IR 05000263/1975021
| ML20024G475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1976 |
| From: | Charles Brown, Little W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G462 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-75-21, NUDOCS 9102120527 | |
| Download: ML20024G475 (7) | |
Text
._.-.. - -
.-
-
._.
.
-
_---...
-. _..
.
~..
- .
.
.
,
\\
-
U. S. NUCLEAR Rl:CULATORY C0!ntiSSION OTTICE OF INSPF.CTION AND 1;NFORCDtLNT
REGION III
Report of Operations Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-263/75-21
.
Licensect Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet 1611
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Monticello Nuc1 car Concrating Plant License No. DPR-22 Monticello,llinnesota Category: C Type of Licensee:
BWR (CE) 1670 FNt Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection:
December 15-19, 1975
.s
r"+139-
"M se -
c...,.
g,gy,
,
-
/j Principal Inspector:
A 11. Brown Accompanying Inspectors: None
.
Other Accompanying Personnel: None
-
Reviewed By:
W.
tt d n Leader j jf
<(Dat0)
Nucicar Support
.
.
.
ADOCK 05000263
. *
r O
.
,. - -.. -
..
,_
-,-
,
m
-
-
-
-. - - - -
.__
-, _..
_ _ - _
-..
. _.
- _ _
. - _ _ _. - _ - _
- -. _ -
..
--
_
.
.
.
..
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
. Inspection Summary
-
Inspection on December 15-19, (75-21): Plant operating logs, startup testing, nonroutinc event review and evaluation and routino plant operations werc examined.
Enforcement Action Nonc.
,
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items j
Nonc reviewed.
i Other Sinnificant Findines A.
Systems and Components None.
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
None.
M.,anagerial items C.
yv xe
.m.
,,,
, _
_
..
None.
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee
.
.
.
None.
E.
Deviations None.
F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items Not applicable.
Managernent Interview the conclusion of the incpection a raceting was held on December 19, At1975 with Mr. Larson and other members of his staf f. The following
,
I
.
items were included in the discussion.
-
-2-
-.,.
. -_
-
..
-..
_ _. -
- - -..
_ -.
.-
.
. _ _ - _
.
.-.
.
.
..
.
.
A.
The inspector stated that " Volume F" menios (temporary Operating Manual changes) appeared to be kept in the log for execunive icngths of time. The licensec acknowledacd the comment and utated the volume would be evaluated for updating.
(Paragraph 3, Report Details)
B.
Operator entries in the' logs were discussed and the licensec stated that this area would be reviewed and further guidance
~
would be provided to the operators as necescary.
(Paragraph 3 Report Details)
C.
A discussion was held on minor discrepancies noted in various forms used for routine operations (mostly of the record retrieval type of discrepancy).
The 11censeo stated that closer attention would be given to the filling out of forms.
D.
The inspector stated that he had noted no deficiencies in the procedures for evaluation of nonnormal events.
The followup systems for corrective actions and conmitments made to the Commission appeared to be functioning satisf actorily.
(Paragraph 5, Report Det E.
The inspector stated that he did not agree with the apparent operating philosophy of acknowledging recurring alartns but not c1 caring them. The licensec stated that this riatter would be evaluated and a better tacthod found for handling this situation.
(Paragraph 2, Report Details)
a y
'
-d~
y s
.
e
.
3..
.
.
.
.
'
.#
,
_
_
_
_
,
.
__
- -.
.. -
_ _.
. _ _
-
.
.
.
,
s
.
. REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons contacted C. E. Larson, Plant Manager H. H. Clarity, Superintendent, Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection D. D. Antony, Plant Engineer, Operations W.,E. Anderson, Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance W. A. Sparrow, Cperattons Supervisor H. E. Nimmo, Maintenance Supervisor L. !!. Eliason, Radiation protection Engineer D. E. Hevinski, Plant Nucicar Engineer
'
F. J. Schober, Shift Supervisor R. A. Mielke, Shift Supervisor W. F. Boehme, Lead Plant Equipment Operational Reactor Operator L. V. Peterson, Auxiliary Plant Equipment Operator B. D. Day, Engineer 2.
Plant Tour The inspector was accompanied by a licensee's representative for a tour of the plant. The equipment SEC1'gE tags that were in force at the time of the inspection were noted to be in place, llouse-keeping in the plant was generally acceptable with the exception of rags used to soak up oil next to the "B" feedwater pun,ps.
The rags were removed.
The inspector discusseduthe various annunicators. that were. lit.
"
.
r or flashing with the operators on duty.
Adequate explanations were given for the annunicators lit, but the philtsophy of acknow-ledging alarms without c1 caring was discunned with the licensee.
This leaves the alarm with a rapidly blinking light and the audibic alarm does not sound when the alarn is again tripped-the al' arm indicatcr changes to a slow blinking light.
This method was being used on eight annunicators at the time of the inspection, two of which were "APRM Hi" and " Withdrawal Block" (the plant was operating at 99.9%).
This item was discussed with the licensee with the conclusion that action taken in response to alarms would he reviewed.
The licensee also stated that their program to have a " dark" board during normal plant operation would continue.
'
3.
Plant __ Operations The operating logs and records were, reviewed for the time periods as fo110ws:
Shift Supervisor Log, Octobar 8 - December 16 a.
-4-
.
i
!
t I
I e-
.
,
..
.- -_
. _ - - -
- - -.. _
-.
_ - -. -
_- _-
.-.
'
..
b.
Rsactor and Control Room Log, September 9 - Decembsr 8 Auxiliory Loi Data Sheets, December 1 - 16 c.
d.
" Volume F" memos, (temporary Operating iknual changer) Thru December 18
'
Jumper - Bypass Log, Thru December 16 c.
f.
Hold - Secure loc, Thru December 16 It was noted that infrequent entries were made as to the status of the refueling operations in the routine operating logs - exact status appears to have been maintained in refueling log (special 100) and procedure. The same was true for the feedwater sparger replacement, and the grinding perf ormed on vessel f eedwater nozzles The " Volume F" log contained memos dating back to Februas, 1971 with In the approximately 2/3 of the volume being older than one year discussions with the licensee it was indicated that memot scre due.to be reviewed for the biennial evaluations (Review'of Vol. F not covered in procedure) and an ef f ort would be made to reduce the number of memos contained in the volume. A reevaluation would be made as to what material was to be placed in the volume, as these are temporary changes to the Operating Manual.
Otheruisc the control of the volume appeared satisfactory The review of the operating logs and the audit procedure f or the
" Jumper, Lypass, Secure, Hold" log, indicated control was satisfactory. There were no jumpers or bypasses.in use.at the,*
time of the inspection.
The jumper / bypass that had been used
_
in the present quarter were as part of an approved procedure.
On December' 6 ad entry in the Reactor and Control Room Log, stated that the new conversion f actor was 1.1.
This reduced the recorded The
,pCi/sec discharge f or stack release from 1058 to 415,uci/sec.
f actor was recalcuated due to the change in energy distribution
,
'
af f ected by the increased holdup time (300 hours0.00347 days <br />0.0833 hours <br />4.960317e-4 weeks <br />1.1415e-4 months <br />) of the recombiner The release f rom the system presently amounts to approximately system.
30 uC1/sec with the remainder coming from the gland seal exhauster.
j 4,
Startup Testing 1/
The inspector reviewed solceted tests performed following the
'
refueling outage of September, November 1975. The following tests
,
were reviewed :
If IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/75-18, Report Details, paragraph 5.
-5-
.
.
.
,
l
<
.
- - - -
-
.
-
. -
_
,
-
=_ -
.
.
.
The control rod drive f riction tests, scram time testa.
a.
(Technical Specification 3.3.C) and the coupling integrity All drives vetification were performed in November 1975.
functioned within the acceptance criter'f a of the teets.*
b.
The shutdown margin test was performed in November gpc 1 a greater than required 0.5% 6 K margin.
L-(0.25%AE+
rever uncerto.
lcs)] per Tech ical Specification 3.3. A.1 & 4.4. A.I.
%c computer code used by NSI indicated a - 0.52% d K margin and GE's code a - 0.62% 4 K margin. The codes were verified by the licensee with the two rod quadrant critical tests, Cora power distribution verification test showed a maximum c.
peak ratio of 2.72, (maximum allowable is 3.04 for 8 x 8 bundles) at 100% power.
.
Core performance evaluation at rated temperature and pressuco J.
revealed the rod notches remaining in core unre within the required band of 1% of the expectai number. The core reactivity expected to show any reactivity increase for this fuel is not cycle per the vendor supplied core performance curve.
Control rod sequences were found to have been approved and c.
The entered in " Volume F" maintained in the Control Room.
minor changes to the sequences requested by the Nuclear the Control Engineer f or flux shaping reasons are maintained in Room Log and are noted in the computer printout.
The sequence
. as supplied by the vendor to raintain < l.3% 4 K supercritical
'during a rod drop accident was f ollowed. to.. greater,phan.10%
power as required per Technical Specifications paragraph 3.3.B.3(b)7~
-
Reactor protection time responses was verified to be Icss than f.
0.10 sec required by Technical SpecificatJons 3.1. A.
5.
Nonroutine Event The procedure pertaining to review and evaluation of nonroutine
.
events was found to conform with the Technical Specifications.
The responsibilitics are outlined f or prompt review, and eva lua tion for identification of safety related events. Responsibilities have been assigned, and the procedure: addressing the reporting of an event hac been placed in use at the site. These procedures cover internal reporting and reports made.to the NRC.
The responsibility f or completion of corrective ac tions has been d el ega t ed. A log is maintained with the person responsible for cach item and the completion duc date.
Anotier iog is maintained-6-
.
f
.
.
.
.
.
..
_
.
. -..-
_.. -..
.
.- - - -.._.. - -
~.
.
.
.
with the above information f or commitments made to the Comminsf on.
These logs are periodically reviewed and status ascertained on items with duc dates.
In discussions held with the licens?c representatives, the responsibilitics concerning nonroutinc operating events appeared to be understood.
Three nonroutine events noted in the operating logs pertaininr, to saf ety related equipment were reviewed and found to have been reported as Abnormal Occurrences as per the Technical Specification requirements.
.
-r#w s
+-
S
O 7-
-
.
e e
- q
-
,,
_,.. -
-
,...,