ML19276E537
| ML19276E537 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/26/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Peters J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19276E538 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903140616 | |
| Download: ML19276E537 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES COcw e C M $
+p# "*%g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.,
' 7-S WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 sC c
o 9,' '
jN February 26, 1979 4
OFFICE OF THE CH AIRM AN Mr. John D. Peters 3158 Cantrell Lane
.Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Dear John:
Thanks for your letter of December 22, 1978 noting your concerns about the content of a November 10, 1978 Wasnington Star article entitled "VEPC0 Plant Gets a 'C' on Safety Report Card."
The information in the article was based on studies performed by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) of various techniques for evaluating licensee regulatory performance.
I have enclosed the docu-ments which describe the results of these studies.
A systematic approach for licensee regulatory performance evaluation has not been adopted. The Acting Director of IE explains in one of the enclosed documents that no one technique so far investigated is individ-ually satisfactory. He has requested Commission permission to continue the effort to find an acceptable technique for evaluating licensee regulatory performance.
The Commission supports the concept of initiat-ing another trial program but has requested that a detailed plan be submitted for approval prior to implementation of such a program.
It is important to understand that the evaluation is made to distinguish between levels of acceptable performance. Unacceptable performance is dealt with through enforcement actions taken promptly whenever the-need is identified.
It would be useful for NRC to understand why performance among NRC licensees differs and how inspection practices can be used more effectively and efficiently. This is the primary reason IE wishes to continue with the licen'see regulatory performance evaluation trial program. We.acknow-ledge the shortcomings of the initial study. We also recognize the importance of developing sound methodology for evaluation of licensee performance and appreciate your comments in this regard.
790314C6/h
T Mr. John D. Peters I hope that these remarks and the background material help to place the referenced news article ir. proper perspective.
If you have further comments concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
\\'ncerely, ose M. Hendrie Chairman
Enclosures:
1.
Draft transmittal letter for SECY-78-554 to licensees 2.
Commission Paper SECY-7.8-554
7 7 //d 7 9# T t
'3. NUREG/CR-0110-Licensee 7
j 7 7 7,,.,,
Performance Evaluation 4.
Draft Study - Individual Site Ratings from IE Employee Survey, dtd April 1978 5.
Memo E. M. Howard to Ernst -
' 7 f 6 // 6 6 T L ' t Volgenau dtd 9/26/77 6.
Draft Report - An Evaluation of the Nuclear Safety-Related Management Performance of NRC Operating Reactor Licensees During 1976, dtd February 1977 7.
Draft transmittal letter to licensees for memo E. M. Howard to E. Volgenau dtd 10/26/77 o
.