ML20059J065
| ML20059J065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/24/1994 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Leiberman J SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059J069 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401310336 | |
| Download: ML20059J065 (2) | |
Text
r}b ik
-i
,p " ^
- H%g l0?-
/
3 UNITED STATES iV),,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i.
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
% 1%.
/
S' ' x....."
hnuary 24, '994 CH AIRMAN The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510-0703
Dear Senator Lieberman:
On behalf of the Commission, I am responding to your letter of December 22, 1993, in which you expressed concern regarding a recently released Public Citizen report that indicated that numerous differences exist between Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) reports and Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) evaluation reports.
The Commission welcomes your comments and agrees that the Public Citizen report, as written, raises concerns that require evaluation.
We want to assure you that control room professionalism and liquid radioactive waste releases are issues of. concern to the Commission.
As a result of the Public Citizen report and your comments, the NRC staff has initiated a detailed review of the INPO evaluation, the corresponding NRC SALP report, and supporting NRC inspection reports pertaining to Millstone to examine each major INPO finding, including those cited in your letter.
The purpose of the review is to determine if the process the NRC established for reviewing INPO reports to ensure that significant safety issues identified by INPO receive proper NRC attention, as described on pages 16 and 17 of the enclosure, has been followed at Millstone.
It is important to note here, however, that some disparities between NRC SALP and INPO evaluation reports are inevitable.
While both the NRC and INPO missions include the concept of ensuring safety, our overall missions differ, and these differences make comparisons between findings potentially misleading.
The mission of the NRC is to ensure that nuclear power plants are operated safely pursuant to standards set by NRC regulations.
Some issues pursued by INPO relating to industry standards to promote excellence are not evaluated by the NRC as long as NRC regulations are satisfied.
Differences also exist between the purpose and content of NRC SALP reports and INPO evaluation reports.
SALP reports provide a summary of licensees' integrated safety performance based on a compilation of 12 to 24 months of NRC inspection, licensing, and enforcement activities.
INPO evaluation reports are based on a
(\\
9401310336 940124 4,
PDR COMMS NRCC
/Qf CORRESPONDENCE PDR f
t I
i 1
2 single, intensive assessment of licensee performance and operations that lasts approximately 2 weeks.
They provide.the specific findings identified during-the evaluation with supporting examples and/or recommendations for improvement.
Consequently, comparisons between SJUMP reports and INPO evaluations would likely reveal some disparities.
l We will provide you the full results of our review of your-concerns and any other differences'between the~NRC's SALP. report and INPO's evaluation of Millstone in approximately three weeks.
Sincerely, Ivan Selin-
Enclosure:
NRC Inspection Manual -
.,.,w-..
.r..r.
..a
.-e.. ~..
..,..,, - ~
,..._,-m,
..,, m.t h.b,,.. -..
,.w-
-,-.,w
-