IR 05000266/2006001

EOC Annual Assessment Letter (Report 05000266/2006001)

ML060620046
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	03/02/2006
From:	Caldwell J Region 3 Administrator
To:	Koehl D Nuclear Management Co
References
IR-06-001
Download: ML060620046 (7)

Text

rch 2, 2006

SUBJECT:

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT LETTER - POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT (REPORT 05000266/2006001; 05000301/2006001)

Dear Mr. Koehl:

On February 13, 2006, the NRC staff completed its performance review of Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP). Our technical staff reviewed performance indicators for the most recent quarter and inspection results for the period from January 1 through December 31, 2005. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our assessment of your safety performance during this period and our plans for future inspections at your facility.

This performance review and enclosed inspection plan do not include physical protection information. A separate letter, designated and marked as "Exempt from Public Disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390," will include the physical protection review and resultant inspection plan.

Overall, PBNP Units 1 and 2 operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety.

While Point Beach met all cornerstone objectives, it remained within the Multiple/Repetitive Degraded Cornerstone Column of the Action Matrix with longstanding issues or significant degradation in safety performance. The degraded cornerstones were based on two Red findings for Unit 1 and Unit 2 associated with the auxiliary feedwater and instrument air systems, and a Yellow finding for Unit 1 and a Red finding for Unit 2 associated with the potential failure of the auxiliary feedwater pumps due to plugging of recirculation line orifices. The NRC will continue to closely monitor Point Beach performance consistent with the guidance in Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0305.

In our mid-cycle assessment letter, dated August 30, 2005, we advised you of the continuation of substantive cross-cutting issues in the areas of Problem Identification and Resolution (PI&R)

and Human Performance. These substantive cross-cutting issues were the result of several findings which involved failures to effectively implement corrective actions and deficiencies in human performance throughout the station. In response to the identified cross-cutting issues, you included in your comprehensive site-wide improvement plan (the Point Beach Excellence Plan) specific Action Plan steps to correct the substantive cross-cutting issues. Regarding the Human Performance area, we have noted that the number and significance of Human Performance related events have declined during the assessment period. These results have been realized through the concerted effort Nuclear Management Company has applied toward the Human Performance area. Based on the number of findings identified in 2005 with cross-cutting Human Performance aspects and the lack of a common theme, we have concluded that the substantive cross-cutting issue in Human Performance is closed. We will monitor this area through the baseline inspection program.

In the PI&R area, we continued to identify weaknesses in causal evaluations and the implementation of corrective actions, as demonstrated by more than three Green findings with a common causal theme. However, based on our review of your progress in this area, the results of our November 2005 expanded PI&R inspection, and actions you have put in place for future self-assessments, the agency does not have a concern with your scope of efforts in the cross-cutting area of PI&R. Therefore, we have concluded that this substantive cross-cutting issue is closed.

Additionally, on December 16, 2005, the staff issued a White finding and Notice of Violation (NOV), and proposed imposition of a $60,000 civil penalty, for violations of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50.9. The White finding was associated with the failure to self-identify the untimely declaration of an Alert classification during an August 2002 Emergency Preparedness (EP) drill.

The violation of 10 CFR 50.9 involved inaccurate information provided to the NRC associated with a critique of the August 2002 EP drill. In a January 2006 telephone call, you were informed that the NRC would be taking a one-time deviation from the Action Matrix process. Normally, a supplemental 95001 inspection would be performed after a White finding is determined; however, in response to the concerns identified in the IP 95003 supplemental inspection conducted in 2003, the licensee initiated six EP Action Plans to upgrade its EP program, including measures to upgrade its capabilities to critique drills and exercises and to initiate, track, and resolve critique items. The effectiveness of the licensees corrective actions to improve its capability to identify, track, and resolve critique items associated with EP drills and exercises has been demonstrated with no findings or Performance Indicators greater than Green identified by the NRC. A White finding will be input on the Reactor Oversight Program web page, but will not be considered indicative of current performance in the EP cornerstone, and will not be considered in formulating a regulatory course of action should a new White finding occur in the EP cornerstone.

Since PBNP remained in the Multiple/Repetitive Degraded Cornerstone Column of the Action Matrix, your plant will be discussed at the upcoming Agency Action Review Meeting in accordance with IMC 0305, Operating Reactor Assessment Program. We will notify you via separate correspondence if any agency actions change as an outcome of the meeting.

This letter advises you of our planned inspection effort resulting from the PBNP end-of-cycle review. The enclosed plan details the inspections, less those related to physical protection, scheduled through September 30, 2007. The inspection plan is provided to allow for the resolution of any scheduling conflicts and personnel availability issues well in advance of inspector arrival onsite. Routine resident inspections are not listed due to their ongoing and continuous nature. The inspections in the last 9 months of the inspection plan are tentative and may be revised at the mid-cycle review meeting. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system, and is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

If circumstances arise which cause us to change this inspection plan, we will contact you to discuss the change as soon as possible. Please contact Mr. Patrick Louden at (630) 829-9627 with any questions you may have regarding this letter or the inspection plan.

Sincerely,

/RA/

James L. Caldwell Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 License Nos. DPR-24; DPR-27 Enclosure: Point Beach Nuclear Plant Inspection/Activity Plan See Attached Distribution