ML20126J408
| ML20126J408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/18/1992 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Colvin J NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126J413 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9301060142 | |
| Download: ML20126J408 (2) | |
Text
5_
N[-
~
e 1
p* **o u
/h UNITED STATES I M';gp}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666
%, *.. i p
December 18, 1992 CHAIRMAN Mr. Joe Colvin President and Chief Executive Officer NUMARC 1776 Eye Street N.
W.
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006-3706
Dear Mr. Colvin:
I am responding to your letter of October 20, 1992, in whicheyou request that the Commission thoroughly reevaluate the fundamental elements of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Program.
As you are aware, the NRC staff reviewed and revised the SALP Program in 1989 and 1990,_and in_1991, in response to Commission direction, initiated the current comprehensive review.
The Commission recognizes that further enhancements in program implementation can be made, and we are-awaiting recommendations-from the staff on the future direction of the SALP program.
However, we believe that-an integrated assessment of licensee performance based on the findings and conclusions of various separate _NRC inspections is-a valuable regulatory-tool.
A principal objective of the SALP program is to conduct an-integrated assessment of licensee performance that serves as a vehicle for meaningful dialogue with plant management regarding_
improvement in overall performance. It is one of the few NRC processes that allows for development of performance-insights gained from a long-term synthesis'of NRC' observations.
The SALP program is used by NRC: management to_ focus the: agency's I
inspection program and to concentrate our resources on areas-where increased regulatory attention wi31 do the most good.
We believe the insights gained from the SALP process should also be l
a constructiva aid to industry and individual plant operators in _
their ef forts to foster safe. operation.
Some of the specific issues 1you raise in your letter, sucn as-assigning numerical performance ratings, were previously identified and reviewed by the Commission.
Others'suggest the need for further dialogue between the NRC and.the industry.- For example, you state that the NRC has attempted to regulate-through the SALP process by use of ' vague,. subjective standards and that q.
i licensees are pressured to comply with NRC staff demands and expectations that exceed the requirements-of ' NRC regulations.
9301060142 921218 "
--'h'g PDR COMMS NRCC:
CORRESPONDENCE PDRL g
jf-i:
=-
. I can assure you that we will consider these comments _during our review of_the staff's proposals for revising the SALP program.
Nevertheless, these comments are of sufficient concern to us that we would be very interested in exploring them more fully with you and in considaring some specificfexamples where the difficulties you cite have occurred recently.
To that end, I have asked Mr. James Taylor, NRC's_ Executive Director for Operations, to meet with you to discuss these-examples and other issues raised in your letter.
I-encourage-you to contact Mr. Taylor.to set up a meeting at your earliest opportunity.
Sincerely, 0
,/
Ivan Selin