IR 05000271/2011004
| ML112930450 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/20/2011 |
| From: | Ronald Bellamy NRC/RGN-I/DRP/PB5 |
| To: | Michael Colomb Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| References | |
| IR-11-004 | |
| Download: ML112930450 (29) | |
Text
September 30, 2011
SUBJECT:
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION - NRC INTEGRATED I NSPECTION REPORT 0500027 I 1201 1 004
Dear Mr. Colomb:
On September 30, 2A11, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on October 6,2011, with Mr. Christopher Wamser, General Manager of Plant Operations, and other members of your statf.
The inspection examined activities performed under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations, and with the conditions of your license. The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.
Based on the results of this inspection, no findings were identified.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web Site at http:/lwww.nrc.govlreading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RN Dr. Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief Projects Branch 5 Division of Reactor Projects SUNSI Review Complete: TCS (Reviewer's Initials)
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\DRP\\BMNCH5\\Reports\\Final\\W 20 1 1 004.docx After declaring this document "An Official Agency Record" it will be released to the Public.
K. Dunham, DRP S. Rich, DRP, Rl A. Rancourt, DRP, OA RidsNrrPMVermontYankeeResource RidsNrrDorlLll -1 Resource ROPreportsResou rce@nrc. gov MLl12930450 To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: 'C' = Copy without attachmenVenclosure "E" = Copy with attachmenVenclosure Docket No. 50-271 License No. DPR-28 Dishibution w/encl: (via E-mail)
W. Dean, RA D. Lew, DRA D. Roberts, DRP J. Clifford, DRP C. Miller, DRS P. Wilson, DRS M. Franke, OEDO R. Bellamy, DRP S. Rutenkroger, DRP T. Setzer, DRP B. Keighley, DRP J. DeBoer, DRP
"N" = No
Docket No.:
License No.:
Report No.:
Licensee:
Facility:
Location:
Dates:
Inspectors:
Approved by:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM ISSION
REGION I
50-271 DPR-28 0500027112011004 Entergy Nuclear OPerations, Inc.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Vernon, Vermont 05354-9766 July 1,2011through September 30,2011 D. Spindler, Senior Resident Inspector S. Rutenkroger, PhD, Senior Resident lnspector S. Rich, Resident InsPector J. Nicholson, Health PhYsicist Dr. Ronald R. BellamY, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 5 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
tR 0500027 1 1201 1OO4: 07 l 01 1201 1 - 0913012011 ; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; lntegrated lnspection Report.
This report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident inspectors and a regional inspector. Based on the results of this inspection, no findings were identified. The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," Revision 4, dated December 2006.
REPORT DETAILS
Summarv of Plant Status Vermont yankee Nuclear power Station (W) began the inspection period at 100 percent power.
On August 5,2011, operators reduced power to 75 percent to perform a rod pattern adjustment and returned power to 100 percent the same day. On August 23, operators reduced power to 4g percent to make repairs to the "B" feedwater regulating valve actuator. Following repairs, operators returned W to 100 percent power the following day. On August 31, VY entered end-oi-cycle coastdown operations. On September 3, operators commenced a technical specification required shutdown due to the failure of room cooler RRU-7. Operators reduced power to g5 percent and then completed compensatory actions and exited the technical specification required shutdown action statement. Operators returned W to the maximum coastdown power, g8 percent, the same day. On September 25, the "B" recirculation pump motor generator set trpped, and the operators stabilized power at 34 percent. Operators maintained W below 46 percent power for the remainder of the inspection period while motor generator set repairs were ongoing'
1. REACTORSAFETY
Gornerstones: I nitiating Events, M itigating Systems, Barrier Integrity
1R01 Adverse Weather Protection
.1 lmpendinq Adverse Weather
a.
Inspection ScoPe The inspectors performed a review of Entergy's procedures to evaluate their process for preparing for imminent thunder storms accompanied by lightning and high winds. This review was conducted on July 6 due to forecasted adverse weather in the area. The inspectors reviewed adverse weather information contained in the External Events Design Basis Document and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and comfared it to the actions specified in OPOP-PHEN-3127, "Natural Phenomena,"
Revision 2. The inspectors also performed a walkdown of the reactor building and areas external to safety reiated equipment to verify that equipment readiness was adjusted to meet the onset of storms accompanied by lightning and high winds' Documents reviewed for each section of this inspection report are listed in the Attachment' b.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
.2 lmpendinq Adverse Weather
a.
Inspection ScoPe On August 25 and 26, the inspectors reviewed Entergy's preparations f-or potential tropical storm wind conditions and heavy rain associated with Tropical Storm lrene. The inspectors reviewed adverse weather information contained in the External Events Oeiign Basis Document and UFSAR, and compared it to the actions specified in OPOP-pHEN-3127, "Natural Phenomena," Revision 2. The inspectors also performed a walkdown of the protected area and the area around the switchyard to verify items were tied down or stored so they would not be affected by the high winds.
b.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
R04 Equipment Aliqnment
.1 Partial Svstem Walkdowns
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed partial walkdowns of the following systems:
o "A" residual heat removal (RHR) system during "8" RHR pump and valve testing
. Reactor core isolation cooling system during high pressure coolant injection system testing
. Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) 1B, with UPS-1A unavailable
. Service water system following inspection port installation The inspectors selected these systems based on their risk-significance relative to the reactor safety cornerstones at the time they were inspected. The inspectors reviewed applicable oferating procedures, system diagrams, the UFSAR, technical specifications, work orders, condition reports, and the impact of ongoing work activities on redundant trains of equipment in order to identify conditions that could have impacted system performance of their intended safety functions. The inspectors also performed field walkdowns of accessible portions of the systems to verify system components and support equipment were aligned correctly and were operable. The inspectors examined the material condition of the components and observed operating parameters of equipment to verify that there were no deficiencies. The inspectors also reviewed whether Entergy siaff had properly identified equipment issues and entered them into the corrective i-ction program for resolution with the appropriate significance characterization.
b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
.2 Full Svstem Walkdown
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed a complete system walkdown of accessible portions of the control rod drive system to verify the existing equipment lineup was correct. The inspectors reviewed operating procedures, drawings, equipment line-up check-off lists, and the UFSAR to verify the system was aligned to perform its required safety functions.
The inspectors also reviewed electrical power availability, hanger and support functionality, and functionality of support systems. The inspectors performed field walkdowns of accessible portions of the systems to verify system components and support equipment were aligned correctly and operable. The inspectors examined the material condition of the components and observed operating parameters of equipment to verify that there were no deficiencies. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed a sample of related condition reports and work orders to ensure Entergy appropriately evaluated and resolved any deficiencies. The inspectors discussed system condition with the system engineer.
b. Findinos No findings were identified.
1R05 Fire Protection
.1 Resident Inspector Quarterlv Walkdowns
a. Inspection ScoPe The inspectors conducted tours of the areas listed below to assess the material condition and operational status of fire protection features. The inspectors verified that Entergy controlled combustible materials and ignition sources in accordance with admin-iitrative procedures. The inspectors verified that fire protection and suppression equipment was available for use as specified in the area pre-fire plan, and passive fire barriers were maintained in good material condition. The inspectors also verified that station personnel implemented compensatory measures for out of service, degraded, or inoperable fire protection equipment, in accordance with procedures'
. Reactor Building Northeast Corner Room, FZ-1 o Reactor Building Southeast Corner Room, FZ-2
. Torus Room, RB-1, RB-2
. "A" Emergency Diesel Generator Room, FA-8
. Fuel Oil Storage Tank and Transfer Pump House, FA-12 b.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
.2 Annual tnspection (71111.05A-1 sampte)
a.
Inspection ScoPe The inspectors observed a fire brigade drill scenario conducted on July 26 that involved the "A" station battery room. The inspectors evaluated the readiness of the plant fire brigade to fight fires. The inspectors verified Entergy personnel identified deficiencies, openly discuised them in a self-critical manner at the debrief, and took appropriate corrective actions as required. The inspectors verified that the fire brigade:
.
properly used turnout gear and self-contained breathing apparatus
.
Properly used and laid out fire hoses o Employed appropriate fire-fighting techniques o Brought sufficient fire-fighting equipment to the scene o Effectively used command and control
.
Searched for victims and for propagation of the fire into other plant areas r Gonducted smoke removal operations
.
Properly used pre-planned strategies
. Adhered to the pre-planned drill scenario
.
Met drill objectives The inspectors also evaluated the fire brigade's actions to determine whether these actions were in accordance with Entergy's fire-fighting strategies.
b.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
1R06 Flood Protection Measures
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors conducted an inspection of underground manholes subject to flooding that contain cables whose failure could disable risk-significant equipment. The inspectors performed walkdowns of risk-significant areas, including manholes MH-32' Mil-3g, MH-pg and MH-P13, to verify that the cables were not submerged in water, that cables and/or splices appeared intact, and to observe the condition of cable support structures. The inspectors also reviewed the results of Entergy's manhole pump out I
efforts to verify pump out frequency was sufficient to maintain water levels below the cables, and if not, that appropriate corrective actions were taken.
b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
1R07 Heat Sink Performance
Annual lnspection a.
lnspection ScoPe The inspectors reviewed the results of the thermal performance tests of the "A" residual heat removal system heat exchanger. The inspectors discussed the test results with the system engineer, reviewed the completed surveillance data to determine whether test results met acceptance criteria, and verified the criteria considered differences between test conditions and design basis accident conditions. The inspectors also reviewed Entergy's corrective action program to ensure significant heat exchanger performance problems were appropriately identified and documented and that corrective actions assigned were aPProPriate.
b.
Findinqs No findings were identified 1Rl 1 Licensed Operator Requalification Proqram (71111'11)
Quarterlv Inspection (71111.1 1Q - 1 sample)a.
Inspection ScoPe The inspectors observed licensed operator simulator training on August 22,2011, which included Just-in-Time (JlT) training for a scheduled power reduction to repair a feedwater regulating valve actuator. The inspectors evaluated operator performance during the siiulated event and verified completion of risk significant operator actions, including the use of abnormal and emergency operating procedures. The inspectors assessed the clarity and effectiveness of communications, the implementation of actions in response to alarms and degrading plant conditions, and the oversight and direction provided by the control room supervisor. Additionally, the inspectors assessed the ability of the crew and training staff to identify and document crew performance problems.
b.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
I
1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness (71111.12' 2 samples) a. lnspection ScoPe
The inspectors reviewed the samples listed below to assess the effectiveness of maintenance activities on structuies, systems and components (SSC) performance and reliability. The inspectors reviewed system health reports, corrective action program documents, and maintenance rule basis documents to ensure that Entergy was identifying and properly evaluating performance problems within the scope of the maintenance rrl". 'Foi each sample selected, the inspectors verified that the SSC was properly scoped into the maintenance rule in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65 and verified that the t O inf s0.6S (a)(2) performance criteria established by Entergy staff was reasonable. Additionatiy, ine inspectors ensured that Entergy staff was identifying and addressing common cause failures that occurred within and across maintenance rule system boundaries.
. Residual Heat Removal SYstem o EmergencY Diesel Generators b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
(71111.13 - 7 samPles)
Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed station evaluation and management of plant risk for the maintenance and emergent work activities listed below to verify that Entergy performed the appropriate risk asslssments prior to removing equipment for work' The inspectors selecied these activities based on potential risk significance relative to the reactor safety cornerstones. As applicabte for each activity, the inspectors verified that Entergy personnel performed risk assessments as required!y tO CFR 50'65(aX4) and that the assessments were accurate and complete. When Entergy performed emergent Work' the inspectors verified that operations personnel promptly assessed and managed plant risk. The inspectors reviewed the scope of maintenance work and discussed the results of the assessment with the station's probabilistic risk analyst to verify plant conditions were consistent with the risk assessment. The inspectors also reviewed the technical specification requirements and inspected portions of redundant safety systems to verify risk analysis assumptions were valid and applicable requirements were met.
. Workweek 1 1 28 - "A" Control Rod Drive Pump Emergent Activity Combined with "A" Turbine Building closed Loop cooling Pump Maintenance
. workweek 1129 - Yellow Risk Due to HPCI Unavailability
. Workweek 1 130 - Heavy Lift in Reactor Building tor #9 Dry Fuel Storage Cask Campaign
==1R13 a.
. Workweek 11 g2 -"A" Service Water Strainer Maintenance and "8" Feed Reg. Valve==
in Local Control o Workweek 1136 - "A" Service Water Strainer and "B" 480V Uninterruptible Power Supply Out of Service
. Workweek 1 137 - Standby Liquid Control Surveillance Testing, Heavy Lifts in the Reactor Building, and UPS-1A Unavailable Due to a Failure of the Coupling to the Tachometer
. Workweek 1 138 - "8" Emergency Diesel Generator Fast Start Surveillance, Condensate Storage Tank Cleanlng and Single Loop Operation due to Failure of the "B" Recirculation Motor Generator Set b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
1 R15 Operabilitv Evaluations (71111'15 - 6 samples)a. Inspection ScoPe The inspectors reviewed operability determinations for the following degraded or non-conforming conditions:
. High area temperatures in the Reactor Building
. Reactor building differential pressure step change
. Reactor building differential pressure greater than -2.0 inches H2O due to reactor building supply fan (RSF-1A) rotating backwards o Non-conr"ruriiu" MAPLHGR calculation discovered for GEH/GNF fuel in the current core load
. V-16-1g-SE, drywell to torus vacuum breaker, exceeded the maximum opening force acceptance criteria during testing
. RRU-7 out of service and unable to provide cooling to "A" core spray pump The inspectors selected these issues based on the risk significance of the associated components and systems. The inspectors evaluated the technical adequacy of the operability determinations to assess whether technical specification operability was properly justified and the subject component or system remained available such that no unrecognired increase in ris( occurred. The inspectors compared the operability and design iriteria in the appropriate sections of the technical specifications and UFSAR to Entergy's evaluations io determine whether the components or systems were operable' Where compensatory measures were required to maintain operability, the inspectors determined whether the measures in place would function as intended and were properly controlled by Entergy. The inspectors determined compliance with bounding limitations associated with the evaluations' b.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
1R18 Plant Modifications
Permanent Modifications a.
Inspection ScoPe The inspectors evaluated a modification to instrument air dryer D-1-1A implemented by engineering change package EC26705, "lnstrument Air Dryer D-1-1A Replacement."
The inspectors verified that the design bases, licensing bases, and performance capability of the affected systems were not degraded by the modification to ensure that this modlfication did not adversely affect the availability, reliability, or functional capability of any risk-significant SSCs. The inspectors reviewed the engineering change package, and observeO tne system in operation following the implementation of the modifications.
b.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
1R19 Post-Maintenance Testinq
a.
lnspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the post-maintenance tests for the maintenance activities listed below to verify that procedures and test activities ensured system operability and functional capability. The inspectors reviewed the test procedure to verify that the procedure adequately tested the safety functions that may have been affected by the maintenance activity, that the acceptance criteria in the procedure were consistent with the information in the applicable licensing basis and/or design basis documents, and that the procedure had been properly reviewed and approved. The inspectors also witnessed the test or reviewed test data to verify that the test results adequately demonstrated restoration of the affected safety functions'
.
D-1-18, "8" instrument air dryer replacement
. "8" feedwater regulating valve positioner and potentiometer replacement o Repair of reactor building closed loop cooling water system heat exchanger E-8-1B
.
RRU-7 discharge valve replacement o "A" service water strainer preventive maintenance o UpS-1-A, uninterruptible power supply control circuit relay coil replacement r Backup meteorological tower delta temperature detector repairs b.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
==1R22 Surveillance Testinq (71111-22 - 6 samples) a.
Inspection ScoPe==
The inspectors observed performance of surveillance tests and/or reviewed test data of selected risk-significant S'SCs to assess whether test results satisfied technical specificationr, ih" UFSAR, and Entergy's procedure requirements. The inspectors verified that test acceptance criteria were clear, tests demonstrated operational readiness and were consistent with design documentation, test instrumentation had current calibrations and the range and accuracy for the application, tests were performed as written, and applicable test pierequisites were satisfied. Upon test completion, the inspectors considered whether the test results supported that equipment was capable of performing the required safety functions. The inspectors reviewed the following surveillance tests:
. Scram discharge instrument volume high water functional test
. Drywell high pressure scram/isolation functional test
. Reactor coolant system leak detection surveillance (RCSLD)
.
,,A" standby fuel p-ool cooling system pump operability and discharge check valve comPrehensive test ( IST)o Reactor water level recirculation pump trip and alternate rod insertion functional test
. High pressure coolant injection system actuation logic functional testing b. Findinqs No findings were identified.
Gornerstone: Emergency Preparedness (EP)lEPO Drill Evaluation (71114.06 - 1 sample)
Emerqencv Preparedness Drill Observation a. lnspection ScoPe The inspectors evaluated the conduct of a routine emergency drill on-August 31, 2011, to identify any weaknesses and deficiencies in the classification, notification, and protective a"iion recommendation development activities. The inspectors observed emergency response operations in the simulator, technical support center (TSC), and emergency operations iacility to determine whether the event classification, notifications, and proteitive action recommendations were performed in accordance with procedures' The inspectors also attended the TSC drill critique to compare inspector observations with those identified by Entergy staff in order to evaluate Entergy's critique and to verify whether Entergy staff was properly identifying weaknesses and entering them into the corrective action program.
b. Findinos No findings were identified.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA1 Performance lndicator (Pl) Verification
.1 Safetv Svstem Functional Failures (1 sample)
a. Inspection ScoPe The inspectors sampled Entergy's submittals for Vermont Yankee for the Safety System Functional Failures performan-e indicator for the period of July 1, 2010, through June 30 2011. To determine the accuracy of the performance indicator data reported during those periods, inspectors used definitions and guidance contained in the Nuclear Energy Instituie (NEl) Document 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline," R'evision 6, and NUREG--1O22,"Event Reporting Guidelines 10 CFR 50'72 and 1O CFR 50.73.' The inspectors reviewed Entergy's operator narrative logs, operability assessments, maintenance rule records, maintenance work orders, condition reports, event reports, and NRC integrated inspection reports to validate the accuracy of the submittals.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Mitiqatinq Svstems Performance lndex (2 samples)
a. Inspection ScoPe The inspectors reviewed Entergy's submittal of the Mitigating Systems Performance Index for the following systemJior the period of July 1,2010, through June 30, 2Q11:
. High Pressure Injection SYstem o Heat Removal System To determine the accuracy of the performance indicator data reported during those periods, the inspectors usbd definitions and guidance contained in NEI Document 99-02,
- ,Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline," Revision 6. The inspectors also-reviewed operator narrative logs, condition reports, mitigating systems performance b.
index derivation reports, event reports, and NRC integrated inspection reports to validate the accuracy of the submittals.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
Problem ldentification and Resolution (71152 - 3 samples)
Routine Review of Problem ldentification and Resolution Activities Inspection Scope As required by tnspection Procedure71152, "Problem ldentification and Resolution," the inspectors routinely reviewed issues during baseline inspection activities and plant status reviews to verify that Entergy entered issues into their corrective action program at an appropriate threihold, gave adequate attention to timely corrective actions, and identified and addressed advlrse trends. ln order to assist with the identification of repetitive equipment failures and specific human performance issues for follow-up, the inspectors performed a daily screening of items entered into the corrective action program and periodically attended condition report review group meetings.
Findinqs and Observations No findings were identified.
Annual Sample: Review of Adequacv of Post Maintenance Testino lnspection Scope The inspectors reviewed condition reports, procedures, and work orders involving post maintenance activities to verify that these adequately ensured the operability of safety related components following maintenance. The inspectors evaluated post maintenance testing against the requirements of Entergy/Vermont Yankee's procedure EN-WM-107'
,,post Maintenance Testing." The inspection effort represented one sample. The documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment' Findinqs and Observations No findings were identified. The inspection noted the following observation:
The inspectors observed that the planning for post maintenance testing does not effectively use the guidelines provided in Entergy fleet procedure EN-WM-107, "Post Maintenance Testirig." This procedure provides guidance on identifying and preparing post maintenance te-sting. Adhering to this procedure would increase the likelihood that ifre post maintenance tests will cover all aspects of equipment operation that could have 4C.42
.1 a.
b.
a.
.2 b
.3 been affected by maintenance. This observation was discussed with Entergy staff, and
Entergy personnel initiated CR-WY-2O 1 1-03362.
Annual Sample: On Line Risk Manaoement lnspection Scope The inspectors performed an in-depth review of Entergy's corrective actions associated with condition reports CR-WY-2o 1 0-0469, CR-WY-201 0-5020, CR-WY-20 1 1 -0028 and CR-WY-2011-1184, all related to on line risk assessment and critical plant equipment protection issues. The inspectors performed a search of the condition report database for additional condition reports related to on line risk assessment' The inspectors reviewed control room logs, work week risk assessments and site procedures to verify that Entergy was meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and their fleet procedlres. The iiipectors asselsed Entergy's problem identification threshold, extent of condition reviews, compensatory actions, and the prioritization and timeliness of corrective actions to determine whether Entergy was appropriately identifying, characterizing, and correcting problems associated with on line risk assessment and whether the Completed correltive actions were appropriate. The inspectors compared the actions taken to the requirements of Entergy's corrective action program and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. In addition, the inspectors interviewed operations personnel to assess the effectiveness of the implemented corrective actions.
Findinqs and Observations No findings were identified.
The inspectors determined that Entergy was meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.65(aXa) by assessing and appropriately managing the risk resulting from maintenance activities. io*euei, the inspectors observed that operations staff and work planning staff had written several condition reports in the past six months to document corrections to the approved weekly risk assessment for surveillance activities' These corrections included both increases in the assessed risk level and decreases in the assessed risk level. Entergy took appropriate corrective actions to address each individual occurrence. Aft;i discussion with the inspectors, Entergy entered CR-WY-2011-3433 in their corrective action program to collectively address surveillance activity risk assessment.
Follow-Up of Events and Notices of Enforcement Discretion (71153 - 1 sample)
Plant Events Inspection Scope The inspectors staffed the site as Hurricane lrene (downgraded to a tropical storm)moved tfrrougfr the area. The inspectors reviewed and/or observed plant parameters, reviewed perlonnel performance, and evaluated performance of mitigating systems.
a.
b.
40A3 a.
b.
The inspectors verified the availability of systems important to safety by monitoring conditions and alarms in the control room and by performing walkdowns of inside areas to look for water intrusion. The inspectors verified that operator actions defined in Entergy's adverse weather procedure maintained the readiness of essential systems.
The inspectors discussed readiness and staff availability for adverse weather response with operations and work control personnel and monitored Entergy's contingency staffing of emergency response facilities. The inspectors communicated the plant events to "pptopri-"1" regional personnel. The inspectors verified that Entergy made appropriate emergency clalsification assessments and properly reported the event. The inspectors revierired Entergy's follow-up actions related to the event to ensure that Entergy implemented appropriate corrective actions commensurate with their safety significance.
The inspectors conducted site walkdowns after the storm had abated to ensure no adverse conditions existed.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
Other Activities Independent Spent Fuel Storaqe lnstallation (lSFSl) (60855, 60855.1)
Inspection Scope The inspectors observed activities associated with the loading of a dry cask canister to ensure ihat technical specifications were met, equipment operated properly, and personnel were properiy trained. The inspectors observed the use of the lateral seismic restraints for the stack up during the transfer of the multi-purpose canister (MPC) from the HI-TRAC to the HI-STORM and noted that the lateral restraints were utilized according to the procedure with no issues observed. Prior to the inspection, NRC Spent Fuel Stor?ge and Transportation personnel reviewed the calculation for the seismic restraints.
The inspectors reviewed documents and records associated with the operation of the W lSFSl. The inspectors discussed the fuel selection process and associated documentation with reactor engineering personnel. The inspectors reviewed the video recording of the fuel assemblie! being placed into the canister to ensure that each fuel assemb! was placed into the proper location. The inspectors observed work activities on the refuet floor associated with the fuel selection and loading of fuel assemblies into the cask. The inspectors observed the placement of the automated welding system onto the cask and the subsequent welding of the cask lid and dye penetrant examination of the weld. In addition, the inspectors observed the setup and operation of the vacuum drying system.
The inspectors reviewed two condition reports, CR-WY-2011-02571and CR-WY-2011-O2S43,initiated during this loading campaign. The condition reports involved a human performance deficieniy identifiedluring the vacuum drying phase. Specifically, while 40A5 a.
lowering the MPC pressure to dry the cask, the first pressure hold plateau at 90-100 TORR was missed', resulting in pressure being reduced to approximately 78 TORR prior to being raised back up to the 90-100 TORR range and performing the 15 minute pressuie hold time. In consultation with Holtec, the dry cask vendor, Entergy determined that there was no impact to the spent fuel in the MPC as a result of initially going below the procedural requiiement of g0-100 TORR prior to establishing the 15 minute hold time at the required pressure range. The inspectors did not identify any concerns associated with the event.
b.
Findinqs No findings were identified.
4046 Meetinqs. includinq Exit On Octobe r 6,2011, the inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Christopher Wamser, General Manager of Plant Operations, and other members of the Vermont yankee Nuclear Power Plant staff. The inspectors verified that no proprietary information was retained by the inspectors or documented in this report.
On August 8,2011, the inspectors presented the ISFSI inspection results to Mr. Michael Colomb, Site Vice President, and other members of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant staff. The inspectors verified that no proprietary information was retained by the inspectors or documented in this report' ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
- M. Colomb, Site Vice President
- C. Wamser, General Manager of Plant Operations
- M. Romeo, Director of Nuclear Safety
- R. Wanczyk, Licensing Manager
- N. Rademacher, Director of Engineering
- M. Gosekamp, Operations Manager
- J. Rogers, Design Engineering Manager
- J. Merkle, System Engineering Manager
- D. Jones, Asst. Operations Manager
- P. Ryan, Security Manager
- B. Pittman, Assistant Operations Manager
- M. Tessier, Maintenance Manager
- J. Hardy, ChemistrY Manager
- P. Corbett, Quality Assurance Manager
- S. Naeck, Outage Manager
- J. Bengtson, CA&A Manager
- D. Tkatch, Radiation Protection Manager
- M. Castronova, Manager of Projects
- J. Ward, l&C Superintendent
- R. Heathwaite, Chemistry Supervisor
- C. Daniels, FIN Team Superintendent
- R. Current, Sr. Electrical l&C System Engineer
- L. Doucette, System Engineer
- J. Devincentis, Licensing Engineer
- M. Morgan, Technical Training Superintendent
- M. Anderson, Fire Protection Engineer
- L. Leigh, l&C SuPervisor
- M. Palionis, PRA Engineer
- M. Janus, Electrical Superintendent
- N. Roark, System Engineer
- J. Stasolla, Maintenance Rule Engineer
- K. Swanger, Senior Project Manager
- T. Cappelletti, Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent
- M. Prusak, Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor
- B. Buteau, State Liason Engineer
- B. Hall, Senior Assessor
- D. Jeffries, System Engineering Supervisor
- R. Power, Program & Components Engineer
- S. Howe, Electrical Maintenance Supervisor
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
None