ML20154A226
| ML20154A226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/10/1983 |
| From: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Axelrad J, Jordan E, Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151H783 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-868 NUDOCS 8809120116 | |
| Download: ML20154A226 (14) | |
Text
V i
o I l >
, g l UNITED STATES
[,
J, '
p, [ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g l
/
WASHINGTON. D. C. PM45
- 1......
MAY 10 53 MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor. Director, Division of Quality Assurance, ,
Safeguards, and Inspection Programs '
Edward L. Jordan, Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response l,laneA.Axelrad,ActingDirector,EnforcementStaff Charles W. Thayer, Director, Technical Training Center ,
James L. Blaha, Chief, Program Support Branch FROM: James H. Sniezek, Deputy Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement l
SUBJECT:
OVERALL REGIONAL ASSESSMENT Attached for your action is the structure for IE's evaluation of overall regional performance thru May 31, 1983. As discussed in our meeting, you are :
to provide a one page summary assessment for each item you a*e assigned. The summary assessment should include a rating for each region with a short l paragraph of discussion which substantiates that region's rating, i Please provide your assessments to Jim Blaha by June 1, 1983. He will
- summarize the results and we will all meet subsequently with Mr. DeYoung for discussion, f .
J ,e 4
H. Sniezek, 0@uty Director O f ce of Inspection and Enforcement i
Enclosure:
As stated t i
I f
FCIA-87-I6& '
I 8809120116 000017 PDR hNO 860 a l l i
+
'4 I. FORMAT ASSESSMENTS LEAD A. SALP Taylor B. Reactor Security Taylor C. CAT / PAT Taylor D. Reactive Vendor Taylor E. Physical Security at Fuel Facilities Taylor F. Radiological Safety Taylor G. Emergency Response Capability Jordan H. Enforcement Policy Implementation Axel rad II. QUANTITATIVE PEASURES A. Training Grades / Participation Thayer B. Inspector Utilization Blaha C. Staffing Levels Blaha D. Timeliness of Inspection Reports Blaha E. Percent of Inspection Program Complete Blaha F. Allegation Close-Out Blaha G. Timeliness of Enforcement Blaha
!!I CUALITATIVE APPRAISALS A. Bulletin Followup Jordan B. Events Followup Jordan C. Inspection Reports Taylor D. Technical / Regulatory Judgment Taylor / Jordan /Axelrad E. Adequacy of Program Performance Taylor /Jorcan/ Axel rad F. PN Preparatien Jordan G. Daily Report /Ce munications Tayle r/Jo rdan/ Axel rad
m 4
Formal Assessments (Currently Completed or in Progress)
A. SALP. Assess each Regional Office's performance in the SALP process, including adherence to agency guidance and IE Manual Chapters.
Contact:
P. McKee, DQASIP.
B. Reactor Security. Assess each Regional Office's performance of inspection procedures related to powar reactor security.
Contact:
W. Fisher, 00ASIP.
C. CAT / PAT. That element of a CAT or PAT inspection that independently assesses Regicnal performance at a specific facility. Two CAT inspections (Regions II and IV) and one PAT inspection (Region !)
will be available.
D. Reactive Vendor. Assess Region IV's performance of reactive inspections of vendor activities.
Contact:
M. Peranich, DCAS!P.
E. Physical Security at Fuel Facilities. Assess the physical protection inspection program for Group 1 Fuel Facilities and for SNM in transit. Only Region II and V were assessed.
Contact:
L. Cobb, 00ASIP.
F. Radiological Safety. Assess each Regional Office's radiological safety inspections of Fuel Facilities and Materials Licenseet.
Contact:
L. Cobb, DQASIP.
G. Emergency Resoonse Capability. Assess each Regional Office's response capability activities in accordance with IE oral and written guidance.
Contact:
E. Weinstein, DEPER.
H. Enforcement Policy Implementation. Assess each Regicnal Office's imolementation of the current enforcement policy with emphasis on enforcerent level categori:ation.
Contact:
J. Axelrad, tS
Quantitative Measures A. Training Grades / Participation. Measure each Regional Office's staff qualifications as indicated by the average grade achieved and/or by the amount of inspector participation for training sponsored by or given at the TTC.
B. Inspector Utilization. Measure each Regional Office's use of available inspectors to perform IE inspection (by programs) in accordance with Budgetary Guidance.
C. Staffing levels. Measure each Regional Office's staffing (i.e., FTE's) of IE Program personnel: resident inspectors, region-based inspectors, other professionals, etc.
D. Timeliness of Inscection Reports. Sample inspection records to measure each Regional Office's timeliness in issuing inspection reports (by program).
E. Percent of Inspection Program Complete. Measure each Regional Office's completion of the routine (i.e., schecuable) inspection program (by program).
F. Allegation Close-Out. Measure each Regional Office's close-out of identitled allegaticns.
G. Timeliness of Enforcement. Sample inspection records to measure each Regional Office's timeliness in issuing enforcement actions (by program).
i Qualitative Aporaisals A. Bulletin Followup. Appraise each Regional Office's followup on active IE Bulletins.
B. .Even_ts Followup. Appraise each Regional Office's followup on licensee-reported events.
C. Inspection Reports. Sample inspection reports to appraise each Regional Office's documentation and description of ccepleted inspections.
D. Technical / Regulatory Judgeents. Subjectively appraise the technical and other regulatory judgments made by each Regional Office in the perfomance 6 of IE programs.
E, Adequacy of Program Perfomance. Subjectively appraise the adequacy of program performance of each Fegional Office. Should be based on input from formal assessments and other observations / interactions throughout the year.
F. PN Preparation. Appraise each Regional Office's preparation of PNs. -
G. Daily Report /Cerrunications. Subjectively appraise the daily reports and other connunications from each Regional Cffice to keep IE informed about inspection issues and concerns.
l i
i t
l
d o .
O REGIONAL ASSESSMENT DESCR!pTION AND FINDINGS STATEMENT (Fictional Strawman)
INSPECTION ASSISTANCE FOLLOWUP - A Qualitative Appraisal
Description:
Regional Offices are supposed to perform specific inspection procedures and/or obtain information in response to IE Divisional requests. ,
4 OQASIP staff reviewed available information on requests made during six months '
ending in March 1983 and qualitatively appraised Regional performance.
Rate; Region A Oid not respond in a timely was to many Needed Improvement, l
requetts. Never completed specific l inspections requested for over greased j valve issue.
Region 8 Responded quickly and completely to all Exceeded Expectations 1 renuests. Only a few requests were made l of this Region.
i Region C Usually responded in 3 timely way to most Met *xpectations i information requests. Completed all special inspection requests in requested time. Received significantly more requests
- than any other Region.
l Region 0 Responded quickly to all requests cor Pet Expectations information and special inspections, i
] Sometimes information was incomplete, i l
i I
4 I
I I
f I ,
I I
.4 '
Ratings t l
Exceeded Expectations -
Performance exceeded what was,2xpected, i Meet Expectations -
Performance was acceptable and consistently met what was expected..
Needed Improvement . - Performance, on the average. was below what was
- expected and needed improvement.
O 0
P 0
4 4
f l
1 m
( , si -
e's"8c /4 d// q" s .
( MMLN j '
/p oq'b. UNITED STATES -
-' ~ " --
j l
I " ' ' "
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' /
f[ .} ) ,(- e WASHING TON. D. C. 20555 N g) d[_ /
S, b 'pshLI. jn ,
P. a
,_ e .
E= i_
0%
MEMORANDUM FOR: Jamas M. Taylor, Director, Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs Edward L. Jordan, Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Jane A. Axelrad, A: ting Director, Enforcement Staff Charles W. Thayer, Director, Technical Training Center James L. Blaha, Chief, Program Support Branch FROM: James H. Sniezek, Deputy Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
OVERALL REGIONAL ASSESSMENT Attached for your action is the structure for IE's evaluation of overall regional performance thru May 31, 1983. As discussed in our meeting, you are to provide a one page summary assessment for each item you are assigned. The summary assessment should include a rating for each region with a short paragraph of discussion which substantiates that region's rating.
Please provide your assessments s Jim Blaha by June 1, 1983. He will summarize the results and we w il all meet subsequently with Mr. DeYoung for di,scussion.
James H. Sniezek, Deputy Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
As stated f o z p) - V '? T 4 (
M//
)
I e
y .
I. FORMAT ASSESSMENTS LEAD A. SALP Taylor B. Reactor Security Taylor C. CAT / PAT Taylor D. Reactive Vendor Taylor E. Physical Security at Fuel Facilities Taylor F. Radiological Safety Taylor G. Emergency Response Capability Jordan j H. Enforcement Policy Implementation '
Axelrad II. QUANTITATIVE MEASURES A. Training Grades / Participation Thayer B. Inspector Utilization Blaha C. Staffing Levels Blaha D. Timeliness of Inspection Reports Blaha E. Percent of Inspection Program Complete Blaha F. Allegation Close-Out Blaha j G. Timeliness of Enforcement Blaha
'r III. QUALITATIVE APPRAISALS A. Bulletin Follonup Jordan B. Events Followup Jordan C. Inspection Reports Taylor D. Technical / Regulatory Judgment Taylor / Jordan /Axelrad E. Adequacy of Program 'e formance Taylor / Jordan /Axelrad F. PN Preparation Jordan G. Daily Report /Comunications Taylor / Jordan /Axelrad
,4 Formal Assessments (Currently Completed or in Progress)
A. SALP. Assess each Regional Office's performance in the SALP process, including adherence to agency guidance and IE Manual Chapters. ,
Contact:
P. McKee, 00ASIP. '
B. Reactor Security. Assess each Regional Office's performance of t inspection procedures related to power reactor security.
Contact:
W. Fisher, OQASIP.
C. CAT / PAT. That element of a CAT or PAT inspection that independently assesses Regional performance at a specific facility. Two CAT inspections (Regions II and IV) and one PAT inspection (Region I) will be available.
D. Reactive Vendor. Assess Region IV's performance of reactive inspections of vendor activities.
Contact:
M. Peranich, DQASIP.
E. Physical Security at Fuel Facilities. Assess the physical protection inspection program for Group 1 Fuel Facilities and-for SNM in '
transit. Only Region II and V were assessed.
Contact:
L. Cobb, DQASIP, F. Radiological Safety. Assess each Regional Office's radiological safety inspections of Fuel Facilities and Materials Licensees.
Contact:
L. Cobb, 00ASIP.
G. Emergency Response Capability. Assess each Regional Office's response capability activities in accordance with IE oral and written guidance.
Contact:
E. Weinstein, OEPER.
H. Enforcement Policy Imolementation. Assess each Regional Office's
/ implementation of the current enforcement policy with emphasis on enforcement level categorization.
Contact:
J. Axelrad, ES
o
^uantitative Measures A. Training Grades / Participation. Measure each Regional Office's staff qualifications as indicated by the average grade achieved and/or by the amount of inspector participation for training sponsored by or given at the TTC.
B. Inspector Utilization. Measure each Regional Office's use of available inspectors to perform IE inspection (by programs) in accordance with Budgetary Guidance.
C. Staffing Levels. Measure each Regional Office's staffing (i.e. , FTE's) of IE Program personnel: resident inspectors, region-based inspectors, other professionals, etc.
D. Timeliness of Inspection Recor*.s. Sample inspection records to measure each Regional Office's timeliness in issuing inspection reports (by program).
E. Percent of Inspection Program Complete. Measure each Regional Office's completion of tne routine (i.e., scheduable) inspection program (by program).
F. Allegation Close-Out. Measure each Regional Office's close-out of identitled allegations.
G Sample inspection records to measure each N . Timeliness of Enforcement. Regional Office's timeliness in issuing enforcement ac
o if Qualit'ative Appraisals A. Bulletin Followup. Appraise each Regional Office's followup on active II ,
Bulletins.
B. Events Followup. Appraise each Regional Office's followup on licensee-reported events.
C. Inspection Reports. Sample inspection reports to appraise each Regional Office's documentation and description of completed inspections.
D. Technical / Regulatory Judgments. Subjectively appraise the technical and other regulatory judgments maoe by each Regional Office in the performance
. of IE programs. :
E. Adequacy of Program Performance. Subjectively appraise the adequacy of program performance of eacn Regior.31 Office. Should be based on input from formal assessments and other observations / interactions throughcut the t year.
I F. PN Preparation. Appraise each Regional Office's preparation of PNs. -
l G. Daily Report / Communications. Subjectively appraise the oa'ly reports and other comunications from each Regional Office to keep IE Informed about ,
inspection issues and concerns.
4 J
e F
I !
I i
4 k
?
c I
3 i
1
-_..-_._.__,_.m,m _- ._,_ ,__ _ __- -.- ,,,. -._____,,,...r._
r e
REGIONAL ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS STATEMENT (Fictional Strawman)
~
INSPECTION ASSISTANCE FOLLOWUP - A Qualitative Appraisal
Description:
Regional Offices are supposed to perform specific inspection procedures and/or ootain information in response to IE Divisional requests.
DQASIP staff reviewed available information on requests made during six months ending in March 1983 and qualitatively appraised Regional performance.
Rating LS Region A Did not respond in a timely was to many Needy Improvement, requests. Never completed specific inspectiors requested for over-greased valve issue.
Region B Responded quickly and completely to all Exceeded Expectations !
requests. Only a few requests were made of this Region.
Region C Usually responded in a timely way to most Meetr' Expectations i
information requests. Completed all '
special inspection requests in requested time. Received significantly more requests than any other Region.
Region D Respcnded quickly to all requests for Meets Expectations information and special inspections.
Sometimes information was incomplete. .
i i
r i
j i
i r'
I i
l . . - - . . . - - . - _ - - - . - - . - _ - _ _ - _ _ _
g , .e e Ratings Exceeded Expectations -
Performance exceeded what was expected.
Meet Expectations -
Performance was acceptable and consistently met what was expected.
Needed I:.':provement Performance, on the average, was below what was t expected and needed improvement. '
I
{
~~
1
)
e I
i r
l
,