ML20085G152
| ML20085G152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1991 |
| From: | Murphy W VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1021 BVY-91-96, NUDOCS 9110240151 | |
| Download: ML20085G152 (6) | |
Text
-
l:
YEilMONT YANKEE
' NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION
- %]
~ Ferry Road. Brattleboro, vT 05301-7002 kX)
ENGINEERING OFFICE
-Y w em sum
~)
BOLTON VkD17C m uum October 18, 1991 Washingtoi:, G.,.,gulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Re
. 20555 Attention:
Document Control Desk
References:
a)
License No. DPR 28 (Docket No. 50-271) b)
Letter, USNRC to VYNPC, dated 9/6/91 and Inspection Report No. 50-271/91-02 c)
Letter, VYNPC to UCNRC (BVY 91-49), dated 4/30/91
Attachment:
" Operations Department Root Cause Corrective Action Summary"
Dear Sir:
Subject:
LOR Program Corrective Actions Th!s letter is written in response to Reference b), which indicated that it was not apparent that the Operations Department is also held accountable for the quality and conduct of the licensed operator requalification program.
At a meeting held on September 4,1991 at the Region i offices in King of Prussia, our staff reported that the Root Cause " failures of management" described in Reference c) encompassed both Training and Operations management. As noted at that same meeting, f operator training. When it was Operations management takes an active role in ensuring quality and content o
. determined that there were -programmatic weaknesses in the performance of licensed operators' command and control and communications functions, Operations management developed and implemented immediate corrective actions to ensure continued safe plant operation.
The lessons learned-have subsequently been incorporated into plant policies, procedures, and training programs.
Of the corrective actions related to the unsatisfactory performance of the LOR arogram described in Reference c), the Operations De artment is participating
.n most with either primary or secondary responsibilit for implementation. A more comprehensive discussion of our corrective act ons is included in the attached " Operations
'oartment Root Cause Corrective Action Summary".
9110240151 9110,1e,
4o 7--
v
- -c.
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION
~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
- October - 18, 1991..
.Page:2:
i
. We are confident that the enclosed-information-will b3. helpful to your L understanding of our root cause analysis and-corrective actions as they relate to-the Operations Department activities.-
In the eventL you may have any questions or require aoditional information'concerning our efforts,~please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours, Vermont = Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation h p}[/r7 y Warren P. Murphy Senior :Vice Presiden,
erations cc:
USNRC Regional, Administrator - Reg' ion -1 USNRC Resident inspector, VYNPS
'USNRC : Project Manager, VYNPS
~
i e
4,w=y w
e
~m*m.
.__-,_.___.__-____________m
OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT ROOT CAUSE CORRECTIVE ACTION
SUMMARY
A.
Root Cause The root cause of the unsatisfactory performance of the LOR program was the failure of management to maintain awareness of changes in NRC examination criteria, to fully comprehend the increased emphasis placed on command and control functions in the conduct of operations, and to translate those concepts into directives for the operating crews.
F-inding #1 Inadequate response to available industry information, including Information Notice No. 90-54 and various INPO and NUMARC publications.
This information provides insight into the criteria the NRC is using during requalification examinations.
Corrective Actions 1.
Following each Industry meeting or workshop attended by Operations Department management or staff, the relevant information presented is considered for inclusion on the agenda of the Operations Training Curriculum Committee (OTCC) for discussion at the next scheduled
- meeting.-
2.
The method to be used by the Operations Department for disseminating plant and Ir.dustry information to the Training Department will be the generation of a formal Training Change Request (TCR).
The TCR
[.
process is controlled by TDD 17.
- 3. The Operations Superintendent, Operations Supervisor, and Assistant Operations Supervisor, as members of the OTCC, assisted in developing the TCR method for tracking action items to ensure that all items raised at OTCC meetings receive adequate attention and response.
Finding #2 Lack of-direction regarding requirements for administration of the LOR Program.
Compounding this problem was the use of inexperienced instructors in the
. position of LOR program administrator, and the lack of an SRO from the Operations Department dedicated to the requalification examir,ation preparation.
Corrective Actions
- 1. The " Licensed Operator Requalification Program Description," which assigns duties and responsibilities of the LOR program has been rewritten. The Operations Department participated and supports the program revision.
2.
The Training Department has developed and presented training on the requirements of ihe Examiner Standard (NUREG 1021). The Operations Supervisor, the Assistant Operations Supervisor and all LOR Instructors participated in the training presentation.
3.
An SRO from the Operations staff who is cognizant of the requirements of NUREG 1021 will continue performing reviews of examination materials.
4.
An SRO from the Operations staff has been designated to assist the Training Department in areparing for the LOR examinations scheduled for April, 1992.
This incividual will be trained in the requirements of NUREG 1021 and will be dedicated full time to the preparation for the LOR exams from October 21, 1991 until the exam process has been completed.
Finding #3 Training Management failed to maintain accountability for the LOR Training Program.
Corrective Action 1.
As stated in the revised " Licensed Operator Requalification Program Description," the Training Manager and the Operations Superintendent, will periodically review the requirements and objectives of the LOR training program.
Finding #4 As the result of the successful 1989 LOR examination, the management of the Training and Operations Departments were content with the preparation for the 1991 LOR-examination.
Corrective Action 1.
Annually, the Operations Department will develop a set of formal goals
.and objectives for the LOR program with tho assistance of the Training Department. These will be presented to the OTCC for review and approval. It is also recognized that the need for program change may occur in mid year, based on feedback from industry meetings and/or workshops,
Finding #5 There was a lack of specifically assigned duties and res aonsibilities for Control Room personnel with a corresponding lack of a standard crew communications policy.
Corrective Actions 1.
Operations management has formulated their expectations in the areas of crew management and communications for uso during plant o)erations and simulator exercises.
These expectations are containec in the
" Command and Control / Communications Guidelines", and have been distributed to Operations personnel.
Approximately forty hours of instruction on lessons learned concerning commar'd and control and communications have been provided to licensed operators to date.
In addition, periodic monitoring of daily o >erations is performed by Operations management to verify these guicelines are being followed.
2.
Operations management has redefined the duties and responsibilities of the Supervisory Control Room Operator (SCRO) and Shift Engineer (SE).
The SCRO is now involved in Emergency Operating Procedure implementation versos performance of control manipulations and the SE is no longer required to perform the duties of shift communicator. Instructional material, an Instructor Guide and training of personnel designated as the on shift communicators has been completed.
- 3. To further promote improved command and control functions and to enhance crew communications, the spare Shift Supervisor is now required to observe and comment on other crew simulator exercises at least once per year during LOR training.
The Senior Reactor Operator, Control Room Operator and Shift Engineer are also encouraged to observe simulator training scenarios.
Finding #6 Failure to establish a dialogue with other plants that have recently been examined by the NRC prior to the NRC LOR examination at Vermont Yankee.
Corrective Action 1.
Operations department management maintains a dialogue with and visits other plants in the region to observe simulator training and review results of NRC administered LOR exams. Two such visits are planned for the coming months by the Operations Supervisor and the Operations Training Supervisor.
l L
B.
Additional Crew Problems it was also determined that another factor contributed to the problems the crews experienced during the NRC LOR exams.
Finding Insufficient training in the use of the latest revision of the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs).
Corrective Action 1.
Annually, Operations management in concert with Training Department management develop formal goals and objectives for the LOR program.
Those goals have been developed for the current program and ensure an appropriate amount of time is devoted to EOP training. The adequacy of EOP training is also evaluated by Operations management on a continuous basis, considering crew and instructor input.
2.
To facilitate operator understanding of the EOPs, Operations has published a revised basis document and incorporated it into licensed operator training concurrent with the approved revision to the EOPs.
_