IR 05000271/1987017

Insp Rept 50-271/87-17 on 870903-04.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Emergency Preparedness,Including Emergency Action Levels,Organization & Mgt & Open Items Identified in Previous Insp Repts

ML20235K041
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	09/18/1987
From:	Conklin C, Lazarus W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235J994	List: IR 05000271/1987017 ML20235J992
References
50-271-87-17, NUDOCS 8710020208
Download: ML20235K041 (5)

Text

. _ _ _ _ - _

.

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N Docket N License N DPR-28 Licensee: Vermont tankee Nuclear Power Station RD 5, Box 169 Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 Facility Name: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station >

Inspection At: Brattleboro, Vermont Inspection Conducted: September 3-4, 1987 Inspectors: 7!/ d l C.'C(xJ1I fn , Emergency Preparedness date l SpeciElist, &RPB, DRSS l

Approved by F N N W,lef, Emergency date Preparedness Sedtion, EP&RPB, DRSS Inspection Summary: Inspection on September 3-4, 1987 (Report No. 50-271/87-17)

Areas Inspected: Routine announced emergency preparedness inspection. The inspection areas included: Emergency Action Levels; Organization and Management; and open items identified in previous inspection report ;

Results: No violations were identified.

.

I l l 8710020208 870923

{DR ADOCK 05000271 PDR

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

j

_ _ _ _ _

.

L-

!

i.

! DETAILS i Persons Contacted

• J. Pelletier,' Plant Manager 1

• R. Smith, Assistant to the President

• E. Porter, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator E. Salomon, Emergency Preparedness Engineer

• Denotes those present at the exit interview Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings During the inspection, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's progress concerning the items opened during previous inspections (Inspection Report 50-271/87-07). The status of these items is as follow (CLOSED) 50-271/87-07-01 (UNR): The audit program did not identify weaknesses in the EP progra The inspector reviewed the following documents: VY-87-14, Inspection Plan; VY-87-14, Audit; various correspondence to offsite agencies documenting required reviews and approvals; and corrective action The Quality Assurance Group from Yankee Atomic Power Corporation performs the annual emergency preparedness audits. The audit was conducted on June 22-26, 1987. The audit team consisted of individuals experienced in QA audits as well as expertise in emergency preparednes The audit team performed a critical review of the licensee's emergency preparedness program. Several areas of concern were identified where corrective action is necessar Based upon the above review, this area is acceptabl (OPEN) 50-271/87-07-02 (IFI): Shift staffing and augmentation method and tests need to be evaluated for validity and ability to staff in a timely manne The inspector reviewed the following documents: AP-3124, Emergency Preparedness Organization, Rev 0; Emergency

..

_ _ _

_ _

l a

t .

Call-in Method; Memo, Task Review of Shift Augmentation at Vermont Yankee; and various correspondence and corrective actions.

V The licensee has initiated several actions to evaluate and .

I upgrade augmentation ability. These include: a detailed study of pager coverage; examination of weekly pager test results; and a review of response personnel, response time requirements, procedures and trainin Scheduled actions include the formalization of the call-in methodology and augmentation procedures, and the performance of an unannounced augmentation drill. The inspector noted that all actions are scheduled for completion by December 198 Based upon the actions taken to date, the inspector modified this open item from unresolved to an inspector -

followup item. This item will be reviewed during the next !

scheduled inspectio l 3.0 Operational Status of the Emergency Preparedness Program Organization and Management l l

The licensee has developed AP-3124, Emergency l Preparedness Organization, Rev. O, which clearly delineates the onsite and offsite emergency i preparedness responsibilities and provides for j strong oversight / review mechanisms for the EP In j addition, the EPC's job description has been i modified to require an average of two days per week i presence onsite. The licensee is in the process of !

finalizing the addition of two additional personnel )

to perform onsite and offsite responsibilities on a i full time basis. The Yankee Nuclear Services !

Department also provides essentially full time services to the emergency preparedness progra The inspector also noted that the licensee has afforded the EPC several opportunities for professional developmen i Based upon the above review, this area is i acceptabl l Emergency Detection and Classification The inspector reviewed the licensee's Emergency I Action Level (EAL's). The EAL's are generally l

,

I

_ _ _ _ _ _

, . - . _ _ _ _ . _

3 ,

.:

consistent with the guidance of.NUREG'0654, Appendix 1 However, the following areas should be

. t

"'

evaluated as not being consistent with the guidance:

- the Site-Area Emergency classification for fire is restrictive;

- the Site Area Emergency classification for an-Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS)

is restrictive;

- the Alert and Site Area Emergency classification for natural phenomenon does not address Operational Basis Earthquakes (OBE) and Safe Shutdown Earthquakes (SSE);

- the Unusual Event classification for other hazards should be expanded for loss of assessment capabilities;

- the Unusual Event classifications for high offgas at the air ejector monitor and abnormal coolant temperature / pressure or fuel temperature are not present; and

- General Emergency classifications for events such as a loss of power with failure of core shut down systems are not presen Additionally, the EAL's should be reviewed to: i specify systems and components, and quantify l initiating conditions as appropriat l The inspector noted that the licensee is currently evaluating resources and schedule requirements to initiate a complete EAL review and revision to a symptom based EAL configuration. This review, if undertaken would also configure the EAL's in a manner similar to the Emergency Operating Procedures. This action, if undertaken, should not preclude interim EAL evaluation and revision to >

address the above items to ensure consistency with )

the guidance and ease of use for the operator l This is an inspector followup item I (50-271/87-17-01). This area will be reviewed in a i subsequent inspectio l

,

,

.- - - _ _ _ ._ -- - . _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - . _ - . _

_ _ - - _ _ _ .

.

!r

.- 0 ;

r,

, . ,

t - 5

, Exit Meeting

~

The inspector met with the licensee personnel denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection to discuss the findings as presented in this report. The inspector

!

- also discussed.some areas for improvement. The licensee acknowledged the findings and agreed to evaluate them and

' institute corrective actions as appropriat At no time during the inspection did the inspectors provide any written information to the licensee.

r

_ - - . _ _ _ - _ - . - . _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _