Detailed Information on the
Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Licensing and Inspection Assessment

The Program does not have assessments performed regularly. There have been evaluations performed by independent entities, such as NAS, GAO, and the NRC IG, that have touched upon some aspects of the program. However, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the type described in the PART guidance. Over the coming year, the program needs to secure a regularly scheduled independent assessment of sufficient scope and quality, including an evaluation of the program's annual and long term performance measures, ability to deliver results to all relevant stakeholders, and efficiency and effectiveness with regard to strategic planning and program management.

Improve integration of budget and performance information.

Improve and limit the number of performance measures for the program, ensuring that measures capture the scope of program activities, demonstrate year-to-year progress, and promote continued improvement.

Resource needs are not presented in a complete and transparent manner. Over the coming year, the program will update the operating and leadership plans to include strategic outcomes and performance measures provided in the agency budget document and strategic plan. This will help provide transparency and strengthen the alignment of the program operations with the goals of the agency as a whole. Additionally, the agency's budget document will be updated to state which strategic outcomes and performance measures apply to each program in each program section, and will cross-reference these measures by providing them in the performance measures section of the budget document. The agency's budget document will also included an explanation of the common prioritization process. This will include an explanation of the process for how budgetary resources are allocated to achieve planned accomplishments (PA) in order or priority, as well as the criteria used for relative ranking of PAs.

Measure: Number of significant unauthorized disclosures of classified and/or safeguards information.

Explanation:This is one of the security performance measures in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This annual measure is a precursor to the long-term security strategic outcome. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

Measure: No releases of radioactive materials that result in significant radiation exposures.

Explanation:This is one of the safety strategic outcomes in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

Measure: No inadvertant criticality events.

Explanation:This is one of the safety strategic outcomes in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

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

Explanation:This is one of the safety performance measures in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This annual measure is a precursor to the long-term safety strategic outcomes. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

Measure: No releases of radioactive materials that cause significant adverse environmental impacts.

Explanation:This is one of the safety strategic outcomes in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

Measure: No inadvertant criticality events.

Explanation:This is one of the safety strategic outcomes in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

Measure: No acute radiation exposures resulting in fatalities.

Explanation:This is one of the safety strategic outcomes in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

Measure: No releases of radioactive materials that result in significant radiation exposures.

Explanation:This is one of the safety strategic outcomes in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

Measure: No releases of radioactive materials that cause significant adverse environmental impacts.

Explanation:This is one of the safety strategic outcomes in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

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

Explanation:This is the security strategic outcome in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

Measure: Number of events with radiation exposures to the public and occupational workers that exceed Abnormal Occurrence Criterion I.A

Explanation:This is one of the safety performance measures in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This annual measure is a precursor to the long-term safety strategic outcomes. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

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

Explanation:This is one of the safety performance measures in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This annual measure is a precursor to the long-term safety strategic outcomes. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

Measure: Unrecovered losses or thefts of risk-significant radioactive sources.

Explanation:This is one of the security performance measures in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This annual measure is a precursor to the long-term security strategic outcome. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

Measure: Number of significant unauthorized disclosures of classified and/or safeguards information.

Explanation:This is one of the security performance measures in the NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and the FY 2006 Performance Budget and is set at zero until 2011. This annual measure is a precursor to the long-term security strategic outcome. This measure has a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable to our stakeholders, even while (1) the number of interim storage facilities is expected to increase by 30-40% by 2011, and (2) the complexity of technical and safety reviews increases and the requested schedules for timeliness of federal review are shortened by applicants and licensees as they respond to market pressures.

Measure: Timeliness of completing actions on critical research programs.

Explanation:This is one of the output measure in the FY 2006 Performance Budget. Critical research programs typically respond to high-priority needs of the Commission and NRC's licensing organizations. Critical research programs will be the highest priority needs identified at the beginning of each fiscal year.

Measure: Complete storage container and installation design reviews within timeliness goals; current goal is 80% in less than or equal to 14 months and 100% in less than or equal to 2 years.

Explanation:This is one of the output measure in the FY 2006 Performance Budget. The long term and annual efficiency measures will provide for a 30% improvement in the timeliness by 2011.

Measure: Complete transportation container design reviews within timeliness goals; current goal is 80% in less than or equal to 8 months and 100% in less than or equal to 2 years.

Explanation:This is one of the output measure in the FY 2006 Performance Budget. The long term and annual efficiency measures will provide for a 30% improvement in the timeliness by 2011.

Measure: Achieve 5% average incremental improvements in storage review timeliness; current goal is 80% in less than or equal to 14 months and 100% in less than or equal to 2 years.

Explanation:This annual efficiency measure links to the long-term efficiency on storage reviews. The improvements monitored by this measure will be obtained from in-progress results and from the completion of pre-identified continuous improvement activities that focus on improving processes, staff utilization and management excellence, as appropriate. FY 2005 actual: 81% completed in 14 months; 89% in 24 months. Note: The baseline year for these SFST efficiency improvements is 2005, not 2004. The first year of improvement is 2006.

Measure: Achieve 5% average incremental improvements in transportation review timeliness; current goal is 80% in less than or equal to 8 months and 100% in less than or equal to 2 years.

Explanation:This annual efficiency measure links to the long-term efficiency on transportation reviews. The improvements monitored by this measure will be obtained from in-progress results and from the completion of pre-identified continuous improvement activities that focus on improving processes, staff utilization and management excellence, as appropriate. FY 2005 actual: 89% completed in 8 months; 100% in 24 months. Note: The baseline year for these SFST efficiency improvements is 2005, not 2004. The first year of improvement is 2006.

Measure: Number of substantiated cases of theft or diversion of licensed, risk-signifi cant radioactive sources or formula quantities of special nuclear material, or attacks that result in radiological sabotage.

Explanation:

Measure: Number of substantiated losses of formula quantities of special nuclear material or substantiated inventory discrepancies of formula quantities of special nuclear material that are judged to be caused by theft or diversion or by substantial breakdown of the accountability system.

Explanation:

Measure: Number of substantial breakdowns of physical security or material control (i.e., access control containment or accountability systems) that signifi cantly weaken the protection against theft, diversion, or sabotage.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment. To support this mission, the Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation program (i.e., the SFST Program) enables the safe interim storage of spent fuel (SF) and transportation of radioactive materials in a manner that furthers our national interests. This is accomplished through its regulatory oversight, licensing, inspection, and technical review of independent SF storage installations (ISFSIs) or interim dry storage facilities, as well as issuance of Certificates of Compliance (CoCs) for NRC-approved designs of transportation packages containing radioactive materials.

Evidence: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 Public Law 83-703, Sections 53, 103, and 181-188; Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Sections 201, 202, and 204; Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Section 133, 137, 180; NRC FY 2006 Performance Budget, NUREG-1100, Vol. 21; NRC public website at www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-transp.html.

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

Explanation: The SFST Program enables the continued operation and subsequent decommissioning of our Nation's commercial nuclear power electrical generating plants and the associated production and utilization facilities, through the safe and secure interim storage of SF and transportation of radioactive material. Based on formal announcements regarding selection of a SF storage technology by the nuclear industry, the number of commercial interim storage facilities will increase from 35 to 50 facilities in the next 5 years. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) projects a future need for new and amended designs of packages required to safely transport SF to the proposed national high-level radiation waste repository. Further, the commercial industry continues to amend existing radioactive material package designs and develop new designs, both of which require Program review and approval.

Evidence: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 Sections 1, 2, 3c and e, 133, 147, 187; Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 Sections 2a, 204, 305; Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 Sections 111, 137, and 141; 10 CFR 72, "Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of SNF, High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLRW), and Reactor-Related GTCC Waste." Growth of Storage; IAEA Safety Standards Series, TS-R-1, "Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material" and SECY-02-0051 and Appendix 2 listing; U.S. DOE, Acceptance Priority Ranking and Annual Capacity Report, DOE/RW-0567, July 2004, "Moving Forward with Nuclear Power: Issues and Key Answers"; Spent Fuel Facility Security Orders for possession and shipment of SF (67 FR 63167, 10/10/02); interim storage licensees. Interim Compensatory Measures for Spent Fuel Transportation, Map of current & potential ISFSI.

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

Explanation: The SFST Program uniquely regulates, through federal statute, the licensing, inspection, and technical review of interim storage and security of SF, and the packaging and transport of fissile and Type B quantity radioactive materials. As the Nation's sole and independent regulator for interim storage, security, and transportation of these licensed radioactive materials, the Program is not redundant nor duplicative of any other Federal, State, local, or private effort. For transport of radioactive materials, the Program works cooperatively with DOT through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) through the DOT MOU, and individual countries to enhance Program effectiveness and its alignment with other country's requirements through technical assistance, independent review, and cooperative safety efforts. Further, the Program conducts extensive outreach with States to ensure consistency and alignment of regulatory oversight (see Question 3RG1). These efforts directly promote safe domestic and international transport of radioactive materials and align policies and regulations across international boundaries to ensure consistency and preclude redundancy.

Evidence: Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Sec. 2(a) and (c), Sec. 201(f), and Sec. 204; Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Sections 132 and 133, 137, 180; 10 CFR 1.29(a)-(f), for international programs; 10 CFR Parts 71 for DOT and State coordination and compatibility (69 FR 3769, Section VI), 72 for storage, and 73 for security; Transportation of Radioactive Materials: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the DOT and the NRC, 44 FR 38690; NUREG/BR-0216, "Radioactive Waste: Production Storage, Disposal"; National Conference of State Legislators, "Spent Fuel Transportation, History, Status, and State Involvement," page 9.

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

Explanation: The Program is regulatory-based, process-driven, and subject to periodic and frequent checks and balances in a manner that provides substantial assurance that the Program design is free of major flaws. Planned accomplishments at the operating level directly result in desired Program outputs and outcomes, which ultimately support the Agency's Strategic Plan. To ensure proper programmatic direction, the Program leverages NRC advisory committees and rulemaking processes, cost-benefit analyses and timeliness requirements, and external reviews from entities such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) The program is in compliance with international safety standards and practices for designing a waste management program, as well as an international peer review process.

Evidence: 10 CFR Part 1.15, "Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel" and Federal Advisory Committee Act; 10CFR 1.18, "Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste" and Federal Advisory Committee Act (roles, responsibilities, and independence); NRC FY 2006 Performance Budget, NUREG-1100, Vol. 21; Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, DOE/EM-0654, May 2003, and IAEA Information Circular, INFCIRC/547, December 24, 1997, by the same title. GAO 05-339, "NRC Needs to Do More to Ensure that Power Plants are Effectively Controlling Spent Nuclear Fuel," April 2005.

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

Explanation: The Program is properly targeted to applicants, licensees and Certificate of Compliance holders through formalized approval and oversight processes that enable the safe beneficial use of radioactive materials. All Program resources are oriented towards achieving the Program's safety, security, and enabling goals, and balanced through the agency-wide common prioritization initiative and the Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management (PBPM) system. At the Program level, all casework is subject to proceduralized prioritization process. All new and ongoing activities are evaluated monthly with assumptions influenced by internal and external considerations; this ensures that the right beneficiaries are targeted, that organization funding is directed to the correct outputs and outcomes, and that there are no unintended beneficiaries or subsidies.

Evidence: SFPO Operational level Operating Plan, FY'05; Waste Leadership level Operating Plan, FY'05; Common prioritization documents: Feb 15, 2005, Directors to Reyes memo "FY 2007, Unresourced Common Prioritization Efforts and Results for Reactor Safety and Materials/Waste Safety Programs;" April 8, 2005, Turner to Reyes memo; April 21, 2004, Common Prioritization results and Lessons Learned for Materials and Waste Arena, FY 2005 and FY 2006 Budgets"; NRC FY'06 Performance Budget, NUREG-1100, Vol. 21; "Annual Report on Participation in International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Activities," SECY 04-0145, August 11, 2004; Communication Plans for Storage, Transportation, and Safety and Security; Summary of February 8, 2005, Spent Fuel Project Office Licensing Process Conference, February 17, 2005.

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 Program has a limited number of long-term (LT) outcome measures such as: no inadvertent criticality events; no acute radiation exposures resulting in fatalities; no releases of radioactive materials that cause significant radiation exposures or adverse environmental impacts; no instances where licensed radioactive materials are used domestically in a manner hostile to the security of the United States; stakeholders are informed and involved in NRC processes as appropriate; and no significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive materials. These LT measures help form the basis for efforts to improve Program effectiveness and efficiency, minimize unnecessary regulatory burden, and improve the regulatory framework. Program LT measures are quantifiable and tangible, consistent with federal statute, and are essential to achieve strategic outcomes.

Evidence: NRC FY 2006 Performance Budget , NUREG-1100, Vol. 21, pp 62-65; NUREG-1614, Vol. 3, NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan, pp 8-13; SFPO operational level and Waste Leadership level operating plans, '05.

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

Explanation: The Program's long-term (LT) measure targets are ambitious, challenging, and reflects the agency's zero tolerance for events that could threaten public health and safety, national security, or the environment. The measure targets focus the SFST Program on preventing the most significant adverse outcomes relative to its safety and security mission. For example, the LT outcome of "no significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive materials" is challenging, given the increasing volume and complexity of casework. In addition, the number of licensed interim storage facilities is expected to increase from 35 currently, to 50 by FY 2008, while the number of transportation review requests is projected to remain at high levels. Lastly, the LT efficiency goal of improving the timeliness of licensing reviews by 30 percent by FY 2011 helps ensure that the LT outcome of "no significant impediments" will continue to be met. The Program is strongly influenced by the public through rulemaking and outreach activities and operates within a challenging regulatory environment.

Evidence: NRC FY 2006 Performance Budget , NUREG-1100, Vol. 21, pp 62-65; NUREG-1614, Vol. 3, NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan, pp 8-13; Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2004, NUREG-1542, Vol. 10, pp 60-76; SFPO operational level and Waste Leadership level operating plans.

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 Program has annual outcome, output, and efficiency measures that are key indicators of Program success and that are critical to the achievement of the LT outcomes. The Program has annual outcome measures to monitor trends and identify critical precursor events to provide confidence that risk of exceeding a LT measure remains acceptably low. These are the performance measures in the Strategic Plan and the Performance Budget. Specifically: (1) number of events with radiation exposures to the public and occupational workers that exceed Abnormal Occurrence criteria 1.A; (2) number of radiological releases to the environment that exceed applicable regulatory limits; (3) number of unrecovered losses or thefts of risk-significant radioactive sources; (4) number of security events and incidents that exceed the Abnormal Occurrence criteria I.C. 2-4; (5) number of significant unauthorized disclosures of classified and/or safeguards information; (6) percentage of selected openness measures that achieve performance targets; (7) programs assessed during the fiscal year using the PART; (8 and 9) efficiency measures to improve the timeliness of storage and transport reviews; and (10) no more than one instance per program where licensing or regulatory activities unnecessarily impede the sale and beneficial use of radioactive material. An LT efficiency goal of improving the timeliness of licensing reviews by 30% by FY'11 represents an annual goal of 5%/year timeliness improvement for each of the next six years. An annual output measure for the Program's openness activities, % of selected openness output measures that achieve performance targets, supports the agency's LT openness outcome. Measures are tracked in the program operating plan and, in many cases, include green/yellow/red performance bands to help identify changing performance.

Evidence: NRC FY 2006 Performance Budget, NUREG-1100, Vol. 21. pp 62-65; NUREG-1614, Vol. 3, NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan, pp 8-13; SFPO operational level and Waste Leadership level operating plans; SECY-04-0064, Annual Report to the Commission on Performance in Materials and Waste Arena.

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

Explanation: As discussed in Q2.3, the annual measures that are used to assess the performance of the SFST Program are the performance measures in the Strategic Plan and the Performance Budget. Four of the five safety/security measures have a zero metric indicating that failure is unacceptable; the fifth metric for security events and incidents has a metric of less than or equal to 4 due to the wide range of physical, safety and security requirements for licensees and certificate holders. The efficiency metric of 5% per year improvement and the instances where licensing or regulatory activities unnecessarily impede use of radioactive materials are ambitious targets, when the program is expecting an increase in storage facilities as well as an increase in the complexity of technical and safety reviews. Annual safety and security targets focus on events over which the Program has direct influence, and that are more likely to occur than events associated with the long-term outcome measures. Data for the annual measures have been collected and assessed, and targets are based on achieving specific programmatic improvements to support the Program's safety, security, openness, and effectiveness goals. To facilitate the usefulness of many of the annual measures in monitoring program performance, a performance-band scheme of red, yellow, and green has been implemented in the Operating Plan for a number of years and is being expanded to include additional indicators to focus management attention on emergent issues.

Evidence: NRC FY 2006 Performance Budget , NUREG-1100, Vol. 21, pp 62-65; NUREG 1614, Vol. 3, NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan, pp 8-13; NRC Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2004, NUREG-1542, Vol. 10, pp 60-76; Waste Leadership level operating plan; SFPO operational level operating plan.

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: By statute, the Program is the sole regulatory authority responsible for Program outcomes and outputs. There are no other agencies or intermediaries responsible for carrying out aspects of the Program. However, strong coordination and cooperation through MOUs with DOT and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and inter-agency agreements with DOE, ensure each meets its own goals consistent to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment on a national level. This coordination directly aligns to Program and NRC safety, security, and effectiveness outcomes. Safety and regulatory performance is a collective effort with licensees who have the responsibility to design, fabricate, and operate interim storage facilities and transportation packages safely and in accordance with NRC regulations and approved designs. Industry performance, a key input in evaluating Program effectiveness, is monitored using the Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED), and through periodic NRC inspections which are scheduled based on risk-significant activities and inspection history.

Evidence: Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), Briefing on Status of Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) Programs, Performance, and Plans (4/27/05), SRM-M050329A, ML051170459; Transportation of Radioactive Materials: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the DOT and the NRC, 44 FR 38690; Memorandum of Understanding between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Worker Protection at NRC-Licensed Facilities," 53 FR 43950; Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-7, "Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection," paragraph 29; DOE foreign research reactor (FRR) spent fuel return program inter-agency agreements DE-AI01-04-EW07019 (casks) and DE-AI01-04-EW07020 (routes); Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED), Rad Exposure, Transport, Descriptions Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System; Annual Report to the Commission on Licensee Performance in the Materials and Waste Arenas, SECY-05-0075, April 29, 2005; SFPO OI-13, "Master Inspection Plan."

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: The Program does not have assessments performed regularly. There have been evaluations performed by independent entities, such as NAS, GAO, and the NRC IG, that have touched upon some aspects of the program. However, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the type described in the PART guidance. Over the coming year, the program needs to secure a regularly scheduled independent assessment of sufficient scope and quality, including an evaluation of the program's annual and long term performance measures, ability to deliver results to all relevant stakeholders, and efficiency and effectiveness with regard to strategic planning and program management.

Evidence:  

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: Resource needs are not presented in a complete and transparent manner. Over the coming year, the program will update the operating and leadership plans to include strategic outcomes and performance measures provided in the agency budget document and strategic plan. This will help provide transparency and strengthen the alignment of the program operations with the goals of the agency as a whole. Additionally, the agency's budget document will be updated to state which strategic outcomes and performance measures apply to each program in each program section, and will cross-reference these measures by providing them in the performance measures section of the budget document. The agency's budget document will also included an explanation of the common prioritization process. This will include an explanation of the process for how budgetary resources are allocated to achieve planned accomplishments (PA) in order or priority, as well as the criteria used for relative ranking of PAs.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: The NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan corrected a number of strategic planning deficiencies found in the prior plan. In particular, the current safety goal has been clarified to "ensure" rather than "maintain" the safe use of radioactive materials, which helps the Agency better focus on strategies and means to enhance public health and safety and protection of the environment. The new goal on security that addresses the current threat environment and Agency response to the events of September 11, 2001, describes the regulatory controls needed for the security and safeguarding of radioactive materials, for coordination with other Federal, State and local governments, and for the protection of information security. The "ensure openness" goal has been changed from "increase public confidence," because, it aligns better with NRC Strategic initiatives. Further, the Agency's prior goal to "reduce unnecessary regulatory burden" is now included within the scope of the effectiveness goal, and addresses the need for the NRC to become more effective, efficient, realistic, and timely in its regulatory activities. This new Effectiveness Goal addresses the need for NRC to sharpen its focus on safety and security while maintaining a strategic outcome of no significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive material. As a result, the program is focused on removing licensing or regulatory impediments while safely enabling the use of radioactive materials consistent with Law and national priorities.

Evidence: NRC FY 2006 Performance Budget, NUREG-1100, Vol. 21, pp 62-65; NUREG-1614, Vol. 3, NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan, pp 8-13; NRC Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2004, NUREG-1542, Vol. 10, pp 60-76.

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: The requirements within 10 CFR 71, 72, and 73 are necessary to achieve LT goals and their adequacy are continuously monitored through routine activities such as inspection, review of incident reports and stakeholder feedback, and federal agency coordination. The Part 71 and 73 performance requirements are key to ensuring that domestic and international transport of radioactive materials is safe and secure, respectively. These quality, safety and security requirements are a cornerstone necessary for safe storage of SF and reactor-generated greater than class-C waste (GTCC). The Program also seeks to incorporate stakeholder views and input on areas for regulatory improvement, as it did with the Licesning Process Conference that it sponsored in February 2005. Before a proposed rule is developed, a rulemaking plan (RP) is prepared for Commission approval that describes the regulatory issue, analyzes options, identifies resource impacts, and describes how the rule would support achievement of the Program's strategic goals. It provides opportunity for early stakeholder input on the proposed regulatory change. The stakeholders have at least one opportunity to comment on proposed regulatory actions. Stakeholders can submit petitions for rulemaking, such as the Part 72 GTCC rule, which broadened the scope of materials that are allowed in a site-specific licensed interim storage facility, thereby providing licensees greater storage flexibility. The Statements of Consideration (SOCs) for each proposed and final rule includes background, summary of the regulatory action, and a discussion as to why the Program is taking the regulatory action. Legislative mandate required NRC to establish a regulatory process (i.e., rulemaking) which involves the review and approval of storage cask designs and amendment of existing designs. Consistent with the openness goal, Program regulations require the opportunity for public hearings on proposed licensing actions for storage. To ensure rules are effective and contribute to safety and enabling outcomes, the Program interacts with DOT and IAEA in the development of transport standards and participates in industry-led symposiums on interim storage and radioactive materials transport to ensure that changes to transport regulations are absolutely necessary. Lastly, Program procedures for rulemaking requires an evaluation of proposed regulatory actions against NRC's strategic goals.

Evidence: Administrative Procedures Act of 1946; 10 CFR Part 2 - Subpart H 2.800, 2.802, 2.804, 2.805; 10 CFR Part 2 - Subpart H 2.800, 2.802, 2.804, and 2.805; Management Directive 6.3, The Rulemaking Process; NUREG/BR-0053, Rev. 5, NRC Regulations Handbook, March 2001; pages 5 (Section 1.3), 20 (Section 3.3), 20-24; page 27, Section 3.7; page 46, Section 5.1; page 157-163, of Part 7 - Final Rule, Section 7.9; NUREG-BR-0058, Revision 4, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Report, 9/2004; p. 1; chapter 2, p. 4; chapter 4; CoC Direct final rules, "List of approved Fuel Storage Casks" 69 FR 61592, 69 FR 50053; Interim Storage for Greater than Class C Waste 66 FR 51823 - final rule, proposed rule - SECY-00-0021; Trip Report 10/29/04, Foreign Trip report for PATRAM 2004 symposium, Accompaniment of NAS Site Visits, and IAEA Review Panel," pp 4 and 6.

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 updates its operating plans monthly and leadership plans quarterly, using internal and external performance monitoring data on how the Program and its licensees have been performing, to adjust Program priorities and to focus its resources. The Program routinely and systematically assesses licensee performance, through quality assurance, security, and operational-oriented inspections of interim SF storage facilities and holders of CoCs, and through the review of event reports. The findings are used to develop and adjust the Master Inspection Plan to ensure that resources are aligned with areas requiring improvement, or to inform the industry of generic problems. This was most recently exemplified by issuance of an Information Notice to all CoC holders and users to resolve NRC-identified problems associated with transportation packages and quality assurance. As a result, performance in this area improved. Internally, Program and process-oriented audits are conducted (Licensing Task Group, Business Process Improvement, and NRC Regional Office assessments) to develop lessons learned, resolve deficiencies, and implement improvements for licensing casework. Most notably, lessons learned from review of the Diablo Canyon licensing experience and the Licensing Task Group resulted in procedure/process improvements to improve contractor usage, enhance NRC resource utilization, and streamline the licensing process. The Program also uses external stakeholder feedback and routinely meets with licensees (e.g., the SFPO Licensing Process Conference in February 2005 and the annual Nuclear Energy Institute Dry Storage Forum) to exchange ideas on enhancing efficiency and effectiveness and discuss areas of mutual improvement. Improvement examples include: draft license renewal guidance for interim storage facilities and risk-informed rule changes to 10 CFR Part 72.

Evidence: Operational and Leadership Level Operating Plans for FY 2005; SFPO Office Instruction -13, "Master Inspection Plan"; Reporting requirements in 10 CFR Parts 20.2201, 2202, 20.2203; 50.73 (safety written) and 50.72; 71.95, 72.75 and 73.71; 70.50; SFPO Office Instruction -11, "Lessons Learned." Regulatory Information Summary 2004-20 for Lessons Learned; Diablo Canyon ISFSI lessons learned memo, 07/15/04. SFPO Response: 12/7/04; SFPO Licensing Process Task Force Product, dated 12/20/02; NRC information Notice 2002-035, Changes to Part 71 and 72 Quality Assurance Programs.

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 SFST Program manager is responsible for development, management, and successful implementation of processes to achieve performance goals and outcomes. Manager effectiveness at achieving these performance standards is reflected in their Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior Level Supervisor (SLS) performance appraisals, which are used, in part, to determine promotions and awards. These appraisals link individual goals to NRC's goals, providing assurance of accountability. Managers are identified for each Program goal at the operating level, and must develop and implement strategies and measures to meet Program-level outputs and outcomes that roll-up to Strategic Plan goals. Managers are held to exacting standards for cost, schedule and performance results, and they must defer or shed lower priority work using the Agency's PBPM and common prioritization processes.

Evidence: NUREG-1614, Vol. 3, NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan; Elements and standards: Regional Office and Headquarters, for staff and management; SES/SLS Performance Appraisal Memos 10/13/04, 5/13/03, and 4/23/04; Management Directives 10.137 and 10.148 SES and SLS Performance Appraisals, respectively.

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

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 MD, Vol. 4, "Financial Management." 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. All managers of contract funds are required to complete formal training/certification requirements. Additionally, contract funds are tracked and reported at the Division (monthly), Office (quarterly), and executive (mid-year) levels of management to ensure rigorous accountability, agency-wide consistency, and to ensure targets are met. 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 FY plus 4 additional mos, to allow ongoing work to continue, uninterrupted into the next fiscal year. At the end of the 2nd quarter of FY'05, the Program had obligated approximately 60% of new funds, and was meeting the budget for expenditure. To ensure that funds are obligated consistent with Program needs, funds are routinely incrementally obligated through the year, when final Program requirements are more definite. For instance, if funding needs for a project have changed, subsequent obligations are revised, funds are reprogrammed to other projects or returned to the CFO. NRC tracks fund usage in computerized financial control systems that allow a forecast of spending through the FY. Measures and/or targets are established for carryover of contract funding, training, and travel resources.

Evidence: Management Directive (MD) 4.2, Acquisition Certification and Training program, April 30, 2004, memorandum to Office Directors and Regional Administrators from the Executive Director for Operations; NMSS Financial Control System (FCS); SFPO monthly updates of the operating plan; OCFO Budget Execution Reports.

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 SFST Program has procedures implementing its continuous improvement initiative to streamline the licensing process and to achieve efficiencies, as measured by, for example, timeliness metrics. Two resulting examples demonstrating efficiency improvements include: (1) in 2002 the signature authority level for transport and storage approvals was changed from the Division Director to the Section Chief, streamlining the process and improving timeliness by eliminating two levels of review, and (2) a regulatory change to 10 CFR Part 72.48 that reduced regulatory burden on licensees and enabled certain changes without NRC prior approval resulting in a 20% reduction in forecasted amendment applications beginning in FY 2004. These improvements directly contribute to efficiencies and cost effectiveness in support of the timeliness goals in the agency's Performance Budget. The Program also continues to look for efficiencies in licensing, certification, and other program activities, using risk and non-risk information. The Program has established a long term efficiency measures to improve the timeliness of 80% of storage and transport reviews by 30% by 2011 despite the increasing complexity of new casework/designs. In support of the long term efficiency measures, the Program has established annual goals of 5% reduction in timeliness for 80% of storage and transport review completions. Annual review of the Program's fee structure provides an additional mechanism for cost efficiency and the formalized opportunity for public comment on each draft fee rule is a check and balance upon fairness and effectiveness.

Evidence: 10 CFR Part 72 rule change to streamline the CoC process (notifications etc.), effective Mar'01; Dec'02 SFPO Licensing Process Task Force Product; SECY-04-0182, Status of Risk-Informed Regulation in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (e.g., inspection and ISG-18); January 18, 2005, Risk insights working group initiative (example: ISG-18 assessment, Vol. 6, Application of Risk-Informed Decision Making Process); NRC FY'06 Performance Budget, NUREG-1100, Vol. 21, pp 62-65; SFPO Office Instructions OI-4, "Licensing Process;",OI-5, "Signature Authority, Concurrence and Distribution Guidance", OI-10, "Scheduling Casework;" and OI-15, "Interactions between Applicants and SFPO Staff".

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Program has been effectively collaborating with DOT, IAEA, and Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) to enable the safe domestic and international transport of radioactive materials - this effort has resulted in a significant burden reduction on entities participating in radioactive materials transport as evidenced by rulemaking proceedings. In cooperating with DOT, international guidance is developed, proposed, and implemented in a coordinated effort to align National and international interests to strengthen the safety and safeguarding of radioactive materials. Program coordination with DOE and DHS is also on National priority programs, and is focused on safe and secure transport of SF to the proposed geologic repository, nonproliferation of highly-enriched research reactor fuel, national emergency, and security/safeguarding of radioactive materials, respectively. The SFST Program led the joint development of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Private Fuel Storage facility, with the full cooperation of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Surface Transportation Board contributing to successful closure of Program licensing decisions. Domestic transport is also extensively coordinated with regional councils of State governments to align Federal and State radiological, emergency response, inspection, and transportation programs for consistency, effectiveness, and efficiency. Program provides technical assistance in support of State transportation activities, as described in the NRC's policy statement.

Evidence: Letter to Congressman John D. Dingell, from Chairman Meserve, Subject: NRC regulatory authority for transportation of radioactive materials, 01/28/2002; Transportation of Radioactive Materials: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the DOT and the NRC, 44 FR 38690; SECY-03-0141, Final Rule to Revise 10 CFR Part 71 to be Compatible with IAEA Transportation Safety Standards, 8/15/03 and Staff Requirements Memorandum, 11/20/03; IAEA Trip Reports and Presentations (TRANSSC): 2/11/05; 4/22/04 (ML041140374); 10/9/02; 4/5/02; and 3/14/01; Procedural Agreement with the U.S. Dept of Energy on Spent Fuel and High-Level Waste Transportation Packaging (48 FR 51875, 11/14/83); General Statement of Policy on NRC Response to Accidents Occurring During the Transportation of Radioactive Material (49 FR 12335, 3/29/84); NUREG-1714, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians and the Related Transportation Facility in Tooele County, Utah,"12/2001; Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-7, "Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection," paragraph 29.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: NRC financial management practices governing control of funds and resource allocation are proceduralized and implemented by the Program. This ensures the use of funds 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. 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 effectiveness of these practices is reflected in the NRC financial statements that have earned unqualified opinions for 10 of the last 11 years, with no material weaknesses found in the FY 2004 audit impacting the SFST Program's financial management. On time payments of approximately 94% 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 for high risk; payments associated with this program are included in that figure. To improve cost accounting, NRC is planning to complete replacement of the License Fee Billing system in FY 2006 and conducts semi annual financial management training seminars for all Program staff. Staff involved in the program's contract management activities must attend acquisition training. 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, & that resources are protected from waste, fraud & abuse. The programs' 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. Through performance appraisals, each manager in the Program is responsible for accomplishing performance measures to achieve performance goals. In FY 2004, the SES and SLS appraisals were modified to link individual performance to NRC goals OPM/OMB provided provisional certification of this improvement in late 2004. As a result, managers are held to exacting standards for cost, schedule and performance results, 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: NRC Performance and Accountability Report for FY 2004, NUREG 1542, Vol. 10, pp 60 76; NRC OIG 05 A 02, "Audit of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 2004 Financial Statements," November 12,2004; Monthly Budget Execution Reports (BER); NRC Management Directive 4.2, "Administrative Control of Funds"; NMSS reasonable assurance statement, September 29, 2004; NMSS FY 2005 Management Control Plan, November 29, 2004; SES/SLS Performance Appraisal Memos 10/13/04, 5/13/03, and 4/23/04; 12/17/04 letter from OPM to NRC Chairman certifying NRC SES performance appraisals; NRC Management Directive 4.4, "Management Controls"; OMB Memorandum 03 13, "Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (Public Law No.: 107 300)," May 21, 2003; Memorandum Report: Review of NRC's Implementation of the Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act for Fiscal Year 2004, December 22, 2004.

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

Explanation: Program management has undertaken several internal reviews to address deficiencies. Management chartered an "empowerment team" that recommended, in part, a reduced signature level for licensing documents, thereby enhancing the timeliness of document reviews and reducing staff burden. Since implementation in Oct 2002, licensing completion timeliness (normalized to account for FY workload) has markedly improved for transport reviews with storage reviews remaining relatively constant. A second internal review was chartered to evaluate the licensing review process and identify any areas for improvement in efficiency or effectiveness; as a result, proceduralized process improvements were implemented. As a result of both these initiatives transportation process time dropped from exceeding the performance measure to meeting the timeliness goal in less than one year. Periodically, throughout the year, management meets to discuss performance issues, areas for improvements, and to develop and implement short-term and long-term objectives. From these reviews commitments are tracked, managed, and completed as identified in Operating Plans. A contracted evaluation of Office-level licensing activities, which includes Program-level licensing, identified a potential Program-specific efficiency gain which was subsequently met through Program reorganization to align its technical disciplines with process activities to enhance technical staff utilization. To enhance accountability, line management, through the appraisal system, is graded and compensated based on performance in direct relation to how well performance metrics are met. External reviews of the Program also continue to occur. For example, the annual NEI Dry Cask Storage Forum, the Regulatory Information Conference and the February 2005 SFPO Licensing Process Conference are initiatives where licensees and CoC holders are encouraged to give candid feedback on Program performance and management deficiencies. As a result of the Conference, a task force is being formed to address and resolve stakeholder-identified SFST Program process issues; this effort will pro-actively solicit industry input and participation.

Evidence: SFPO Licensing Process Task Force Product, 12/20/02; Business Process Improvements (BPI) of the licensing process. SECY-02-0103, 6/18/03; COMSECY-03-0025 and 03-0058 status updates; Sept'03 SFPO management meeting; April 2004 NMSS Licensing/Certification BPI Report; NEI Storage and Transportation Forum, June 2004 and May 2005; SFPO February 2005 Licensing Process Conference and Meeting Summary, 02/17/05 (ML050490253); SFPO Office Instruction OI-5, "Signature Authority, Concurrence and Distribution Guidance"; Operational and Leadership Level Operating Plans for FY 2005.

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: NRC's rulemaking process pro-actively seeks and takes into account the views of the public and stakeholders through public notifications, public meetings, and petitions for rulemaking. An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or an Issues Paper published in the Federal Register obtains comments on regulatory actions under consideration. All proposed rules are published for public comment. Often, multiple meetings are held, to address technical issues under consideration, as in the Part 71 transportation rulemaking. All final rules include a detailed analysis of comments. For example, the Program issued a rule as a result of a petition submitted by a licensee requesting that Part 72 be amended to enable the interim storage of Greater-Than-Class C waste (GTCC), providing licensees greater flexibility in selecting a regulatory approach to storing GTCC waste. Further, the program denied a petition for Part 72 rulemaking because the change to the regulation would have impacted the opportunity for public comment. The Program-sponsored a Licensing Process Conference soliciting stakeholder views and input on areas for improvement in SFPO processes was part of the initiative to continuously improve the Part 71 and 72 licensing processes. Regulations require the opportunity for public hearings on proposed licensing actions. Communication Plans are implemented for transport and interim storage activities and highly technical issues such as the Package Performance Study (PPS) - these plans are updated annually or as needed to account for lessons learned, industry changes, and stakeholder feedback. States have a separate opportunity to comment on proposed regulatory changes, beyond the regular public comment process, to the transport regulations. States are also kept informed of issues related to storage cask design through pro-active outreach, such as when the Program meets with regional councils of State governments to strengthen coordination and address constituent concerns at least twice a year.

Evidence: Public participation in Part 2, Section 2.805 and notice of Proposed Rulemaking Section 2.804; Management Directive 6.3, The Rulemaking Process; NUREG/BR-0053, Rev. 5, NRC Regulations Handbook; Public Feedback Forms for 2/8/05 Licensing Process Conference (ML043440502) Public meeting notices for Part 71 and licensing process conference; Licensing Process Conference Mtg Summary, 2/17/2005 ML050490253; GTCC - Interim Storage for Greater Than Class C Waste, 66 FR 51823 - Final Rule; Secy-01-0177, Denial of Petition for part 72; Section 72.46, Public hearing Part 71, Secy-03-0141, 69FR3698; Communication Plan for SF Transportation, 2/18/2004; Three examples of Website home pages for regional councils of State Government: Southern States Energy Board, Western Interstate Energy Board, Mid West Council of State Governments.

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: NRC is in full compliance with the requirements of SBREFA and the Regulatory Flexibility Act for applicable rulemakings. For example, the final Fee Rule for FY 2003 and FY 2004, and the proposed Fee Rule for FY 2005 contain a Regulatory Flexibility Analyses and a SBREFA determination. NRC, an independent regulatory agency, is not bound by the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act; however, the SFST Program assists the Agency in regularly posting the overall regulatory agenda consistent with Executive Order 12866. Also, before a rulemaking is initiated, Program staff prepares a rulemaking plan (RP) for Commission approval that describes the regulatory issue, analyzes alternative approaches, including "no action," identifies resource impacts, and describes how the rule would support achievement of strategic goals -- this RP is a significant tool in ensuring that effective and comprehensive analyses of proposed regulatory actions are completed and reviewed prior to beginning a formal rulemaking process. An example of implementation, as discussed in 3RG1, was Program issuance of a rule as a result of a petition for the storage of GTCC at an interim storage facility. This rule allows licensees greater flexibility in selecting a regulatory approach to storing GTCC waste. The Agency guidelines for regulatory analysis are in compliance with OMB's guidance for regulatory analysis, Circular A-4.

Evidence: 69 FR 22664, 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171, Revision of Fee Schedules; NUREG/BR-0053, Rev. 5, NRC Regulations Handbook, March 2001; NUREG-BR-0058, Revision 4, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Report, Sept 2004, p. 194-195; Interim Storage for Greater than Class C Waste 66 FR 51823 - final rule.

Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals?

Explanation: The Program is continuously monitoring the adequacy of its regulations through routine activities such as inspections, review of incident reports and stakeholder feedback, and federal agency coordination. The Part 71 and 72 regulations are "self-contained" and do not overlap with other regulations, and the Program uses these regulations on a daily basis as it reviews license applications and conducts inspections; therefore, the regulations are continuously under systematic review. For example, each new storage cask design or amendment is subjected to the rulemaking process, including an opportunity for public comment. The Program's rulemaking procedures require an evaluation of all proposed rulemakings against NRC's strategic goals and implements OMB's Information Quality Guidelines (IQGs). Additionally, NRC's website has specific information regarding the IQGs. The process for Part 72 CoC rulemakings was expedited for amendments to existing cask systems; this effort shortened the process and reduced burden on the industry. The ongoing NAS transportation review and the Package Performance Study will assess whether necessary regulatory or guidance changes are necessary. Information from these studies will be used to inform the need for future changes to the program. The Program will evaluate any recommendations resulting from the NAS reviews. If any program changes are necessary as a result of the Program's review of NAS recommendations, they will be presented to the Commission for its review and approval. Another example is the alignment of backfitting requirements across the Agency to help assure regulatory consistency and effectiveness. To ensure international consistency, the Program, with DOT, has ongoing interactions with IAEA on international transportation standards and guides. As an active member in IAEA technical meetings, the Program is subject to a 2-year cycle to systematically review and revise, if necessary, these requirements. The typical activities included in the Program's transportation communication plan includes elements necessary to accomplish this international coordination and consistency review.

Evidence: NAS studies: 1. "Safety and Security of Spent of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, 2004 " 2. Transportation of Radioactive Waste; Package Performance Study: NUREG-1768, Draft Report: Package Performance Study Test Protocols, 2/2003; Package Performance Study Information NUREG/CR-6768, "Spent Nuclear Fuel Transportation Package Performance Study Issues Report, 01/2001; Part 71 SECY-01-0035, 67 FR 21390 (proposed rule) SECY-03-0141, 69 FR 3698 (final rule); Communication Plan for transportation, 2/18/2004; Information Quality Guidelines, 67 FR 61695; Streamlining of Part 72 CoC process (notifications et. al.) SECY-00-0018, 1/4/2000, SECY-01-0226, 12/18/2001.

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

Explanation: For all rulemakings, the Program conducts a Regulatory Analyses (RA) that includes a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether proposed changes maximize benefits. The RA guidance includes applicable OMB guidance, such as bundling of requirements and selecting regulatory alternatives that gain the largest net value/benefit. NRC regulations provide for alternatives for maintaining records, for example, a recent rulemaking clarified the use of electronic means to communicate with the Agency. The regulations for transportation and storage achieve program goals and are achieving maximum net benefits as demonstrated by performance indicators. From the inception of the Part 71 and 72 rules, these regulations have been continually focused on providing net benefits to the stakeholder, for example: (1) Part 71 removes burden from the industry by providing performance-based accident test conditions for package designers to meet, ensuring world-wide compatibility and enabling innovative and state-of-the art designs by the industry; and (2) Part 72 has continuously focused on its original "enabling" goal by acknowledging that regardless of future developments, spent fuel would have to be stored for a number of years prior to its ultimate disposition, and that the storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI [i.e., interim storage facility] would be a likely additional new step in the nuclear fuel cycle. Part 71 and 72 also provide flexibility to licensees in meeting regulatory requirements, as discussed in 3.RG1 and exemplified by the Part 72 GTCC rule, which provided licensees greater flexibility for storage of SF and wastes. Part 71 specifies performance standards which allows licensees flexibility in package design as well as how they demonstrate regulatory compliance.

Evidence: Management Directive 6.3, The Rulemaking Process; NUREG/BR-0053, Rev. 5, NRC Regulations Handbook, March 2001; NUREG-BR-0058 Rev. 4, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Report, Sept 2004; Part 71 - SECY-03-0141 (69 FR 3698); Final Rule, Interim Storage for Greater Than Class C Waste, 66 FR 51823; Electronic Maintenance and Submission of Information 68 FR 58792.

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

Explanation: The SFST Program has met all of its long-term safety and security goals as evidenced in the NRC's FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report. Further, the Program continues to improve as demonstrated by (1) new security performance measures and (2) goals and targets that remain ambitious, are bound to pre-established time frames, and have annual performance measures that align and roll up to LT performance measures. The safety and enabling performance for the Program continues to successfully contribute to the achievement of National interests and has also resulted in achievement of long-term performance goals that directly benefit all stakeholders, including members of the public.

Evidence: NUREG-1614, Vol. 3, NRC FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan, pp 8-13; NRC Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2004, NUREG-1542, Vol. 10, pp 60-76; Nuclear Energy Institute, Transporting Radioactive Materials, Spent Fuel Transportation, Interim Storage, key facts, August 2004; Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED) and Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System; NRC FY 2006 Performance Budget, NUREG-1100, Vol. 21, p. 62-65.

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

Explanation: The Program has met all of its safety- and security-related annual performance goal measures as evidenced in the NRC's FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report. The Program identifies ways to continually improve, for example: improving performance measures and continuing to revise targets values based on analysis of internal and external performance. Operating plans are evaluated monthly by Program management and, quarterly by senior management in order to reallocate resources. Significant Program improvements have been incorporated to (1) better evaluate outcome and output performance measures (2) align these goals and performance measures and (3) monitor program improvement initiatives designed to enhance Program effectiveness and efficiency.

Evidence: NRC FY 2006 Performance Budget, NUREG-1100, Vol 21, pp 62-65; NRC FY 2005 Performance Budget, NUREG-1100, Vol 20, pp 100-101; NRC FY 2004 Performance Budget, NUREG-1100, Vol 19, pp 103-104. NRC Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2004, NUREG-1542, Vol 10, pp 60-76; Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2003, NUREG-1542, Vol 9, pp 52-61; Performance and Accountability Report FY 2002, NUREG-1542, Vol 8, pp 55-65; Nuclear Waste Safety Arena FY 2005 Leadership Operating Plans. Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED Quarterly reports). Abnormal Occurrence data (COMSECY-05-0035, Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: FY 2004).

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

Explanation: The Program has both quantitative and qualitive output/outcome measures for efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness. In FY01, a rule change for Part 72 allowed licensees to make certain changes to their dry cask storage system without seeking advance NRC approval. This rule change reduced unnecessary burden on the industry by approximately $300,000 per year, assuming a 20% reduction in the actual number of submittals (20 to 16) received, as forecasted by the staff rulemaking assessment. In 2002, the signature authority level for transportation and storage certificates and licenses was changed from Division Director to the Section Chief, streamlining the approval process and improving timeliness, by eliminating two levels of review. In 2003, a change was made to the event notification requirements of Part 72 that reduced licensee burden by consolidating certain notification requirements and lengthening, where appropriate, required reporting periods for other notifications. In FY 2004, staff extension of the QA program renewal period and alignment of IAEA regulations with those of Part 71 resulted in further burden reduction. Recent initiatives, including the Licensing Process Review Task Force, Business Process Improvement of the licensing process, NMSS Quality Audits, and the Master Inspection Plan have all resulted in efficiencies and effectiveness improvements in the conduct of Program activities. These actions have contributed to improve timeliness of completing transportation designs reviews in 8 months or less, from 80% in FY 2003 to 93% in FY 2004, and enhanced the timeliness of completing actions from 80% to 90% of reviews that had been in house. Since licensee economic decisions are based on, in part, the completion of regulatory actions, the timeliness of Program activities also results in schedule and overall cost savings for the licensees.

Evidence: NRC FY 2006 Performance Budget, NUREG-1100, Vol. 21, pp 62-65; NRC Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2004, NUREG-1542, Vol. 10, pp 60-76; SFPO Licensing Process Task Force Product, 12/20/02; 6/24/03 briefing on Quality Audit findings for SFPO projects; Business Process Improvements (BPI) of the licensing process. SECY-02-0103, 6/18/03; COMSECY-03-0025 and 03-0058 status updates; Sept'03 SFPO management meeting; April 2004 NMSS Licensing/Certification BPI Report; 10 CFR Part 72 rule change to streamline the CoC process, effective Mar'01; SFPO Quality Assurance renewal period effort; RIS 2004-18 and RIS 2004-20).

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

Explanation: The Program is a unique independent regulatory program, and its performance compares very favorably to other programs. For example, the transportation of radioactive materials has an unparalleled safety record amongst hazardous material transportation. Despite millions of annual shipments, there are no known instances of injury or death, or release of radioactive material attributable to the failure of NRC-approved package designs. The Program also consistently meets its long-term and annual performance measures; it effectively and efficiently contributes to NRC Strategic Plan outcomes; and it has outcome-based and efficiency (timeliness) measures. The Program also performs cost-benefit comparisons in its Regulatory Impact Analyses. Lastly, unlike some other federal agencies where inspection programs are typically conducted in response to adverse events, such as industrial accidents or medical events, the SFST Program pro-actively plans and conducts risk-informed inspections to verify compliance and ensure safety prior to, during, and following the licensed activity.

Evidence: NRC Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2004, NUREG-1542, Vol. 10, pp 60-76; OMB PART Program Summaries, FY 2006 Budget; U.S. Department of Transportation, Hazardous Materials Information System; Injuries/deaths by HazMat Class; Serious Incidents; SECY-05-0035, Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2004.

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

Explanation: The Program does not have assessments performed regularly. There have been evaluations performed by independent entities, such as NAS, GAO, and the NRC IG, that have touched upon some aspects of the program. However, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the type described in the PART guidance. Over the coming year, the program needs to secure a regularly scheduled independent assessment of sufficient scope and quality, including an evaluation of the program's annual and long term performance measures, ability to deliver results to all relevant stakeholders, and efficiency and effectiveness with regard to strategic planning and program management.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: The Regulatory Analysis (RA) supporting every rulemaking action addresses the direct costs or savings to licensees, NRC, and State/local agencies; non-radiation risk-related costs or savings to the general public; averted onsite impacts; and changes in regulatory efficiency or scientific knowledge needed for regulatory purposes. RAs in most cases show a net benefit for regulations for the use of radioactive materials regulated by the SFST Program, such as transportation (Part 71). Otherwise, NRC proceeds with rulemaking only when public health and safety or common defense and security will require such action. In all aspects of rulemaking, public health and safety remains paramount among goals and guides NRC decisions. The Program streamlined the process for Part 72 CoC rulemakings to expedite the approval process for amendments to existing cask systems, unless the particular amendment is deemed to be controversial. This effort has resulted in an estimated savings to stakeholders (societal/public cost) of approximately $126,000 per year, by shortening the rulemaking process, making it more efficient and effective. In addition, the Part 72.48 rulemaking has reduced unnecessary burden on the industry by approximately $300,000 per year assuming a 20% reduction in the actual number of submittals (116 to 93) received, as forecasted by the staff rulemaking assessment. With respect to transportation, the Program adopted the IAEA radionuclide exemption values. This will add minimal increase in cost while maximizing net benefits in that worker doses will be less variable and minimized, resulting in increased safety. This change will increase regulatory efficiency between regulatory agencies and facilitate international shipments.

Evidence: Management Directive 6.3, The Rulemaking Process; NUREG/BR-0053, Rev. 5, NRC Regulations Handbook, March 2001; NUREG-BR-0058 Rev. 4, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Report, Sept 2004; NRC Strategic Plan FY 2004 - FY 2009, NUREG 1614, Vol. 3; Part 71- SECY-03-0141 (Final Rule, 69 FR 3698) and SECY-04-0178; Streamlining of Part 72 CoC Process SECY-00-0018, 1/4/2000, SECY-01-0226, 12/18/2001; Examples of CoC rulemakings: (1) Direct Final Rule, "List of Approved Fuel Storage Casks: NAC-MPC Revision...," 69 FR 61592, 10/20/04 and 69 FR 50053, 8/13/2004, (2) PR (67 FR 6203, 2/11/2002) and FR (68 FR 463 - Final Rule): List of Approved... Casks: Standardized Advanced NUHOMS-24PT1.