IR 05000271/1980006
| ML19331C187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1980 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Caphton D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331C167 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-271-80-06, 50-271-80-6, NUDOCS 8008140276 | |
| Download: ML19331C187 (9) | |
Text
-
.
..
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
80-06 Docket No.
50-271 License No.
DPR-28 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Vermnnt Yankop Nuclear pnwar Enrnnration 25 Research Drive Westborouah. Massachusetts 01581 Facility Name:
Vermont Yankee Inspection at:
Vernon, Vermont Inspection conducted:
April 28 May 1, 1980
-
YZ9/9c Inspectors:
w L. H. Bettenhausen, Ph.D., Reactor Inspector date signed date signed
date signed N
Approved by:
'
D. L. CaphTon, Chief, Nuclear Support
/dat6 signed
l Section No.1, R0&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 28 - May 1,1980 (Report No. 50-271/80-06)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of plant staff training, requalifi-cation training for licensed operators, craft and technician training, and post-re-fueling startup testing.
The inspection involved 31 hours3.587963e-4 days <br />0.00861 hours <br />5.125661e-5 weeks <br />1.17955e-5 months <br /> on-site by one regional based NRC inspector.
Resul ts : No items of noncompliance wcre found in three areas.
One item of noncom-pliance was identified in one area (Deficiency - failure to record test data com-(
pletely).
!
l gggS140 l
Region I Form 12
'
(Rev. April 77)
!
, -.
._
..
.-.
.
- -.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- E. Bowles, Operations Training Supervisor B. Butera, Reactor Engineer R. Creek, Maintenance Foreman P. Donnelly, Instrument and Control Supervisor
- D.
Girroir, Technical Assistant
- S. Jefferson, Reactor and Computer Supervisor R. Leach, Health Physicist
- T. Linn, Training Coordinator
- R. Milligan, Administrative Supervisor
- W. Murphy, Plant Superintendent
- J. Pelletier, Assistant Plant Superintendent
- R. Sojka, Operations Supervisor
- W. Wittmer, Maintenance Supervisor
The inspector also talked with and interviewed other licensee employees during the inspection.
denotes those present at the exit interview on May 1,1980
2.
General Training References:
--A.P. 0004, PLANT STAFF TRAINING, Revision 2, dated December 6, 1979
--A.P. 0720, EMPLOYMENT PROCESSING, Revision 8, dated August 23, 1979 a.
Program Definition The inspector reviewed the referenced procedures with respect to the program definition requirements of:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II; 10 CFR 19.12; 10 CFR 73.50; and ANSI N18.1.
The referenced proce-dures set forth formal training programs for:
new employees; temporary maintenance or service personnel; and staff retraining.
These programs establish training which covers: administrative controls and procedures; radiological health and safety; controlled access and security; industrial safety; emergency plans and procedures; first aid; fire protection; and, quality assurance indoctrination.
Documented training is also provided for female employees on the contents of Appendix A to Regula-tory Guide 8.13.
l No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Program Participation The inspector reviewed the licensee's records to assure that the re-quired training had been given.
In addition, the inspector conducted interviews with certain of those individuals whose records were re-viewed.
The interviews were to verify that:
the scope of the training
. - - -
.
.
..-.
. -. -
-
,
-
-
-
--
-
,
l
-
.
.
was similar to that contained in the licensee's records; the training as conducted was meaningful to those attending; and the areas presented were covered accurately and sufficiently from the participants' point of view.
Records were reviewed for and interviews were conducted with those personnel listed below:
two employees with less than one year in their current position;
--
two employees with more than one year of service;
--
two contractor employees; and,
--
one female employee.
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Requalification Training Reference:
A.P. 0151, VERMONT YANKEE OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAM, Revision 7, dated April 25, 1978 a.
Program Items The inspector verified that, as presently established, the operator requalification program includes the following items:
an established, planned, continuing lecture schedule;
--
documentation of personnel attendance;
--
required reactivity control manipulations;
--
discussions / reviews of changes in facility design, procedures and
--
facility license, LERs and current events; and, review of abnormal / emergency procedures.
--
Three lesson plans were reviewed for content and teaching materials.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Record Review The inspector selected and reviewed the records of eight licensed operators to verify that each contained the following documentation:
completed course and yearly epminations with answers;
--
-
..
.
. -.
.
_
. _..
._.
,
.-
. _. -
._
-
_-
.
-
.
.
manipulation of controls for reactivity changes required by the
--
program; simulation or discussion of emergency / abnormal procedures and
--
responses; and, results of performance evaluations.
--
The inspector reviewed the records of one licensed operator who did not pass the requalification examination administered on June 20, 1979.
The individual was a plant staff member who was not a regular operator.
The individual was placed in accelerated requalification training and successfully passed another requalification examination on August 29, 1979.
The inspector verified by review of operations logs and discussions with license staff members that this individual did not perform licensed duties between June 20, 1979 and August 29, 1979.
The individual's participation in the other aspects of the requalification program was satisfactory. The individual was not available for interview.
c.
Personal Interviews The inspector selected and interviewed four licensed personnel who participated in the requalification program.
The interviews were directed at obtaining subjective appraisal of the content and ef-fectiveness of the requalification training as presented.
The inspector identified no discrepancies nor inconsistencies between the interview results and licensee's records.
d.
Program Revision
,
The licensee's requalification training program was in the process of being revised.
The revision will incorporate requirements of a letter, H. R. Denton to All Power Reactor Applicants and Licensees, Subject:
Qualification of Reactor Operators, dated March 29, 1980.
Licensee representatives also stated that the revised program will clearly state the mechanism and personnel notification for temporary removal from licensed duties and reinstatement to licensed duties as a result of, for
'
example, personnel actions or deficiencies in requalification.
This re-vised program will be completed by August 1,1980 and will be a subject for inspector followup (271/80-06-01).
.,.
.
-
-.
-
-
,
-
-
.
.
4.
Craft Personnel Training References:
--D.P. 0204, MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT TRAINING, Revision 2, November 26, 1979
--D.P.
0303, INSTRUMENT AND CONTROL DEPARTMENT TRAINING AND RETRAINING PROCEDURES, Revision 3, dated June 13, 1979
--D.P.
0106, NONLICENSED OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAM, Revision 3, dated February 28, 1979
,
--D.P.
0632, CHEMISTRY AND HEALTH PHYSICS DEPARTMENT TRAINING PROGRAM, Revision 4, dated February 26, 1980 a.
Program Definition The inspector reviewed the referenced procedures with respect to the program requirements of:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II; and ANSI N18.1-9171.
Thecurrentprogramsaddressthefollowingsubjects:
on-the-job training;
--
annual department procedure review;
--
related technical document review;
--
department procedure change review;
--
training records; and,
--
training schools.
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Prograin Participation t
l The inspector reviewed the licensee's records to assure that the re-quired training had been completed.
In addition, the inspector con-ducted interviews with certain of those personnel whose records had beer, reviewed.
The interviews were to verify that:
the scope of the training was similar to that contained in the licensee's records; the i
training was meaningful to those attending; and, the areas presented
!
were adequate from the participants' point of view.
one experienced auxiliary operator
--
--
two relatively new auxillary operators one relatively new craftsman
--
--.
-
-.
__
--
.
.
.
--
.-- -.-
-_.
.
-
-
.
.
four experienced craftsmen (two mechanics and two technicians);
--
and, one relatively new health physics technician.
--
The inspector observed that DP 0303 required annual supervisory review and recertification of instrumentation and control techni-cians and that this review was in progress.
Licensee representatives stated that the recertification would be completedby(June15, 1980.
This will be reviewed in subsequent inspections 50-271/80-06-02).
No items of noncompliance were observed.
5.
Post Refueling Startup Testing The inspector reviewed the following tests and checks to verify that the testing was conducted in accordance with technically adequate procedures and results met appropriate Technical Specification or acceptance criteria.
a.
Control Rod Scram Insertion Times The scram time test data for scram #93 performed October 20-23, 1979, in accordance with OP 4424, Control Rod Scram Testing, Revision 5, issued September 14, 1979, and reported in Cycle VII Startup Test Report (Start-up Report) to NRC dated January 18, 1980 demonstrated satisfactory scram times.
In the course of reviewing test results, the inspector noted that data sheets VYOPF 4424.01 for Scram #94 of November 19, 1979, were incem-plete.
The procedure requires that the following data be recorded:
reactor power, reactor pressure, time, date and accumulator pressure.
The data sheets summarizing scram times did not contain the required reactor power, reactor pressure and accumulator pressure at the time of the scram.
Licensee representatives demonstrated that this data was available from other sources so that the scram test could be evaluated.
Failure to record the data as required by the test procedure is an item of noncompliance (50-271/80-06-03).
b.
Control Rod Sequence and Reactivity Checks Thein-seque5cereactorcriticalitywasperformedonOctober27,19s.
Critical rod configuration comparisons with prediction are found ia the Startup Report.
Criticality was attained 94 rod notches beyond the predicted critical configuration, corresponding to 0.75% delta k greater than predicted, and within the + 1% delta k acceptance criterion for this test.
l l
l
.
-
--
.
-
--
--.
-
-
~
.
.
c.
The inspector reviewed the test procedure OP 4426, SDM Check, Revision 7, issued September 14, 1979 and the data obtained on OctoM - 13, 1979 and reported in the Startup Report.
The inspector had no furtne, questions on experimental demonstration of SDM.
d.
Core Power Distribution The procedures and methods used to verify that the plant is operating within the power distribution limits of Technical Specifications were reviewed and discussed with cognizant licensee personnel.
The in-spector randomly reviewed P-1 periodic core power distributions for the startup period November 3 - 30, 1979, as well as various on-demand computer program printouts for this period.
The inspector independently compared process computer values and results of the off-line computer program BUCLE with the values re-ported in the Startup Report.
The inspector also reviewed daily sur-veillances on core power distribution performed under procedure OP 4401, Core Thermal Hydraulic Limits Evaluation, Revision 7, dated January 7,1980, for the period April 2-30, 1980 and randomly compared the data to the source computer printouts.
No discrepancie:; were identified.
e.
Local Power Range Monitor (LPRM) Calibration This calibration is performed by obtaining a set of Traversing Incore Probe (TIP) fission chamber traces for the entire core, obtaining ccm-puter analysis of the results and using this to calibrate the LPRMs as needed.
The calibration is conducted according to OP 4406, LPRf1 Calibration and Functional Check, Revision 3, issued January 7,1980, and previous revisions.
The inspector reviewed the calibration data for calibration
- 442 performed November 6, 1979 at 66.7% Core Thermal Power (CTP),
- 443 performed November 7,1979 at 74% CTP, #444 performed November 7, 1979 at 72.5% CTP and #445 performed November 9, 1979 at 90% CTP.
The inspector had no further questions.
f.
Reactivity Anomalies l
Reactivity anomaly surveillance is accomplished by comparing actual to predicted control rod notch inventory as a function of reactor core burnup as prescribed by OP 4430, Reactivity Anomalies, Revision 4, issued December 1, 1978. The inspector examined these plots for Cycle
,-
_
_
. _ _ _
_ - _. _
_ _..
.
.
,
7-3-2 (curve transmitted by letter, GE to Vermont Yankee, NEX 80-19, January 29,1980), Cycle 7-A-2 (curve transmitted by letter, GE to Vermont Yankee), NEX 80-95, April 23,1980) and Cycle 7-A-1 (curve transmitted by letter, GE to Vermont Yankee, NEX 79-275, December 4, 1979). The predicted versus actual control rod notch inventories compared favorably and were well within the + 1% delta k acceptance
,
cri teria.
g.
Review of Startup Report and Related Documents The inspector reviewed the Startup Report submitted to the NRC pur-suant to the requirements of T.S. 6.7. A.1 to verify the following:
The report included the required information; and
--
The test results were consistent with design predictions and per-
--
formance specifications.
The inspector noted to licensee representatives a discrepancy in dates for the control rod scram test:
the test was conducted October 20-23, 1979 and is so noted in the data (Table 1), but was erroneously dated November 20 through 23 in the text on pages 1 and 2.
The error was acknowledged.
In order to verify that the test results were consistent with design predictions, the inspector reviewed licensee copies of the following fuel vendor reports:
NEDE-25156, August, 1979, Vermont Yankee Reload 06 Nuclear Design
--
Report NED0-24208, September, 1979, Appendix B to Supplemental Reload
--
License Submittal for VYNPS Reload 6 NED0-24208, Errata Sheet No. 1, October, 1979
--
The inspector had no further questions.
h.
_ Control Rod Blade Replacements The inspector discussed control rod blade exposure surveillance and blade replacements with cognizant licensee representatives.
The fol-lowing blades were changed out with Cycle VI-A in March 1979: 26-15, 26-31 and 18-31.
In October, 1979, these blades were changed out with Cycle VII: 30-27,18-27, 26-19,14-19,18-19 and 14-27.
A procedure to evaluate blade exposure has been developed.
The inspector examined draft OP 4404, Control Blade Lifetime.
Licensee representatives stated that this procedure would be approved and in use by July 15, 1980.
This will be an area for subsequent inspector followup (271/80-06-04).
..
.
.
__-
.
..
-.
-. -.
..
.
.
No additional items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on May 1,1980.
The inspector sum-marized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the findings.
.
T
i i
!
l
-.
-.
.
... - -.
- --.
..., _. _,
-. _ _ - _ -.. -
. - - -.... -
- -
.-
, - -. -
-,-