ML20036C022
| ML20036C022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/26/1993 |
| From: | Curtiss NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306080320 | |
| Download: ML20036C022 (2) | |
Text
U
............aoe...e,ocoe RELEASED TO THE PDR NOTATION V 0 T E:
6///95 (C
RESPONSE SNEEI
!.. ',$,*,,,,,,,,d[ajs,,,,j T0:
sat 4UEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE C0f4f4ISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-090 - SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP) PROGRAM X/with APPROVED comments DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
/ 11/Vn L_J SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/
x/
April 26,1993 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES X No
\\at O
i
- 8R'88sE8%i88"'
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
Commisaloner Curtiss' comments on SECY-93-090:
In general, I commend the staff for a job well done and concur in the recommendations set forth in SECY-93-090.
There are several points, however, that I believe warrant emphasis:
1)
I have no objection to the proposed reordering of the SALP functional areas, with the understanding that those matters that to date have been assessed under the category " safety assessment / quality verification" (SA/QV) -- in particular, the self-evaluation / problem identification facet of SA/QV -- will get the same rigorous level of attention that these areas currently receive, albeit as a part of each of the four functional areas proposed by the staff, rather than as a separate functional area.
I also concur in Commissioner Rogers' suggestion that the cover letter forwarding a licensee's SALP speak to the question of how effective a licensee has been in identifying problers on its own and then correcting those problems.
On a related matter, the sentence in the Category 1 rating description addressing a licensee's self-assessment efforts should utilize the term " effective" in lieu of " productive".
2)
I recognize that there may be times when the SALP Board needs to address the adequacy of utility resources.
Tais should be limited, however, to cases where both specific performance problems are evidenc and licensee management does not appear to recognize that limited resources are contributing causes.
The nexus here should be firmly established.
Moreover, I would expect that the frequency of such instances would be rare.
The SALP Handbook and Performance category ratings should be revised to clearly reflect this approach.
3)
I agree with the staff position that the rur.erical scores should be retained.
4)
The staff should ensure that those individuals involved in the SALP process understand that the focus of the SALP process is to assess licensee performance, not to recommend or impose solutions.
5)
Finally, I agree with Commissioner Rogers and Chairman Selin thet trend information is important but, as recommended by the Chairman, I believe trends should be discussed within the report but not be attached to the numerical scores.