IR 05000271/1989015
| ML20247N111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1989 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Mcbrearty R, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247N092 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-271-89-15, NUDOCS 8909260149 | |
| Download: ML20247N111 (5) | |
Text
.
_
_
._
__ -
- _ _ _ _ _ -
r..
m.
..
- .'
- .
-i
..
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
y Report No.
50-271/89-15 Docket No.
50-271 License No.
DPR-28 Priority Category.
~
Licensee: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation RD 5, Box 169 Ferry Road Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 Facility Name: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Inspection At: Vernon, Vermont Inspection Conducted:
A_ugust 21-25, 1989 u
bb'
//,/979 Inspectors:
R. A. McBrearty, Reactor F/gineer
' date '
J aauM _
Sp/. //. /9 F/
S. K. T E udh y/ Lead Reactor Engineer date Approved by:
d
'7//.r/#7
'
R. Strosnider, Chief, Materials and date Processes Section, E.B., DRS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on August 21-25, 1989 (Report No. 50-271/89-15)
Areas Inspected: A routine, announced inspection was conducted of the licensee's Engineering Support Department and its interaction with other plant and corporate organizations. Areas inspected included plant modifications which were performed during the recent refueling outage, modifications which are planned for the next refueling outage and recent Licensee Event Reports.
An additional inspection area was the licensee's action on previous inspection items.
Results: The Engineering Support Department was found to be adequately staffed.with good communication and interaction with other plant'and corporate organizations. Modifications were processed with no significant design changes or rework, and the quality of planning was determined to be excellent.
E:909260149 890913 PDR ADOCK 05000271
__
__
_ _ _.
--
-
- _ _
_- __.
___
- _ _ _ _
-
_
_ _ -
.i
,
.
..
.
i Details L
'1.0 Persons Contacted Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation
- R. Guippardi, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- M. Mete 11, Engineering Support Supervisor
]
- R. Pagodin, Technical Services Superintendent
- J. Pelletier, Plant Manager
- R. Wanczyk, Operations Superintendent l'
Nuclear' Regulatory Commission
>
- J. Macdonald, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on August 25, 1989.
2.0 Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-271/86-12-01) Evaluation of Whip Restraint::
to SRP Section 3.6.2.
The inspector reviewed the licensee memorandum dated July 31, 1986 regarding the evaluation of recirculation system pipe whip restraints.
NRC Inspection Report No. 50-271/86-12 questioned why pipe whi; restraints on the recirculation system were not re-analyzed in accordance with SkP 3.6.2 criteria subsequent to the piping replacement project. The licensee committed to perform the evaluation in accordance with SRP 3.6.2 and the memorandum documents the method and the results of the evaluation. Based on the evaluation, the licensee concluded that the recirculation system pipe whip restraints can safely sustain a loading specification described by NRC SRP 3.6.2 without loss of function. The licensee further concluded that the restraints can sustain a loading described by the FSAR and original design criteria with significant margin.
Based on the above this item is considered closed.
3.0 Engineering Support The Engineering Support Department (ESD) at Vermont Yankee and the Yankee Nuclear Services Department (YNSD) at the Yankee corporate headquarters work closely together on design changes and modifications at the Vermont facility.
The site ESD initiates planning of a plant modification and contacts YNSD when its assistance is deemed necessary.
Each group assigns a Cognizant Engineer to the project. The ESD is responsible for preparing an engineering scoping memorandum describing the background leading up to the proposed project and the work activities necessary to complete the
= _ _ -
_ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _
. _. _ _ _ -.
_ _ _.
.
%
.
. -
!
'
.
project. The ESD staff engineer assigned to prepare the memo includes input from the appropriate plant departments and from YNSD.
Based on review of modification packages, the inspectors determined that the planning of design changes is scheduled to permit the required reviews, resolution of comments, and the necessary approvals to be obtained prior.t.o the anticipated commencement of work.
Packages representing modifications which were performed during the Vermont Yankee 1989 refueling outage were selected for inspection in addition to recent Licensee Event Reports (LERs) and Engineering Scoping Memoranda. The documents were inspected with respect to content, technical thoroughness, and evidence of communication between the various engineering organizations and appropriate plant departments.
- The following were selected for inspection:
Plant Design Change Request (PDCR)_88-01, Reactor Building Load
Shedding PDCR 86-05, Switch Relocation
PDCR 86-06, Alarms / Lights / Indicators
Scoping Memo - Shutdown Iodine Filter Drains
Scoping Memo - Feedwater Check Valve Replacement
Scoping Memo - Feedwater Flow Integrator
The PDCR packages showed evidence of good planning and communication between the various departments prior to beginniag work on the related modification.
Installation and Test (I&T) procedures, which were included in each package, were reviewed and approved by the appropriate managers and by the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) prior to the start of work.
Provisions for notifying the Shift Supervisor prior to the performance of various tests were included in each I&T procedure, as was the requirement to obtain approval of the shift supervisor to perform the tests. Additionally, notification of appropriate departments was required to assure that Control Room drawings were updated, and that necessary procedure revisions were initiated.
Completion of each step of the I&T procedure was confirmed by the required signature as were the QC hold points and verification.
Particular attention was paid to the number and type of field change requests (FCRs) included with each modification package to assess the quality and thoroughness of the planning associated with the conceptual design. Each of the packages included in the inspection sample contained
_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _, _ _..
- _ _ -
-
,,
.
..
.,v
a single FCR which, in each case, involved drawing revisions. No significant portion of the modifications required changing once the design was approved.
The scoping memos associated with the subject modifications also were reviewed. The scoping memos are planning documents for work that is intended to be performed during the next scheduled refueling outage at Vermont Yankee and were prepared by the facility ESD. The memos describe the work necessary to complete the intended project, ALARA considerations, plant and corporate organizational responsibilities, and precautions which are deemed necessary to complete the project.
The documents additionally consider the possibility.of Technical Specification changes which may be mandated by the modification.
An example of good preplanning is exhibited by the scoping memo related to:the feedwater check valve replacement project. The memo contained background information' describing the reason for the modification, materials already in stock, inspections which detected the original problem and the commitment u de to the NRC regarding the problem.
Additionally, various repair / replacement options were discussed for consideration.and included the advantaaes and disadvantages of each.
Finally, ESD recommended one of the options with reasons for the recommendation.
Licensee Event Reports (LERs) were reviewed by the inspectors to determine the engineering department's involvement in the preparation, analysis, and evaluation of piant events which required reporting. The inspectors reviewed a sample of 17 LERs (LERs89-001 through 89-017)
for d2 tail and clarity of description of the event, effect on plant operation, root cause analysis, and the proposed corrective actions.
The inspectors determined that the LERs were well written with a clear description of the event and contained good root cause analyses.
Additionally, the recommended corrective actions were appropriate for the reported conditions. The ESD maintains a comprehensive file for LERs assigned to them for action. When the root cause analysis indicated that a more in-depth analysis, evaluation and/or modification of plant system was required, the problem was forwarded to YNSD, the Yankee corporate engineering group for a long term fix.
No violations were identified.
'
Conclusions-Management is actively engaged in, and places a great deal of importance on the function of the Engineering Support Department at Vermont Yankee.
,
l Evidence of this is shown by the quality of the planning that is
-
_ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _
_ _.
-
___-___
__
.
- ,
.
- . -
..
.
.
.
l, exhibited by PDCRs and the scoping memos related to various plant modifications.
The modification' packages were:well organized'and included input.from plant and corporate organizations which contributed to the successful installation.of the related modifications. This is an indication-of the excellent communication that is niaintained between ESD, other plant organizations and YNSD, the Yankee corporate engineering group.
The_ pre planning of design changes and modifications was performed on schedule and the quality of the planning resulted in the timely completion of the related project with a minimum of field changes arad rework.
.
Plant'LERs were well written with a clear description of the event.
l
' Root cause analysis was ' good, and. recommended corrective actions were technically correct.
For cases where in-depth analysis and evaluation I
was required the problem was referred to YNSD which was further evidence of.the excellent interaction between plant and corporate organizations.
i.,
4.0 Exit Meeting The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at'the conclusion of the inspection on August 25, 1989. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings cf the inspection.
!
At no time during the inspection was written material provided by the inspectors to the licensee. The licensee did not indicate that pro 9rietary information was involved within the scope of this inspection.
L - _ _ _ -_ z--
_ _ _ - - - - - - - - _
-
_ - - - _ - _ - - - - _ - _ - - _ _
-._--- - - -
-
-_
~l