IR 05000263/1976008
| ML20024G196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1976 |
| From: | Choules N, Jordan E, Shafer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G190 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-76-08, 50-263-76-8, NUDOCS 9102070680 | |
| Download: ML20024G196 (11) | |
Text
'
..
,
..
,
L
-,
-.
,
.-
"
.
.
..
,
.
..
U. S. NUCLFAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
REGION III
\\
Report of Operations Inspection
,
IE Inspection Report No. 050-263/76-08 Licensae:
Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet thll Minneapolis, Minneapolis 55401 Fbuticello Nuclear Generating Plant License No. DPR-22 Monticello, Minnesota Category: C
i Type of Licensee:
BWR GE 1670 MWt Type of Inspection:
Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection:
May 18-20 and 25-27, 1976 No
/
Principal Inspector:
W. D. Shafer
[o-/O-M.
(Date)
{Q.
9 h?
[ -/A-7d Accompanying Inspector :
N. C. Choules (Date)
Other Accompanying Pers nnel: None stl/-~~m
[!/B 6 Reviewed By:
E. L.
ordan, Chief React Projects Section No. 2 (Date)
s
.
.
l 910D070600 760611 PDR ADOCK 05000263 G
PDR f
r l
f
~
.
.
.
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (
~
.
Inspection Summary Inspection on May 18-20 and 25-27, (76-98): Review of plant operations, nonroutine event reports, followup on items of noncompliance and independ-ent inspection effort. No items of noncompliance were identified.
Inipreement Items None.
Licensee Action on Previous 1v Identified Enforcement Items Review and approval of c'orrective maintenance procedures.1/ Review A.
by the Operations Committee end approval by plant management of corrective maintetence procedures is now being accomplished as required by Technical Specifications.
(Paragraph 3.a. Report Details)
B.
Deficiencies in the completion of Work Request Authorizations (WRAs).2/ The licensee has taken appropriate action to preclude inadequate completion of WRAs.
(Paragraph 3.b Report Details)
Other Significant Items
!
A.
Systems and Components The licensee is presently conducting tests of the torus during safety relief valve actuation.
(Paragraph 7, Report Details)
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
None.
C.
Managerial Items The licensee informed the inspector that effective June 6, 1976, Mr. L. R. Eliason, Radiation Protection Engineer, will assume the position of Acting P3 ant Fbnager, replacing Mr. C. E. Larson, Plant Manager.
Mr. Larson is taking a one year 1cavo of absence,
\\
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee
.
None.
,
1/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/75-18.
2/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/76-03.
-2-(
.
.
---
.
.
L
_.,
..
. -...
.
'
.
.
.
'
l
.
E.
Deviations None.
,
F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items Not Reviewed.
Management Interview A management interview was conducted by Messrs. Choules and Shaf er j
with Messrs. Larson, Clarity and Antony at the conclusion of the inspec-tion on May 20, 1976. The following was discussed.
A.
Pla ' Operations The inspectors stated that no discrepancies were noted in the review of plant operations, significant operating events, Management Memos, Night Orders and Primary Coolant Chemistry Records.
(Paragraph 2, Repert Details)
B.
Pgig.sNoncomplianceItems The inspector stated that the licensee's corrective actions for two noncompliance items were reviewed and the corrective actions appeared to be adequate. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's statement.
(Paragraph 3, Report Details)
!'
C.
Reportable Occurrences Reportable Occurrences 76-01 and 76-02 were discussed.
(Paragraph 4, Report Detaila)
D.
Outstanding and luscellaneous Items Several subject items were reviewed and discussed.
(Paragraph 5, Report Details)
The licensee was inf ormed that ef f ective June 1,1976, Mr. W. D. Shaf er E.
will be the Project inspector for the Fbnticello facility.
On May 27, 1976, a management interview was conducted with Mr. Larson, Plant Manager, at the conclusion of the May 25-27, 1976, inspection.s
.
A.
The inspector stated that the licensee's programs for maintaining the containment differential pressure and verification of the torus structural integrity appear adequate. No areas of concern were identified..
-3-(
!
'
r
- - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
n
(
.
.
-
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
-
(
.
B.
The inspector stated that he had observed the licensee's torus testing program on May 26, 1976, and identified no concerns with the licensee's in'.plernentation inethods. The inspector also stated that the torus test program will be closely followed with additional cnsite obcervations.
.
Y k
.
4-
-
(
l r
- - - -
- - - - _ - - -
__
_.
"
l
.
.
~
.
.
.-
.
.
.
'
.
<
.
.
(
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted C. E. Larson, Plant Manager
.
H.11. Clarity, Superintendent, Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection W. E. Anderson, Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance D. D. Antony, Plant Engineer, Operations W. II. Shamla, Plant Engineer, Technical W.11. Sparrow, Operations Supervisor L. R. Eliason, Radiation Protection Engineer F. L. Fey, Assistant Radiction Protection Engineer P. A. Pochop, Quality Engineer R. L. Scheinost, Quality Engineer D. Nevinski, Nuclear Engineer R. A. Goranson, Engineer G. Smith, Engineer H. F. lirwmer, Fngineer B. D. Day, Csgineer
2.
Plant Operations a.
The following items were reviewed and no discrepancies were noted;
,
(1)
Significant Operating Events (SOEs) 75-09 and 75-10.
(2) Management Memos 76-3 through 76-7 and Technical Engineering Hemas No. 25 and No. 26.
(3)
Night Orders from March 19, 1976, to May 19, 1976.
(4)
Completed surveillance tests for ST-0122, Reactor Coolant 1-131; Dose Equivalent Activity f rom lbrch 2, l
'
1976, to April 22, 1976.
'
(5)
Completed surveillance tests for ST-0125, Reactor Coolant Chloride / Conductivity.
'
b.
The inspector reviewed the shif t logs and operating records from March 14, 1976, to present, verifying that control room log sheet entries and patrol log sheets are filled out and complete, shif t supervisor logs provide suf ficient detail to communicate equip-ment status, log book reviews are being conducted by staff per-sonnel and the night order log and jumper bypass log do not con-(
flict with Technical Specification requirements. No concerns were identified.
t-5-
\\
.
l
.e
-
,
.
.
.
,
,
'
.
.
c.
The inspector conducted a tour of accessibic atcas observing e i
[
that monitoring instru, mentation was functioning properly,
,
radiation controls were properly established, the existence of fluid Icaks and pipe vibrations were minimal and plant house-
keeping conditions appeared adequate. Selected valve positions or the llPCI and RCIC systems and equipment lockout tag
information were noted to agree with information available in the control room. The inspector discussed with control room operators the reason for several lighted annunciators and i
commented that some annunciator alarms had been silenced but not reset. A licensee representative stated that the reason the annunciators were not reset was because the equip-ment or system was operating very close to the alarm setpoint and resetting the annunciator alarms would be continuous. The inspector noted that the operators were cognizant of all the annunciators which were blinking continuously.
No concerns were identified.
3.
Previous Noncompliance items Review and approval of corrective maintenance procedures.3/
a.
The licensee informed the inspect r that corrective mainten-ance procedures are now being reviewed by the Operations Committee and approved by a member of plant management as the procedures are needed to perform maintenance and modiff-cations. The inspector reviewed the following procedures and verified they had been reviewed and approved:
i 3.2.1.A.1, Rev. O Hag Particle Procedure
-
5.2203, Rev. C and Weld Procedures
-
5.2202, Rev.1 Dye Penetrant Procedure - NpT-VS-1 This item is considered closed.
b.
Deficiencies in the completion of WRAs.1/ The in$pector verified thu*. the actions stated in the licensee's 1ctter5/ had been rectmplished, including training sessions for personnel on WRAs,
evision of Critical Systems Lists, completion of required signatures iva nnA 75-1530 and that periodic reviews are performed of WRAs
to identify discrepancies. This item is considered closed.
\\
3/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/75-18.
4/ 1E Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/76-03.
5/ Ltr, NSP to Region III, dtd 4/12/76.
-6-
-
(
-
r
-
--
. ~ - -..
.
-.
- -.
-
.
-
-- --
~~
J -- ~
-- -~
~- ~
~ - --
.
f
'
s
..
.
.
,
'
.
.
.
'
(
.
4.
Reportabic Occurrences
.
Ro 76-Olh/ - Condenante Return Line F1 bow Failure a.
The licensee replaced the failed elbow with another similar cibow.
The failure was caused by steam crosion. The licensee is investi-gating the rerouting of the involved piping to eliminate the steam erosion apparcntly due to the piping configuration.
b.
RO 76-02.7/ - RCIC Turbine Trip at H(th Exhaust Line Pressure
-
The licensee increased the setpoint of the exhaust line trip to 40 psig from 25 psig to prevent tripping the turbine. Tests performed by the licensee indicate that the exhaust pressure sometimes spikes to about 25 poi apparently due to momentary hesitation in the opening of the exhaust line valve. The licensee plans to perform periodic checks of the valve for sticking. The nuclear steam supplier concurred in raising the trip setpoint to 40 psi.
Occurrence 76-02 is considered closed.
5.
Outstanding and Miscellaneous items
-
The following items were reviewed:
Instructions for Changes to WRA d/
a.
'
The licensee has written a draft revision of Administrative Control Directive 4ACD 3.6, Work Request Authorizations, which will require that if work is beyond the scope of the written WRA, a new WRA will be prepared.
Revision of Refueling Procedures 9007 and 9009 /
b.
The inspector verified that the subject procedures have been revised to require checkout of the fuel prep machine, fuel handling jib crane and the channel handling boom within one month prior to refueling.
Station Fire Nozzlen_0/
c.
In the ref erenced inspection, it was noted that one nozzle could be backed off with little effort. During this inspeqtion the nozzle could not be backed off. The licensee applied Loctite to the threads.
6/ RO 050-263/76-01, NSP to Region III, dtd 3/19/76.
J) R0 050-263/7,6-02, NSP to Region III, dtd 4/27/76.
1/ RO Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/74-10, 9] IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/75-14.
,l_0/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/76-04.
-7-cr
-. -.
-
- -
. -
.
~
.. -
.
- - -.
.
.
.
.
'
.
.
e d.
Volume F Memos.I.1/
In the ref erenced inspection, it was noted that several memos:
'
-,
I were outstanding, dating back as f ar as 1971. The licensee has reviewed these memos and 11 memos will be deleted ar.d incorporated into permanent Operating Procedures. This action will delete all memos prior to November 1974.
c.
Lost Parts in the Reactor Vesselb2/
During the ref erenced inspection, the licensee indicated that the loss of a gauge block and analysis for potential flow blockage would be documented in the licensee's files. The inspector verified that this documentation now exists in the licenwec's files, f.
Reportable Occurrence A0 75-2613/
In the referenced l'nspection, the licenace indicated that the RCIC steam control valve would be included on a preventative maintenance program to prevent sticking. The inspector reviewed Preventative Maintenance Procedure PM 4120 Rev.1, which included periodic prevent.ative maintenance of the RCIC steam control valve.
Revision of WRA for Unplanned Paintenanec14 /
g.
In the referenced inspection, it was noted that emergency main..
tenance did not appear to receive the same review as planned main-tenance to insure identification of reportable occurrences.
The i
inspector reviewed a draft revision of 4ACD 3.6, Work Request Authorizations, which will require the completion of the WRA af ter the emergency work is completed in a similar manner to that by which a routine W.A is completed. This should identify reportable occurrences.
h.
Revision of Startup Checklist 216015/
In the ref erenced inspection, it was noted that the subject checklist appeared to be very informal.
The inspector reviewed a revised checklist which includes sign off s for each individual test and a sign off for the whole checklist.
11/ Ibid.
'
)[i/IEInspectionRptNo. 050-263/75-18.
13/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/76-03.
J4) IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/76-04 JS/ Ibid.
8-
-
.
l k
'
.
v
0
.. _. _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ ~ __
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
-
.
,
'
.
,
.
.
!
.
(
i.
Revision of Startup Checklist 21561k/
In the referenced inspection, it was noted that daviations on the subject checklist had not been reviewed by the Operations Committee.
The inspector reviewed Operations Committee Minutes No. 634, which indicated that the checklist in question, dated February 28, 1976, had been reviewed by the Operations Committee.
The acceptance criteria on the checklist has been changed as it was previously too restrictive.
j.
Cracked Pressure Gaune Glass on Cont r3, Rod Drive (CRD)
In the referenced inspection, it was noted that the pressure ga' ige glasses on CRD accumulators 46-23 and 30-39 were cracked.
Th-inspector visually verified that these glasses had ho2n replaced.
k.
quality Assurance Coverane of Offsite Groupa1E/
In the referenced inspection, it was noted that an operating QA program had not been established to govern activities of offsite groups. The QA program for offsite groups is presently controlled by the following documentas (1)
1ACD 3.3 - Design Change Coatrol.
All desik, changes must follow the requirement of ACD including onsite and offsite groups.
(2) Memorandum, plent Equipment Ibintenance and Inspection Instruction for QA on Work Performed by Other Than Plant Personnel. This memorandum includes instructions to com-ply with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
The licensee plans to 4,ncorporate this instruction into a corporate ACD.
}Srk 1 Containment
.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for maintaining a.
the drywell to torus differential pressure.
The drywell to torus dif ferential pressure is monitored continuously in the control room.
A review of the recorder chart for the months of April and May indicate that the differential pressurc is being maintained.
The inspector verified that the licensec's facility procedures have been changed to incorporate the drywell to torus dif f erential 16/ Ibid.
17/ lbid.
)U[/ROInspectionRptNo. 050-263/74-03.
-9 I
T
,
,.
._
.
.-____
,
-
. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - _ __
.______
_ _. _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
.
,
.0
,
.
(
-
pressure req'irements.
Discussions with the licensee u
indicate that no difficulties have been encountered in main-taining the required differential pressure, b.
The inspector revie.ved the licensce's program to assure contin-ued structural integrity of the torus and torus support structure, noting that external inspections of the torus structure are made monthly or any time a relief valve is actuated as required by facility procedures.
A review of the licensee's records indicates that structural modifications to the torus have been completed as described in a letter from L. O. Mayer to Victor Stello, dated }by 10, 1976.
7.
Torus Testing On Friday, }by 21, 1976, during a reactor power descent, the licensee actuated safety relief valve "A" with the reactor at 20%
power. The S/RV actuation was conducted to check out the various instrumentation wh tch is attached to the torus structure for torus testing.
Th* licensee reported that reactor system response was normal, however, the instrumentation attached to the torus
'
'
indicated that the Level I criteria was exceedet for the torus shell materials in the area of the RHR suction nozzle. Level l criteria is described in General Electric Procedure 22A-4223 (Torus Response to Relief Valve Actuations). A licensee representative stated that no determination had been made as to whether these stress (
indications were true, or if the strain gauges were malfunctioning.
During a reactor shutdown on May 22-23, 1975, additional strain gauges were installed to serve as a backup to the original strain gauges.
,
On Wednesday May 26, 1976, the inspector observed Test Sequence No I as identified in the previously described procedure.
Reactor system operation functioned as expected. Torus instrument data had not been completely analyzed prior to the inspector leaving the site.
On May 28, 1976, in a telephone conversation subsequent to thia inspection, the licensee informed the inspector that the Level I criteria for the torus shell material had not been exceeded during the test conducted en May 26, 1976; however, an anomaly still exists in that the instrumentation indicates a permanent set in the torus shell materials or in the strain gauges. Engineering analysis on this anomaly is still in progress.
The licensee also informed the inspec, tor that the strain on the "A" safety relief valve ' piping measured 560 us, which is greater than the 300 us limit in the Level I criteria. This problem is also being analyzed.
'
.
- 10 -
(
.
.
,
__
.
.
.
..
,
On May.29, 1976, in a telephone conversation with the licensee, the.
- i.
(
inspector was informed of a repeat of Test Sequence No. 1 on the "A" S/RV. The licensee stated that at approximately 70 mecc. af ter the S/RV switch actuation, a significant noise, lasting approximately 1/10 of a second was recorded on the torus instrumentation. The licensee stated that instrumentation modifications are being made in order to identify the noise problem. Testing will continue when the modifications have been completed.
The data f or the test con-ducted on May 28, 1976, is still being processed.
Justification for further safety relief valve testing is being made prior to each test being conducted.
,
On June 1,1976, in a telephone convercation, the licensee stated that redundant test instrumentation had been insta13ed on }by 30, 1976, and a safety relief va)ve test conducted on the same day indicates that the previously identified anomalies are spurious instrumentation signals. The signals from the redundant instruments indicate the torus is responding as predicted. Additional tests will be conducted to verify this information prior to continuing the torus test program.
(
.
\\
- 11 -
'
I r
I
.