IR 05000263/1975009
| ML20024G624 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1975 |
| From: | Choules N, Jordan E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G621 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-75-09, 50-263-75-9, NUDOCS 9102130505 | |
| Download: ML20024G624 (12) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:._ _ ___ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ . . . . .I - . ) U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCDtENT
REGION III
' Report of Operations Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-263/75-09 Licensee.
Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mal) Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Monticello Nucicar Cencrating Plant License Fo. DPF-22 Monticello, Mirnesota Category: C Type of Licensee: BWR - (GE) 545 MWE Type of Inspection: Announced N #:t e #4, Dates of. Inspection: May 7, 14-16, 1975 ., ..,. , Dates of Previous Inspection: April 23-24, 1975 (0perations) [$ .[ Principal Inspector: .C o e '(Date) Accompanying. Inspector: None Other Accompanying Personnel: R. J. Cambell Operator Licencing Examiner l Reviewed By: E. L.
ordan, Senior Inspector t(*[[/76~
Reac r Operctions Branch /(Da't e) 910213050S 750610 ADOCK OSO g 3 PDR O . .. _.. _... _ _ _ _., _ _., __, _ _. _ _ _
. . . . . SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - . . Inspection Summary Inspection on May 7 and 14-16, 1975: Training, review and audits, containment leak rate testing, and organization and administration were reviewed. Two items of noncompliance were identified related to review of operating procedures and review of NRC identified noncompliance items.
Enforcement Action The following noncompliance items were noted during the inspection.
A.
Violations None.
B.
Infractions None.
C.
Deficiencies 1.
Contrary to Technical Specification 6.2.B.4.h, operating procedure B.7.3, Solid Radwaste System, was not reviewed within the two year interval required by the Technical Speci-(_j' fication.
(Hanagement Interview, Paragraph B.2)umpo,, - _ This item was identified by the inspector and ic a deficiency.
2.
Contrary to Technical Specification 6.2.B.4.C, NRC identified violations of Technical Specifications are not formally reviewed and documented b; the Operations Committee.
(Report Details, Paragraph 5.d) This item was identified by the inspector and is a deficiency.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters Mot applicable.
Other Significant Findings
A.
Systems and Components The off-gas radiation icvel at the air ejector has been increasing and the licenree reduced power from 100% to 93% to stay below the trip settings required by the Technical Specifications.
(May 15, 1975, Management Interview, Paragraph G) -2-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ __-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ > .6 1.
' ' lc' . - > a u }
v
. , i . -_)
Facility items (Plans and Procedures) The plant was' shutdown on May 15, 1975 for a planned 2 day outage 4, to inspect the D and G reactor pressure relief valves for possible first stage pilot valve leakage.
(Paragraph 6. Report Details)
' i
C.
Manas rf al items i Hr. R. L. Scheinost bas been established as the Qoality Engineer replacing'D. Woolf who.was acting in the position- .D.- Noncompl,iance Identified and Corrected by Licensee " None.
E.
Deviations None.
P.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved-Items, Not applicabic.
Management'Interviev j . The following persons were present~ at the manadement interview cor,4ucted ' '* on b y % '1975.- * ' -w we.
e,,
- ',ee m
. G. H. Ee11s, General. Superintendent Nuclear Power Plant Operation 'C.- E.,Larson - Plant Manager .H. H. Clarity --Superintendent Plant' Engineering and Radiation Protection W. E.-Anderson - Superintendent Operations and Maintenance + A.
Training ) 'The inspector stated that the purpose of this inspection was to review the licensee training program. ' The inspector stated that the - licencee's training program appeared to be adequate with some minor exceptions as follows: (Paragraph 1) 1.
Shift supervisors are in general only supervising reactivity
changes and not doing the actual manipulations.
The licensee stated they would have the shift supervisor do some actual reactivity manipulation's.
2.
Shift supervisors are evaluating themselves on actions related to simulated abnormal occurrences and emergencies.
' 3- ,- _ p p ! ! - , - c - , w , - -, -,e -, - - - - - ,-y
, _ - . .
The licen'see stated they would review this item and take ~5 appropriate corrective action.
3.
Forms filled out by the reactor operators to indicate com-pletion of reactivity manipulations are not signed off by the second party who witnessed the manipulation.
The licensee stated they would have the second party sign off the form.
4.
Review of changes to operating procedures and Technical Specifications are not always completed by the operators in
' the time period specified by the licensee.
The licensee stated they were aware of this and were taking corrective action.
5.
Formal indoctrination training for new employees in regard to Emergency Plan and Security is not included in the licensee's new employee indoctrination program.
The licensee stated that training on Emergency Plan and Security will be included with the new employee training on Radia tion Protection.
The following persons were present at the' management interview conducted s_/ on May 16,s 1975.
. ,m m x w u~ mn ,w., ,_ C.
E. Larson - Plant Manager M. H. Clarity - Superintenient Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection W. E. Anderson - Superintendent Operations and Maintenance D. D. Antony - Plant Engineer Operations L. R. Elinson - Radiation Protection Engineer R. L. Scheinost - Quality Engineer, B.
Review and Audits The inspector stated that he had reviewed the Saf ety Audit Committee records, Operations Committee records, and internal audit records in regard to review and audit as required by the Technical Speci-fications and no items of noncompliance were identified.
The following items were discussed in regard to the licensee audit program.
(Paragraph 2) 1.
The inspector stated that his review of internal audits indicated that there was no fornal method of resolution of auditor suggestions made as a result of an audit which were not nonconformance items. The licensee stated they would initiate a method to assure resolution of these suggestions.
-4-t
- -._ . . . ~j 2.
The inspector stated that his review indicated that the Operations Committee did not formally review and document noncompliance items identified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The licenree stated that they would formally review and document ' their review of noncompliance items.
. In a telephone call to the licensee on May 22, 1975, the inspec:or stated that with further review of the above item it i was determined that this was an apparent deficiency item of noncompliance.
C.
Containment Leak Rate Testing Results The inspector stated he hao reviewed test results for types A, B, i and C Icak rate tests and there were no apparent discrepancies.
j
(Paragraph 3) D.
Organization and Administration The inspector stated that he had reviewed the licensee'a organi-zation and determined that it is in conformance with the Technical Specifications.
(Paragraph 4) E.
Procedure Review The inspector stated that Operating Procedure B.7.3, Solid Rad %/"" Waste System, had not been reviewed by the Operations Committee ' "*" within the last*two'y"e'srs as required by"the Technical Specifications and this was a deficiency item of noncompliance.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's statement and stated the procedure was in the process of being revised prior to being reviewed by the Operations Committee.
(Paragraph 5.d) F.
Outstanding items The status of three outstanding items were discussed. (Paragraph 5) G.
Off-Gas Radiation Levels The inspector discussed off-gas radiation levels. The licensee stated that: 1.
The activity of the air ejector at 93% power was equivalent to 275,000 uCi/sec. at the stack with a 30 minute delay.
2.
The activity at the stack with the augmented off-gas system in operation was 5000 to 6000 uCi/sec.
-5-F
. - -. _... . . 3.
The reactor power level had been reduced from 100% to 93% to stay belod the Technical Specification trip setting,1ue to increased activity ct the air ejectors which indicattis additional fuel leakers.
4.
The radiation IcVels in the dry well have been increasing due to the increase in apparent fuc1 leakers.
\\ Y.- - -w ,, ...<.,%..u,., , .,, _.. 7, l-6- < { ' ( l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _._ _ _ _. _. _. - _. _ _. _ ._ ._ . _ _. . . REPORT DETAILS
n Persons Contacted Northern States Pcwer Company L. O. Mayer, Manager of Nuclear Support Services C. E. Larson, Plant Manager M. H. Clarity, Superintendent, Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection W. E. Anderson, Superintendent, Operation and Paintenance W. A. Sparrow, Operations Supervisor P. A. Pochops, Quality Engineer D. D. Antony, Plant Engineer, Operations W. A. Shamla, Plant Engineer, Technical B. D. Day, Engineer W. J. Hill, Engineer, Instrument and Controls J. R. Pasch, Training Supervisor R. L. Scheinost, Quality Engineer 1.
Training The inspector reviewed the licensee training records and a.
training program to ascertain whether the overall reactor operator training activities are effective and in conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR 55 and the Licensee's Admin-istrative Control Directive 3.3, Operator Requalification ,s) % Training Program.
Review of these records indicated the
- ,
e y,,, .., ,,, , . . (1) Responsibility for the training program has been assigned - to the training supervisor.
(2) Lecture schedules have been established for required lecture items.
(3) The training program includes the use of training aids, films and tapes.
(4) Procedure changes and modification are communicated to the operating staff by putting the appropriate documents ' in a binder specifically designated for the operators to review and to initial when completed. The licensee's directive requires this review to be completed within 20 days.
In some cases these reviews were not completed within the 20 days.
i l (5) Training records of three reactor operators indicated they had completed and passed the yearly examinations.
Reactivity manipulations required by 10 CFR 50 were documented, participation in simulated abnormal occurrences and emergencies and evaluations by supervisory personnel-7-l l t l - -. .- - - _ _ ._ __ _ _
. - _ - -- . - - . . - . . were documented, and individual study time was documented. The inspector noted in review of the - s evaluations of operators participating in simulated abnormal occurrences and emergencies that several operators would participate in a single simulation including the shift supervisor who was the instructor for the simulation.
The evaluations sheet showed the names of the operators including the shift supervisor (instructor) who participated in the simulation. The evaluation of the group was filled in on the sheet by the shift supervisor.
This implies that the shift supervisor is evaluating himself.
Review of the documentation showing operator reactivity manipulations showed that a second party witness signature is not included. Documented reactivity manipulations for shift supervisors were for supervising manipulations and in general did not show any actual manipulations.
b.
The inspector reviewed records and discussed with the licensee's representatives the licensee's training program for personnel in regards to security practices, health physics practices and emergency plans. The licensee's indoctrination program fo-new employees does not include formal training on security and emergency plan. A formal presentation is made to new employees on health physics practices.
The licensee has recently instigated emergency plan annual training sessions for maintenance personnel, clerks, and technical support personnel.
' Reactor operators receive training on. security, health physics,
and emergency plans as part of their requalification training.
2.
Review and Audits The inspector spent one day in the corporate headquarters a.
reviewing the past years records of the offsite review committee (Safety Audit Committee) and verified the following.
(1) Between May 1,1974, and May 1, 1975, the committee met four times.
The Technical Specifications requires a minimum of two meetings per year.
(2) The meetings attendance satisfied the quorum requirements t of the Technical Specifications.
(3) The committee reviewed the safety evaluations for those changes, tests and experiments listed in the semiannual operati,g reports for 1974 which were carried out without prior NRC approval and verified they did not constitute unreviewed safety questions.
l-8-i l . . __ .
. - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _.. __ _.
_.
_.
(4) The committee reviewed NRC noncompliance items and proposed technical specifications changes as required by the Technical Specifications.
(5) The cowmittee members perform audits of plant activities on. regular basis.
Audits were performed using written procedures and check lists by personnel not having direct responsibility in the area being audited. The audit results were sent to the appropriate management for review and corrective action.
Followup action to audits are reviewed and documented in the committee meeting minutes, b.
The inspector reviewed the onsite review committee (Operations Committee) records and determined the following.
(1) Between May 2, 1974, and May 15 1975, the Operations Committee met one hundred and thirty-six times.
The Technical Specifications requires the Committee to meet monthly.
(2) A sampling of meetings attendance indicated that the quorum requireGents of the Technical Specitica uons were - met.
(3) The committee reviewed the. safety evaluations for those changes, tests and experiments listed in the semiannual s,< , operating reports for 1974 which were carried out eithout,.
- "
' prior NRC approval and verified they did not constitute unreviewed safety questions.
(4) The committee reviews items of noncompliance with Technical Specifications as determined by his interun1 audits.
NRC identified noncompliance items art not formally reviewed and the reviews doc'umented. The licensee indicated that NRC identified items are normally levAewed but up to this time they have not documented this in their meeting minutes.
3.
Containment Leak Rate Testing Results Lenk testing results and completed test procedures were reviewed as f ollows: a.
Reactor containment Building Type A leak test performed in May 1974.
-9- , - t , . - - .
.__ _ __ . b.
Type B leak tests for the southwest torus manway and the - l drywell equipment hatch performed in May 1974.
Type C leak tests for valves MO 2373, MO-2374 and A0-10-46A, c.
performed during January 1975.
Review of the above showed that procedures were used for all Icak testa and completed as required.
Leak rate calculations were performed and results reported in the licensee leak rate reportgj reflect the informat3on obtained during testing.
Final leak rates, af ter repairs in some cases, were in conformance with the Technical Specifications.
4.
Organization and Administratic_n The inspector reviewed the licensee organization and qualifications of employees and determined the following: The licensee's organization is as described in the Technical a.
Specifications with the exception that a training supervisor has been added to the organization.
This addition has been reported in a proposed Technical Specification change dated April 1, 1975.
b.
Personnel qualification Icvels meet the requirements of ANSI N 18.1 - 1971.
Six persons from the plant have been qualified for Liquid Penetrant Testing - Level II in accordance with 1FC++ American Society.of Non. Destructive Testing Recommended " * ' " "
- r
"""w-***- Practice No. SNT-TC-1A. ' * The authorities and responsibilities of licensee personnel are c.
as delineated in the licensee Administrative Control Directive 3.1, Monticello Plant Organization.
d.
The composition of the shift operating crews meet the requirements for licensed personnel as required by the Technical Specifications.
The makeup of the offsite review committee (Safety Audit c.
Committee) and the onsite safety review committee (Operations Committee) are as required by the Technical Specifications.
f.
Changes in organization and structure have been reported to NRC as required by the Technical Specifications.
. 1/ Reactor Containment Building Integrated Leak Test - May 1974.
- 10 -
, l l f L
_
, . 5.
Outstanding items - ' ') a.
SBLC Hi/Lo Temp Alarm During a previouc Inspection it was noted that the subject alarm appeared to be continuously in the trippcd position.2/ The licensee has increased the high temperature set point such that it is above the normal operating comperature of the system. The inspector reviewed the licensee set point change request and no discrepancies were noted.
b.
Turbine Moisture Seperator No. 3 Inlet Srcam Piping Thelicenseeindicatedinapreviousinspectiontggt the subject piping was croding at an increasing rate.- The inspector inquired if any corrective action plans had been made. The licensee stated they were still waiting for guidance f rom the General Electric Company and corrective action plans had not been formulated yet, IE Bulletin 75-05, Operability of Category I Hydraulic c.
Shock and Sway Suppressors The inspector reviewed a draft copy of licensee response to the bulletin and the correspondence from Bechtel and Bergen- - Patterson on which part of the response is based.
d.
Procedure Review - In a previous inspe'etion ! the licensS$'iAdicatedithat certain b procedures would be reviewed by the Operationn Committee within 2 years of the date that the Technical Specification which imposed the two year review requirement was issued, which was April 3, 1973.
Review of these procedures and discussions with licensee personnel indicated that procedure B.7.3, Solid Rad k'aste System, had not been reviewed by the Operation Committee since it was approved August 27, 1970.
This is a deficiency with Technical Specification 6.2.B.4.h.
6.
Planned Shutdown The licensee has observed temperature increases in the reactor pressure relief valve discharge line of valves "D" and "G" since the resumption of operation following the January refueling outage.
Such temperature increases may result from first stage pilot valve leakage.
First stage Icakage can result in inadvertent relief 2/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/75-05.
3/ lbid.
[/ lbid.
- 11 - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _
. _ _. __ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _. _ _ _ _. . ... _. _....
. * . valve operation at normal operating pressures.
The licensee shut . down the plant on May 15, 1975, for a planned two day outage to inspect these relief valves.
In telephone conversation with the licensee since completion of the relief valve inspection, it was indicated that no unusual leakage or degradation of the valves was noted.
. e %9 h - 12 - -__ - -.._.
- -_ . - - - - -.. - - - - }}