NRC NEWS

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

or vld@nrc.gov

I-96-28 

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 Victor Dricks April 24, 1996

 

 NRC STAFF RATES INDIAN POINT 3 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

 "SUPERIOR" IN PLANT SUPPORT; "GOOD" IN MAINTENANCE;

 AND "ADEQUATE" IN ENGINEERING AND PLANT OPERATIONS

 The staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rated New

York Power Authority's (NYPA) Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant

in Buchanan, N.Y., "superior" in plant support; "good" in

maintenance; and "adequate" in engineering and plant operations

in its latest systematic assessment of licensee performance

(SALP) report.

 SALP reports assess licensee performance in four functional

areas - plant operations, maintenance, engineering and plant

support - and assign ratings of Category 1 (superior

performance), Category 2 (good performance) and Category 3

(adequate performance). The Indian Point 3 SALP evaluated

performance from August 16, 1992 through March 2, 1996. However,

the evaluations are based largely on the licensee's performance

since April 1995, in preparation for restart.

 Indian Point 3 remained in an extended plant shutdown from

March 1993 until May 1995 to address concerns about the plant's

performance by both NRC and NYPA. The utility agreed to the

shutdown, which NRC confirmed in writing. Because the SALP

program does not account for a licensee's performance being less

than adequate, the assessment report was deferred to allow for

sufficient performance improvement to support plant restart and

proper operation. The last SALP evaluation was performed in

1992. 

 The NRC staff will meet with NYPA officials at 1:30 p.m. on

May 15 at the Indian Point site to discuss the SALP report. The

meeting will be open to public observation.

 In a letter to NYPA officials NRC Region I Administrator

Thomas T. Martin said:

 "Management exhibited a strong presence and effective

involvement during special plant evolutions and during the

conduct of major maintenance activities. The addition of special

evolution managers during the June 1995 plant restart, to provide

senior management support and oversight on-shift, was considered

a strength."

 

 "Management generally took a conservative approach to

plant operations. The quality assurance (QA) organization's

ability to identify problems and adverse trends and to propose
appropriate corrective actions was likewise considered a

strength. Your plans for performing departmental self-assessments are noteworthy, but the program has yet to mature

sufficiently to evaluate its effectiveness."

 On operations, Mr. Martin said:

 "While operators were well poised to restart the plant in

June 1995, plant events in the latter half of 1995 and weaknesses

in the material condition of the plant significantly challenged

the operators. On some occasions, operators did not perform in a

manner consistent with management expectations, particularly with

regard to procedure adherence. Furthermore, operators did not

always show a healthy questioning attitude, such as challenging

instrumentation and control technicians regarding whether plant

conditions were appropriate for the conduct of testing and

sometimes demonstrated a weak understanding of the plant's

licensing and design basis."

 "The prolonged forced outage, beginning in September 1995

and ongoing at the close of the SALP period, forced the

operations organization in particular, and the plant organization

in general, to react to emerging problems and delayed their focus

on planned long-term performance improvements. As a result,

performance declined following the restart assessment team

inspection in April 1995. While significant corrective actions

and management attention were devoted to improving operator

performance late in the SALP period, evidence of sustained

performance improvement remains to be demonstrated." 

 On maintenance, Mr. Martin said:

 "Activities were generally well coordinated and the overall

quality of the work performed was good. Maintenance management

and staff generally responded well to emergent equipment issues

and displayed conservative decision-making in addressing many of

these issues. Procedure improvements were evident as was

increased procedure adherence and a questioning attitude on the

part of maintenance workers. Surveillance activities were

generally conducted well and in accordance with procedures. 

However, occasional lapses in the questioning attitude of test

personnel and in supervisory oversight caused several inadvertent

and unexpected impacts on plant systems that resulted in

challenges to the operators. Plant material condition declined

since restart as evidenced by the growing maintenance backlog and

the increased frequency and number of equipment failures,

particularly in the balance of plant."

 On engineering, Mr. Martin said:

 "Performance was adequate overall during the assessment

period. For issues that received specifically-focused site or

engineering management attention, performance was good."

 

 "For other issues, performance varied significantly, with

some noteworthy examples of poor work. Operability

determinations, technical specification interpretations and the

resolution of material condition problems were generally good."

 "However, emergent work activities severely hampered the

engineering organizations' ability to focus and address longer

term issues that affect equipment reliability and organizational

performance. Technical quality of work varied significantly. 

System engineering responded well to emerging issues,
particularly equipment failures, but they and their management

did not provide for those trending and other monitoring

activities that are necessary to reduce the occurrence rate of

significant equipment failures."

 And regarding plant support, Mr. Martin said:

 "Performance in the area of radiation protection and

controls continues to be very good. In the security area,

performance improved to the point where it was also strong. 

Further, NYPA maintained an effective emergency preparedness

program. Significant efforts were expended in the fire

protection area to make the area ready to support restart. Those

efforts were generally good. Housekeeping performance was mixed,

with some evidence that suggested that management expectations in

that area either were not fully developed, or not clearly

articulated."