IR 05000263/1975018
| ML20024G534 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1975 |
| From: | Choules N, Jordan E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G512 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-75-18, NUDOCS 9102120619 | |
| Download: ML20024G534 (11) | |
Text
-.
- -.
-
_-
__
.-.
.
,
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COttt!SSION OFFICE OF !!iSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION Ill Report of Operations Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-263/75-18 Licensee:
Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet !!all Hinneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Monticello Nuclear Cencrating Plant License !;o. DPR-22 Monticello, Minnesota Category:
C Type of Licensee:
EbT.GE 1670 IIWt Type of Inspection:
Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection:
November 14,,19-21, 1975
,ts & p e
-
-
b Principal Inspector:
N. C. Choules (Date)
~<~.
y
,
,,
-
Accompanying Inspectors: None Other Accompanying Personnel: None ll
)$
Reviewed By:
E. L. Jordan, Section Leader Reactor Projects No. 2 (Date)
l l
l l
.
.
9102120619 760107 gDR ADOCK 05000263 PDR f,
.
e
- - - -. -..... -.. _ _ _..,, _,,
_,
.
-
_
._.
.--
.
_ _ _ _.
-
. _ _
-
.
.-
- .
.
,
\\
'
SUtt' AY Or FlhDINGS iny e c t i n n S or..rg,ry, inspection en Nover.iber 14, and 19-21 (75-18):
Semi-Annual reports, plant operations, and nonrouting reports were reviewed. One item of noncompliance related to approval of a corrective maintenance pro-
- cdure was identified.
Lnforcement Action Infraction Contrary to Technical Specification 6.5, a corrective raintenance procedure, NPT-US-1, Nuclear reactrant Testing Procedure, was used withouc Operations Cctmittee review and approval by a cer.ber of plant managerent designated by the plant manager.
(Report Details, iaragraph 2.f)
Licensee Action on Previously Identific# Enforcement Itets Not Applicabic.
Other Sirnificant Itens A.
Systems and Ccaponents The licensee has ccmpleted the removal of cracks in the feed-
~'
water nozzles and repla:cecnt of the feeducter spargers.17 B.
Facility Items The plant returned to power operation en November 19, 1975, af ter being shutdovn for refueling and f eedwater sparger replace-ecat.
C.
Managerial items None.
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee None.
E.
Deviations None.
1/ IE Inspection Report No. 050-263/75-16.
- 2-
-
i
.
r
-
.
.
-
--..
. __
.
-
-
-.
-
.,
.
.
T.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved items Not Applicable, j
Management Interview The following persons were present at the canagerent interviev conducted at the close of the inspection.
Northern States Pown,r_Corpany ( US P_)_
C. E. Larson, Plant Munacer M. H. Clarity, Superintendent, Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection A.
Non-Routine Occurrencen 1.
A0 75-16 The inspector stated he was concerned with the f ailure of the relay coils which caused this occut.ence and other occurrences.
The licensee stated they were investigating circuit modifications of the'under-voltage relay system controlled by this type coil that would prevent the con-trolled corponent from becoming inoperabic when a cci]
failed.
(Report Details, Parapraph 2)
2.
AO 75-14, 75-15, 75-18, 75-19, 75-22
.
The inspector stated l'e had eviesed these occurrences and the licensee's corrective a; tion cppeared to be ep-propriate.
(Report Details, Paragraph 2)
3.
A0 75-20 The inspwctor stated he had reviewed the evaluations made of the feadwater nozzle cracks repairs and they appeared to be adequate.
(Report Details, Paragraph 2)
4.
A0 75-21 The inspector stated that the licensee's corrective action for this occurrence appeared to be appropriate.
The in-spector further stated that review of the maintenance package identified one noncompliance item in that the dye penetrant procedure used on this job was not reviewed and approved as required by the Technical Specifications. The licensee acknowledged the faspectors statement.
(Report Details, Paragraph 2)
3-(
-
.
f F.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
B.
Semi-Annual P.cports The inspector stated he had reviewed the licensee's semi-annual report for the past year a;;ainut the Technical Specification requirements and no discrepancies were noted.
(Report Details, Paragraph 3)
C.
Plant Operations Followinn Refueling Outagg The inspector stated he had reviewed licensee's actions related to returning systens d!.sturbed during the outage to service, core reactivity tisting, and surveillance testing performed during the outage and no discrepancies were noted.
(Report Details, Paragraph 4)
D.
Plant Starto_g The inspector stated he had r9 viewed control roen opcrations during portions of the plant startap which was in progress, and no discrepancies were noted.
(Repor: Details, Paragraph 5)
E.
Lost Parts in the F.cactor Vessel In a telephone conversation with the licensee en November 24 and 26, 1975, the inspector discussed the analysis of parts which had been lost in the reactor vessel during the current outage. The specific item for which a documented analysis was no available at the time of the inspection was a 1 1/2" x 3/16" x 6" aluminum
-
gauge block.
The licensee stated that they had reviewed the potential problems and had concluded that the block could not cover a fuel element orifice because of its length and would not plug the orifice if it entered the orifice width wise because of the small cross sectional area. The licensee further stated that they were quite certain that the gauge block fell on the jet punp support shelf and would probably stay in this location during op-eration.
The inspector stated that this inf ormation should be documented in the licensee's files and an orifice flow blockage analysis should be performed for the gauge block.
The licensee stated these would be done.
(Report Details, Paragraph ')
i-4-
'
p
-
.
,
-
.
.
,
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Pernons Contacted Northern Stytes Power Company C. E. Larson. Plant 11anager 11. H. Clarity, Superintendent. Plant Engineering and Rediation Protection W. E. Anderson, Superintendent, Opetation and Maintenance D. D. Antony, Plant Engineer Operations W. A. Shamla, Plant Engineer Technical R. R. Rodger, Lead Plant Equipment Operational Reactor Operator J. F. Heneage, Engineer B. D. Day, Engineer H. M. Kendall, Plant Office Supervisor D. E. Devinski Engineer, Nuclear M. F. Hammer, Engineer P. A. Pochop, Quality Engi n ter 0. H. 1verson, Engineer T. W. Grue, Engineer R. A. Coranson, Engineer Cherne Centractine Corporation F. Mutter - Project ::anager R. Wagner, Project Superintendent
"s 2.
Non-Routine Reports A0 75-14 The licensce informed the inspecter by telephene on August 19, 1975, that a threaded nipple in a section of h inch seal water line be-tween the No. 12 Reactor Water Cleanup Pump and the seal water heat-exchanger failed at the thread root. The details and corr i
actionforthisoccurrencearegiveninthelicensec'sreport.$7ctve The licensee indicated in his report that they were investigating the possibility of replacing the pipe with tubing. At the tims of this inspection, the piping on the Hu. 12 pump had been replaced with tubing and the licensee intends to replace the piping on the No. 11 rump with tubing wherever maintenance is performed requiring dirassembly of the piping.
3.
n-Routine Occurrences
.s,
A0 75-15 2/ A0 Rpt No. 050-263/75-14, NSP to DL, dtd 8/28/75.
k-5-
,
-
- - -
- - -
-
- -
.
..
.
)
'
The licensee informed the incpector by telephone on
!
August 26, 1975, that a nun torus cooling injection valve failed to close c epletely due to imnroper tocque switch
'
setting.
The detalla and corrective action for this occurrence are given in the licensee's report.2/
The inspector reviewed this occurrence with the licennee's representative and determined that the torque switch was set at no flow conditions and did not take into account added forces due to flow.
Setting the torque switch for flow condition corrected the clesing problem.
t b.
A0 75-16 The licensee informed the inspector by telephone on August 27, 1975, that the llPCI Turbine Steam Supply Valve, M10-2036, failed to operate due to the failure of the undervoltage re-lay coil.
The details and corrective action for this occurrence
/
are given in the licensee's report.1 Review of this occurrence with licensee representatives, indicated that this sate rodel relay coil had failed thrca other times during the l!.fetime of the plant. One failure was reported 5/ and the other two failures were on nonsafety related equipment.
The licensee representatives indicated that their electrical laboratory had inspected the failed coil and concluded that there was nothing abnormal about the failure and failures of this type could be expected periodi-
-~
,
cally.
c.
A0 75-18 The licensee inforced the inspector by telephone on September 15, 1975, that a hydraulic snubber located inside the drywell on B loop LPCI line was low on oil.
The details and corrective action for this occurrence are given in the licensee's report.$/
In review of this occurrence with the licensee's representative, it was indicated that the low oil resulted from an improperly installed seal as stated in the licensee's report.
d.
A0 /5-19 The licensee informed the inspector by telephone on September 22, 1975, that the count rate of Source Range !!onitor 23 decreased below 3 CPS, the count rate required to consider the detector l
3/ A0 Rpt du. 050-?61/75-15, NSP to DL, dtd 9/3/75.
'
4/ A0 Rpt No. 050-263/75-16, NSP to ut, utd 9/6/75.
5/ AO Rpt No. 050-263/75-08, NSP to DL, dtd 5/15/75.
6/ A0 Rpt No. 050-263/75-18, NSP to DL, dtd 9/24/75.
,
'
-6-l l
l r-a
-.. _ _ _ _ _ -.
_ - - _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.__
.,
.
.
.
operable by the Technical Specifications. Tlie details and corrective action for this occurrence are given in the licennee's report.1/
,
The innpector reviewed the licensee's actions related to this occurren;e. The decrease below 3 CPS occutred during or af ter removal of a f uel element from the core.
No fuel was added to the core with the count rate less then 3 CPS. When the low count rate was discovered, the refueling crew contacted the Nuclear Engineer for directions and a change in the loading sequence was prepared and approved for use to bring and main-tain the count rate utove 3 CPS.
The licensee's actions for this occurrence appear to be appropriate.
e.
A0 75-20 The licensee infort.ed the inspector by telephone on October 14, 1975, that cracks had beer observed in the foe; icedvater nozzles.
'
arc given in Detailsandcorrectgyeactionforthisoccucco.3 issued at a later
the licensee report-and a report which :11:
ss date.
The licensee's actions related to rem of these cracks wereexaminedduringapreviousinspection.17~
The inspector reviewed documentation and evaluation of these crack repairs as follows:
(1) llonticello Tecdwater Mozzle Cladding Crack Repair Report, NEDC-21120, prepared by the General Electric Company.
"'
This report includes a stress evaluation, fatigue analysis, fracture mechanics evaluation, grind out weld repair eval-uation, corrosion evaluation and a safety evaluation. The report concludes that the modified nozzle geometry still meets or exceeds the ASME Section III Cr4 ;cria that was oritinally established for the vessel and that the repaired condition of the nozzles exceeds the requirements of ASHI Section XI.
(2)
Evaluatien of the above report by NUTECH, Report No. NSP-01-004, and letter to SS? dated November 11, 1975.
In the avaluation and letter, NUTECH basically agreed with the cu.clusion of the Cencral Electric Report.
(3)
Statement of P.eview of the General Electric and NUTECH reports signed by the NSP Quality Control Engineer, and the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company's Authorized inspection, in which they state to the best of 2/ A0 Rpt No. 050-263/75-19, NSP to DL, dtd 9/30/75.
8/ A0 Rpt No. 050-263/75-20, USP to DL, dtd 10/22/75.
9/
IE Inspection Report No. 050-263/75-16.
_
.
. _. _ -
,
._
.. _,
__
_ _ _
_
_ _ _
__ _
_
.
__ _
,.
.
.
their knowledge " corrective measures taker in the Monticello Teedwater Nozzle Repair l'rogram conf orm to the rules of the ASM1: Tode,Section XI."
f.
A0 75-2,1 The licensee inferraed the insrector on October 14, 1975, that the No. 11 Emergency Diesel Cencrator failed to start due to a loose fitting on the No. 2 atatt system.
The details and corrective action for this occurrence are given in the licensee's report.1S/
Review of this occurrence indicated the dicsci started on September 26, 1975, when started for Surveillance Test 1052.
Maintenance was perf orracd on August 6, 1975, and operability checks performed on August 7, 1975.
The licensee concluded that the fitting was installed tight enough to hold air originally but was loose enough that vibration caused it to loosen further, g.
A0 75-22 The licensee infore.cd the inspector by telephone on November
),
1975, that a cracked wcld had been discovered in the 1-inch pipe nipple to RV 2005, B Loop LPCI relief valve.
The details and correctiv7 actions for this occurrence are given in the licensce's report.11
'
3,.-
Review of this occurrence with the licens'e's representative
.
e shewed ' hat they had rerouted the discharge piping from this relief valve and the relief valve for the redundant system to reduce the stress on the nipple at the relief valves.
Design change 75-F.0-93 specified the changes to be made and the work was performed under a Work Request Authorization.
Review of the work package indicated that dye penetrant checks had been performed on welds for these valves.
The inspector inquired what procedure was used for the dye penetrant check. The licenace's representative showed the inspector a copy of NPT-US-1, Nucicar Penetrant Testing Procedure and stated it was used for the checks.
The procedure was apptoved by a Level 111 Inspector but had not been reviewed by the Operations Committee and ap-proved by a r ember of plant management.
This is an apparent item of noncompliance.
Technical Specification 6.5.C and 6.5.C.3 requires that procedures for preventive or corrective mainten-ance of plant equipment and systems that could have an effect on Nucicar safety be developed. Technical Specification 6.5 requires that thene procedures shall be reviewed by the Opera-tions Committee and approved oy a member of plant management designated by the Plant Manager.
10/ A0 Rpt No. 050-263/75-21, ESP to DL, dtd 10/24/75.
11,/ A0 Rpt No. 050-263/75-22, NSP to DL, dtd 11/11/75.
(
8-
-
p
,
.
..
.
.
.
.
4.
Semi-Annual importu
)
Subject reports for the periods of July 1, 1974, to Decer.ber 31, 1974, and January 1,1975, to June 30, 1975, were reviewed.
Re-view of these reports indicated that inf ormation required by the Technical Specifications had been reported.
Review of the control room log books indicated that three forced shutdowns during the reporting periods were an reported in the semi-annual reports.
5.
Plant Operi.tions Followint Refuelinn CUtare The inspector reviewed records and determined that the folleving were returned to service in accordance with approved proceduu s af ter being distributed during the outage.
a.
Reactor recirculation 4-inch bypass line lines were replaced during this outage.12/ Prior to returning These the system to nornal a 1000 psi hydro for four hours was per-fortted and the welds exarined.
The hydro was signed off by the Hartford Steam boiler Inspection and Insurance Company's Authorized Inspector as cecting the requirements of B 31.1-1967, paragraph 137.1.2.
b.
Local Power Rance Monitor (LpRM) Replaceeent Several LPR11s were, replaced during the outage. They were
.a-installed and checked in accordance with reactof haintenance c.
procedure 903S, LPR:1 Ecplacement Without Spring Reel, c.
Control Rod Drive Changeout
_
.
Twenty control rod drive (CRD) asset.blies were removed, inspected, rebuilt and reinstalled or replaced with sparc CRD's.
'.;o s t r e s s corrosion cracks were observed in the collet housing areas of the CRD's.
Surveillance tests performed on the CRD's included
[
l
!
checks for flange leats (ST-1072), CRD friction tests (ST-1064),
normal drive times (ST-1054), cold and het scrams (ST-00TI), CRD coupling check (ST-0075), and nucicar instrument response (ST-0076)
were completed prior to resuming plant operations, I
l d.
'HpCI-9 Valve Inspection l
valve was disascembled and a previous modi-(1)
Thesubj];wasinspected.
ficatior --
A local leak rate test (0137-9)
j l
was performed on the valve priur to returning the valve to service.
The leakage was 14.B sefh which is less than
'
12/ IE Inspection Rpt 050-263/75-16.
- 13/
IE Inspection Rpt 050-263/75-05.
(
.
i
_
.
.
._
i l
i
.
...
.
'
the Technical Specification 4.2.f.(2)(b) limit of j
17.2 scfh.
(2) The inspector reviawed the following control rod with-drawal aquence and reactivity tr.casurements which
.
were perforn.ed prior to power range operation.
,
(a) The control rod withdrawal sequence was approved f or startup and designated as Operations !!anual Volume T,:teno No. 437.
(b)
Surveillance test P-0073, Shutdown Margin Requirement was per f ormed.
The shutdown margin with the most rear tive rod f ully withdrawn was -0.52% dK which meets the requirec2cnr.s of Technical Specification 3.3.A.1 and 4.4.A.l.
(c) itcasured critical rod position f or the A.1 and B.1 rod configurations were within 0.5%t7, of the esti-mated critical red positions.
(3) Review of licensec records indicated the f ollowing surveillance tests were performed during the outage as required by technical specificatier.s:
0019, Iligh Reactor Pressure Scram Calibration 0020, litch Drywell Pressure Scram Calibration 0021, Condenser Low Vacuum Scran Calibration
,s 0049, Source Range Channel Sensor Check
'
0066. Radiatien Moniter ncactor Luilding Vent Sensor Check 0126, Reactor Coolant Dryvell Leah Check 0173. Discharge Canal Sampler Operability 0205, Fuel Pool Level.
6.
Plant Startup The inspector witnessed portions of control room operations during power ascension testing f rom 25:. to 50. pewer en November 19-21, 1975. The licensee obtained transient in-core flux traverses during the power ascension to evaluate the core flux distribu-tion. Ho abnormal flux shapes were observed at these powers.
No discrepanciec were noted by the inspector during the observa-tion of control room activitics.
7.
Lost Parts in the Keactor Vescel The inspector reviewed the licensee's internal report covering the apparent loss of four parts in the pressure vessel. The items were as follows:
- 10 -
,
V h
_
.
-
-.
. _.
,
.
.
.
.
a.
Two fuel channel clips approximately 4" x 2" x 2/8".
b.
LPD1 none piece approxirnately 1/2" in diameter and !" long.
e c.
An aluminimum gauge block approximately 1 1/2" x 6" x 3/16".
The licensee made an extensive t,carch to f Jnd these missing parts but could not locate any of them.
'I he inspector reviewed an analysis at the site which indicated that items a and b did not have the potential to cause f uel bundle flow blockage and that Item c was believed to have the potential for flow blockaSc.
A cornplete flow bicekage analysis for the gauge block was not available at the time of the inspection.
.
Mg l
l l
- 11 -
-
,