ML20151R774
| ML20151R774 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1988 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Murphy W VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151R777 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808120297 | |
| Download: ML20151R774 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000271/1988200
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _
i
,Y
.
UNITED STATES
.? '
,
'r.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
j
'*
j
w ASHING TON, D. C. 20555
k% , , . . ',[
August 10, 1988
Docket No. 50-271
f
Mr. Warren P. Murphy
Vice President and Manager of Operations
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation
R.D. 5, Box 169
Ferry Road
Brattleboro, Vennont 05301
Dear Mr. Murphy:
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURE (EOP) INSPECTION (50-271/88-200)
This letter forwards the report for the Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP)
Inspection performed by an NRC inspection team during the period of June 1-10,
IS88, involving activities authorized by NRC Operating License No. DPR-28
for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. This inspection was conducted
by members of the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Region I and
contractors. At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed
with the members of your staff identified in Appendix A of the enclosed inspec-
tion report.
The inspection effort involved a review of your program for E0P development, a
validation and verification of issued E0Ps and an evaluation of your training
activities for E0Ps. The inspection team accomplished these tasks through use
of your site specific simulator, walkthroughs of E0Ps with operators, interviews
with key plant staff and review of E0Ps and supporting documentation.
Two documents are enclosed with this letter:
the Executive Sumary of this
inspection is enclosed to provide an overview of the inspection team's findings
in each area reviewed; a more detailed explanation of the team's findings is
provideo in the enclosed inspection report. The report includes findings that
may result in enforcement action, which would be the subject of separate
correspondence from the NRC Region I Office.
The inspection team was impressed with the material condition and cleanliness
of your plant, the knowledge level of your operators and the supplemental
activities you have taken for managing events that go beyond the guidelines
provided by the owners' group. However, it also appears that you have cbsen
not to develop certain areas of your E0Ps in conformance with the NRC approved
.
owners' group guidelines and these deviations were not properly disclosed to the
l
NRC in the Plant Specific Technical Guidelines (PSTGs) submitted in your
Procedure Generation Package (PGP). Additionally, the inspection team con-
6
l
firmed the findings of your own independent audit which indicated that your PGP
Writer's Guide development, verification and validation programs were not
properly accomplished. Please respond within 60 days of receipt of this report
(
with your schedule for resubmitting your PGP, including the PSTGs with justifi-
cations for deviations from the Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs).
Your
8808120297 seosto
I
<
{DR
ADOCK 05000271
hk1 '(
-
.
.f
'
..
. .
.
.
Mr. Warren P.' Murphy
-2-
August 10, 1988
schedule should be independent of NRC issuance of a generic safety evaluation
report for Revision 4 of the EPGs.
.*
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a) a copy of this letter and the enclosures
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we would be pleased
to discuss them with you.
Si
rely,
(5
hM ire
b
Division of Reactor Pr , cts I/II
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Executive Summary
2.
Inspection Report 50-271/88-200
cc w/ encl:
See next page
.
I
i
,
,
.
- --.
.
.
.
.
.-.
-
-
'.
8
f
,
.
. .
.
-
Mr. Warren P. Murphy
-3-
August 10, 1988
cc w/ enclosures:
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
Mr. J. Gary Weigand
1100 Circle 75 Parkway
President & Chief Executive Officer
Suite 1500
g
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation
Atlanta, Georgia 30339'
R.D. 5, Box 169
Brattleboro, Vermont 05301
Mr. John DeVincentis, Vice President
Yankee Atomic Electric Company
1671 Worcester Road
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
Mr. J. Peletier
Plant Manager
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation
R.D. 5, Box 169
Brattleboro, Vermont 05301
Mr. C. Richardson
Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Inc.
120 State Street
Montpelier, Verwent 05602
Mr. William Steinhurst, Acting Commissioner
Public Service Board
State of Vermont
120 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
Mr. R. W. Capstick
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
1671 Worcester Road
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
Mr. P. Agnes
Assistant Secretary of Public Safety
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
One Ashburton Place
Room 213
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Office of the Attorney General
cnvironmental Protection Bureau
State House Annex
25 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301-6397
l
_ _.
.
._
_
-.
_
___
.-- _.. ...
..
.
.
_ _ _ .
. _ _ _ _
,
".
.s
,
. .
,
.
'i
9.
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INSPECTION REPORT 50-271/88-200
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION
A team of NRC inspectors and contractor personnel inspected the Vermont Yanket
Nuclear Power Corporation to evaluate its pro
mentation of Emergency Operating Procedures (gram for development and imple-
EOPs), as required by Generic Letter 82-33, "Supplement I to NUREG-0737 - Requirements for Emergency Response-
Capability". The inspection. team performed this evaluation by accomplishing the
. following activities:
Reviewed the E0P development process as described in the Procedure
Generation Package (PGP) submitted to the NRC.
>
Compared the E0Ps and deviation documentation to the Boilin
Owners' Group Generic Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs)g Water Reactors
.
Validated the E0Ps using the site specific simulator and through plant
walkthroughs of E0P appendices and procedures.
Independently verified selected E0Ps and appendices for conformance with
,
the PGP Writer's Guide.
Reviewed operator requalification training on E0Ps.
The inspection team concluded that plant operators would be able to properly
' implement the Yemont Yankee E0Ps to manage the postulated casualty
scenarios. However, the E0Ps were not in conformance with the.NRC approved
,
EPGs and further licensee attention was required to identify and justify the
deviations to the NRC. The following observations led the team to these
l
conclusions:
(1) The E0Ps went beyond the guidance of the EPGs in some areas of event
!
control. Additional E0P appendices had been developed to manage station
blackout and some severe accident scenarios. The licensee had also
perfomed supplemental studies for containment safety and venting. The
team concluded that these activities enhanced safety.
(2) The material condition of the plant supported accomplishment of the E0Ps.
!
Plant cleanliness was exceptional, allowing unrestricted access to remote
areas whcre E0P supporting tasks could be performed.
The team found no
significant material deficiencies with equipment and components that would
prevent E0P accomplishment.
(3) Plant operators demonstrated an excellent knowledge of the E0Ps during
'
i
plant walkdowns and interviews. The team noted some deficiencies during
the simulator validation of E0Ps for the more complicated casualties. These
deficiencies were-traced to a lack of simulator training on these particular
l
scenarios and deficiencies with procedural guidance.
(4) The PGP submitted by the licensee to the NRC did not contain Plant Speci-
.
fic Technical Guidelines (PSTGs) and, therefore, did not fulfill the
'
requirements of NUREG 0737 (Supplement 1).
This omission was significant
i
._ , _ . . _ _ _ . .
1._...___.__.,_-__,~.-____._._._.~,_.._-.___---
.
.
e
,
.
.
4
because the licensee had made several devictions from the NRC approved
EPGs and the justifications were not submitted for NRC review.
(5)
The validation and verification of E0Ps conducted by the licensee did
,
not appear to ensure that the procedures wera prepared properly.
The
team identified examples of unjustified deviations from the EPGs, incon-
sistent application of the PGP Writer's Guide and deficiencies with the
PGP. The licensee w6s already aware of these types of problems from an
independent audit conducted in December 1987 and had initiated corrective
actions before the NRC inspection began.
The licensee had scheduled a major revision to the E0Ps to implement Revision 4
of the EPGs and correct deficiencies from the independent audit.
The inspec-
tion team was concerned because the licensee was delaying implementation of
this major revision until Revision 4 of the EPGs was approved by the NRC,
and known problems with the E0Ps were not being corrected.
l
.
mm
3
-
--
-- - . - - -
--
e n
-