groups of countries, and with international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Organization for Cooperation in Economic Development's Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), and the European Commission in many nuclear-related activities, including decommissioning and low-level waste to harmonize international approaches to achieve strong and effective nuclear safety programs on a global scale and to learn about technical innovations by other countries that can be useful to the U.S.

Evidence:

[1] NRC/EPA MOU Consultation and Finality on Decommissioning and Decontamination of Contaminated Sites

[2] NRC Decommissioning Website

[3] Memorandum of Understanding between the USDOE and USNRC - DOE GM04-85AL26037

[4] NUREG 1575, Multi-Agency Radiation Survey & Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)

[5] NUREG 1576, Multi-Agency Laboratory Analytical Protocols Manual (MARLAP)

[6] NUREG 1757, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Vol 1, rev 2, pp xix

[7] Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

[8] NUREG 1757, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance Vol 1, rev 2, pp 10-4

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The NRC's strong financial management practices governing control of funds and resource allocation are proceduralized and implemented by the program. This ensures that funds are used for authorized purposes only, that funds are responsibly, economically, and efficiently used, that the level of funds being committed and obligated is available, and that funds are committed and obligated in the proper time frame. Funds control duties are assigned to a sufficient number of adequately trained program staff who are designated in writing. The staff responsible for fund certification are different from staff responsible for fund commitment and obligation, ensuring an appropriate check and balance in fund management.

The auditors have not identified any material internal control weaknesses affecting the DECLLW program. The program utilizes agency-wide systems and controls to minimize erroneous payments. On time payments of approximately 95 percent have been routinely observed; payments associated with this program are included in that figure. Similarly, the rate of improper payments is extremely low and involve only a very small fraction of the total funds, well below Improper Payments Information Act and OMB criteria of both 2.5% of program payments and $10 million for high risk; payments associated with the program are included in that figure.

The integrated financial and performance management systems supporting the program's day-to-day operations meet statutory requirements. The effectiveness of these practices is reflected in the NRC financial statements that earned an unqualified opinion in FY 2006, with no agency-wide material weaknesses or non-compliance with statutory requirements for financial management systems found in the FY 2006 audit that impact the Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Program's financial management or day-to-day operations.

The program's financial information is accurate and timely. Annually, the Program certifies that there is reasonable assurance that management controls are achieving their intended results, that resources are being used consistent with the Agency mission, and that resources are protected from waste, fraud, and abuse. The program's certification is reviewed as part of the Office of the Inspector General's annual review regarding the implementation of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act.

NRC has received a clean audit opinion on its FY 2006 financial statements. The identified agency-wide material weaknesses related to the fee billing system and FISMA have no impact upon the program's day-to-day operations and management of the program's financial resources. To meet federal accounting requirements, the NRC is planning to complete replacement of the License Fee Billing system in FY 2008.

NRC conducts financial and contract management training for all staff on a regular basis. Staff involved in the program's contract and project management activities must attend acquisition training. NRC's Financial Management Seminar is offered semi-annually, and provides an overview of the Federal and NRC budget process, fundamentals of appropriations law, and NRC's financial management policies and procedures.

Through performance appraisals, each manager in the Program is responsible for accomplishing performance measures to achieve performance goals. In FY 2004, the SES and Senior Level Service appraisals were OPM/OMB approved and provisional certification of the NRC's SES performance management system was obtained for 2004 and 2005. Renewal of this certification will be requested for 2006 and beyond. As a result, managers are held to exacting standards for cost, schedule and performance results with respect to their programs, and must develop and implement strategies and measures to meet Program level outputs and outcomes that roll up to the NRC Strategic Plan goals.

Evidence:

[1] MD 4.2, "Administrative Control of Funds"

[2] Monthly Budget Execution Reports (internal)

[3] FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, November 15, 2006

[4] Management Directive 4.4, "Management Controls"

[5] Memorandum Report - Review of NRC's Implementation of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (OIG-07-A-07), January 10, 2007

[6] Results of the Audit of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2005 (OIG-07-A-02), November 9, 2006

[7] DWMEP SES Performance Appraisals (internal)

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: In 2005, NRC developed a procedure to achieve continuous improvement and address program management deficiencies for the decommissioning program using a four step process: 1) assess the program and recommend improvements; 2) plan future improvements; 3) conduct improvements; and 4) measure and reassess the program and improvement effectiveness [1]. This procedure resulted from NRC's experience during the past several years to improve the program.

Since FY 2000, the decommissioning subprogram has been identifying program management improvements to correct deficiencies identified by the staff, licensees, and stakeholders. In FY 2003, the Decommissioning Program Evaluation evaluated the decommissioning program and recommended eight regulatory and program management improvements [2]. Examples of key management improvements included: consolidate decommissioning activities into one NRC organization; enhance the technical capability of the staff for health physics and dose modeling that would improve review time; develop an Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP) and procedure to focus attention on improvements; and share information with related Federal and State programs. Plans to conduct these program management improvements were included in the Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP) Rev. 1 in FY 2005 [3]. These improvements were completed during FY 2004 and FY 2005, and results were documented in the 2005 Decommissioning Continuous Improvement Report [4]. In FY 2006 the uranium recovery subprogram also conducted a program evaluation that identified and recommended three improvements to correct deficiencies [5]. Finally, the Low Level Waste subprogram currently is conducting a strategic assessment of its program, using input from the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and stakeholders, to identify and prioritize a number of improvements that could make the program more efficient and effective [6]. During FY 2005, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted an independent review of the decommissioning program and published its Audit Report in September 2005 [7]. One of the OIG findings was a program deficiency for maintaining adequate supporting documentation that could be used to verify the programs performance results. This deficiency has been resolved by preparing an operating procedure for the DECLLW program that describes how to collect, report, and retain data that verifies program performance results [8]. This procedure also resolves an IDIP improvement to clarify the programs performance measures that was identified as a result of preparing for the OMB PART review in FY 2006.

Evidence:

[1] Memorandum from K.I. McConnell to Distribution, dated 4/25/07, "Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan FY 2007-2009," Revision 2, Attachment 4

[2] Memorandum from R.L. Johnson to M.J. Virgilio dated 9/29/03, "Program Evaluation of Changes to the Decommissioning Program," pp. 15-17

[3] Memorandum from D.M. Gillen to Distribution dated 9/29/05, "Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP), Revision.1, Section 4

[4] "Decommissioning Continuous Improvement Report for FY 2004-2005," Section 3

[5] Memorandum from R.C. Pierson to J.R. Strosnider dated 9/29/06, "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Uranium Recovery Program," pp. 6, 10, 12

[6] "Request for Comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Low Level Radioactive Waste Program," FRN July 7, 2006, vol. 71, no. 130, p. 38675-38676

[7] OIG report, 9/21/05, "Audit of NRC's Decommissioning Program," Appendices F and G

[8] "Verification of Green Book Performance Measures for Annual Performance and Accountability Report," DWMEP Operating Procedure 1.10

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: The Program solicits the opinions of stakeholders and interested parties on significant regulations and evaluates their concerns and suggestions.

NRC regulations and procedures provide for early stakeholder input on the proposed rule [1,2]. NRC regulations and procedures require that all proposed rules provide the public, including State and local authorities, with at least one opportunity for comment. NRC publishes each proposed rule in the Federal Register and stakeholders are asked to provide comments. These Federal Register notices include a Supplementary Information section (called the Statements of Consideration (SoCs) that provide background information, a summary of the regulatory action, and a discussion as to why the NRC is taking the regulatory action [2].

NRC reviews all comments to identify any changes that should be made to the rule, the regulatory analysis, OMB statement, or guidance. NRC addresses each substantive comment to describe how it was incorporated into the rule or why it was not incorporated. Responses to the comments are included in the SoCs for the final rule and published in the Federal Register, including any substantive changes made in the final rule as a result of comments (and reasons for accepting the suggestion), any new information, and substantive comments not accepted (and the reasons why).

For example, in the decommissioning rulemakings in 2003 for financial assurance and releasing a portion of a reactor site (the Partial Site Release or PSR rule), NRC published proposed rules for public comment [3, 4]. In the SoCs for the final rules, the staff documented how NRC considered the comments and as appropriate, made changes to the final rule [5,6]. In response to comments, the final rule for financial assurance, NRC revised the applicability of the rule to include waste collectors [7]. In the final PSR rule, NRC adopted broader, more accurate language about the scope of the rule's applicability in evaluating doses from all relevant fuel cycle sources [8].

For the ongoing rulemaking for preventing future legacy sites, a proposed rule is being developed and the staff will publish it in early FY 2008 for public comment. For this rule, NRC has already invited early public comment. NRC published a Regulatory Issue Summary of the LTR Analysis (RIS-2004-08) [9] that described the plans for this rule and the associated issues and encouraged early feedback on the issues. NRC also conducted a stakeholder workshop in April 2005 and a public meeting in 2007 to discuss and obtain additional early feedback on these issues to help the staff develop a proposed rule and draft guidance [10,11]. In addition to stakeholder comments, the NRC rulemaking process also for this rule also includes involvement by a representative from an Agreement State to assist NRC in developing its rule.

Evidence:

[1] 10 CFR 2.804, & 10 CFR 2.805

[2] NUREG/BR 0053, rev 6 "USNRC Regulations Handbook" pp 21

[3] 66 FR 171, September 4, 2001, pp 46230-46239

[4] 67 FR 194, Monday October 7, 2002, pp 62403-62410

[5] 68 FR 77, Tuesday April 22, 2003, pp 19711-19728

[6] 68 FR 192, Friday October 3, 2003, pp 57327-57337

[7] 68 FR 192, Friday October 3, 2003, pp 57331, response to comment 2

[8] 68 FR 77, Tuesday April 22, 2003 pp 19716, response to comment 4

[9] Regulatory Issues Summary 2004-08 "Results of the License Termination Rule Analysis"

[10] Meeting Report for April 20-21 Stakeholder Workshop

[11] Meeting notes for 1/10/07 Public Meeting on Legacy Site Rule

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: The DECLLW program implements NRC's rulemaking guidance for preparing a regulatory impact analysis; regulatory flexibility analysis; and a cost-benefit analysis that are in compliance with Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and OMB guidance. This includes a statement of the problem and need; an examination of alternatives; and incremental benefits and costs of the proposed action [1, 2 page 2]. NRC is required to be in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. However, NRC, as an independent agency, is not required to comply with Executive Order 12866. Nevertheless, NRC's rulemaking guidance reflects the intent of Executive Order 12866, and NRC performs the regulatory analyisis required by Executive Order 12866 as a good practice. NRC regulatory analyses are done consistent with cost-benefit methodology in OMB Circular No. A-4. For example, recent rulemakings for the decommissioning subprogram included regulatory impact analyses and cost benefit analyses [3, 4]. The 1997 License Termination Rule was a "significant regulatory action" as defined in Executive Order 12866, and NRC prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for that proposed and final rule. The EIS served as the basis for the Regulatory Analysis.

A proposed rulemaking to prevent future decommissioning problem sites (i.e., legacy sites) is under development and a regulatory impact analysis, including a cost benefit analysis, is being prepared that follows NRC's guidance for rulemakings. The regulatory impact analysis contains a statement of need, an examination of alternative approaches, and an analysis of the benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives [5]. Although NRC has information quality guidelines [6], the Regulatory Analysis supporting this proposed rule does not use influential scientific data or information that would benefit from a peer review and, therefore, would not need to comply with the agency's Information Quality Guidelines and the OMB Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. NRC's regulatory agenda lists this ongoing rulemaking in compliance with Executive Order 12866 [7]. The 1997 and 2003 decommissioning rulemakings included a statement of compliance with the requirements regarding impacts on small business pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) [3, 4]. The proposed rulemaking to prevent future legacy sites also will include a statement of compliance with RFA and SBREFA.

Evidence:

[1] NRC Management Directive 6.3, The Rulemaking Process, p. 8 and attached Handbook 6.3, pp. 7-9

[2] NUREG/BR-0058, "Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Report," Revision 4, pp. v, vii, 1, and 2

[3] 1997 License Termination Rule in 10 CFR 20 Subpart E, pp. 39086 an 39087, FRN, vol. 62, no. 139

[4] 2003 rule for Revised Financial Assurance Certification Amounts, FRN, vol. 68, no. 192, p. 57336

[5] Rulemaking to reduce decommissioning funding shortfalls (prevent future legacy sites, pp. 1, 73, 74, 75, Attachment for Regulatory Analysis table of contents (only internal use)

[6] NRC Information Quality Guidelines

[7] NUREG-0936, Regulatory Agenda, Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 21

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: The regulations for the DECLLW program were designed with the use of regulatory impact analyses and cost-benefit analyses of alternatives in order to select regulatory requirements that are expected to maximize net benefits. For example, a generic environmental impact statement was prepared for the primary decommissioning regulations in the License Termination Rule (10 CFR 20 Subpart E) (LTR) that included a cost benefit analysis of several alternatives [1]. In addition, NRC sought to maximize net benefit with several design features of the LTR. First, the LTR requirements, and the Commission's statements in the LTR, encourage decommissioning and license termination with unrestricted use in order to maximize the opportunities for future beneficial reuse of the sites [2]. Second, the required dose criteria in the LTR were designed to be performance objectives, and licensees have flexibility to determine the most cost effective alternative methods to demonstrate compliance with the dose criteria for a specific site [3]. Third, the LTR and NRC's implementing guidance are designed to risk-inform the decommissioning process so that both the licensee and NRC resources are directed to those activities most important to safety [3]. For example, licensees would not need to collect and analyze site data (e.g., groundwater monitoring data) that are shown not to be significant to demonstrating safe decommissioning. Fourth, the LTR requires licensees to submit site-specific cost benefit analyses that compare the costs of further removal of radioactive materials from the site to the benefit gained by reducing dose to individuals. These "as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA) analyses are used to determine the extent of removal that is reasonable from a cost perspective.[4].

Evidence:

[1] NUREG-1496, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the License Termination Rule, (Available in paper copy only from NRC's Public Document Room)

[2] License Termination Rule in 10 CFR 20 Subpart E, p. 39069, FRN, vol. 62, no. 139

[3] NUREG-1757, "Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance," Vol. 2, Rev. 1, pp. 2-1 to 2-14

[4] NUREG-1757, "Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance," Vol. 2, Rev. 1, Appendix N

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Program has met all of its long-term performance goals as evidenced by the NRC's FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report. These include: 1) no acute radiation exposures resulting in fatalities; 2) no releases of radioactive materials that result in significant radiation exposures; 3) no releases of radioactive materials that cause significant adverse environmental impacts; 4) no instances where licensed radioactive materials are used domestically in a manner hostile to the security of the United States; 5) stakeholders are informed and involved in NRC processes as necessary; and, 6) no significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive materials.

Note that the Agency as a whole did not meet the fifth goal (openness), which has nine output measures. However the three output measures which were not met, causing the Agency to miss the goal, are not measures that the DECLLW program directly supports. (They include user satisfaction with the public web site, release of NRC documents to the public in a timely manner, and release of other agency documents received by NRC.)

Some of the ways that the DECLLW program supports the other openness output measures are, for example: noticing all public meetings, providing the public with an opportunity to comment at all public meetings, providing public feedback forms at all public meetings, and by holding public meetings in the vicinity of decommissioning sites that require Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). Two local public meetings are generally held for each EIS; the first to scope the EIS, and the second to present initial findings and request public comments when the draft EIS is published. Activities that support goal five are tracked in the Division level operating plan [1].

The DECLLW program meets goal six by setting timeliness metrics for licensing reviews. In particular, the decommissioning sub-program tracks the review and approval of Decommissioning and License Termination Plans and UR license applications, and associated acceptance reviews, to ensure that they meet internal timeliness metrics and are aligned with licensee's decommissioning schedules.

Evidence:

[1] NUREG 1542, USNRC Performance and Accountability Report, FY2006, pages 47-50

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Program (which has no partners) met all of its targets for annual performance measures as evidenced in the FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report. These include: 1) number of events with radiation exposures to the public and occupational workers that exceed Abnormal Occurrence Criterion IA; 2) number of radiological releases to the environment that exceed applicable regulatory limits; 3) number of significant unauthorized disclosures of classified and/or safeguards information; 4) percentage of selected openness output measures that achieve performance targets; 5) the percentage of selected processes that deliver desired efficiency improvement is > 70%; and 6) no more than one instance per program where licensing or regulatory activities unnecessarily impede the safe and beneficial use of radioactive materials [1, 2]. (Note that as discussed in detail in the response to question 4.1, the Agency as a whole did not achieve three of the nine outputs supporting its annual performance goals in the area of public openness. However, the DECLLW program does not support any of the three outputs that were missed.)

In addition, for the annual output measures, the FY 2006 targets were completed, including:

For the Decommissioning sub-program, 1) completed the revision to NUREG-1757 Volumes 1 and 2 to incorporate decommissioning lessons-learned and issues identified in the license termination rule analysis and include risk-informed approaches for restricted use, more realistic scenarios; and 2) completed decommissioning at seven sites.

For the Low-Level Waste sub-program, met all targets (provide technical assistance to Agreement States, completed annual review for extended storage, and completed high-priority licensing actions). In FY2006, one of the annual output measures that is not included for FY2007, was to "continue to support EPA on its development of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Low-Activity Waste Disposal." However, EPA is currently not working on this activity, so the output target became not applicable for FY2006, and was deleted for FY2007 [3].

Evidence:

[1] NUREG 1542, USNRC Performance and Accountability Report, FY2006, pages 47-50

[2] Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences in FY 2005, SECY-06-0055

[3] NUREG-1100, Volumed 22, US NRC Performance Budget - FY2007, page 75

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: A Yes would require that the program demonstrate improved efficiency or cost effectiveness over the prior year. Efficiency improvements should generally be measured in terms of dollars or time. The specifically identified efficiency measure (Improved timeliness of the nuclear power reactor termination review process) is new and has not yet demonstrated results. The decommissioning sub-program developed and implemented several approaches to improve the Program since 2000 and these approaches have resulted in a program that is more efficient and effective.

An NRC staff study in FY 2006 demonstrates improved efficiencies in achieving the program goals. Average DP review and approval time was reduced from 19 months for DPs submitted before 2003 to 14 months for those submitted in 2004. LTP review and approval time was reduced from a high of 37 months to 15 months for the last reactor LTP approved. [1]. (Note that more recent data are not available because no DPs or LTPs were submitted for review in 2005 and those submitted in 2006 will be completed in late Summer 2007). Quicker reviews are a key measure of efficiency for this program because they result in the licensee beginning the site cleanup faster, completing cleanup and returning sites to beneficial use earlier than in previous years, reducing the cost for licensees, and freeing up NRC staff resources for additional project work. In addition to approval time, both the number of Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) to support decommissioning submittals and number of sets of RAIs for DP and LTP reviews also declined from 2000 through 2004, indicating that the quality of these licensee submittals have improved. Higher quality licensee submittals can reduce the time and resources needed for the staff to conduct its reviews. In addition, the number of sites completing decommissioning each year has increased (FY 2003: 1, FY2004: 4, FY 2005: 8, FY 2006: 7) [2]. While not a direct measure of Program efficiency, it is a strong indicator of how the program improvements have improved the effectiveness of the Program.

In addition to quantitative measures of efficiency, descriptions of improvements made during FY 2000-FY 2003 were formally evaluated and the efficiencies or other outcomes that benefit the program have been documented in the Decommissioning Program Evaluation [3]. Similarly, the improvements completed during FY 2004-FY 2005 were evaluated and their benefits described in the Decommissioning Continuous Improvement Report [4]. For example, early consultation with the licensee on DP reviews and expanded acceptance reviews have been instrumental in licensee submitting higher quality DPs and LTPs, each contributing to faster NRC staff reviews [5].

The use of dollar values to measure efficiency is not a valid measure for the decommissioning program because the nature of the individual decommissioning projects makes direct dollar comparisons from site-to-site and year-to-year difficult. Many of the factors affecting individual decommissioning projects are driven by outside factors such as a licensee's financial or technical capability, complex environmental assessment issues, concerns by non-licensee groups (States, concerned citizens, etc.), the use of innovative or non-traditional decommissioning technologies and the availability of waste disposal capacity. In addition, licensees, the initial direct beneficiaries of the Program's efforts, are not required to submit final decommissioning cost information to NRC.

Evidence:

[1] Memo from D.A. Orlando to D. Gillen dated 12/14/05 "Evaluation of Efficiencies in the Decommissioning Program

[2] NUREG 1100, volume 23, USNRC Performance Budget - FY 2008, pp72

[3] Memorandum from R.L. Johnson to M.J. Virgilio dated 9/29/03 "Evaluation of Changes to the Decommissioning Program"

[4] Decommissioning Program Continuous Improvement Report for 2004 and 2005

[5] Memorandum from R.L. Johnson to M.J. Virgilio dated 9/29/03 "Evaluation of Changes to the Decommissioning Program" attachment 2 pp.29-30

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The DECLLW program compares favorably with 12 Agreement State programs for regulating the safety of decommissioning sites. Neither NRC licensees nor the 12 Agreement States reported any events in FY 2006 that exceeded NRC's annual performance measures for safety [1, 2]. This conclusion is based on a study completed in 2007 [1]. This study compared FY 2006 data relevant to the safety performance of NRCs' decommissioning and uranium recovery subprograms to data collected from similar decommissioning and uranium recovery regulatory programs conducted by the Agreement States [1]. Safety performance was the focus of the study because it is the most significant aspect for all of these regulatory programs. Agreement States are States where NRC has relinquished its regulatory authority to the States [3]. Of the existing 34 Agreement States, 12 States have identified 48 decommissioning sites. The Agreement State regulatory programs for these sites are the most similar programs to NRC's decommissioning program because the Agreement States are required to conduct decommissioning of sites in their states using regulations that are compatible with NRC regulations. Furthermore, they often use NRC regulatory guidance. The Agreement States and NRC licensees are required to report events, such as exposures to or releases of radioactive material, that are reportable under NRC regulations. NRC systematically collects, evaluates, and retains the reported event data for both NRC and Agreement States in its Nuclear Materials Events Database.

Reported event data for decommissioning in Agreement States were evaluated for NRC's annual performance measures for safety. No events were reported during FY 2006 that exceeded either of the two performance measures. Similarly, no events were reported during FY2006 by NRC licensees at decommissioning sites [2]. These results demonstrate that the NRC and the 12 Agreement State programs compare favorably for regulating the safety of decommissioning complex material sites and decommissioning uranium recovery sites.

Evidence:

[1] Memorandum from R.L. Johnson and G. Gnugnoli to A. Persinko dated 3/28/07, "Comparison of Safety Performance of NRC's Decommissioning and Low Level Waste Program to the Programs Conducted by the Agreement States,"

[2] NUREG-1100, Volume 23, "Performance Budget Fiscal Year 2008, Appendix IV

[3] Agreement State Program web site

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The set of five independent evaluations of the DECLLW program conducted from FY 2005 to FY 2007 (identified in question 2.6), indicate that the program is effective and achieving results by: 1) resolving key regulatory issues that have been delaying decommissioning and causing higher licensee costs; 2)completing 21 improvements; and 3) meeting its performance measures [1, 2, 3, 4].

For decommissioning, the first Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) evaluation supported the approaches NRC has taken in its decommissioning guidance to resolve six key issues; concluded that NRC's guidance on institutional controls and engineered barriers was risk-informed; and concluded that NRC had adopted all of its recommendations for improving the guidance. [2, 3] These evaluations were significant at this stage of the decommissioning program because the issues are challenging and fundamentally impact the program's effectiveness by resolving problems that have delayed licensee decommissioning or could result in higher than necessary costs to licensees who are currently decommissioning sites. For example, resolving the institutional control issue to restrict future site use provides a decommissioning option for complex decommissioning sites where sufficient funding for cleanup is not available and where decommissioning has been delayed. The realistic land use scenario issue that is used to estimate dose to the public would allow more efficient and thus less costly, but safe cleanup. The ACNW's second evaluation supported NRC's approach for the rulemaking to reduce the potential for decommissioning problems at future sites due to groundwater contamination or insufficient funds for cleanup. [4] ACNW concluded that the rulemaking should ensure that lessons learned from today's decommissioning are incorporated into the design and operation of new facilities. ACNW made recommendations that NRC has incorporated to improve the rulemaking and guidance that is being developed. ACNW's third decommissioning evaluation of decommissioning lessons learned resulted in ACNW recommending that NRC continue its lessons learned efforts. The ACNW letter and transcript also document ACNW and stakeholder lessons learned that the staff will evaluate in FY 2007.[5]

The low-level waste (LLW) evaluation conducted by ACNW indicated that the "??current regulations are fully protective of public and health and safety and fully protective of worker health and safety." [6] In addition to affirming the program's effectiveness in the safety area, this evaluation also identified opportunities to better risk-inform and improve the effectiveness of the LLW management and regulation. NRC has included these recommendations in its strategic assessment of the LLW program that identifies and prioritizes a number of improvements that could make the program more efficient and effective.

The end result of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audit process of the decommissioning program (including NRC's response to the audit findings, and the OIG analysis) concluded that: 1) all 21 program improvements had been completed; 2) the program evaluates its effectiveness by using outcome, performance and output measures; and 3) the program is meeting its performance measures [1] However, the OIG audit identified a deficiency for generating and maintaining supporting documentation of performance data. As a result, a procedure was developed by NRC to resolve this deficiency that describes how to collect, report, and retain performance data (see question 3.7). [7]

Evidence:

[1] OIG report, 912/05, "Audit of NRC's Decommissioning Program,"

One conclusion of the OIG audit process was that NRC had completed all 21 program improvements. These improvements addressed consolidating decommissioning activities into one organization; improving staff technical capability in key areas; exploring methods to measure efficiency; sharing information with other similar programs; conducting future independent reviews; revising annual measures to be outcomes; and implementing a continual improvement plan.

[2] ACNW letter report, 9/12/05, "Draft Revised Decommissioning Guidance to Implement the License Termination Rule,"

The ACNW supported the approaches NRC took in its guidance to resolve the following six issues: 1)institutional controls to restrict future site use; 2) realistic exposure scenarios; 3) onsite disposals; 4) intentional mixing; 5) removal of material after license termination; and 6) engineered barriers.

[3] ACNW letter report, 6/9/06, "Revised Decommissioning Guidance to Implement the License Termination Rule,"

[4] ACNW letter report, 9/17/06, "Prevention of Legacy Sites,"

The ACNW supported NRC's approach for the rulemaking to reduce the potential for decommissioning problems at future sites due to groundwater contamination or insufficient funds for cleanup. NRC's approach includes requiring licensees to identify, document, report, and minimize radioactive contamination on the site and in the subsurface. The approach also includes requiring licensees to report estimated cleanup costs for subsurface contamination and eliminating/modifying some existing financial assurance mechanisms. ACNW also made recommendations, such as future guidance for the rulemaking should identify potential causes of increased decommissioning costs and how to avoid them by using contaminant release prevention and early detection. NRC plans to address ACNW recommendations in its guidance.

[5] ACNW letter report, 1/08/07, "Working Group Meeting on Decommissioning Lessons Learned,"

ACNW recommended that NRC should continue its lessons learned efforts and consider future guidance on lessons learned to help planning new facilities such as designs that provide access to inspect and maintain piping. ACNW's evaluation also documented ACNW and stakeholder lessons learned that the staff will evaluate in FY 2007.

[6] ACNW letter report, 12/27/05, "Opportunities in the Area of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management,"

[7] "Verification of Green Book Performance Measures for Annual Performance and Accountability Report," DWMEP Operating Procedure 1.10

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: Two studies indicate that the decommissioning subprogram has met its goal of completing cleanup and releasing sites for beneficial reuse in the most efficient way possible. The first study, completed in 2003, improved the efficiency of the decommissioning program by resolving regulatory issues that were adversely affecting the program meeting its decommissioning goals [1]. This analysis was based on five years of NRC and licensee experience implementing the License Termination Rule since it was finalized in 1997. The issues include: 1) institutional controls to restrict future site use; 2) realistic exposure scenarios; 3) onsite disposals; 4) intentional mixing of contaminated soil; 5) removal of material after license termination; and 6) engineered barriers. The resolution of these issues by Commission policy direction in 2003 was recently incorporated in revised decommissioning guidance [2]. For example, the guidance on use of realistic land use scenarios for determining cleanup levels is one of the resolved issues that has been used by licensees over the past few years to reduce the cost of licensee decommissioning and used by NRC to more efficiently review licensee submittals [3]. Licensee costs can be reduced because realistic scenarios results in less removal and disposal of contaminated material to achieve safe decommissioining.

In 2005, NRC completed a second study that indicated a more effective program[4]. The improved effectiveness indicated in this study is likely the result of implementing the risk-informed, flexible approaches of the regulations described in the decommissioning guidance [2] and the program management improvements described in the Decommissioning Program Evaluation [5] and Continuous Improvement Report [6]. This study analyzed data collected for major licensing actions conducted using the License Termination Rule that was finalized in 1997 and supporting decommissioning guidance developed in 2000 and 2003. The results of this evaluation show benefits including faster decommissioning document reviews due to higher quality licensee submittals, which contribute to the program's goal of sites being returned to beneficial use. For example, average Decommissioning Plan (DP) review time was reduced from 19 months for DPs submitted before 2003 to 14 months for those submitted in 2004. Similarly, License Termination Plan reviews for power reactors were reduced from a high of 37 months to 15 months for the last LTP reviewed [4]. Review time is the best available quantitative data. NRC does not require licensees to provide actual decommissioning cost data, and therefore cannot quantify benefits using cost data. By returning sites to productive use faster, the benefits to the local communities are maximized. Another benefit is the increase in the number of sites each year that have completed decommissioning and had their licenses terminated: one in FY 2003; four in FY 2004; eight in FY 2005; and seven in FY 2006 [7]. Finally, the program has a procedure that identified a repeating four step process to analyze future regulatory effectiveness: 1) assessing the program and regulations; 2) planning improvements; 3) conducting improvements; and 4) measuring/reassessing. Furthermore, the program's improvement plan includes a schedule for beginning a future assessment of the regulations, guidance, and licensing process with a stakeholder workshop in FY 2009, after there has been sufficient time to implement the recent changes to the regulatory guidance in FY 2006 [8].

Evidence:

[1] Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-08 - Results of the License Termination Rule Analysis

[2] NUREG 1757, "Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance," Vol. 2, Rev. 1

[3] NUREG 1814, "Status of Decommissioning Program, 2004 Annual Report," pp. 17-18

[4] Memorandum from D.A. Orlando to D. Gillen dated 12/14/05 "Evaluation of Efficiencies in the Decommissioning Program," p. 2

[5] Memorandum from R.L. Johnson to M.J. Virgilio dated 9/29/03 "Evaluation of Changes to the Decommissioning Program"

[6] "Decommissioning Program Continuous Improvement Report for FY2004-2005"

[7] NUREG 1100, volume 23, USNRC Performance Budget, FY 2008, p. 73

[8] Memorandum from K.I. McConnell to Distribution, "Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan FY2007-2009," Revision 2