ML19347A847
| ML19347A847 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/05/1980 |
| From: | Rehm T NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Budnitz R, Jennifer Davis, Harold Denton NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347A846 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009300393 | |
| Download: ML19347A847 (4) | |
Text
.
ff UNITED STATES
~~
M1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ 'y g q O s... w - )jv {
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20566
- bi/
e
.g Vsv June 5,1980 NOTE TO:
Robert Budnitz, Director, RES W arold R. Denton, Director, NRR John G. Davis, Deputy Director, NMSS Robert B. Minogue, Director, SD Victor Stello, Director, IE
_..=
learned W. Barry, Controller Daniel J. Donoghue, Director, ADM Norman M. Haller, Director, MPA s
Carlyle Michelson, Director, AE00 Robert G. Ryan, Director, SP Howard K. Sitapar, ELD James R. Shea, Director, IP Edward E. Tucker, Director, EE0
SUBJECT:
POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR PEER REVIEWS The enclosed draft policy on Peer reviews was developed by MPA in order to provide some general guidance to an area in which problems periodically surface.
You have been provided an earlier draft for conTnents.
Those comments have been considered in this revision.
Please provide any comments you may have on this version to me by 6/13/80 (Friday).
Subject to receipt of the comments - which may be oy Lesepnone - tVO will make a decision on issuanc.
a T
A.
e, istant for Operations Office of Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Draft policy on Peer reviews e
30LO9:3003 $ h.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!RC MANUAL BULLETIN NO.
DATE:
SUBJECT:
POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR PEER REVIEW Policy An NRC staff document that affects NRC policy should be subject to peer review prior to its submission for Commission review and/or publication. The extent of peer review is the respcnsibility of the line manager of the group or individual that developed the document.
Purcose and Objectives The purpose of peer review is to enhance the quality of NRC documents. A high quality document is factually and technically correct and objective, and may reflect diverse views.
Terminolocy Peers are people with relevant professional knowledge and recent work experience in an appropriate discipline.
Routine ceer review refers to review of normal day-to-day substantive regula-tory ano tecnnical work (e.g., IE Bulletins, Rainbow Socks, etc.) done by or for NRC and reviewed by peers either within or outside of NRC.
Critiques by persons in the same management chain as the originator of the material would not be considered peer reviews.
Scecial Peer Review Special peer review refers to the review of major special projects (e.g., The Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400), Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS),
and Differing Professional Opinions (DPO)).
- a. -This review involves peers individually selected (from either within or outside NRC) to review a major project.
b.
Another type of special review wculd involve a group of persens especially convened for that purpose.
In the event a panel is convened, managers ebould enlist the help cf the Office of Gen-eral Counsel in considering the requiremer.ts of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 10 CFR, Part 7.
-2 Exclusions NRC reviews conducted by the ACRS, in the licensing process, involving public and other ccmments on NRC regulations, to obtain office concurrence er comments, and for management review of employees' work are distinct from the peer review procedures considered here and should not be affected by them.
~ Basic Responsibilities Specific procedures, reporting requirements, and tracking mechanisms are in-tentionally omitted to allow managers the flexibility to exercise their pro-fessional judgments in matters of peer review and to simplify the administration of peer review matters.
NRC peer revie'w should be guided by these basic principles:
1.
N,RC line managers are responsible for determining when, how, and by whom a document should be reviewed.
Managers are to be accountable for the quality of their professional judgments in this as in other matters.
2.
Managers should maintain written records of peer review activities, but the process of documenting peer review activity should not become an obstacle to completing the work.
3.
Peer coments should be analyzed conscienticusly by the author.
Those peer comments judged to be valid shculd be incorporated into the final product and those not used should be summarized for consideration during management reviews.
4 Peer comments should be the individuals' viewpoint and not that of his or her organizatien.
5.
The extent of review should be directly related to the impcrtance of the document and the novelty of'its methodolcgy.
Routine peer reviews, informal critiques by selected NRC employees, should be conducted when documents are of minor policy significance, and/or employ currently accepted methodolcgy.
Special peer reviews, more formal reviews by groups es:ecially convened for that purpose, are called for when documents are of major policy significance and/or introduce novel metnodologies; these special reviews may include participants outside NRC.
Tnesesughestionsaresummarizedinthesimpleschematiccnthefollowing
- a;e.
O
{
v-Novelty of Methodology Low High Routine internal Special internal review Minor review with informal with formal comment Policy comment process process; external participation optional Significance Special internal Special review with review with formal internal and external Major comment process; participation external participa-tion optional William J. Dircks Acting Executive Director for Operations i
1
--n..
1