ML18078A656
| ML18078A656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Biden J SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18078A658 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901190152 | |
| Download: ML18078A656 (5) | |
Text
......
- <<~>.. *********** iv**
....*.. <;,:so~ *.. **
Distribution:
- HShaoar, ELD
',,.,, *11
Pi'i
, r;,*111a er,.-1 *,
CCK0.r;;mer2r, CA JGDavis, IE
!lG1oseley, IE HDThornburg, IE
- PMcKee, If E81 ackwood, I*E SECrya.n, If
- POR (50-212\\ ~ 11, ?_
. E!PDR (50.:.272)."J.1.1, 212
' SECY (3')
- OGC*
- OCA {3) 11 GErtter (ED0-5Q.2£)
- LNUnd?,rr;ood, IE (H6-1756-H2)
- IE Fi 1 es (3. *)
loo-et!htra1 Fi1esC3')
~ ~::.. :: :: :* :*: *. :* *: :* ~ :*~..... :._. :*:*:... -.. *:.-...-. -.. ~.... *......... *.:
...... *_. *. *_.*.*. *.*.. *.. *.*~*: *:. *:*:*:*: ::*:*.**.-:: ~: ~ :
~
- ::.-~-:-:-:: : : :: ::. :... :-::.
.......... *. *. *.. : : : : : : : : : : : : : :.=.:.:.- : : : : : :. :.. : : : :... :. : : :....... : :. :. : ; =*: _. _..*::::.::..
- --:*.:... :_ :_-..-.. :: -~:: ~ ~ ~;: ~; ~. ;_:_:': _. :: =_:'_:_: *... :........... : :_:_:: : :.. : : :.: : : _: ~ _: ~;; ~ ~ ~ ~.: :.:.:_:_:.:.:.:.:_: _:.............. **::_:::*::: :"_:._:._:-.:_:::::::::~:::~:~:~:~:.
- . :... :... : *.: ~ ::_.: :>- :- :- *._.-:_.-:_: :.:.::::* *. :::.-::::._ ~...:-~-:
... :.. :... *.:. *. *. -:. :*.-~*:-:-:: :-: :*:::: *.-:: :-:-: :-: :........... :.... : : : ; :.
~::
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Senator Biden:
JAN 1 0 1979 I am pleased to respond to your letter of December 14, 1978, regarding the content of several Wilmington newspaper articles concerning Peach Bottom Unit Nos. 2 and 3 and Salem Unit No. l nuclear power plant facilities.
The internal NRC memorandum referred to in the newspaper articles is a report prepared by the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement titled, 11 Individual Site Ratings From the IE Employee Survey on Evaluation of Licensees, (copy enclosed).
The purpose of this survey was to solicit the subjective views of inspectors on a variety of subjects related to licensee regulatory performance.
Nineteen inspectors were involved in the evaluation of Peach Bottom and ten were involved at Salem.
Inspector comments illustrated in the ne1t1spaper article were excerpts of "unvar-nished" i ndi vi dua 1 inspector comme:nts, and do not necessarily represent agency position.
As might be expected, some comments were more critical than others.
Recognized shortcomings of the opinion survey method of evaluation are that individual opinions are subjective, may not be clearly supported by fact, and may be unduly influenced by the "last contact" with the licensee or the personality of licensee representa-tives.
On page 2 of the referenced report, the survey results were qualified by the following statement:
"Although the information is untested, unvalidated, not directly related to licensee compliance with NRC requirements, and unre-viewed by licensees, it may be of some use to IE management in gaining insights into the perceived safety at the 45 operating power reactor sites licensed by NRC.
Some of the information may provide additional insights that will help identify inspection program improvements or form the basis for management conferences with licensees.
For these latter purposes~ the information should be used with some discretion and with an awareness of its limita-tions noted above."
In followup to several of the specific inspector comments made during the survey, Regional Directors were requested to provide additional information regarding issues considered to be of safety significance.
The correspondence related to inspector comments on Peach'Bottom Unit*
Nos. 1 and 2 and Salem Unit No. l are enclosed. This correspondence, enclosures 2, 3 and 4, states that responsible regional officials believe that the Peach Bottom and Salem Units have been and are being operated safely.
The Honorable Joseph Biden, Jr.
A\\
V I The report identified in the newspaper article is one of several documents*
that discuss various efforts by IE to develop techniques to evaluate licensee regulatory performanc~. The Acting Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) explains in one of these ~ocuments that no one technique so far tried has been individually satisfactory.
He requested Commission permission to continue the effort to find an acceptable technique for evaluating licensee regulatory performance.
It should be pointed out that these evaluations are being conducted to distinguish between levels of acceptable performance*.
Unacceptable performance is dealt with through enforcement actions taken promptly whenever the need is identified. Provided below are brief summaries of the contents of these documents:
- 1.
Commission Paper (SECY-78-554), dated October 28, 1978 - This paper discusses the status.of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement efforts in evaluation of licensee regulatory performance and requests Commission approval of a two year trial program.
An enclosure to this paper, "Licensee Regulatory Performance Evalu-ation," defines the concept of licensee regulatory performance, describes why IE wants to evaluate it, a~d suggests the uses that may be made of the results.
(Enclosure 5)
- 2.
Draft transmittal letter for SECY-78-554 - This is a draft letter for forwarding the subject SECY paper to each licensee whose facility is mentioned in the paper or reports and to other individ-uals expressing an interest in the matters discussed in the paper.
(Enlosure 6)
- 3.
NUREG/CR-0110, Licensee Performance Evaluation, May 1978 - This document, prepared by Teknekron, Inv., discusses use of a model for analysis of operating reactor licensee regulatory performance.
The model is based on identifying the distinctions between the licensee's facility, personnel, and management and the-interrelationships between them.
Using the model, Teknekron considers it possible -
to identify characteristic trends that can be used to distinguish
- levels of licensee performance.
(Enclosure 7)
- 4.
Draft Report, An Evaluation of the Nuclear Safety-Rela.ted Management Performance of NRC Operating Reactor Licensees During 1976, dated February 1977, E. Morris Howard, Project Director - This draft -
report addresses-the concept of comparing-licensee performance based on standard statistical techniques.
Using these techniques, the management performance of operating reactor licensees during*
the first half of calendar year 1976-*was compared.-,-~ (Enclosure 8-}-~ *
/
- Copies of these documents are enclosed.
.~._............
- 5.
Memorandum, E. M. Howard *to E. Volgenau dated September 26, 1977 -
Thi:; memorandum forwards the final draft reoort of that discussed in item 4 above.
The re~ised report includes statistical informa-tion for the full 1976 cglendar year and incorporates suggestions made by an independent cqntractor.
(Enclosure 9)
- 6.
Memorandum~ E. M. Howard to E. Volgenau dated October 26s 1976 -
This memorandum contains some additional *information related to the use of stati stica 1 techn{ques for licensee performance eva 1 uation.
(Enclosure 10)
I trust our response provides you with sufficient background material and places the~ corrments in the_ referenced news arti.cles in the proper perspective.
On December 21, _1978, Morman C. Moseley~ Director, Divi-sion of Reactor Operations Inspection, Office of Inspection and Enforce-men-t! contacted Pci.u1 laudicina of your staff and discussed with him the information we planned to forward.
It was agreed that after your staff bas had an opportunity to look over the forwarded material, we would be contactE:d if addition~! inforniation or a meeting was desired. Mr. r1oseley of the Office cf inspection and Enforcement (Telephone No. 492-8160) is the direct point of contact for additional information or to arrange for a meeting.
Si nee rely*,
Lee v. Gossick E~;;ecutive Director fo:rc Operations
Enclosures:
(See next page)
- OFFICE~... ~?..~.. :.J~\\~... ~.?..~~-~-~~.Sfl~-***** *---~~----"***--* -~-~-~~
.. ?... :.... ~.:.. ~--~****-**y*****~Dl~~~---*******........... f..~.Q.................
GR Klingler SE Bryan NC Moseley.
JG Davis
- t !
- --****r**-***-y-*--*********** *****-***;*****7**.. ***********-*****:**.......... *--*:::;'.********-****-*-*** ********-*******-
- -******-*-***************JgDa*v-r-s************................. ~---*****************
.JL.\\:~.. (Z9............... L.1.1..1.. ~1..................... Jt.?... /..Zl-....... 1.............................................. J..!.~.....1.72...................JL........Jz.s.......
SURNAMEiJ>-
NRC EORM 318 19 76\\
NRCM fi2 !lL
-!?3.*~~~~~~---------------------
-, f' The Honorable Joseph Biden, Jr.
Enclosures:
- 1.
Draft Study - Individual Site Ratings fm IE Employee Survey, dtd April 1978
- 2.
Memo B. H. Grier to N. C. Moseley dated November l, 1978
- 3.
Memo N. C. Moseley to B. H. Grier dated November 6, 1978
- 4.
Memo B. H. Grier to N. C. Moseley dated November 9, 1978
- 5.
Commission Paper -
SECY-78-554 6~ Draft transmittal ltr of SECY-78-554
- 7.
NUREG/CR-0110 - Licensee Performance Evaluation
- 8.
Draft Report, An Evaluation of the Nuclear Safety -
Related Management Performance of NRC Operating Reactor Licensees During 1976, dtd February 1977
- 9.
Memo E. M. Howard to E. Volgenau dated September 26, 1977
- 10. Memo E. M. Howard to E. Volgenau dated October 26, 1977
- i
.I