ML20034H183
| ML20034H183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1993 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Blythe C CITIZENS' UTILITY BOARD |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303160141 | |
| Download: ML20034H183 (3) | |
Text
,w
~
~
,3
>*k UNITED STATES
'. e -
5 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
yy p
o TNTy n-REGION til ;
.t
'>5
+ E~
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD.
l
-f h h
8
- GLEN ELLYN. ILLINo!S 60137-5927 ll 3y[/
q MAR 101993 i
j q
l Citizens' Utility Board 1
l ATTN: Mr. C. Blythe Executive Director 16 North Carroll Street - Suite 300 l
Madison, WI 53703 i
Dear Mr. Blythe:
l,
SUBJECT:
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT - OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE 1
The NRC Region III staff has reviewed your letter dated February 19, 1993, along; with the Citizens' Utility Board (CUB) Report, " Fines _ and Violations - Point:
Beach Nuclear Plant".
Although the specific information - concerning. civil i
penalties issued to the Point Beach plant given _ in the report appears to ~ be:
I 1
accurate, a. number of factors ia addition to enforcement 1 actions are utilized by the NRC in determining the performance of nuclear plants.. Based upon; evaluation-of all these factors, my staff and I have concluded that' the overall performance of the Point Beach nuclear plant at this time does not warrant placing it:on~ the
-i NRC's watch list.
Concerning your second request, the Point Beach plantiis~
currently under a program of increased NRC insnections: as - a result of their performance history.
No further inspection increases are deemed necessary at -
this' time.
~
j In order to' assess the safety performance of nuclear power plants,-eac_h plant is-1 evaluated on a one to two year basis through_ the SALP (Systematic Assessment of-
.]
Licensee Performance) process. The SALP process -is an integrated agency _ effort
+1 to collect and evaluate available' agency ^ insights,-data"and other information on
-1 a plant specific basis:in order to assess and better understand the reasons' for,-
1 a licensee's performance. Enforcement history is only one of the six evaluation 1
criteria used to assess licensee performance 11n the SALP process.
The most.
j recently concluded SALP cycle for the Point Beach plant ended January 31i 1992.
j A copy of the report is enclosed. Compared ~to the previous SALP report, Point
.i l
Beach showed a decline in performance in two of the seven SALP functional areas, an improvement in one functional area,' and ~ a declining trend in. another area.
~i The other three functional areas were consistent with _the _ previous assessment.
I period with'an improving trend noted in'one of these areas. This equated to an 1
overall assessment of slightly declining.but still acceptable performance. -Based i
on this1SALP, the inspection program was : adjusted to : increase the amount of 1
inspection in' the engineering and technical-- support area 'and L the safety :
1 assessment ~ and quality verification area.
Also; the NRC decreased the -time-j period between SALP assessments for the Point Beach plant from 17 months' to '14 -
A months. The current SALP assessment' period ends March 31, 1993, and we will send d
you a copy of this reporth which we expect to issue' in May of 1993.
y 3
Incaddition' to the formal SALP assessments, evaluation of a plant's performance-jj
' is formally reviewed on a quarterly o'r semiannualL asis in a plant. performance'-
1 b
review meeting, which includes review of our inspection plan for the plant. 'This 160074 1
y 286 & o,ogf L mt 1
m PDR~
'lf
- AR'101993 i
Mr. C. Blythe 2
i review provides a forum for NRC management to periodically assess the performance of each plant within its SALP assessment period and to modify the prescribed inspection program as necessary. The discussions during this review include a summary of recent operations, significant inspection findings (including the
]
status of escalated enforcement actions), projections of the performance trends i
in each SALP functional area, and any new concerns which have arisen. The most recent such performance review for the Point Beach plant-was completed in November 1992.
That review showed that the Point Beach plant had improved in several SALP areas including safety assessment and quality verification.
I would characterize the overall performance of the Point Beach plant at present as acceptable and showing an improving trend.
I appreciate the effort that was required to prepare your report and regard your concern as a positive influence for the continued safe operation of the Point Beach nuclear plant. While I share your concern that certain past practices at the Point Beach plant did not live up to our performance expectations, I do not agree with your characterization that the Point Beach plant is a " nuclear plant in crisis" or that the " safe operation of the plant has significantly deteriorated."
Fines and violations levied by the NRC do not by themselves provide the complete picture of the licensee's performance and therefore'cannot be used as the sole basis for assessing plant performance or for placing a plant 1
on the NRC watch list. While I cannot support putting Point Beach on the NRC's watch list at this time, the frequency and scope of our safety inspections at the plant were increased for the current SALP period to support indepth assessment of their safety performance. My staff will continue to assess that performance, and we will adjust our inspection efforts accordingly.
If I can be of further assistance in your understanding of the NRC's evaluations l
of the Point Beach nuclear power plant performance, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely, M
Cs
~
'A. Bert 04ds Regional A ministrator
Enclosure:
As stated i
See Attached Distribution i
J
1 4
i MAR 101993 l
Mr. C. Blythe 3
Distribution cc w/o enclosure:
G. J Maxfield, Plant Manager.
DCD/DCB (RIDS)
OC/LFDCB Resident Inspector, RIII Virgil Kanable, Chief Boiler Section Cheryl L. Parrino, Chairman Wisconsin Public Service Commission Robert M. Thompson, Administrator WI Div of Emergency Govt.
,