IR 05000263/1976004
| ML20024G236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1976 |
| From: | Choules N, Hunter D, Jordan E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G235 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-76-04, 50-263-76-4, NUDOCS 9102080394 | |
| Download: ML20024G236 (11) | |
Text
,,. _. _.
...
_____7____.______~___-.____
.. _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _
._
____
i
'
'
\\
s
.
I
'
'U.
S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
0FFICC OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
.
IE Inspection Report No. 050-263/76-04
Licensee:
Northern States Power
!
414 Nicollet Hall
-
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Monticello Generating Station License No. DPR-22 Monticello, Minnesota Category:
C
.
Type of Licensee BWR (GE) 1670 MWt Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced I
Dates of Inspection:
March 15-17, 1976 i
'l
.'f '. l Hunter l. $ /i,-
)
/
,
D. R f/'/
Principal Inspector:
(Date)
,
l!
- lt..i o
d.D.*Cho616s;
'//
Accompanying Inspectors
,
(March 15, only)
(Date)
'
>
Other Accompanying Personnel:
E. L. Jordan (March 15, only)
s
.
[.Jordad,Cbicf k- // / //
Reviewed By:
E Reactor Projects
/(Date)
Section No. 2
.
-
.
(
.
.
9102000394 760401 PDR ADDCK 05000263 O
-.. -.
. - -.
. -.. -.. - -. -. -.. - _ _,. -
_ -. _ _. -. - - - - - -. _,.... -,. - _. -.. -
~
.....
.~_.._.___..m..
_ _ _._. _. _ _ _. _.,_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _
__.... _._. _...
'
'
o
.
.
SUMMARY OF FTNDI!;CS
,
.
Inspection Summary
'
Inspection on March 15 through 17, (76-04):
Plant operations, plant cicanliness and outstanding items were reviewed.
,
Enforcement items
. None.
Licensee Action on Previously identified Items None.
Other Significant items A.
Systems and Components i
1.
Hodifications were in progress on torus supports.
2.
The torus-nitrogen pumpback system was nearing completion and being prepared for tasting.
I B.
Facility items (Plans and Procedures)
1.
The plant was operating at full power and the torus engineering and modifications were continuing.
.
2.
The feedwater spargers, replaced during the last refueling outage, remained in the fueling cavity area.
The shipment of the spargers offsite was being planned.
3.
The drywell to torus differential pressure was being successfully maintained at slightly above 1.0 psi.
C.
Managerial items
None.
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensec None.
,
e 2-
-
-
.
e
-
g
.
-
.
.
.
e v,
i.2.,ge--.w_,
-
er---.,
,-%--,u
,.,
-,s y
,,n
%
,
.-.,--...m,y---
-.-- - -,
.m...-,.ry.w--.7-m.w-ew,.m,
,
v
---
v-*
--
w r-
- ' *, - -
---
^
,,,
.
c
.
i.
)
E.
Deviations
i None.
.
[-
F.
Status of Previous Reported Unresolved Items None.
Hanagement Interview The management interview was conducted March 11, 1976, by j
Hr. Hunter with the following persons presents C. E. Larson, Plant Manager M. H. Clarity, Superintendent, Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection W. E. Andetson, Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance
.
D. D. Antony, Plant Engineer, Operations W. A. Sparrow, Operations Supervisor A.
The inspector stated that a review of the " Volume-F" memos revealed that a number of older mcmos have not been cleared. The licensee stated that the memos will be reviewed and appropriate actions completed.
(Paragraph 6.d.
Report Details)
-
B.
The inspector stated that a review of the plant Startup Check-11st-2156 (LPRM section) revealed that certain recorded data vas outside the acceptance criteria and that an administrative oversight had apparently occurred since part of the data was not noted by operations and subsequently reviewed by the Plant Operations Committee.
The licensee acknowledged the statement and stated that the two areas will be reviewed and appropriate corrective actions taken.
(Paragraph 2.h.(2), Report Details)
C.
The inspector stated that a review of the plant Startup
'
Checklist-2160, Results and Surveillance, indicated a lack of formality.
The licensee acknowledged the statement and stated that the checklist would be reviewed to evaluate and determine the changes required to provide a formal checklist.
(Paragraph 2.h.(3),
Report Details)
3-
-
.
.
e
--,-r y
- -. -
,--r.--me.--m-,,----,-y-y,.r
,,,
e-
., _,,,,,...,. -
.r.m
-,.-,,.
,m.
- - -,, -. - - - - -.. -. _ _ _
-
-
m----
--- - - -
- --
_
___ _
-- -
~
_ __ ___. _
,.-_ -._ _ _ _
. _. - _. _. _ _
_ _. -. _ _ _
'
'
.
.
D.
The inspector stated that during the review of selected
Significant Operating Events (SOE) it was noted that the
)
damago of an 8x8 fuel assembly in the fuel storage area
(
indicated a possible fuel handling generic safety related probicm. The inspector stated that this item would be j
further reviewed by the NRC.
(Paragraph 3.b, Report Details)
E.
The inspector stated that during the review of certain manage-ment memos it was noted that special procedure precautions by the operators were required during the operation of the neutron monitoring bypass switches due to past switch ns1 functions.
,
The inspector stated that this item would be reviewed by the NRC.
(Paragraph 2.g. Report Details)
F.
The inspector noted that a number of other outstanding inspec-
)
, tion items were reviewed.
(Paragraph 6, Report Details)
G.
'the inspector stated tha,t the review of planned and unplanned
.
maintenance revealed that emergency mafntenance did not appear to receive the same level of review as the planned maintenance to insure identification of reportabic occurrences.
The l
licensee indicated that the intent was to provide subsequent review of emergency maintenance similar to that provided for planned maintenance and stated that ho administrative pro-
'
cedure would be reviewed.
(Paragrapn 5, Report Details)
,
.
4
'
L-s-
,
,
,
a
- - - - -
=..
, --
.,a__.
..-
--
_
. -.
-
.- _ _ -
_ _
,--.. - - - - --.-.
~
._ - _.- -.. _
._
_
_.
.
,
,
.
REPORT DETA,il:E
l 1.
Personn Contacted
~T C. E. Larson, Plant Manager i
H. H. Clarity Superintendent, I'lant Engineering and Radiation j
Protection i
W. E. Anderson, Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance W. A. Shamla, Plant Engineer, Technical D. D. Antony, Plant Engineer, Operations
,
W. A. Sparrow, Operations Supervisor D. E. Nevinski, Engineer, Nuc1 car W. J.11111. Engineer, Instrument L. W. Severson, Shift Supervisor R. K. Rogers, Lead Plant Equipment and Reactor Operator D. O. Roisum, Lead Plant Equipment and Reactor Operator J. H. Casters, Lead Plant Equipment and Reactor Operator H. W. Onnen, Plant Equipment and Reactor Operator 2.
Review of Operations The inspector reviewed the following selected records of routine operations to verify the activities to be in accord-ance with the Technical Specifications and Administrative Procedures.
a.
Shift Supervisor Log, January 2, 1976, through March 13, 1976.
b.
Reactor and Control Room Log, January 1, 1976, through March 14, 1976.
c.
Auxiliary Log Data Sheets, March 1, 1976, through March 14, 1976, as follows:
(1) Turbine Building Log Sheets (2) Transformer Checks (3)
Reactor Building and Reactor Building Check Sheets (4) Compressed Cas Log Sheet (5)
Recombiner System Log Sheet d.
Jumper - Bypass Log, through March 14, 1976.
'
.
-5-
.(..
-
-
,
.
.
.
.
a
.
-- -
,..
.
-
_
.-,,m-,_-.--
..
..
.
-.
-
- - - - -
. a.
.
.
.
-
,
,
e, lloid Secure Log, through March 14, 1976.
,
,,
f.
Daily Orders, through March 15, 1976.
.
g.
Management Memos (1)
75-20, issued August 29, 1975, concerning 250 V
-
DC undervoltage relays, referencing System Engineering, Memo No. 22 issued on August 28, 1975.
j (2)
75-21, issued October 30, 1975, concerning the " joystick" bypass switches, referencing Technical Engineering Memo issued on October 29, 1975.
The inspector reviewed the problems with the bypass switches with the licensee representative.
The licensee evaluation of the probicms associated with the " joystick" bypass switches was con-tinuing.
During the discussion, the licensee indicated that two General Electric Service Letters had been issued, SIL-111 and SIL-Ill, Revision 1.
The licensee representa-tive indicated that switch replacement due to the lack of positive positioning and doubic contact operation was under review. The switch operation appears satisfactory with the added operator attention directed toward the bypass light indications.
(3)
75-22, issued November 13, 1975, concerning the LPRM seal Icakage, referencing Technical Engineering Memo No.
20, The inspector verified through discussions with the licensee representative that seal Icakage is not a current problem at the plant.
-
(4)
75-23, issued on December 30, 1975, concerning recirculation pump valves position clarification.
(5)
76-01, issued on February 22, 1976, concerning the IRM heat balance curves.
(6)
76-02, issued on February 26, 1976, concerning the establishment of an administrative heatup and cooldown limit on the reactor system of 50 degrees F per hour, h.
Selected plant startup checklists for startup number 93 on November 16, 1975, as follows, were reviewed by the inspector:
(1)
Master Checklist - 2150
,
-6-
-
'
(
-
.
.
.
.
.
e
_,
,
. -,,,. - _.
_.,...,. - - _,. _, _,,,. _. _ -,,
..._--.-.-_,,m_.-
..,,, -,,,.,.
,,.
,,
,---,--%-..
-,,, -_
.
_ _ _
.
.
,,
.
(2)
Startup Checklist - 2156, LpR!!.
The innpector l
noted that a number of LpPJ1 "lligh" and " Low" alarm setpoints were lugged as being outside
'
(
the acceptance criteria on the checklist.
Due to an apparent administrative oversight, certain data on page 7 of 21 of the checklist was not circled and reviewed by the Operations Committee.
The inspector verified that other similar data had been reviewed by the Operations Committee and that the "lligh" and " Low" alarms had functioned near the specified values.
(3) Startup Checklist - 2160, Results and Surveillance.
The inspector noted that the checklist included a list of required "results and surveillance" to be com-pleted before, during and following plant startup.
The inspector noted that the method of filling in
-
the blanks prior to a startup appeared to be very informal and there were no requirements for signof f upon completion of each required "results and surveil-lance." The inspector verified that the surveillance requirements had been signed off by the Operations Supervisor prior to startup, even though six of the required tests were not checked off as being completed on the 2160 startup checklist.
A time lag exists between the completion of the survei]1ance and review of completion by the Surveillance Coordinator, which provides a possible potential for the results or sur-veillance to be overlooked during a startup.
i.
Facility Tour The inspectors toured the facility to observe specific plant
,
areas, systems and activities.
(1)
Standby Liquid Control System (a) The inspectors noted a seal on the instrument root valve for PI-11-53 was not intact.
The inspector verified the val"e to be in the open position and the Instrument Engineer was notif-ied.
(b) The positions of sc1ceted valves in the system were reviewed.
No discrepancies were noted.
.
-7-r
.
_ - - - - _ - _ _ _. _ _ _.. _ _ _... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___,____
_
_
. - _ _.-
- - - ---
.-
-. -
..
_.-.
.
.
.-
- -. - -
.
.
e
-
.
.
.
,
(c) The Ftandby Liquid Poison Tank Level and
temperature were noted to bc with specjfied
,
limits.
(2) Two Control Rod Drive accumulator pressure gauges.
46-23 and 30-39, were noted to have cracked glasses.
The items were brought to the attention of the licensee.
,
- (3)
Selected valve positions and equipment concerning the service water system were reviewed by the inspector.
No discrepancies were noted.
(4)
Sciccted valve positions on the No. 11 cmcrgency diesel fuel oil and air systems were reviewed by the inspector.
No discrepancies were noted.
(5) The plant housekeeping conditions were reviewed.
No discrepancies were noted.
(6) The illuminated control room annunciators were reviewed with the operators to verify plant status.
No discrepancies were noted.
(7) The inspector verified the control room manning in accordance with established requirements and Technical Specifications.
3.
Significant Operating Events The inspector reviewed selected Significant Operating Events-(SOE) identified and reviewed by the licensee, a.
SOE 75-06, Rod interchange developments.
b.
SOE 75-07 Damage to 8x8 fuel assembly SSL J2274 on October 22, 1975.
(1) A new fuel assembly was damaged while being raised from its. storage position in the fuel pit.
The operator erroneously commenced. lateral movement prior to the fuel assembly clearing the storage rack.
The fuel assembly was slightly deformed before the operator realized his mistake and stopped the Jateral movement of the refueling bridge.
The assembly was returned to the vendor for replacement.
.
(2) The inspector verified that the engineering review at the plant was continuing.
The licensco had not com-plcted the evaluation and determination of the corrective
.
8-
-
{
-
.
0
--
w
-
,
ms-w-.-w
-
m -
-,-,,,n---
en m
-
,w
--,m-r,,ew<
,- - - --
--~w-,-e-e
,
w
~---,:-w-<-<v w~
~-m+-
-
s e n -w m----w-n--+-r----m*
--
..
~.--. -.. -.-
.- -. _ _ -
.
_ _ _ -
_ - - - --.. ~. ~ - -
-
<
.
.
,
.-
actions required to prevent a recurrence of this
type event. Thin item will be followed at a subnequent inspection.
(
(3) The inspector's review of the refueling bridge opera-tion (hoist, bridge and trolley) revealed that the hoist is not interlocked with the bridge or trolley to prevent normal lateral movement of the fuel handling bridge when the fuel assembly and grapple are outside a predetermined position envelope.
The licensee utilizes procedural controls to prevent a fuel assembly
.
from being damaged when being withdrawn from the core or from the storage positions.
c.
SOE 75-08, Loss of a picco of metal from the jet pump plug.
.
d.
SOE 75-10 Contamination of the circulation water condenser inlet pipe.
4.
Plant cleanifness
The inspector verified the plant cleanliness controls were cetablished.
Plant cleanliness and housekeeping is controlled through
'
general c1 caning assignments, special c1 caning during maintenance activitics, and specific c1 caning station assignments made to plant operating and relief shifts.
5.
Review of Planned and Unplanned Maintenance The inspector reviewed Administrative Procedure 4 ACD 3.6,
,
Revision 3, to verify review of uormal and emergency maintenance
'
activities by management to insure identification of reportabic occurrences, a.
The review of normal maintenance activities on critical work is provided by the Plant Engineer, Technical, or the Plant Engineer, Operations, and the Operating Supervisor.
This review is controlled and documented by the Work Request Authorization (URA) fonn.
b.
The review of the emergency maintenance activities on critical work was not provided formally. The work is normally authorized by the Shift Supervisor with concur-rence of the Superintendent, Operation and Maintenance;
.
.
-9-
'f
.
e
.. - - -
we---
- -.
-.
- --,w
- - - -
. -. + -.
-.r.
ae r
- - - -,
c.r-.,---,---,-
- w er -- m y
.r,-r--r--y
= - -
-,----y-we~
p-w1%
_ _ _ _
.
-.
~ - _ _. -
. _ - -
_.. _ _ _
_ _ _ _
,
,
=
.
.
.
.,
.
'
but the Administrative Control procedure does not provids control and documentation of a review of the emergency
{
maintenance specifically, c.
The inspector discussed the apparent vonkness in the pro-cedures with the licensec and detennined that the licensco intended to provide the control and documentation of the review of emergency maintenance. This item will be fol-lowed in a subsequent inspection.
6.
Outstanding and Miscellaneous Items The following items were reviewed:
a.
Recirculation pump Leakano Annunciators On a previous inspection the licensee indicated that the subject annunciators were going to be disconnected because this system of Icakage detection was unreliable.gj The inspector noted during a tour of the control roem that these annunciators were identified as being discon-nected. The licensee representative also indicated that the annunciators had been disconnected.
b.
Modifications for the Detection of Interior Flooding
-
InDecember1975,thelicenseesubmittagjalettcrtoLon the status of the subject nodification.-
The' inspector
,
reviewed the status of the modifications with the licensec representative who indicated that the status was still the
,
same as reported.
In his letter, the licensee indicated that level alarms were installed in the condenser hot well area and in the water pump bay, and will annunicate in the control room in the event of flooding.
The licensee representative stated that the flooding alarm actually annunciates at a local panel which in turn actuates an annunciator in the control room indicating a problem at the local panel.
c.
Vane Type Flow Switches The licensee previous 1/ indicated that improved switches for the residual heat removal system and the reactor water cleanup system in place of the original flow paddic switches
,
l'
IE Inspection R NSp to DRL, dt3pI2 iD/ h0-26h/75-05. Status of Hodifications Being 2/
i Su ject:
Made to Mitigate the Consequences of Interior Flooding at the
)
Honticello Nucicar Generating plant.
'
- 10 -
(
.
.
O
)
'
,
_ _ - - - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - ___
-
.
,0 y.
with paddles removed were being reviewed.3/ Durint; this
- -
inspection, the licensee reprenantative stated that the
.
(
original flow paddle switches with the paddic removed had operated reliably and did not intend to replace them.
The licensee representative stated that apparently there was still enough surface arca Icft when the flow paddic was attached tc the switch arm for the switch to operate properly.
d.
" Volume-r" Memon
-
The " Volume-F" log contained approximately 23 rnemos dating fromApr11),1971, through 1976.
In a previoun
inspection-the licensee indicated that the volume would be evaluated for updating.
In the discussion with the licensec representative concerning the remaining outstanding memos,
,
the representative indicated that the review cnd evaluation was continuing. This item will be followed in a subsequent inspection.
e.
Station Fire Hone Nozzles 3 elected station fire hose nozzles were inspected to insure the center deflectors were tightly installed.
The licensee had indicated in a previous inspection that the nozzles would be checked for positioning and tightness.5_/
One nozzle inspected could be backed off with little cffort.
The licensee indicated that the condition would be investi-gated and corrected.
No other discrepancies were noted.
,_3/
RO Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/74-10.
4/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/75-21.
5/
IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/75-19.
.
.
e f
11 -
-
.
e
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _. _ _. _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ __
__ _.___ _ _ _
_
_