ML20204C768
| ML20204C768 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Millstone, Dresden, Peach Bottom, Salem, Palisades, Indian Point, Zion  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1977 |
| From: | Thornburg H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Engelken R, Grier B, Howard E, James Keppler, James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204C753 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812050013 | |
| Download: ML20204C768 (2) | |
Text
..
. ~~ a.
w
.w..-
. ;a.
p
,.g.
?
8 4
UNITED STATES
'{
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3,
-g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 '
^
s
%...../
NOV. 2 31977-Y
-MEMORANDUM FOR: N. H. Grier. Director, RI J. P. ' 0'Reilly,' Director, RII J. G. Keppler, Director, RIII E. M.'Howard, Director, RIV R. H. Engelken, Director, RV.
FROM:
Harold D. Thornburg,' Director, ROI
SUBJECT:
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
REFERENCE:
MY MEMORANDUM TO E.'VOLGENAU, SAME SUBJECT, DTD l'1/8/77
~
In the reference memorandun. I summarized the present status of Performance Evaluation and outlined a course of action derived from Performance Evaluation results to date.
As a part of the ' discussion, I
six sites were identified for followup based on"the-available information.
i Those sites are:
i 1..
Indian Point 2.
Zion 3.
Palisades 4.
Dresden
.5.
Millstone 6.
Peach Bottom i
We have recently taken action which we believ9 will effect improved performance at Zion, Dresden and Quad Cities.
I would like to have the views of the Regional Directors on performance at the remaining facilities that are located in their regions.
Accordingly, each Regional Director is requested to respond to the questions in Enclosure 1 to this memorandum.
All Regional Directors are requested to respond to Questions 5 and 6 of Enclosure 1.
A response by December 9,1977 will be appreciated.-
J' Harold D. Thornburg, Director /'
78120500t1 Division of Reactor Operations' inspection
[
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Questions cc: E. Volgenau J. G. Davis ll uad Cities was not on the list appearing in the above-referenced Q
memorandum.
i ll-2U
gh
.m 1
ENCLOSURE 1 1.ICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONS
\\
1.
From the. data evaluated, the identified facilit'ies appear to exhibit perfomance which deviates fnam the nonn.
Provide your analysis as to why the performance of the identified facilities in your Region appears to stand apart from the other facilities.
2.
Do you believe that the facilities identified in your Region have
- an abnormal performanca record?
P 3.
Do you believe the indicated performance of the identified facilities in your Region demonstrates they are less safe than the other facilities?
~
Please explain your answer.
]
4.
I'f you believe the identified facilities are " poor performers," please describe the corrective measures you have taken or plan to take.
5.
Do you believe other reactor facilities in your. Region should have been identified as having an abnormal performance record?
If so, identify the facilities and answer items 2, 3 and 4.
6.
What factors should be considered in licensee performance evaluation?
e
.n
,,.~
--r.-.
,