IR 05000263/1976013
| ML20024G175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1976 |
| From: | Boyd D, Shafer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G173 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-76-13, NUDOCS 9102070640 | |
| Download: ML20024G175 (6) | |
Text
-
.
L
>
.
.
e.,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR MECUI.ATORY COMMISSION
'
OFFICE OF' INSPECTION AND ENFORCDIENT
k
REGION III
Report of Operations Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-263/76-13 Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Hall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant License No. DPR-22 Monticello, Minnesota Category:
C
'
T.ype of Licensee:
.
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection:
September 21-24, 1976
$($0 hd
/ /
Principal Inspector:
W. D. Shafer
/O/ '// 6
(Date)
Accompanying Inspectors:
None Other Accompanying Personnel:
None fr 0$$
'
'^
-
Reviewed By:
D. C. Boyd, Acting Chief
/b ?
M Reactor Projects (Date)
Section No. 2
!
9102070640 761007 PDR ADOCK 05000263
POR
,-
_
_
,_ -.
_ _.
. - _ _
_
_ -.
--...
.
s (
I
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
'
A
,
Inspection Summary
,.
$.
\\
Inspection on September 21-24, (76-13): Review of plant operations and nonroutine event reports. No items of noncompliance were identified.
Enforcement Items i
None.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items Not reviewed.
Other Significant Items i
A.
Systems and Components None.
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
None.
C.
Managcrial Itema
,
Nor.o.
.i D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee None.
i E.
Devintions
.
N.' te.
.
F.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items None.
Management Interview At the conclusion of the inspection, a management interview was conducted with Mr. Clarity, Superintendent of Plant Engineering and Radiation
'
Protection, and other staff members.
The inspector stated the following:
.
-2-
!(
r
,
.
_
_
_, _ _ - _. - _ _
-. _
-m.,
- - -- ~. - - -~
t
,
.
.
,
.,
.-
.__
.
- _ _..
._ _
_
.
,
i L
i
.
-
.
A.
The entries in the control room logbook for most cases appear
,
adequate, however, the licensee should reemphasize the need (
for complete and accurate information.
A licensee representative stated that a memo has been issued to the operating personnel addressing this problem.
(Paragraph 2.b, Report Details)
D.
In reviewing reportable occurrence 76-07, Failure of A Relief Valve Manual Operator, it was noted that considerable time had elapsed between the time the safety relief valve was tested and found inoperabic to the time it was declared inoperabic.
The reason for thin delay and the reason for delaying compliance with the Technical Specification requirenents should be docu-mented in the shift supervisor's' log book.
(Paragraph 3.e, Report Details)
.
.
.4
.
s'
-3-(
.
_. - -
..
.
-
.
.-
--
--- r -
.
.
(
I
.
-
.
REPORT DETAILS
.
,
1.
Personn Contacted M.11. Clarity, Superintindent, Plant Engineer & Radiation Protection D. D. Antony, Plant Engineer, Operations F. L. Fey, Radiation Protection Engineer W. E. Anderson, Superintendent, Operations and Maintenan e 11. H. Kendall, Plant Of fice Supervisor W. A. Sparrow, Operations Supervisor S. L. Pentson, Shift Supervisor L. W. Severson, Shift Supervisor R. A. Kmitch, Shift Supervisor D. E. Nevinski, Engineer, Nuc1 car R. D. Jacobson, Chemist R. J. Rasmussen, Assistant Plant Equipment C,>crator 2.
, Review of Plant Operations n.
The inspector reviewed the shift 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, shift supervisor logs provide sufficient detail to communicate equipment status, logbook reviews are being conducted by staf f personnel and the night order log and jumper bypass log do not conflict with Technical Specification i
requirements.
The licensee's water chemistry program also appeared adequate.
The inspector noted in two isolated cases that control room log entries were incomplete, however, the Shift Supervisor's
, log entry for these cases identified the problem and the resolution. The licensee was encouraged to reenforce, to
,
the operating personnel, the need for complete log entries.
'
,
No other concerns were identified.
.
b.
The inspector conducted a tour of accessible areas observing that monitoring instrumentation was functioning properly, radiation controls were properly established, the existence of fluid Icaks and pipe vibrations were minimal, and plant housekeeping conditions appeared adequate.
Selected valve positions on the llPC1 and RCIC systems and equipment lockout tag information were noted to agree with information available in the control room.
-4-(
r
.; _
- - -
-
--
_
,
'
(
)
<
.
..
The inspector requested the licensee to reassess the need for some of the temporary radiation control areas within
.
the plant. A licensee representativc' stated that a review (
will be conducted in order to reduce the number of areas of concern. No other concerns were identified.
c.
The inspector reviewed, without comment, the following significant operating events.
(1)
H-SOE-76-02, Review of Radiation Occurrence Reports.-
(2)
M-SOE-76-05, Flooding of Discharge Structure Due to Failed Expansion Joint.
(3)
M-SOE-76-06, Single Control Rod Scrams.
3.
Reportable Occurrences The following reportable occurrences (R0s) were reviewed for completion of reporting requirements, invchtigation and determination of cause, proposed corrective measures, and completion of corrective action.
a.
RO 76-03, Primary Containment Oxygen Above 5%.
b.
RO 76-04, Crack in B Moisture Separator Drain Linc.
c.
RO 76-05, TIP Ball Valve Failed to Close.
d.
RO 76-06, Failure of UpCI Steam Line Inboard Isolation Valve
.(
to Close Completely.
,
e.
RO 76-07, Failure of A Relief Valve Manual Operator.
The licensee determined that the cause of the failed manual
- operator was the result of an air leak in the solenoid valve
,
controlling the air supply to the air operator.
This solenoid
.
,
valve is also actuated upon receipt of an automatic depressuri-
.
zation system (ADS) signal.
On loss of the ADS function for this valve, the licensee is required to immediately test the high pressure core spray system. The inspector noted that over 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> clapsed from the time the valve failed to the time a second attempt to open the valve was made.
In discussing this prob 1cm with the licensee, the inspector determined that the time from the first attempt to open the valve to the time it was declared inoperabic was used to determine the cause of i
the failure.
The inspector cautioned the licensee that while the 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> used to determine the cause of the prcolem were
%...
-5-l
,
f
.
=
-
=
.
.
- .s.
__
._.
_ _ _.
.____.
k I
s
.
...
within the time limit of "immediate," considering plant 4,
conditions, the declaration that a failure had occurred and recognition of the Technical Specification requirements (
must be addressed at the time of failure.
f.
RO 76-08, Loss of Power to No. 1 AR Reserve Transformed.
g.
RO 76-09, Main Steam Line Low Pressure Switch Setpoint Drift.
h.
RO 76-10 Failure of Containment Isolation Valve to Close.
The inspector noted that no anfety limit, limiting safety system settingn or limiting conditions for operation were exceeded for each event identified above.
No concerns were identified.
4.
General i
The inspector reviewed with a licensee representative the methods used to determine the peak heat flux and determined that the pre-dicted values are conservative. No concerns were identified.
.
l
.
,
e e
.
.
-6-
..
.
I k
}
'
., _ _ _
_... _ _ _.,.. ~.,.
'