ML20033A806
| ML20033A806 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1981 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Conway W VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033A802 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111270296 | |
| Download: ML20033A806 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000271/1981003
Text
CONTAlHS 12 C32.7:If)1:'T2 FflTiD:1
s
AUG 131981
Docket 50-271
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation
ATTN:
Mr. W. F. Conway, President and
Chief Operating Officer
411 Western Avenue
Drawer 2
Wast Brattleboro, Vermont 05301
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL 50-271/81-3 (PAS)
This refers to the management appraisal inspection ccnducted by Messrs.
B. Murray, N. C. Choules,.A. K. Hardin, F. J. Jablonski, P. H. Johnson,
and W. L. Kushner, of the Performance. Appraisal Section of the Division
of. Program Development and Appraisal, Office of Inspection and Enforcement
during April 7 - 17 and April 27 - May 1, 1981.
The inspection covered
activities authorized by NRC Operating License DPR28 for the Vermont Yankee
Site, at Vernon, Vermont and the Yankee Atomic Electric Company corporate
office at Framingham, Massachusetts.
This also refers to the significant
observations discussed during the meetings held on April 10 and 17 and May 1,
1981, at the Vermont Yankee Site and the Yankee Atomic Electric Company
corporate office.
The enclosed management appraisal report 50-271/81-3 (PAS) identifies the
areas examined during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection
consisted of a comprehensive examination of your management controls over
licensed activities which included examination of procedures and records,
and interviews with management and other personnel.
This inspection is one of a series of management appraisal inspections being
conducted by the Performance Appraisal Section of the Division of Program
Development and Appraisal, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
The results
of this inspection will be used to evaluate the performance of your management
control systems on a national perspective.
The enclosed appraisal report
includes observations which may be potential enforcement findings.
These
items will be followed by the IE Regional Office.
The enclosed appraisal
report also addresses other observations and the conclusions made by the team
for this inspection.
You are requested to review those observations cate_
gorized as weaknesses to determine their application to your management control
system and for the purpose of improving your organizational effectiveness
regarding~ safe plant operation.
Appendix A to this letter is an Executive
Summary of the conclusions drawn for the nine fuqctional arpas inspected.
8111270296 810902
PDRADOCK05000g
&eL CC:iTAln310 CFR 2.H0;1)IHiCE lli!3:1
_
.
.
.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
-2-
Corporation
AUG 101981
Of the nine functional areas inspected and evaluated, two areas were considered
above average; five areas were considered average; and two areas were considered
below average.
Significant weaknesses were identified in the areas classified
as average which require management attention.
The two areas considered below
average were quality assurance audits and non-licensed training.
As a result of the observations and conclusions ragarding the two areas rated
below average, you are requested to inform this office within 30 days of receipt
of this report of the actions you have taken or plan to take to improve the
management controls in these areas.
Your respcnse to this office and your
actions regarding identified weaknesses will be followed by the IE Regiona:
Office.
Attachment "B"
to this report is a detailed listing of the persons contacted
and the documents reviewed during the inspection.
In accordance with Section 2.790(d) of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, your facility security procedures are
exempt from disclosure; therefore, the pertinent section of the Appraisal
Report, Attachment 'A' will not be placed in the Public Document Room and will
receive limited distributicn.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed
appraisal report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
If this
report contains any information that you or your contractor believe to be
proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within five
(5) days to t.lis office to withhold such information from public disclosure.
Any such application must include a full statement of the reasons for which
it is claimed that the information is proprietary, and should be prepared so
that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in
a separate part of the document.
If we do not hear from you in this regard
within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document
Room.
If you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad to
discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
Victor Stello, Jr. , Director
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
Distribution:
1.
IE Management Appraisal Report 50-271/81-3
IE File
Moseley cy
2.
Appendix A
IE Rdg
DeYoung cy
3.
Attachment A*
PDA Rdg
Stello cy
4.
Attachment B
Haughney/Heishman cy
Partlow cy
- Contains 10 CFR .790 Infor
ion
4
lor cy
,
AB:PDA:IE PAB:
- IE DD
D:P$A':lE DD:
D:I
CHaughney
JPar
bw
Jr
NCMoseleyRCDdfo 9 V
Io
7/14/81
7/ M /81
1/q /81 }/.f/81}./J/81
f/7 /81
-
.
.
. .
O
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
3
zgg ;
g43;
Corporation
Distribution: '(w/AttachmentA*)
w/o Attachment A*
Public Document Room (PDR)
Chairman Palladino
Local Public Document Room
Commissioner Ahearne
Nuclear Safety)Information
Commissioner Bradford
Center (NSIC
Commissioner Gilinsky
Commissioner Roberts
TechnicalInformationCenter(TIC)
SECY
RI Reading Room
OCA(3)
State of Vermont
OPE
All Licensees
W. J. Dircks, ED0
E. P. Wilkinson, INP0
H. R. Denton, NRR
D. Godard, Oregon Department of
W. Haass, NRR
Energy
C. Michelson, AE0D
S. Hanauer D/DHFS
R. A. Erickson, NMSS
H. Boulden, OIA
SALP Chairman
,
W. J. Raymond, NRC Senior Resident Inspector
V. Stello, IE
,
H. D. Thornburg, IE
N. C. Moseley, IE
J. M. Taylor, IE
PAS Files
Regional Directors
Central File
.
..
,
.'
'
,
..
APPENDIX A
Executive Summary
A team of six NRC Inspection Specialists from the Performance Appraisal
Section, Division of Program Development and Appraisal, conducted an announced
inspection at the Vermont Yankee plant and Yankee Atomic Electric Company
corporate offices during April 7 - May 1, 1981. Management controls in nine
functional areas were evaluated.
Twr., areas were considered above average,
five areas were considered average, and two areas were considered below
ave. age. A summary of :he nspection results is given below:
i
Training:
(Section 2, page 2)
a.
Licensed Training:
Average.
The licensed training program appeared
adequate to prepare candidates for the NRC licensing examinations.
Weaknesses in the licensed program included the failure of a shift
reactor operator to complete the requalification requirements and
the lack of written lesson plans for the licensed training and
requalification training programs.
b.
Non-licensed Training:
Below Average.
A written training program
which included schedules, goals and objectives, and methods to
evaluate the effectiveness of training had not been established for
corporate personnel.
The plant Training Department had not
provided direction and guidance for departmental training programs.
Some departments had not completed their training programs.
A
written training program had not been developed for non-licensed
operators.
Design Changes and Modifications: Above Average.
(Section 3, page 8)
The review and approval process regarding design changes and modifications
was adequate and well implemented to ensure proper control.
The procedures
controlling installation and testing provided an adequate review program
l
prior to implementation of a design change or modification. Weaknesses
!
in the program included the lack of a formal training program to ensure that
j
appropriate personnel were properly trained on newly completed design changes
l
and the failure to promptly update drawings marked as affected by pending or
completed design changes.
,
Maintenance:
Average.
(Section 4, page 11) Weaknesses in the maintenance
.
program included the failure to dccument Operational testing fo11cwing the
l
completion of the Maintenance Request, failure of the Shift Supervisor to
!
maintain a record of work in progress and procedural weaknesses associated
with the maintenance administrative procedures.
Strengths in the program
included the Maintenance Record System and the performance of weekly plant
inspection tours for equipment checks.
l
l
l
l
-
_
. .
. .
.
.
.
Appendix A (Continued)
-2-
Operations:
Average.
(Section 5, page 15) The plant had an effective
organizational structure and a qualified staff.
Corporate support, plant
housekeeping, procedure control, and the general attitude of the personnel
interviewed were considered good.
Areas that needed improvement included
equipment status control, control of jumpers and lif ted leads, the Operator's
Log, Trending, and Administrative Procedure format.
Corrective Action System:
Average.
(Section 6, page 19) The corrective
action system was defined in prucedures and implemented. Weaknesses in the
system included the failure to trend problems for generic implications and
failure to implement a program to prevent recurrence.
Procurement:
Ave m e.
(Section 7, page 21) An adequate program had been
establisned to control procurement activities.
Procurement personnel were
considered well qualified. Weaknesses included the lack of adequate storage
facilities and a weak audit program.
Committee Activities:
Average.
(Section 8, page 24) Both the plant and
corporate review committees consisted of well qualified members.
The committees
appeared to be accomplishing their assigned responsibilities in an effective
manner.
The practice of holding the semiannual corporate committee meeting
at the plant was considered a strength. Weaknesses included the lack of
detail in the committee charters and failure to review a number of sources
of potential Technical Specification violations.
Quality Assurance Audits:
Below Average.
(Section 9, page 26) Weak-
nesses in the program included lack of management direction and guidance,
failure to assess the effectiveness of the audit program, a high turnover
rate in audit personnel, and the failure to implement an effective auditor
training program.
Physical Protection:
Above Average.
'Section 10, page 31) Strengths within
the security organization included a well organized and implemented training
i
l
program, a stable guard force, and close interaction with offsite support
agencies. Weaknesses included lack of proper visitor control within the
protected area, incomplete portions of t,ackground investigations, and failure
to audit the security statements obtained for contractor personnel.
Summary
Special management attention appears merited in the Below Average areas of
Non-licensed Personnel Training and the Quality Assurance Audit Program.
While the requirements for a satisfactory program of QA audits had been
adequately established by management, full implementation of this program
has suffered from a lack of manapement review of the implementing procedures
and insufficient attention to the staffing and training of QA audit personnel.
In addition to the training of these personnel, the area of Non-licensed Pers-
l
i
oanel Training requires management attention to establish, through the
Training Department, the basic requirements for an improved and coordinated
program fer the various departments.
i