United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov

I-96-68 October 15, 1996

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NRC STAFF RATES GINNA "GOOD" IN THREE AREAS

AND "EXCELLENT" IN ONE CATEGORY ON LATEST SALP REPORT

The R. E. Ginna Nuclear Plant has received performance

ratings of "good" in operations, maintenance and engineering and

"excellent" in plant support in the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission's latest systematic assessment of licensee performance

(SALP) of the facility.

The SALP report was sent October 11 to Rochester Gas and

Electric Company (RG&E), which operates the plant near Rochester,

New York. It evaluates the plant's performance from March 12,

1995, through August 24 of this year.

NRC and RG&E officials will discuss the report during a

meeting scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on October 29 in the Training

Center at the Ginna site. The meeting will be open for public

observation and NRC officials will be available afterward to

speak with reporters and members of the public.

NRC assessment reports rate licensees in four functional

areas - plant operations, engineering, maintenance and plant

support - and assign Category 1, 2 or 3 depending on whether

performance in those areas was superior, good or adequate.

In a letter to RG&E, NRC Region I Administrator Hubert J.

Miller said NRC saw generally good safety performance at Ginna,

but he noted that the level of performance declined somewhat from

the previous SALP period. He said the plant's steam generator

replacement project was "exceptionally well managed and safely

performed," but that other activities reflected less consistent

performance.

"Management actions reflected a strong safety perspective

early in the period," Mr. Miller wrote, "but the operating

philosophy did not appear to be consistently conservative toward

the end of the period. Several equipment issues were not

aggressively addressed...."

He also cited challenges to the plant organization by

significant program and organizational changes. "Management of

change represents an ongoing challenge to the company," Mr.

Miller said.
The administrator had these comments on Ginna's performance

in the four rated categories:

OPERATIONS

"Performance in plant operations declined and was rated

Category 2. Operator response to plant transients, startups and

shutdowns continued to be good. However, degraded material

condition, equipment failures, and some program changes,

particularly implementation of Improved Technical Specifications,

challenged the operators. Some lapses in system and equipment

configuration control were evident. While operations effectively

controlled the refueling outages and steam generator replacement

activities, problems were noted with operator performance and

work control effectiveness during forced outages. Lapses in

conservative philosophy were noted late in the period as

reflected by the lack of aggressively addressing several

equipment issues."

MAINTENANCE

"In general, maintenance activities were well performed.

However, some significant cases of poor work practices and weak

procedures were noted, indicating past actions to address these

weaknesses have not been entirely effective. Occasions of weak

interface between engineering, operations, and maintenance were

also evident, particularly in support of emergent maintenance

issues. Surveillance activities were well implemented. The

problem identification and root cause processes were generally

effective for specific equipment failures or performance issues,

but had not yet matured to encompass evaluation across multiple

problems or events to identify common themes or causes."

ENGINEERING

"Performance in engineering also declined and was rated

Category 2. Strong performance was noted in all aspects of the

planning, work coordination, contractor and test control, and

management oversight in support of the 1996 refueling outage

activities and [steam generator replacement program]. The

[replacement program] was very successful; the installation of

the new steam generators was accomplished without major technical

problems and was followed by an excellent post-modification test

program. However, engineering performance regarding some

important programs declined compared to past performance.

Engineering performance concerning the motor operator valve (MOV)

program was weak throughout the period. Also, the Service Water

System Reliability Optimization Program. . . had not been kept

current to reflect service water system changes made in the last

three years, and the results of many completed heat exchanger

thermal performance tests required by [that program] had not been

fully evaluated."
PLANT SUPPORT

"We noted improved performance in the plant support

functions and this area was rated Category 1. All plant support

functions related to the [steam generator replacement program]

were well-coordinated and of very high quality. Exposure

reduction efforts and radiological controls were excellent.

Particularly noteworthy was the fact that the [program] was

completed with the second lowest personnel exposure per steam

generator when compared to all nuclear power plants that have

replaced steam generators. The effluent controls, environmental

monitoring, and security programs remained strong. Emergency

preparedness was very good, except with respect to call-out

drills."