[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39193-39194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18808]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Review of Revised NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee 
Performance (SALP) Program

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing its 
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program that was 
last revised on May 19, 1993. Public comments are requested on the 
revised program and its implementation. The NRC is soliciting comments 
from interested public interest groups, the regulated industry, States, 
and concerned citizens. Comments received will be used in the NRC's 
review of the SALP program.

DATES: The comment period expires August 31, 1995. Comments received 
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the 
Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received 
on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: Chief, Rules Review and 
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publication 
Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T-6D-59, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Hand deliver comments to: 
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm 
on Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may be examined at the 
NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, 
DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Gamberoni, Mail Stop: O-12E-
4, Inspection Program Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone 
(301) 415-1144.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has begun a review 
of the implementation of the SALP program. The SALP program was revised 
on May 19, 1993, to improve the focus on significant performance 
issues, communication with licensees, and licensees' and the public's 
understanding of SALP results. Specific program changes included 
reducing the number of functional areas from seven to four, changing 
the board membership to Senior Executive Service (SES) members, 
shortening the SALP report, eliminating the draft initial report, 
changing the nature of the SALP meeting with the licensee from a 
presentation to more of a discussion, and focusing on the last six 
months of performance. Implementation of the revised program began for 
assessment periods ending after July 19, 1993.
    This review will attempt to determine if the revisions to the SALP 
program have been effective in focusing the SALP reports on significant 
performance issues and have resulted in 

[[Page 39194]]
better communication with the licensees and the public, leading to a 
better understanding of SALP results.
    The NRC SALP program objectives are:
    (1) To conduct an integrated assessment of licensee safety 
performance that focuses on the safety significance of the NRC findings 
and conclusions during an assessment period;
    (2) To provide a vehicle for meaningful dialogue with the licensee 
regarding its safety performance based on the insights gained from 
synthesis of NRC observations;
    (3) To assist NRC management in making sound decisions regarding 
allocation of NRC resources used to oversee, inspect, and assess 
licensee performance; and
    (4) To provide a method for informing the public of the NRC's 
assessment of licensee performance.
    The SALP program guidance is located in NRC Management Directive 
8.6, ``Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP),'' approved 
July 14, 1993.

Scope of the Review

    This review will focus primarily on the effectiveness of the May 
19, 1993, changes. General feedback on the SALP program is also 
invited. Additional detail on the scope of the review is given in the 
questions below. Commenters are not obligated to and need not address 
every issue.
    In providing comments, please key your response to the number of 
the applicable question (e.g., ``Response to A.1''). Comments should be 
as specific as possible. The use of examples is encouraged.
    Comments are requested on the following issues:

A. Functional Areas

    1. Are the current four functional areas (operations, maintenance, 
engineering, and plant support) an improvement compared to the previous 
seven functional areas?
    2. Are the plant support functional area messages clear in 
characterizing individual elements (radiological controls, emergency 
preparedness, security, fire protection, chemistry, and housekeeping)?
    3. Are additional improvements needed for the designation of 
functional areas? What types of improvements?

B. Management Involvement

    1. Did increased NRC management involvement in the SALP program 
result in program improvements and improved communication with licensee 
management?
    2. Did the SALP program changes result in better licensee and 
public understanding of the SALP results?
    3. Did increased involvement of the regional administrator or 
deputy at the SALP meeting result in improved communication with 
licensee management?
    4. Was the change in SALP presentation meeting format--from a 
presentation to more of a discussion--effective in improving 
communication with licensee management?
    5. Are additional improvements needed in the areas of 
communications with licensee management and licensee and public 
understanding of SALP results? What types of improvements?

C. Assessment Period

    1. What bases should be considered when determining SALP period 
length and how should they be applied?
    2. SALP assessments currently range from 12 to 24 months (nominally 
18 month average). Is this variation in practice appropriate?
    3. How long should the SALP assessment period be for good, average, 
and poor performing plants?

D. SALP Report

    1. Are the new, shorter SALP reports more effective in 
communicating the results of the NRC's assessment of safety performance 
than the previous, more lengthy reports?
    2. Are SALP reports appropriately focused on safety issues and do 
they deliver a clear message?
    3. Do SALP reports provide a balanced assessment of licensee safety 
performance (and are positive aspects of licensee safety performance 
appropriately considered)?
    4. Do SALP reports consistently focus on the last six months of 
performance? Is this practice appropriate?
    5. Is the level of detail in the SALP report appropriate?
    6. Are SALP report conclusions well-supported by documented facts?
    7. Are SALP report cover letter messages consistent with the 
associated SALP report messages?
    8. Are licensee self-assessment efforts adequately recognized in 
the SALP report and cover letter?
    9. Are additional improvements needed in the SALP reports? What 
types of improvements?

E. Additional Comments

    In addition to the above issues, commenters are invited to provide 
any other views on the NRC SALP program that could assist the NRC in 
improving its effectiveness.

    Dated at Rockville, MD, this 26th day of July 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard W. Borchardt,
Chief, Inspection Program Branch, Directorate for Inspection and 
Support Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-18808 Filed 7-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P