ML20127E362
| ML20127E362 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/20/1992 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-92-354, NUDOCS 9210280131 | |
| Download: ML20127E362 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _.... _
yO'**esese......,
REEASED TO THE PDR a
i' f~%
i eb/n n
e
- amosooes 3
POLICY ISSUE October 20, 1992 SECY-92-354 4
(Notation Vote) f_qr:
The Commissioners 5
From:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations lub.iect:
PROCESS FOR OBTAINING EXCEPTIONS TO THE N+1 POLICY
Purpose:
To propose a method for approving exceptions to the N+1 policy.
for assigning resident inspectors to multiunit reactor sites.
Backaround:
In my memorandum of July 28,1992, "The Rationale for Allwing flexibility in Assigning Resident Inspectors," I provided supplemental information regarding the policy of assigning resident inspectors to operating nuclear power plants.
Although the Commission des' ires to retain N+1 as the casic resident staffing policy, the staff believes an exception provision would be appropriate.
Discussion:
The NRC established the N+1 resident inspector
.m in 1989 with full implementation scheduled for the end 1993.
For good performing plants, the staff has developed a formal process under wb'ch the regional administrator would be allowed to establish an exception to N+1 at multiunit sites. When a plant has exFibited a sustained high level of performance, the regional administrator could reassign inspectors made available by ;ich an exception to plants that require more inspection.
Reassigned inspectors could also be assigned to supplement regional irspections.
Plants will be considered to hace shown a sustained high level of performance if they meet the criteria as candidates for recognition of goo-! performance as defined in SECY-91-103, "NRC Recognition of Good Performance by Power Reactor Licensees."
This includes achieving SALP ratings to meet the screening criteria for discussion at the senior management meeting (SMM).
Contact:
HOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE Frank Gillespie, NRR WHEN THE FINAL SPE IS MADE 504-1275 AVAILABLE V'@)L3\\ M,n.b) osg
B v
)r
< > mi s:> ione rs Alternatively, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), together with the regional administrator, may decide that, although a particular licensee has not achieved the performance level defined by the specific senior managemer' screening criteria, the licensee should be considered for an exception to N+1 based on improving performance.
At the present time, the Byron, Diablo Canyon. Limerick, Prairie Island, St. Lucie, and Susoucharna sites meet the senior management meeting screening cr :
i'.
Haddam Neck, i
Calloway, Harris, Summer, Three Mile s l ar.
Jnit 1 and Vermont Yankee also meet the criteria, but w..'F-
,~t be considered for an exception to ti.
H+' policy be;4use they are single unit sites.
The prescrioc. pinimum of two resident inspectors per reactor tite would apply as described in my memorandum dated July 28, 1992 to the Commission.
If the Commission revises the SALP program e include four functional areas, the staff proposes that an eligible plant be considered for exception to the N+1 staffing level if the plant achieves Category I ratings in three functional areas, including Plant Operations, and receives no Category 3 rating.
The regional administrator, with the concurrence of the Director of NRR, would establish an exception to N+1 for a specific site.
The staff will notify the Executive Director for Operations and the Commission.
If a significant decline in performance is found, the exception to N+1 would be rescinded.
Recommendation:
That the Commission approve the process for granting exceptions to the N+1 policy as described herein.
/
N
$2 [
< @ M. Th, lor JfecutiveDirector for Operations l
l
I! a Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary ay COB Tuesday, November 3, 1992.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Tuesday, October 27, 1992, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION: