ML20055B248
| ML20055B248 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/02/1979 |
| From: | Crossman W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Hubacek W, Stewart R, Renee Taylor NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055B245 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-266 NUDOCS 8207210065 | |
| Download: ML20055B248 (2) | |
Text
February 2,1975 I
t HEHORANDUM FOR:
W. G. Hubacek R. C. Stewart R. G. Taylor C. R. Oberg l
l FROM:
W. A. Crossman, Chief. Projects Section j
l 1,
SUBJECT:
TREND AR41.YSIS - 1978 i
f' lease perforn a trend analysis of the perfors;ance efench of your essW
- active * :51censees for the calendar; year 197B. -2n cases where responsib115ty for 21censees is.1belo9 ymassjpned, the 4nspector
- arbo asas responsible Tor:the licensee in milandar year 9978 will tra-pare the analysis. ?4our analysis shoUld Ancluc'eh-following -Infor-mation:
i rs,...Manber and Stapetireness af econstruction Deficiency Report.s 1.13 Enforcement dilstory for each facility list:
n Inspection Report dernber l
Dates of Inspection
~* umber ef Molations l
Wumber af Infractions 1
=*Lat.er_ef DefIclancies 3
J 4itsaberef Seviations d
.*andays 2nvolved (for that inspection) cli 4tamarks (indicate if repeat froc 397B and 1977)
- (
Jharber ef.amres01ved ites:s c.
'+.esponsiveness of Licensee to Enforcement Action (1) -is licensee en time with answer.to eur letter 7 l
- 12).Ane answers adequate? Do we have to go back for more infor-matlon7 4ij
,Are any.ina6 equate answers ourfault?
,4,, -
_x2s cornect1re eetton <ione.prsumptly?
Y'Is the licensee responsive?
?
3 i
-i
~
--RIV
-S
.p:t(ElieHie/aNErossman7nh
-N 'E.
PUS;d- _;_ hMJSt"-4;-M7,. ~- -- '
~
..#_" *, _... - e
.,n.
~
B2 7210065 ggoyog
=
PDR FOIA C;Eh?.g~at t.:as:! MCCANN82-266 PDR i
I
~
1r.spt:wn - f rt.k:ts bettior. h tre r I,1575 i
d.
' Onresolved itecs
- 1) Are unresolved ite:r.s cleared ra;iidly?
Are ntsrbers/ inspection on the increase? Why?
Humber of unresolved iteras escalated to enforce:acnt iter.s.
- a..
Corporate Managunent involvanent in Regulation Matters (1). Sufficient management representation at exit interviews?
(2 Attitude receptive?
(3 Signature on licensee letters appropriate leveli (4
Is management involved?
(Indicate basis for answer)
-f.
Effectiveness ef M/0C Program 2 bis -is a m.aubjective matter.
.I destre your own opinion -and Aasis foryourepinion..2f too surly in construction phase to
. statef' indicate this. Also1ndicste erhat you believe we can do hhave 1.ha dsprove their 4rograrc. This informe. tion should not 4eincluded in the documented analysis, but you should be prepared
-to u!iscuss1 tar 1th 9tr. Seidle.
j
-2.3 ArtyOtherTrends Indicative of foor Perforr.mnce
~4ist unddiscuss any other indications that may point out poor /pood performance.
y Tlease have your~1nfonmation to se by COB en February 28,197S.
tw' w b W. ^ W E. A. Crossman, Chief trojects Section
.. -w: saf.ic.:Eeldle
(
.7
-.es..,.
~
Y,
- O
'_.em.
ungh p *p
--~7 -: 2 -? &"g&- (..
d 1
,