ML20059B827
| ML20059B827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/20/1990 |
| From: | Remick NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008300113 | |
| Download: ML20059B827 (2) | |
Text
.
O i
NOTATION V 0 TP " " " * " " " " " "
- 1
. - 7ELEASED TO THE PDR1 l-i ggf.._f/of/Ro M
~
RESPONSE-SHEEI M M e*1 i iats
.........".'......g.......:
TO:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARYJOF THE COMMISSION
.l FROM:
- C0mISSIONER:REMICK j
3' i
SUBJECT:
.SECY-90-189.- REEVALUATION 0F THE SYSTEMATIC.
J ASSESSMENT;0F LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP);
l PROGRAM 1
z.,M z;PA d(
APPROVED Y DISAPPROVEDX ABSTAIN
.NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION I
L COMMENTS:
a fee e n d n/AcA /
.i.:
02.i: ;
(/V' SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/X/
2 C MW I#
DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/~
/
O ENTERED ON "A5" YEs No I
E88*88AA!RR8g20 1
1 CORRESPONDENCE PDC
(
e 223nissioner Remick's Comments on SECY-90-189 i
I approve in part and disapprove in part the staff's proposal for revising the SALP program.
I Most importantly, I agree with Chairman Carr that the assignment of grades should be deleted entirily in order to force attention to the report's description of the real problems.
As tlA Chairman states, the SALP Board should use the recommendation section of the functional area assessments to accomplish the goal of resource allocation by NRC and the licensee.
I would add that descriptive terms such as "needs more attention" or " current level of attention sufficient" should be used in this section for each functional area.
Secondly, I agreu with the Chairman that an additional grade of "U" for plants shut down indefinitely or subject to a higher i
level of NRC attention for previous performance reasons is not necessarf. I would like to suggest that the staff consider generating a separate report format with functional areas that relate to corrective actions while shutdown to be applied to I
these plants. This might solve the problem of having to reevaluate a category "U" performer in a new SALP report prior to j
startup.
Third, I would like to reinforce the Chairman's suggestion with regard to rising performance standards.
I agree that rising standards should manifest themselves in changes to'the criteria and attributes, not as an undefined adjunct to the process.
I feel strongly that the licensees and the staff should be informed of what criteria is being used to rate the licensees.
I wuuld also like to express my support for the staff's proposal to delete the functional area evaluation criterion of 1
" Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives" for its assessment.
I believe that the underlying cause for decreased responsiveness to NRC initiatives would be a lack of licensee management attention and involvement, and that the NRC should more appropriately be rating management performance rather than simply responsiveness.
i Finally, I would like to applaud the staff's recognition that i
evaluation of the licensee's performance should be based on perrormance results and not the extent to which regulatory requireme':ts are met or are excceded.
4 m
3