Text

Forwards Readiness Restart Assessment Team Insp Rept 50-271/86-13 on 860602-06.No Violations Noted.Apps Re Licensee Strengths & Weaknesses Also Encl
	ML20206M475
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	06/23/1986
From:	Starostecki R; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Murphy W; VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
Shared Package
ML20206M480	List: IR 05000271/1986013; ML20206M475;
References
	NUDOCS 8607010196
	Download: ML20206M475 (4)
	v • d • e

(,

%

o

.

JUN23 W

Docket No. 50-271

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation

ATTN: Mr. Warren P. Murphy

Vice President and Manager

of Operations

RD 5, Box 169

Ferry Road

Brattleboro, Vermont 05301

Gentlemen:

Subject:

Inspection Report No. 50-271/86-13

During the period June 2-6, 1986, a readiness restart assessment team inspection

was conducted of activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-28 at the Vermont

Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Brattleboro, Vermont.

The team was led by Mr.

T. C. Elsasser of this office, and at the conclusion of the inspection, Mr.

C. Cowgill of this office summarized the inspection findings with you and members

of your staff.

Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC

Region I Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter.

The purpose of this inspection was to perform an integrated review of licensee ac-

tivities conducted to restore the reactor plant to its design configuration fol-

lowing an extensive outage.

Particular emphasis was placed on those modifications

and maintenance activities which had the potential to impact on plant safety.

Team

inspection activities included observation of work in progress, review of records

related to completed activities, interviews with plant management and staff, and

plant tours by the inspectors to evaluate overall readiness for operation.

Over-

all, we conclude that, when planned testing and closecut activities are completed,

the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Unit can be safely returned to power operation.

Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed.

Certain inspec-

tion team findings have been characterized as program strengths or weaknesses as

appropriate and are documented in Appendices A and B, respectively to this letter.

In particular, your attention is directed toward correcting problems noted in the

area of operator training.

This includes correction of deficiencies identified

in the area of modification training as well as the need to conduct refresher

training on Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP) in a more timely manner.

Please

respond to Appendix B within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, stating

actions taken or planned to improve the areas identified as weaknesses.

i

The responses requested by this letter are not subject to the clearance procedures

l

of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1980, PL'96-511.

!

[kb

/

"

\\\\s

i

.

-

s

.

~

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

2

M23W

Corporation

Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

g SignedBEL

p

Richard W. Starostecki, Director

Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosures:

1.

Appendix A, Licensee Strengths

2.

Appendix B, Licensee Weaknesses

3.

NRC Region I Inspection Report No. 50-271/86-13

cc w/encls:

R. W. Capstick, Licensing Engineer

J. Gary Weigand, President and Chief Executive Officer

J. P. Pelletier, Plant Manager

Donald Hunter, Vice President

Cort Richardson, Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Inc.

Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector

State of New Hampshire

State of Vermont

bcc w/ encl:

Region I-Docket Room (with concurrences)

Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl)

Section Chief, DRP

!

M. McBride, RI, Pilgrim

H. Eichenholz, SRI, Yankee

V. Rooney, LPM, NRR

!

RI:DRP

RI:D

RI

Sig

inger

St

stecki /Y

Cowgill/meo

El

sser

6/18/86

4lto

Wenh2b

g

j

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

- . - - _ - - . - -

-. _ ,

. . _ . ,

_ -_

_ _ _

. . . _ _ _ _ . .

- - _ _

--__

-

.-

. _ . . _ _ . _ , . . _ . .

r.

T/

'

v

.

APPENDIX A

LICENSEE STRENGTHS

The inspection team noted specific features of the licensee's programs and activi-

ties which have been characterized as strengths.

A strength is a positive attri-

bute or feature which exceeds regulatory requirements, or an innovaLiac featu.ao,

'

which contributes to the safety or effectiveness of plant activities.

References

are to sections in Inspection Report 50-271/86-13.

1.

The licensee's organization and control of the recirculation piping replace-

ment activity was a strength.

The licensee researched the experience of

utilities that had completed recirculating piping replacements, identified

the contractor early to allow for in plant measurements and established a

Startup Restoration Group Effort team.

This group effectively tracked outage

work requirements and generated punchlists of activities needed to achieve

outage milestones (Sections 2 and 6).

2.

A strong sense of personal responsibility for outage activities and tracking

items was evident in personnel interviewed.

Task assignments were clearly

made in all areas examined (i.e., outage manual, tracking systems, SURGE

punchlists, daily meetings). Final assessment of system operability was

clearly assigned to the operations department (Section 2).

3.

The licensee hanger restoration program is considered a strength.

This pro-

gram included three independent levels of review.

Effectiveness of this pro-

gram is indicated by the identification and prompt correction of deficiencies

(Section 3).

4.

The licensee has a strong commitment to identification and correction of

problems within the Quality Assurance Department.

This is evidenced by: com-

pletion of an indepth audit by an outside contractor and subsequent develop-

ment of a plan to correct the problems identified in the audit, more active

involvement in site activities including dedicated support to the recircula-

tion piping replacement effort; and implementation of a peer inspection pro-

gram (Section 4).

5.

The licensee has a comprehensive program for collection of preservice data

on the newly installed recirculation piping.

Data packages contained complete

data and were well organized to support future activities (Section 6).

6.

The licensee's program for interim radiography while installing recirculation

piping was comprehensive.

This program allowed the licensee to inspect and

repair welds at interim stages. This led to a low rejection rate of final

recirculation system piping welds (Section 6).

7.

Strong management support for radiological safety during the outage was in

evidence.

Health Physics department personnel were given stop work authority

and were supported by station management when this authority was exercised.

Staffing levels were appropriate to ensure proper monitoring of jobs (Section

7).

-

- .

_.

-

__

-

. _ _ - ..

.

- -

- .

PT

,9F

,

.

APPENDIX B

LICENSEE WEAKNESSES

The inspection team identified items of concern which have been characterized as

weaknesses.

An item of weakness does not constitute non-compliance with regulatory

requirements, rather it is related to effectiveness of a program, activity or or-

ganization.

References are to paragraphs in Inspection Report 50-271/86-13.

1.

The program for training operators on plant modifications performed during

the outage was inadequate.

The number of modifications selected for operator

training was limited, and observed training in those modifications was not

comprehensive.

In addition, the operations department had minimal input re-

garding those modifications selected for training (Section 3).

2.

Some aspects of the Respiratory Protection Program were not implemented using

current Industry Standards.

The licensee does not retest all filters intended

for reuse and the testing that is performed is inconclusive (Section 7).

l

ML20206M475

Text

Navigation menu

Search