ML20245F420
| ML20245F420 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1989 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Larson J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906280134 | |
| Download: ML20245F420 (4) | |
Text
--
l
,[1 p4 f sig%,
f
+
UNITED STATES
)
'$ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGmN. D. C. 20555 Mrs. Julia G. Larson 200 Villanova Road Glassboro, New Jersey 08028
Dear Mrs. Larson:
I am responding to your May 23, 1989 letter to Dr. Thomas E. Murley regarding the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
Your letter requested our comments on a recent newspaper article discussing low ratings in radiation controls and overall operation in recent months.
We believe the source of information for the newspaper article to be the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report issued by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on April 17, 1989.
A copy of that report is enclosed for your information.
SALP reports are issued for all nuclear power plants in the United States approximately once every 15 months.
These reports are intended to provide feedback to utilities regarding their strengths and weaknesses and to provide a rationale for allocation of NRC inspection resources.
The purpose of and criteria for this process are more fully explained in the enclosed report.
In the case of a Category 3 rating the licensee's performance does not significantly exceed that needed to meet minimal regulatory requirements.
Facilities that fail to maintain adequate level of safety performance are subject to shutdown of the facility.
In the enclosed Oyster Creek SALP report, you will note that a Category 3 rating was given for plant operations (Section IV.A) with an " improving" trend.
This indicates that improvements have been made in the operation over the previous assessment period, for which a Category 3 rating was also given, but the improvement wasn't extensive enough to warrant a Category 2 rating.
In the radiological controls section of the report (Section IV.8) the NRC noted that GPU Nuclear's program remains adequate but that, continuing weaknesses were identified that contributed to a noticeable degradation in program effectiveness.
Consequently a Category 3 rating was given for the most recent period compared to Category 2 for the previous period.
- However, the noted weaknesses deal with issues such as work planning, event analysis and reduction of radiation exposure to on-site workers.
None of these issues directly affect control of radiation to the environs outside the site boundary.
In fact, the SALP report lists as one of GPU Nuclear's strengtns their program to reduce the release of liquid radioactive effluents from the site.
GPU Nuclear P
e, m e o m q0 w.
' o PDR ADOCK pyg H
'.W p
Nrs. Julia G. Larson.
- 2..
has recognized the' need to improve performance in the areas discussed in the-NRC's report and presented an 8-point' improvement program to the NRC during a meeting on. March 22,.1989.
I hope these comments respond to your concerns.
Sincerely, f
o John.F..Stolz, Director Project Directorate 1-4 Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated
. DISTRIBUTION w/o enclosure Docket File ee-Centr 61 Ille-T.' Murley/Sniezek J. Partlow S. Varga
'B. Boger-J. Stolz R. Hernan
'S. Norris D. Mossburg, PMAS ('!cilaa 7.M* 7'M P.U pCP)RgLocalPDR eYob Tdef Fite%I-y
.[LETTERTOMRS.JULIALARSON)
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
.N OFC :PM:PDI 4*
- PD:PDI 4
- 0G
- ADR Ay
- DR /DRSP
- ADP
- DD NRR 4
- SVar/......:....
NAME-:RHernan:cb :J5 1
- BB ger
- JPar ow
- JSn ek-
.DATE :6/2/89
- 6/)/89
- 6/ '/89
- 6/f/89
- 6/ /89
- 6/ /8
- 6/ /89 0FC. :DUT RR
- GPA/CA NAME :TMurl DATE t 6,' M......:....;\\......
9
- 6,
/89 OFFICIAL TcECORD COPY
)
1
qqj
. r. n
'- '~'
i 4
q 1 #
i 8
g V.
g; _
D, L..
JMrs.-Julia;G. Larron
' 2-
~~
- has recognized the need:to improve: performance in' the' areas discussed in the.
NRC's report and presented an.8-point' improvement program to the NRC during a s
. meeting on March 22,.;1989.-
~
- I hope <these comments' respond to your concerns.
Sincerely, s
,h i
4
~ John F'. Stolz, Director.
Project Directorate I-4
' Division of Reactor Projects'I/IIL Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
. DISTRIBUTION Docket File or Central File.
. T. Murley/Snierek-
'J. Partlow S. Varga B. Boger J. Stolz
'R. Hernan.
S.. Norri s D. Mossburg, PMAS:
[LETTERTOMRS.JULIALARSON]
[DOCUMENTNAME]~
OFC :PM:PDI-4.
- PD:PDI-4
- 0GC
- ADR
- DRP/DRSP
- ADP
- DDONRR "NAME :RHernan:cb ':JStolz
- BBoger
- SVarga
- JPartlow
- JSniezek
' DATE :6L1/89 -
- 6/' /89
- 6/ /89'
- 6/ /89
- 6/ /89
- 6/ /89
- 6/ /89
- ,UFU
- DUNKR-
- liPA/CA g....:............:............:
LMAME :TMurley
~
-DATE :6/f /89
- 6/ /89 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
f: 7.p; lC;,.,,
r;,
ij
's x
q, A..y.c;;; ; y a
~
u r
r g, 4...
h?,
,,I' 9
.,e,.
.p.
4) cMrs. Julia G. Larson> '
/ -i2.
D
..s, has recognized.the need 'to improve' performance lin?the areas discussedzin1the
- NRC's report and presented plans' for'improvemaat to the;NRC during a' SALP -
tManagement meeting on May 8, 1989.
E i
- I trust these; comments respond to your concerns.
Sincerely, y..
1 John F..Stolz, Director Project DirectorateiI-4.
i Division of Reactor. Projects I/II.
.0ffice of Nuclear.; Reactor. Regulation;,
l
Enclosure:
.As stated DISTRIBUTI,w/o enclosure
- me
.T.TMurl Sniezek 4J. Partlow S."Varga B.'Boger J. Stolz.-
R..Hernan-
.S..Norris U..
DE Mossburg, PMAS (Yellow Ticket #899121)
NRC PDR and Local PDR Plant File P
' Yellow. Ticket File PDI-4 p --
[LETTERLTOMRS.JULIALARSON]
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE 0FC :PM:PDI-4*
RI
- PD:PDI-4
- ADR
.....:............:.4sm:
- ............:......N....
JNAME.:RHernan:cb :' CCowg 11
.....;............:............':.. 7
- JSt
- BBogef
[DATE':6/2/89.
- 6/4 /89
- 6/4/8
- 6/5/89 :
YtA Tektru.
MM-i l]C
_.__ i _ ___
I