ML20249A246

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Performance Evaluation Results for ACRS & ACNW
ML20249A246
Person / Time
Issue date: 06/01/1998
From: Larkins J
NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW), Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
References
SECY-98-123, SECY-98-123-01, SECY-98-123-1, SECY-98-123-R, NUDOCS 9806160222
Download: ML20249A246 (28)
v • d • e


Text

_ - - _

i p'"% 00000000000o000000000000

+  % o RELEASEDTOTHE PDR .

o, 1

8

dahr >

dat0 initiah

/ .............. ........ E POLICY ISSUE June 1, 1998 SECY-98-123 FOR: The Commissioners FROM: John T. Larkins, Executive Director Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

SUBJECT:

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR ACRS AND ACNW BACKGROUND in response to a draft circular from the Office of Management and Budget dated August 3,1994, the ACRS and ACNW each reviewed its planned activities and developed performance z

measures and assessment standards. These were provided to the Commission in a February 14,1995 memorandum. Subsequently, as part of the agency's strategic assessment, an issue paper was developed on independent oversight (COMSECY-96-028, Strategic Assessment issue Paper: Independent Oversight (DSI-19]). In a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) of August 21,1996, associated with that COMSECY, the Commission requested each Committee "to produce a set of criteria, for Commission consideration, under which the performance of the committee would be evaluated in the future. The committee should then periodically review itself against these criteria and provide the results of this evaluation to the Commission."

The Executive Director of the ACRS/ACNW Offica responded to this direction in a memorandum dated December 23,1996. Subsequently, the agency announced the development of an agency-wide Strategic Plan that included a requirement for each office to prepare an Operating Plan.

Because the requirements of the Operating Plan overlapped those of the SRM, the Executive Director of the ACRS/ACNW Office and members of his staff met with representatives of each Commissioner's office to discuss performance criteria that would meet both the requirements of the SRM and the Strategic Plan initiative. g It w&s agreed that the ACRS and the ACNW would each prepare an Operating Plan that would /

include self-assessment measurements and other suggestions contained in the SRM.

OPERATING PLANS Both Committees have identified Priority issues for 1998-1999. The Commission has received 95 \h >

these Priority issues and has commented on the ACNW priorities. The Operating Plans of both

Contact:

Roxanne Summers NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 415-7371 5 WO'4.ING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS (

9806160222 PDR SECY 98016i " C k i! 1 98-123 R PDR Y ((O y L { \\ \

s

-O 9

- Committees list Planned Accomplishments for each issue, together with milestones and target dates for their completion. These Operating Plans are living documents that will be updateJ on a quarteriy basis w reflect the actual activities of each Committee and the date each activity was accomplished. The first quarterly updates are now in progress. In addition, the Committees developed procedures for assess;iig performance that are described below under "Self-Assessment Measures."

SURVEYS AND RESULTS Key measures of the performance of an NRC advisory committee include the timeliness, i effectiveness, and quality of its advice. The last two attributes can be judged, to some degree,  !

by monitoring the actions taken by NRC in response to the advice. However, it is sometimes '

difficult to evaluate the impact of the Committees' advice on their stakeholder. Therefore, a survey was designed to collect the current opinions of the stakeholder of the ACRS and ACNW and identify areas for improvement. Those surveyed included Commissioners and their staff members; the Executive Director for Cperations; the Offices of Public Affairs, the General Counsel, and the Secretary of the Commission; Division Directom in all NRC Offices; Regional Administrators; and selected representatives of the industry and the public, including the states and other Federal agencies.

l The survey was designed to measure opinions in three areas: written documents, presentations, and the capabilities of the Committees, their staffs, and their consultants. The overall results of the survey affirmed the important role of the Committees in contr.buting to the NRC's mission, j with a large majority of the respondents agreeing that the Committees add value to the regulatory  ;

process. Areas forimprovement were also identified. Some of the key results of the survey are noted below:

. .- A majority agreed that the Committees provide a forum for the public.

. The technical capability and professionalism of members and staff for both Committees  ;

were ranked high. Overall, consultants for both Committees also ranked high; however, l certain ACRS consultants were rated somewhat lower.

l

+-' _The majority of NRC staff and others participating in Committee reviews reported that the value added by the ACRS and ACNW review was worth the resources they expended for ,

preparation 2nd participation. l j

The majority of those making presentations are satisfied with the facilities, the equipment, and the scheduling of presentations.

Committee letters and reports on specific topics are read and used extensively by respondents, although other Committee products are used less frequently.  !

l

. Complete reports of the results of each survey are included as Attachments 1 and 2 to this paper.

l

l o

I' 3 As a result of the survey, several areas for improving the performance of the Committees have been identified. The Committees will be examining ways to improve the value of their written products and the contribution of consultants and willimplement appropriate changes.

L S':LF-ASSESSMENT t MEASURES The Committees have instituted piecedures for reviewing their activities and monitoring their performance on a quarterly basis through an updated Operating Plan. In addition, letters and l reports will be carefully evaluated to determine the quality, effectiveness, and timeliness of the Committees' advice.~ Letters and reports will be assessed to determine if the Committees' advice was technically sound, clear and concise, relevant, balanced and unbiased; if it reflected state-of-the-art knowledge; and if it addressed a risk-significant issue. The letters and reports will also be assessed to determine whether they were responsive to Commission needs; were considered in Commission and staff decisions; were incorporated into NRC policies, programs, and regulations; and were forward-looking. The assessments will be based on the following:

1. Documented evidence that the advice was accepted or adopted
2. Solicited feedback from stakeholder t
3. Unsolicited feedback input for item 2 above will be solicited from members of the Commissioners' staff and the EDO, cognizant NRC staff members, outside groups, and the appropriate media representatives.

More in-depth performance evaluations will be made by the Committees every 12 to 18 montns.

SUMMARY

The ACRS and ACNW have, in response to the Commission's request, established goals for assessing each Committee's performance and have developed procedures for measuring the achievement of those goals. The ACRS/ACNW Office has surveyed stakeholder, identified areas for improvement, and is considering changes to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of both Committees. The results of the assessments so far have shown that both Committees appear to be cost-effective in terms of adding value to the regulatory process without unnecessarily burdening the NRC staff. The Committees will continue to monitor the efficacy of their operations and report periodically to the Commission.

V ,

John T. ' rkins, Executive Director Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Attachments: DISTRIBUTION:

1. . ACRS Survey Report Commissioners OCA EDO
2. ACNW Survey Report OGC ACRS SECY

~

OCAA ACNW OIG CIO OPA CFO

4 ACRS SURVEY REPORT PURPOSE The survey was designed to identify areas for improvement for the ACRS and establish goals for future performance assessments. The target groups were Commissioners, Commissioner Assistants, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO), the Offices of Public Affairs (OPA), the General Counsel (OGC), the Inspector General (OlG), and the Secretariat (SECY), Division Directors in the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD), Regional Administrators, and selected representatives of the industry and the public.

METHOD l

- The survey included 17 overall items, many of which hed a number of subelements as well as snace for comments / suggestions. The items were chosen to cover all areas of {

interaction between the ACRS and its stakeholder. In addition to using technical assistance from an external consultant, the survey was pilot-tested with three NRC staff members.

The survey had three sections: (1) ACRS Written Documents, (2) Presentations, and (3) Committee / Staff / Consultants Functioning. The first and third sections were to be completed by all respondents, and the second section was to be completed only by those who have made presentations before the Committee.

The final version of the survey was forwarded to 42 prospective respondents, accompanied by a cover letter from Dr. John Larkins, Executive Director, ACRS/ACNW.

' That letter explained the purpose of the survey and requested the respondents to reply

. by December 5,1997.

As of January 26,1998, fifty-seven percent (57%) of the prospective respondents had' returned the survey. The 24 respondents were distributed as follows: one Commissioner, staff from the other three Commissioners' offices, OPA, OGC, two EDO l staff, two from AEOD, three from NRR, and three Regional Adrhinistrators. We also received surveys from the Electric Power Research Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Westinghouse, Doc-Search Associates, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Mr. Terry Oldberg. The OlG declined to respond to the survey.

A codebook was established to code the survey responses. Those data were entered into a SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) computerized data base, and descriptive statistics computed. Most data are presented in percentages that have been rounded-off. Therefore,' occasionally a series of percentages for a survey item l t

will not total 100%. Parenthetical numbers that accompany percentages, or respondent comments / suggestions, refer to how many individuals selected /gave that response.

. i ATTACHMENT 1

Both "Not Applicable" and " Missing" responses were omitted from fin'al tabulations.

(Their omission contributes to the variability in the number of respondents cited per survey item.)

RESULTS Most of the data are presented in percentages. When more appropriate, in some instances the actual number of respondents is used in addition to, or in lieu of, percentages.

HIGHLIGHTS

=

MAJORITY (57-95%) CITED FOUR OF THE SIX DOCUMENTS (INCLUDING HOME PAGE) AS BEING USEFUL FREOUENTLY/OFTEN TO ALWAYS/ALMOST ALWAYS--Exception: Minutes (44%); Subcommittee Minutes (44%)

VAST MAJORITY (97%) INDICATED THAT THE LETTERS / REPORTS ARE BALANCED (100%) AND TECHNICALLY CORRECT (95%)

. VIEWS BY PRESENTERS ABOUT THE BENEFIT OF ACRS REVIEWS VARIED MARKEDLY: OF 14 RESPONDENTS, ALWAYS/ALMOST ALWAYS--

3, FREQUENTLY /OFTEN--4, ABOUT HALF-5, AND INFREQUENTLY / OCCASIONALLY-2 VAST MAJORITY (95%) INDICATED THAT TYPICALLY THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE OR MOST OF THE COMMITTEE IS INDEPENDENT, COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAUCIVil AND COOPERATIVE MAJORITY (73-87%) RATED AS EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD THE COMMITTEE'S OVERALL QUALITY OF WORK, TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, AND COVERAGE OF IMPORTANT AREAS BY ITS TECHNICAL SPECIALIZATIONS VAST MAJORITY (98%) INDICATED THAT TYPICALLY THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ENTIRE STAFF OR MOST OF THE STAFF IS COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAUCIVIL, COOPERATIVE AND EFFICIENT

- MAJORITY (69-85%) INDICATED THAT, TYPICALLY, THE FUNCTIONING OF ALL OR MOST CONSULTANTS IS COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAUCIVil AND COOPERATIVE,70% BELIEVED THAT MOST OR A FEW OF THE CONSULTANTS ARE INAPPROPRIATELY CONFRONTATIONAU OVERLY ARGUMENTATIVE AND MOST OR A FEW ARE TEDIOUS (NITPICKING)

__-- _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ __.___________._____._____-______.______.____m______ _ _________

l MAJORITY (77%) INDICATED THAT THE ACRS ADDS VALUE TO THE REGULATORY PROCESS FREQUENTLY /OFTEN (27%) TO ALMOST ALWAYS/ALWAYS (50%)

l VAST MAJORITY (91%) INDlCATED THAT THE ACRS SHOULD. NOT EXPAND ITS SCOPE TO OTHER TECHNICAL AREAS SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS THINK MORE LIKE REGULATORS BY EXPLAINING RATIONALE FOR POSITIONS TAKEN, STATE CONCLUSIONS MORE FORTHP!GHTLY

=

BE MORE PROACTIVE AND ANTICIPATE TRENDS REVIEW QUALIFICATIONS OF COMMITTEE IN AREAS SUGGESTED BY SURVEY REVIEW CONSULTANTS' EXPERTISE, DEMEANOR

=

PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON SURVEY RESULTS AND ACTIONS TAKEN l

l i

I

i

.I 4

l

1. ACRS DOCUMENTS i . MAJORITY (55-97%) EXPRESSED FAMILIARITY WITH THE FIVE DOCUMENTS:  !

l Highest: Letters / Reports on Specific Topics (97%) and Transcripts (83%); l Lowest: Summary Reports (66%), Minutes (62%), and Subcommittee Minutes  !

(55%)

. MAJORITY (69%) INDICATED THAT THE ONLY DOCUMENT THEY READ FREQUENTLY /OFTEN OR ALMOST ALWAYS/ALWAYS WAS: Letters / Reports on Specific Topics

. MAJORITY (66-86%) INDICATED THAT THEY READ THE OTHER FOUR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN HALF THE TIME: Subcommittee Minutes (86%),

Transcripts (76%), Minutes (75%), and Summary Reports (66%)

l

. MAJORITY (63-83%) CITED TWO PRIMARY REASONS FOR NOT READING A GIVEN DOCUMENT AT LEAST FREQUENTLY /OFTEN--(1) Only interested in certain meetings / topics; and (2) Not receiving it

. MAJORITY (67-100%) INDICATED THAT WHEN THEY READ A GIVEN DOCUMENT LESS THAN FREQUENTLY /OFTEN, IT IS NOT DUE TO THESE FACTORS: UNTIMELY RECElPT, USE OF ANOTHER MEANS, NOT HAVING THE TIME, OR BECAUSE THE INFORMATION IS OFTEN IRRELEVANT

= REGARDING FORMAT, MAJORITY (64-82*4) INDICATED THAT THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS ARE EASY TO SCAN / READ

. MAJORITY (73-100%) INDICATED THAT THE VARIO'US DOCUMENTS PROVIDE "ABOUT THE RIGHT AMOUNT" OF INFORMATION

. MAJORITY (57-95%) CITED FOUR OF THE SIX DOCUMENTS (INCLUDING HOME PAGE) AS BEING USEFUL FREQUENTLY /OFTEN TO ALWAYS/ALMOST ALWAYS-Exception: Minutes (44%); Subcommittee Minutes (44%)

. MAJORITY (84%) INDICATED THAT, FREQUENTLY /OFTEN TO ALMOST ALWAYS/ALWAYS, THE DOCUMENTS' INFORMATION IS CLEARLY PRESENTED

. MAJORITY (65-96%) INDICATED THAT, FREQUENTLY /OFTEN TO ALMOST ALWAYS/ALWAYS, FIVE OF THE SIX DOCUMENTS ARE TIMELY

5

. VAST MAJORITY (97%) INDICATED THAT THE LETTERS / REPORTS ARE BALANCED (100%) AND TECHNICALLY CORRECT (95%)

11. PRESENTATIONS

. VAST MAJORITY (87-100%) INDICATED TH.' ./ THEY ARE SATISFIED WITH THE PRESENTATION REQUESTS, THAT PRESENTERS ARE PROVIDED ENOUGH

! TIME FOR PREPARATION, THAT THE ROOMS AND FACILITIES ARE

, EXCELLENT TO GOOD, THAT THE AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT FUNCTIONS APPROPRIATELY, AND THAT ENOUGH TIME IS ALLOCATED FOR THE PRESENTATIONS

. VIEWS BY PRESENTERS ABOUT THE BENEFIT OF ACRS REVIEWS VARIED MARKEDLY: OF 14 RESPONDENTS, ALWAYS/ALMOST ALWAYS-3, FREQUENTLY /OFTEN--4, ABOUT HALF-5, AND INFREQUENTLY / OCCASIONALLY-2

. MAJORITY INDICATED THAT INFORMATION ON ROOM SET-UP/ AUDIO-VISUAL FACILITY PRESENTATION REQUIREMENTS IS NECESSARY (95%) AND SHOULD BE SENT TO PRESENTERS IN ADVANCE (69%); BUT A SPLIT  !

EMERGED AMONG RESPONDENTS ABOUT WHETHER THAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE INTERNAL ACRS/ACNW HOME PAGE i lil. COMMITTEE / STAFF / CONSULTANTS FUNCTIONING i e VAST MAJORITY (95%) INDICATED THAT TYPICALLY THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE OR MOST OF THE COMMITTEE IS INDEPENDENT, COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAL / CIVIL AND COOPERATIVE

. MAJORITY (67%) INDICATED THAT NONE OF THE COMMITTEE IS l

l APPROPRIATELY CONFRONTATIONAL/ OVERLY ARGUMENTATIVE; BUT ABOUT ONE-THIRD INDICATED THAT MOST OR A FEW OF THE COMMITTEE I. BEHAVE IN THAT MANNER

. THERE WAS A SPLIT REGARDING WHETHER THE COMMITTEE IS TEDIOUS (NITPICKING): NONE OF THE COMMITTEE (48%) VERSUS MOST OR ONLY A FEW OF THE COMMITTEE (52%)

. MAJORITY (73+87%) RATED AS EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD THE

' COMMITTEE'S OVERALL QUALITY OF WORK, TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, AND COVERAGE OF IMPORTANT AREAS BY ITS TECHNICAL SPECIALIZATIONS

6

. MAJORITY (72%) INDICATED THAT WITHIN THE LAST 5 YEARS, THE COMMITTEE'S WORK HAD BECOME (MUCH--39% OR SOMEWHAT--33%)

BETTER

. VAST MAJORITY (98%) INDICATED THAT TYPICALLY THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ENTIRE STAFF OR MOST OF THE STAFF IS COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAUCIVIL, COOPERATIVE AND EFFICIENT

. MAJORITY (76-81%) INDICATED THAT NONE OF THE STAFF IS INAPPROPRIATELY CONFRONTATIONAUOVERLY ARGUMENTATIVE, OR TEDIOUS (NITPICKING); BUT ABOUT ONE-FOURTH INDICATED THAT THE ENTIRE STAFF OR A FEW OF THE STAFF BEHAVE IN THAT MANNER

. MAJORITY (62-80%) RATED AS EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD THE STAFF'S OVERALL QUALITY OF WORK, TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, AND COVERAGE OF IMPORTANT AREAS BY ITS TECHNICAL SPECIALIZATIONS

. A SPLIT EMERGED REGARDING WHETHER THE STAFF'S WORK WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS WAS MUCH OR SOMEWHAT BETTER (48%), OR ABOUT THE SAME (52%)

. MAJORITY (69-85%) INDICATED THAT TYPICALLY THE FUNCTIONING OF ALL OR MOST CONSULTANTS IS COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAUCIVIL AND COOPERATIVE

. MAJORITY (70%) INDICATED THAT MOST (31%) OR A FEW (39%) OF THE CONSULTANTS ARE INAPPROPRIATELY CONFRONTATIONAU OVERLY ARGUMENTATIVE

. MAJORITY (70%) INDICATED THAT MOST (31%) OR A FEW (39%) OF HE CONSULTANTS ARE TEDIOUS (NITPICKING)

. MAJORITY (69%) RATED AS EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD THE CONSULTANTS' TECHNICAL EXPERTISE; BUT ONLY APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF GAVE

, THOSE RATINGS FOR OVERALL QUALITY OF WORK AND COVERAGE OF j IMPORTANT AREAS BY ITS TECHNICAL SPECIALIZATIONS

. MAJORITY (59%) INDICATED THAT DURING THE LAST 5 YEARS THE CONSULTANT'S WORK HAD REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME (42%) OR BECOME WORSE (17%)

. MAJORITY (71%) CITED THE ACRS AS A BENEFICIAL FORUM FOR THE PUBLIC

i 7

FREQUENTLY /OFTEN (25%) TO ALMOST ALWAYS/ALWAYS (46%)

=

MAJORITY (77%) INDICATED THAT THE ACRS ADDS VALUE TO THE REGULATORY PROCESS FREQUENTLY /OFTEN (27%) TO ALMOST ALWAYS/ALWAYS (50%)

VAST MAJORITY (91%) INDICATED THAT THE ACRS SHOULD NOT EXPAND ITS SCOPE TO OTHER TECHNICAL AREAS 1

i e i i

i l

l-

ACRS SURVEY RESULTS The' data are presented in percentages that have been rounded-off. Therefore, occasionally a series of percentages for a survey item will not total 100%. Parenthetical numbers refer to how many individuals selected /gave that response. Both "Not Applicable" and " Missing" responses have been omitted from the tabulations. (Their omission contributes to the variability in the number of respondents cited per survey item.)

)

I. ACRS DOCUMENTS A1. Written Document Familiarity (i.e., Heard About/ Read): . Ygs &

3. Letters / Reports on Specific Topics 97 (28) 3 ( I)
4. SummaryReports 66 (19) 35 (10)
5. ACRS Minutes 62 (18) 38 (11,
6. ACRS Subcommittee Minutes 55 (16) 45 (13)
7. ACRS Transcripts 83 (24) 17 ( 5)

A2. How Frequently ACRS Documents Read:

Always/Almost Frequently / About Half Infrequently / Never/Almost Always (A/AA) Often (F/0) The Time Occasionally (I/0) Never(N/AN)

A/AA F/D HALE ILQ N/AN

8. Letters / Reports on Specific Topics 45 (13) 24 (7) 7 (2) 21 ( 6) 3(1)
9. SummaryReports 24 ( 7) 3 (1) 7 (2) 21 ( 6) 45 (13)
10. Minutes 0 18 (5) 7 (2) 14 ( 4) 61 (17) i1. Subcommittee Minutes 4 ( 1) 7 (2) 4(1) 18 ( 5) 68 (19)

.12. Transcripts 3 ( 1) 7 (2) 14 (4) 45 (13) 31 ( 9)

A3. Reasons, If Document Read Less Than Frequently /Often:

ACRS Letters / Reports on Specific Topics Y_ca &

1

13. Not received 22 (2) 78 (7)

,14. Not received timely 0 100 (9)

15. Only interested in certain mtgs/ topics 78 (7) 22 (2) l 16. Don't have time 0 100 (9)
17. Often not relevant 33 (3) 67 (6)

, 18. . Use other means 22 (2) 78 (7) l

19. Other. 0 100 (9)

{

~

2 ACRS Summary Reports yff &

20. Not received 63 (12) 37( 7)
21. Nca received timely 0 100 (19)
22. Only interested in certain mtgs/ topics 37 ( 7) 63 (12)
23. Don't have time 5(1) 95 (18)
24. Often not relevant 21 ( 4) 79 (15)
25. Use other means 11( 2) 90 (17)
26. Other 5 ( 1) 95 (18)

ACRS Minutes: Yes &

27. Not received 83 (19) 17 ( 4)
28. Not received timely 9 ( 2) 91 (21)
29. Only interested in certain mtgs/ topics 39 ( 9) 61 (14)
30. Don't have time 30 ( 7) 70 (16)
31. Often not relevant ~ 17 ( 4) 83 (19)
32. U.ce other means 9 ( 2) 91 (21)
33. Other 0 100 (23)

ACRS Subcommittee Minutes: y_qs R

34. Not received 72 (18) 28 ( 7)
35. Not received timely 4(1) 96 (24)
36. Only interested in certain mtgs/ topics 52 (13) 48 (12)
37. Don't have time 36 ( 9) 64 (16)
38. Often not relevant 24 ( 6) 76 (19)
39. Use other means 12 ( 3) 88 (22)
40. Other 0 100 (24)

ACRS Transcripts yf2 B

41. Not received 42 (11) 58 (15)
42. Not received timely 8 ( 2) 92 (24)
43. Only interested in certain mtgs/ topics 73 (19) 27 ( 7)
44. Don't have time 39 (10) 62 (16)
45. Often not relevant 27 ( 7) 73 (19)
46. Use other means 15 ( 4) 85 (22)
47. Other 0 100 (25)

3 Format OK, But Too

_ A4. Format: Easy to Could Use Some Difficult To Scan / Read Improvement Scan / Read

48. Letters / Reports on Specific Topics 78 (21) 22 (6) 0
49. SummaryReports 82 (14) 18 (3) 0

- 50. Minutes 75 (12) 19 (3) 6 (1)

51. Subcommittee Minutes 64 ( -7) . 18 (2) 18 (2)

About Right AS. Information Amount: Not Enouah Amount Too Much

52. Letters / Reports on Specific Topics 8 (2) 92 (24) 0
53. Summary. Reports- 0 100 (17) 0
54. Minutes 13 (2) 81 (13) 6 (1)
55. Subcommittee Minutes 18 (2) 73 ( 8) 9 (1)

A6. Information Usefulness, Presentation Clearness, and Timeliness:

' Always/Almost Always '

Frequently /Often About Half the Time

Infrequently / Occasionally Never/Almost Never o-Usefulness M F]D . HALF EQ M i
56. Letters / Reports on Specific Topics 57 (13) 39(9) 4 (1) 0 0
59. Summary Reports 43 ( 6) 43 (6) 7 (1) 0 7 (1)
62. - Minutes 22 ( 2) 22 (2) 56 (5) 0 0 1
65. Subcommittee Minutes - 14 ( 1)' 43 (3) 33 (3) 0 0
68. Transcripts 53 ( 9) 12 (2) 29 (5) 6 (1) 0
71. Home Page 30(3) 40 (4) 20(2) 10 (1) 0 Clear Presentation M ELQ HALF EQ M
57. Letters / Reports on Specific Topics 40 (10) 40 (10) 20 (5) 0 0
60. SummaryReports 40 ( 6) 40(6) 13 (2) 7 (1) 0
63. Minutes 20 ( 2). 60 (6) 20 (2) 0 0 l

66.- Subcommittee Minutes 67 ( 6) 33 (3) 0 0 0

~

4

69. Transcripts 35 ( 6) 35 (6) 12 (2) 18 (3) 0
72. Home Page 11 ( 1) 78 (7) 11 (1) 0 0 Timeliness AIAA ElO HALF ILQ N/AN
58. Letters / Reports on Specific Topics 35 (8) 39(9) 22 (5) 4 (1) 0
61. Summary Reports 29 (4) 43 (6) 14 (2) 7 (1) 7 (1)
64. Minutes- 20 (2) '40 (4) 20 (2) 20(2) 0
67. Subcommittee Minutes 0 50 (4) 25 (2) 25 (2) 0

, 70. Transcripts 41 (7) 41 (7) 18 (3) 0 0

73. Home Page 22 (2) 67 (6) 11 (1) 0 0 A7. Letters / Reports Balanced and Technically Correct: Xss Ng
74. Balanced 100 (18) 0
75. Technically Correct 95 (20) 5 (1)

A/AA FLQ HALF IlQ N/AN

76. Balanced: Frequency- 35 (6) 29 (5) 35 (6) 0 0
77. Technically Correct: Frequency 53 (9) 35 (6) 12 (2) 0 0 4 II. PRESENTATIONS (Branch Chiefs and Industry Representatives)

Always/Almost Always Frequently /Often About Half the Time Infrequently / Occasionally Never/Almost Never AIAA FlQ HALF ILQ. N/AN

78. - Satisfied with presentation requests 85 (11) 15 (2) 0 0 0

- 79. Presentation requests are provided 73 (11) 27 (4) 0 0 0 with enough time for presenter to prepare

80. Meeting rooms and their facilities are 81 (13) 6 (1) 6 (1) 6 (1) 0 excellent to gmd
81. Audiovisual equipment functions appropriately 81 (13) 13 (2) 6 (1) 0 0
82. Enough time is provided for presentations 53 ( 8) 40 (6) 7 (1) 0 0
83. Benefit of ACRS review worth resources 21 ( 3) 29 (4)- 36 (5) 14 (2) 0 Information on room set-up/ audio-visual facility presentation requirements:

Yes No

84. Is not necessary 15 (2) 85 (11)

i

? 5

85. - Should be sent to presenters in advance 69 (9) 31 ( 4)
86. Should be placed on the internal Home Page 50 (6) 50 ( 6)

III. INTERACTIONS AND WORK WITH COMMITTEE, ITS STAIT, AND ITS

CONSULTANTS (Branch Chiefs and Industry Representatives)

C1. Typical Committee Interactions:

Only a Entire Most of the Few of the None of the Committee Committee Committee Committee

87. Independent 71 (17) 25 (6) 4 (1) 0
88. Courteous 67 (16) 29 (7) 4 (1) 0
89. Professional / Civil 67 (16) 29 (7) 0
90. Cooperative 4 (1) p 52 (12) 39(9) 9 (2) 0
91. Inappropriately Confron- 0 10 (2) 24 (5) 67 (14)

. tational/ Overly Argumentative

92. Tedious (Nitpicking) 0 14 (3) 38(8) 48 (10)
93. Other:" Knowledgeable" '100 ( 1) 0 0 0 C2. Typical Committee StaffInteraction:

Only a None Entire Most of the Few of the ofthe Staff Staff SIAff Staff

94. Councous 88 (21) 13 (3) 0 0 l
95. Cooperative 79 (19) 21 (5) 0 0 l
96. Professional / Civil 88 (21) 13 (3) 0 0  ;

< 97. Efficient 61 (14) 30(7) 9 (2) 0

98. Inappropriately Confrontational/ 5 ( 1) 0 14 (3) 81 (17) ,

L .

Overly Argumentative

' 99. Tedious (Nitpicking) 5 ( 1) 0 19 (4) 76 (16) 100. Other:" Unresponsive" 100 ( 1) 0 0 0 C3. Typical Committee Consultants Interactions: 1 Only a None of i

All Most ofthe Few of the the l Consultants Consultants Consultants Consultants

.101. Courteous 31 (4) 54 (7) 15 (2) _ 0 r; 102. Cooperative 31 (4) 39 (5) 31 (4) 0 103. Professional / Civil 23 (3) 54 (7) 23 (3) 0

'104. Inappropriately Confrontational 0 31 (4) 39(5) 31(4)

. Overly Argumentative I

f'.

L

6 105. Tedious (Nitpicking) 8 (1) 31(4) 39(5) 23 (3) 106. ~ Other 0 0 0 0 C4. ACRS Functioning: Committec/StafDConsultants: Very Excellent Czqqd ftqqd Enit . Epm Committee Functioning:

107. Overall quality ofits work is usually 39( 9) 52 (12) 4 (1) 4 (1) . 0 108. Its technical expenise is usually 58 (14) 25 (6) 4 (1) 0 13 (3) 109. Coverage of the important areas by.

its technical specializations is usually 32 ( 7) 41 (9) 23 (5) 0 5 (1)

Staff Functioning:

110. Overall quality ofits work is usually 25 (5) 55 (11) 20(4) 0 0 111. Its technical expertise is usually 19 (4) 43 (9) 33 (7) 0 5 'l) 112. Coverage of the important areas by its technical specializations is usually 21 (4) 42 (8) 32 (6) 5 (1) 0 Consultants Functioning:

113. Overall quality of their work is usually 15 (2) 31 (4) 39 (5) 8 (1) 8 (1) 114.' Their technical expertise is usually 46 (6) 23 (3) 23 (3) 0 8 (1) 115. Coverage ofimportant areas by their ,':S (3) 25 (3) 33 (4) 8 (1) 8 (1)

. technical specialization is usually C5. ACRS Committee /StafDConsultants Functioning Within Last 5 Years Has Become/ Remained:

Much Somewhat About Much Better Better The Same Worse Worse 116. CommitteeWork 39 (7) 33 (6) 29 (5) 0 0 117. Committee StaffWork 24 (4) 24 (4) 53 (9) 0 0 118. Committee Consultants Work 0 42 (5) 42 (5) 17 (2) 0 I

( 1 I

G i

l ..

7 C6. ACRS Benefits: Always/Almost Always Frequently /Often About Half the Time Infrequently / Occasionally Never/Almost Never l

A/AA F/O HALF . ILQ N/NA l 119. Forum for public 46 (11) 25 (6) 8 (2) 8 (2) 13 (3) 120. Adds value to regulatory process 50(11) 27 (6) 14 (3) 9 (2) 0 C8. ACRS expansion: y_gg -g 121. Expand scope to other technical areas 8 (1) 92 (12) l l

I l-

i ACNW SURVEY REPORT i- PURPOSE: This survey is a mechanism to permit the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste l (ACNW) to assess its performance periodically. The target groups were the Commission, the 3 l Commissioners' Technical Assistants, the Executive Director for Operations, the NRC Offices of l Public Affairs (OPA), the General Counsel (OGC), the Inspector General (OlG), Nuclear l

Regulatory Research (RES), the Secretariat (SECY), Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD), the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), affected States, the Department of Energy, and selected representatives of the industry and the public.

l METHOD: The survey included 17 elements, many of which had a number of subelements as well as space for comments and suggestions. The items were chosen for their relevance to the l area of radioactive waste management with regard to the ACNW's influence and effectiveness in l providing the necessary guidance and evaluations to the Commission and NRC staff. However, other groups have benefitted from the ACNW's advice and deliberations and such outside groups f were also contacted.

l The survey had three sections: (1) ACNW Written Reports, (2) Presentations, and (3) {

. Committee / Staff / Consultants Interactions. The first and third sections were to be completed by l r

all respondents; the second section applied to those respondents with experience in making 1 presentations to the ACNW. The final version of the survey was forwarded to 59 prospective respondents, accompanied by a letter from Dr. John Larkins, Executive Director, ACRS/ACNW.

This letter explained the purpose of the survey and requested replies by December 5,1997.

Twenty-two of the 59 prospective respondents retumed the survey. The respondents included l Commissioners, Commissioner's Assistants, the DOE Yucca Mountain Project Office, the U.S.

l Geological Survey, and various other NRC offices (OPA, NMSS, EDO), as well as some anonymous reponses. The OlG declined to respond to the survey.

A codebook was established to code the survey responses. Those data were entered into a )

SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) computerized data base, and descriptive j statistics computed. Most data are presented in percentages that have been rounded-off. 1

, Therefore, occasionally a series of percerF* ges for a survey item will not total 100%.  !

L Parenthetical numbers that accompany percentages, or respondent comments / suggestions, refer i to how many individuals selected /gave that response. Both "Not Applicable" and " Missing" responses were omitted from final tabulations. (Their omission contributes to the variability in the number of respondents cited per survey item.)

i RESULTS t.

Most of the data are presented in percentages. When more appropriate, in some instances the

~ actual number of respondents is used in addition to, or in lieu of, percentages.

HIGMLIGHTS MAJORITY (75-100%) CITED ALL OF THE SIX DOCUMENTS (INCLUDING HOME PAGE) AS BEING USEFUL FREQUENTLY /OFTEN TO ALWAYS/ALMOST ALWAYS MAJORITY (88%) INDICATED THAT THE LETTERS / REPORTS ARE BALANCED (87%) AND TECHNICALLY CORRECT (93%)

ATTACHMENT 2

f

~

2

. ALL BUT ONE OF THE 8 PRESENTER RESPONDENTS (88%) INDICATED THAT THE

- ACNW REVIEWS WERE BENEFICIAL ALWAYS/ALMOST ALWAYS-4, FREQUENTLY /OFTEN-3, ANDINFREQUENTLY/ OCCASIONALLY-1 VAST MAJORITY (93-100%) INDICATED THAT TYPICALLY THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE OR MOST OF THE COMMITTEE IS INDEPENDENT, COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAUCML AND COOPERATIVE MAJORITY (67-81%) RATED AS EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD THE COMMITTEE'S OVERALL QUALITY OF WORK, TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, AND COVERAGE OF IMPORTANT AREAS BY ITS TECHNICAL SPECIALIZATIONS

. ALL RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT TYPICALLY THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ENTIRE STAFF OR MOST OF THE STAFF IS COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAUCML, AND COOPERATIVE.

. MAJORITY (73-100%) INDICATED THAT, TYPICALLY, THE FUNCTIONING OF ALL OR MOST CONSULTANTS IS COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAUCML AND COOPERATIVE; ALL RESPONDENTS BELIEVED THAT NO MORE THAN A FEW OF THE CONSULTANTS ARE INAPPROPRIATELY CONFRONTATIONAU OVERLY ARGUMENTATIVE AND NO MORE THAN A FEW ARE TEDIOUS (NITPICKING)

MAJORITY (85%) INDICATED THAT THE ACNW ADDS VALUE TO THE REGULATORY PROCESS FREQUENTLY /OFTEN (39%) TO ALMOST ALWAYS/ALWAYS (46%)

MAJORITY (78%) INDICATED THAT THE ACNW SHOULD NOT EXPAND ITS SCOPE TO OTHER TECHNICAL AREAS SUGGESTEDIMPROVEMENTS

. THE ACNW NEEDS TO EXPAND ITS EXPERTISE; RELYING ON EXPERT CONSULTANTS IS A TEMPORARY FIX

. THE ACRS & ACNW SHOULD FORM JOINT SUBCOMMITTEES ON SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION

. ' THE ACRS/ACNW HOME PAGE SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO INCLUDE KEY WORDS TO AID IN SEARCHING DOCUMENTS

. THE ACNW SHOULD CONSIDER THE CONSTRAINTS AND ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE STAFF HAS TO OPERATE

. A LOGISTIC RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE TO INCLUDE LETTERS / REPORTS AND

SUMMARY

REPORTS IN THE FILING OF PRESS RELEASES ON THE MEETINGS

3

=

THE ACNW COULD BE OF MORE BENEFIT TO THE AGENCY IF ACNW WERE ENGAGED MORE OFTEN IN TECHNICAL ISSUES CURRENTLY BEING RESOLVED BY THE NRC STAFF ALTHOUGH THE MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, IT WAS REMARKED THAT TRUE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OCCURS RARELY ACNW SHOULD THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX TO EXPLORE NOVEL WAYS OF TACKLING WASTE ANU WASTE-RELATED ISSUES

. RATHER THAN PASSIVE REVIEWS, THE ACNW SHOULD AVOID DUPLICATING NRC STAFF WORK AND SHOULD ADD NEW AND INDEPENDENT DIMENSIONS TO ITS CONSIDERATDN OF TECHNICAL ISSUES

1. ACNW DOCUMENTS

= MAJORITY (63-100%) EXPRESSED FAMILIARITY WITH THE FIVE DOCUMENTS: Highest:

Letters / Reports on Specific Topics (100%) and Transcripts (85%); Lowest: Summary Reports (74%), Working Group Minutes (74%), and Minutes (63%)

. MAJORITY (65%) INDICATED THAT THE ONLY TYPE OF DOCUMENT THEY READ FREQUENTLY /OFTEN OR ALMOST ALWAYS/ALWAYS WERE: Letters / Reports on Specific Topics (68%) and Summary Reports (61%)

. MAJOR!TY (79-94%) INDICATED THAT THEY READ THE OTHElk THREE DOCUMENTS LESS THAN HALF THE TIME: Working Group Minutes (94%), Transcripts (84%), and Mimdea (79%)

. MAJORITY (83%) cited ONE PRIMARY REASON FOR NOT READING A QVEN I DOCUMENT AT LEAST FREQUENTLY /GFTEN-Only interested in certain meetings / topics

. REGARDING FORMAT, MAJORITY (81-100%) INDICATED THAT THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS ARE EASY TO SCAN 1 READ

= MAJORITY (94-100%) INDICATED THAT THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PROVIDE "ABOUT THE RIGHT AMOUNT" OF INFORMATION

. falORITY (75-100%) CITED ALL OF THE SIX TYPES OF DOCUMENTS (INCLUDING

' HOME PAGE) AS BEING USEFUL FREQ'JENTLY/OFTEN TO ALWAYS/ALMOST ALWAYS

. MAJORITY (84%)!NDICATED THAT, FREQUENTLY /OFTEN TO ALMOST ALWAYS/ALWAYS, THE DOCUMENTS' INFORMATION IS CLEARLY PRESENTED i

. MAJORITY (73-100%) INDICATED THAT, FREQUENTLY /OFTEN TO ALMOST ALWAYSIALWAYS, ALL SIX TYPES OF DOCUMENTS ARE TIMELY L ____ _____-_-___ ___ _____ - . __

I 4

. VAST MAJORITY (88%) INDICATED THAT THE LETTERSIREPORTS ARE BALANCED (84%) AND TECHNICALLY CORRECT (92%)

ll. PRESENTATIONS

. A MAJORITY (87-100%) INDICATED THAT THEY ARE SATISFIED WITH THE PRESENTATION REQUESTS, THAT PRESENTERS ARE PROVIDED ENOUGH TIME FOR PREPARATION, THAT THE ROOMS AND FACILITIES ARE EXCELLENT TO GOOD, THAT THE AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT FUNCTIONS APPROPRIATELY, AND THAT ENOUGH TIME IS ALLOCATED FOR THE PRESENTATIONS

. MAJORITY OF PRESENTER RESPONDENTS (88%) INDICATED THAT ACNW REVIEWS {

WERE ALWAYSIALMOST ALWAYS (50%) FREQUENTLY /OFTEN (38%) BENEFICIAL

= MAJORITY INDICATED THAT INFORMATION ON ROOM 3ET-UP/AUD'O-VISUAL FACILITY PRESENTATION REQUIREMENTS IS NECESSARY (67%) AND INDICATED A FAIRLY EVEN SPLIT ON WHETHER IT SHOULD BE SENT TO PRESENTERS IN ADVANCE (4-5);

BUT A MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT INFORMATION NEED NOT BE PLACED ON THE INTERNAL ACRS/ACNW HOME PAGE (78%)

111. COMMITTEE / STAFF / CONSULTANTS FUNCTIONING

. VAST MAJORITY (93-100%) INDICATED THAT TYPICALLY THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE OR MOST OF THE COMMITTEE IS INDEPENDENT, COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAUCML AND COOPERATIVE

. ALL RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT NONE OF THE COMMITT EE IS INAPPROPRIATELY CONFRONTATIONAUOVERLY ARGUMENTATIVE

. A MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS THOUGHT THAT AT LEAST A FEW OF THE COMMITTEE WERE TEDIOUS (NITPICKING): NONE OF THE COMMITTEE (38%) VERSUS ONLY A FEW OF THE COMMITTEE (63%)

. MAJORITY (67-81%) RATED AS EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD THE COMMITTEE'S OVERALL QUALITY OF WORK, TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, AND COVERAGE OF IMPORTANT AREAS BY ITS TECHNICAL SPECIALIZATIONS

. MAJORITY (67%) INDICATED THAT WITHIN THE LAST 5 YEARS, THE COMMITTEE'S WORK HAD BECOME SOMEWHAT BETTER

. ALL RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT TYPICALLY THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ENTIRE

. STAFF OR MOST OF THE STAFF IS COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAUCML, AND COOPERATIVE l . A MAJOR 11Y OF RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT ALL OR MOST OF THE SI'AFF WERE J l-EFFICIENT (69%)

l

5

. MAJORITY (87-93%) INDICATED THAT NONE OF THE STAFF IS INAPPROPRIATELY CONFRONTATIONAUOVERLY ARGUMENTATIVE, OR TEDIOUS (NITPICKING); BUT ABOUT ONE-FOURTH INDICATED THAT THE ENTIRE STAFF OR A FEW OF THE STAFF BEHAVE IN THAT MANNER

. MAJORITY (86%) RATED AS EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD THE STAFF'S OVERALL QUALITY OF WORK, AND TECHNICAL EXPERTISE; AND COVERAGE OF lMPORTANT AREAS BY ITS TECHNICAL SPECIALIZATIONS

  • BUT FOR COVERAGE OF IMPORTANT AREAS BY THEIR TECHNICAL SPECIALIZATION, {

SOME RESPONDENTS (42%) INDICATED THAT THE ACNW STAFF WERE USUALLY FAIR TO GOOD

. A SPLIT EMERGED REGARDING WHETHER THE STAFF'S WORK WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS WAS SOMEWHAT BETTER (57%) OR ABOUT THE SAME (43%) j

. MAJORITY (73-100%) INDICATED THAT TYPICALLY THE FUNCTIONING OF ALL OR  !

MOST CONSULTANTS IS COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAL /CML AND COOPERATIVE

. ALL RESPON'JEP'TS iblDICATED THAT NONE (56%) OR A FEW (44%) OF THE CONSULTANTS ARE INAPPROPRIATELY CONFRONTATIONAL/ OVERLY ARGUMENTATIVE

= MAJORITY (39%) INDICATED THAT WONE (44%) OR A FEW (44%) OF THE CONSULTANTS ARE TEDIOUS (NITPICKING)

. VAST MAJORITY (90%) RATED AS EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD THE CONSULTANTS' TECHNICAL EXPERTISE; A SMALLER MAJORITY GAVE THOSE RATINGS FOR OVERALL QUALITY OF WORK (60%) AND COVERAGE OF IMPORTANT AREAS BY ITS TECHNICAL -

SPECIALIZATIONS (70%)

. ALL RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT DURING THE LAST 5 YEARS THE CONSULTANT'S WORK HAD REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME (80%) OR BFCOME SOMEWHAT BETTER (20%)

. MAJORITY (67%) CITED THE ACNW AS A BENEFICIAL FORUM FOR THE PUBLIC FREQUENTLY /OFTEN (20%) TO ALMOST ALWAYSIALWAYS (47%) l

. MAJORITY (86%) INDICATED THAT 7HE ACNW ADDS VALUE TO THE REGULATORY PROCESS FREQUENTLY /OFTEN (59%) TO ALMC4T ALWAYSIALWAYS (46%)

  • MAJORITY (78%) INDICATED THAT THE ACNW SHOULD NOT EXPAND ITS SCOPE TO 4 OTHER TECHNICAL AREAS.

t i

e r

l l

l

' l ACNW SURVEY RESULTS Date are presented in rounded-off percentages. Therefore, sometimes a percentage for a survey item will not total 100%. Parenthetical numbers refer to how many individuals selected /gave that response. Both Not Applicable" and " Missing" responses have been omitted from the tabulations. (Their omission contributes to the variability in the number of respondents cited per survey item.) There were five "in-between" responses (e.g.,1.5 instead of I or 2). They were alternately rounded-down/ rounded-up (1st one--down,2nd--up,3rd--

down ...). I

1. ACNW DOCUMENTS A1. Written Document Familiarity (i.e., Heard About/ Read): h &
3. Letters / Reports on Specific Topics 100 (19) 0
4. Summary Reports 74 (14) 26(5) 4
5. ACNWMinutes 63 (12) 37(7)
6. ACNW Working Group Minutes 74 (14) 26(5)
7. ACNWTranscripts 85 (16) 16 (3)

A2. How Frequently ACNW Documents Read:

Always/Almost Frequently / About Half Infrequently / Never/Almost Always A/AA Oflen(F/0) The Time Occasionally Never (N/AN)

A/AA EQ HALF 1/_Q N/AN

8. Letters / Reports oa Specific Topics 53 (10) 16 (3) 0 21(4) 11(2)
9. Summary Reports 33(6) 28 (5) 0- 1I( 2) 28( 5) l
10. Minutes 11(2) 5 (1) 5 (1) 21(4) SS (11) l
11. Working Group Minutes 6(1) 0 0 11(2) 83 (15)
12. ACNWTranscripts 5(1) 0 11 (2) 58(11) 26 ( 5)

A3. Reasons, If Document Read Less Than Frequently /Ohen:  !

~

ACNW Letters / Reports on Specific Topics: h &

13. Not received 33 (2) 67 (4)
14. Not received timely 17 (1) 83 (5)
15. Only interested in certain mtgs/ topics 83 (5) 17 (1)
16. Don't have time 50(3) 50(3)
17. Often not relevant 50(3) 50(3)
18. Use oth r means 33 (2) 67 (4)
19. Oaer 33 (2) 67(4) l l

b_ _ _ _ _. . . _ _ .

I

- l 2

ACNW Summary Reports: Y_qs Ng

20. Not received 71 (5) 29(2)
21. Not received timely 29(2) 71(5)
22. Only interested in certain mtgs/ topics 43 (3) 57(4)
23. Don't have time 14 (1) 86(6)
24. Often not relevant 29(2) 71 (5)
25. Use other means 29(2) 71(5)
26. Other 14 (1) 86(6)

ACNW Minutes: Yss En

27. Notreceived 60(9) 40( 6)
28. Not received timely 13 (2) 87 (13)
29. Only interested in certain mtgs/ topics 47(7) 53 ( 8)
30. Don't have time 53 (8) 47( 7)
31. Often not relevant . 20(3) 80 (12)
32. Use other means 13 (2) 87 (13)
33. Other 13 (2) 87 (13)

ACNW Working Group Minutes: Yss Ng

34. No.' xeived 65 (11) 35 ( 6)
35. Not received timely 12 ( 2) 88 (15)
36. Only interested in certain mtss/ topics 41 ( 7) 59 (10)
37. Don't have time 47( 8) 53 ( 9)
38. Often not relevant 18 ( 3) 82 (14)
39. Use other means 12 ( 2) 88 (15)
40. Other 12 ( 2) 88 (15)

ACNW Transcripts: Ygg Hg

41. Not received ".9 ( 7) 61 (11)
42. Not received timely 6(1) 94 (17)
43. Only interested in certain mtss/ topics 67 (12) 33 ( 6)
44. Don't have time 61 (11) 39( 7)
45. Often not relevant . 22 ( 4) 78 (14)
46. Use other means 28( 5) 72 (13)
47. Other 11(2) 89 (16) h

M 3

Format OK,but Too eA4. Format: Easy to Could Use Some Difficult To )

Scan /Rcad improvement Scan / Read

48. Letterr./ Reports on Specific Topics 81 (13) 19(3) 0 4?. Suramary Reports 92 (12) 0 8 (1) .j
50. Minutes 100 ( 9) 0 0 1
51. Working Gro:p Minutes 83 ( 5) 0 17(1)

About Right .

AS. Information Amount: Not Enouah Annug Too Much

52. Letters / Reports on Specific Topics 0 94 (15) 6 (1)  !
53. Summary Reports 0 100 (13) 0-
54. Minutes 0 100 ( 9) 0 j
55. . Working Group Minutes 0 100 t' 6) 0 I i

A6. Information Usefulness, Presentation Cleamess, and Timeliness:

Always/Almost Always Frequently /Often About Half the Time infrequently / Occasionally . Never/Almost Never Usefulagas A/AA F/D HALF EQ N!/AN I l

56. b:tters/ Reports on Specific Topics 35 (6) 47(8) 0 12 (2) 6 (1) 1
57. Summary Reports 42 (5) 50(6) 0 8 (1) 0
58. Minutes 36(3) 63 (5) 0 0 0
59. Working Group Minutes 50(1) 50(1) 0 0 0
60. Transcripts 56(5) 33 (3) 0 0 11 (1)
61. Home Page 25 (1) 50(2) 0 0 25 (1)

Clear Prescritation AIAA FIQ HA1.E 1/D N/AH

62. Letters / Reports on Specific Topics 19 (3) 69 (11) 13 (2) 0 0 t
63. SummaryReports 17 (2) 75 ( 2) 8 (1) 0 0 l
64. Minutes 27(2) 71 ( 5) 0 0 0 l
65. Working Group Minutes 0 -100( 1) 0 0 0  !
66. Transcripts 0 71 ( 5) 14 (1) 14 (1) G j
67. Home Page 50(1) 50( 1) 0 0 0 '

i i

i c _ . _ _ ____ _______-____ _ _ __________

4 Timeliness M ELQ HALE EQ N/AN

68. Letters / Reports on Specific Topics 40(6) 33 (5) 27(4) 0 0
69. Summary Reports 64 (7) 36(4) 0 0 0
70. Minutes 29(2) 57 (4) 14 (1) 0 0
71. Working Group Minutes 0- 100 (1) 0 0 0
72. Transcripts .57(4) 43 (3) 0 0 -0
73. Home Page 67(2) 33(1) 0 0 0
A7. Le tiers / Reports Balancedffechnically Correct:

A/AA ElQ . HALF . IlQ N/AN

' 74. Balanced: Frequency 46 (6)- 39(5) - 8 (1) 8 (1) 0

75. Technically Correct: Frequency 67 (8) 25 (3) 8 (1) 0 0 1GE EQ

- 76. Balanced 87 (13) .13 (2) ~

' 77. - Technically Correct 93 (13) - 7 (1)

IL PRESENTATIONS (Branch Chiefs and Industry Representatives)

Always/Almost Always . Frey mtly/Often About Half the Time Infrequently / Occasionally Never/% nest Never N ELQ HALF 1/Q N/AN 1 78. Satisfied with presentation requests 83 (5) . 17 (1) 0 0 0

79. - Presentation requests allow par.er enough time to prepare 50 (4). 38 (3) 13 (1) 0 0
80. Meeting rooms and their facilities are excellent to good 70 (7) 10 (1) 0 20(4) 0
81. Audioviswil equipment functions 80 (8) 20(2) 0 0 0
82. - Enodg'n time provided for presentations 70 (7) - 20(2) 0 0' 0

. 83. ACNWreviewworthresources 50(4) 38(3) 0- 13 (1) 0 Information on room set-up/ audio-visual facility presentation requirements:

XGE EQ

84. Is not -==y l .

67 (6) 33 (3)

85. Should be sent to presenters in advance 44 (4) 56(5)
86. Should be placed on ACRS/ACNW Home Page 22 (2) . 78 (7) 4

'~ '

L' L.

I e j 5 1 l

'III. INTERACTIONS AND WORK WITH COMMITTEE,ITS STAFF, AND ITS I

CONSULTANTS (Branch Chiefs and Industry Representatives) l

. Cl.' Typical Committee Interactions:

Only a.

Entire Most of the Few of the ' None of the Cammitw Comnuttee Committee Committee

87. Iada W t '80 (12) 13 (2) 0 7(1)
88. Counteous 88 (14) 13 (2) 0 0 i

' 89. Professional / Civil' 94 (15) 6(1) 0 0

90. Cooperative 69(9) 31(4) 0 0
91. Inappropriately Confron-tational/ Overly Argumentative 0 0 19 ( 3) 81 (13)
92. Tedious (Nitpickmg)- 0 0- ,63 (10) 38( 6)
93. Other . 100 (1) 0 0 0 C2. Typical Committee StaffInteraction:

l Only a None j Entire Most of the Few of the ofthe S.taff Saff .31aff ~ Staff

94. Courteous 88 (15) 12 (2) 0 0
95. Cooperative. 82 (14) 18 (3) 0. 0

' 96. Professional / Civil - 82 (14) 12 (2) 0 0

97. Efficient 69 (11)
  • 25 (4) 6(1) 0
98. Inappropriately Confrontational/

' Overly Argumentative 0 .0

' 7(1) 93 (14)

99. Todious (Nitpicking) 0 0 13 (2) 87 (13) 100. Other 67 ( 2) . 0 0 33 ( 1)

C3. . Typical Committee Consultants lateractions:

E Only a None of l All Most of the Few of the the l

Consultants Consultants Consultants Cna=haare 101. Courteous 56 (5) 44 (4) 0 0 102. Cooperative 44 (4) 44 (4) 1I(3) 0 '

103. Professional / Civil . 56(5) 44 (4) 0 0 i 104. Inappropriately Confrontational/

- Overly Argumentative 0 0 44 (4) 56(5)

~105. Tedinus(Nitpicking) 0 11 (i) 44 (4) 44 (4) ,

106. Other 0 0- -0 0 I i

6 C4. ACNW Functioning: Committec/ Staff / Consultants: Very .

Excellent QQgd Oggd Enir P_ogt Conurittee Functioning:

107.' Overall quality ofits work is usually 31(5) 50(8) 19 (3) 0 0 108. Its techmcal expertise is usually 50(8) 31 (5) 19(3) 0 0 109.' Coverage of the important areas by its technical specializations is usually 27(4) 40(6) 27(4) 7(1) 0 Staff Functioning:

110. Overall quality ofits work is usually 36(5) 50(7) 14 (2) 0 0 111. Its technical expertise is usually 29(4) 57(8) 14 (2) 0 0 112. Coverage of the important areas by

- its technical specializations is usually 25 (3) 33 (4) 33 (4) 8(1) 0 Consultants Functioning:

113. Overall quality of their work is usually 10 (1) 50(5) 40(4) 0 0 114. Their technical expertise is usually 20(2) 70 (7) 10(1) 0 0 115. Coverage ofimportant areas by their technical specialization is usually 20(2) 50(5) 20 (2) 10(1) 0 C5. ACNW Commim/Stafr/ Consultants Functioning Within Last 5 Years Has Become/F-=iW:

Much Somewhat About Much Better Balet The Same Worse Worse 116. CommitteeWork 0 '67 (10) 33(5) 0 0 117. Committee Staff Work - 'O 57(8) 43(6) 0 0 118. Committee Consultants Work . 'O 20(2) 80(8) 0 0 C6. ACNW Benefits: Always/Almost Always Frequently /Often About Half the Time Infrequently /O~ Wally Never/Almost Never NM .flQ HALF EQ N/NA 119.. Forum for public 47(7) 20(3) 7(1) 27(4) 0 120. Adds value to mgulatory nrocess 46 (6) 39(5) 15 (2) 0 0 C8. ACNW should be expanded Yg Ng 121. Expand scope to other techmcal areas 22 (2) 78 (7)

I ,

1

. - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20249A246&oldid=3146547"