ML20247J484

SA-101 Examples

ML20247J484
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/26/2020
From:	Kathy Modes, Stephen Poy, Roldon L NRC/NMSS/DMSST
To:
MODES K/NMSS/MSST
References
Download: ML20247J484 (1)

Text

EXAMPLES OF LESS THAN SATISFACTORY FINDINGS OF PROGRAM PERFORMANCE FOR STATUS OF MATERIALS INSPECTION The effectiveness of a Program is assessed through the evaluation of the criteria listed in Section III, Evaluation Criteria, of MD 5.6. These criteria are NOT intended to be exhaustive but provide a starting point for the IMPEP review team to evaluate this indicator. The review team should also take into consideration other relevant mitigating factors that may have an impact on the Programs performance under this performance indicator. The review team should consider a less than satisfactory finding when the identified performance issue(s) is/are programmatic in nature, and not isolated to one aspect, case, individual, etc. as applicable.

This list is not all inclusive and will be maintained and updated in the IMPEP Toolbox on the state communications portal website at https://scp.nrc.gov.

A.

The following are examples of review findings that resulted (or could result) in a Program being resulted satisfactory, but needs improvement for this indicator:

1. The Program conducted a total of 291 inspections of high priority licensees and 65 initial inspections during the review period. Of the 291 high priority inspections, the review team determined that 37 inspections were completed overdue by more than 25 percent of the inspection frequency prescribed in IMC 2800, and that one high priority inspection was overdue at the time of the review. Of the 65 initial inspections, the review team determined that 22 inspections were completed more than 12 months after license issuance and that no initial inspections were overdue at the time of the review.

Overall, the review team calculated that the Program performed 16.8 percent of its inspections overdue during the review period. The team determined more than 10 percent, but less than 25 percent, of Priority 1, 2, and 3 and initial inspections were inspected at intervals exceeding the frequencies prescribed in IMC 2800.

2. The review team evaluated the Programs timeliness of issuance of inspection findings.

The Program has a goal of issuing inspection correspondence within 30 days of the final date of the inspection. The review team determined that 30 of the 40 inspection reports reviewed were issued within the 30-day goal. All inspections reviewed except one inspection were clear inspections.

B.

The following are examples of review findings that resulted (or could result) in a Program being found unsatisfactory for this indicator:

1.

The Program conducted 70 high priority inspections during the review period. Thirty of these inspections were conducted overdue by more than 25 percent of the inspection frequency prescribed in IMC 2800. The Program performed 21 initial inspections during the review period, 13 of which were conducted overdue.

2.

The team identifies that the Program issued 18 of the 30 inspection reports greater than 30 days after the inspection exit. All inspections except one were clear inspections. The team determined that the 17 clear inspection findings were issued late due to a backlog of work on the Program Supervisors desk.

3.

The Program granted 126 reciprocity permits but did not conduct any reciprocity inspections in three of the calendar years during the review period. In the year leading up to the review, the Program performed 3 reciprocity inspections.