 |
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."
*
|
