IR 05000263/1977018
| ML20024G526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1977 |
| From: | Choules N, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G519 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-77-18, NUDOCS 9102120603 | |
| Download: ML20024G526 (7) | |
Text
.
..
k U.S. NUCLEAR 1EGULATORY COMMISSION OTTICE OT INSPECTION AND ENTORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-263/77-18 Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22 Licensee:
Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tacility Name:
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Inspection At:
Monticell Site, Monticello, MN Inspection Conducted:
September 26-30, 1977
//
Inspector:
N C C es
<
uw a
Reviewed by:
R. F. k'arnick, Chief
_ /o-/V-7 7 Reactor Projects Section 2 Inspection Summary Inspection on September 26-30, 1977 (Report No. 50-263/77-18)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of plant operations, organization and administration, records, nonroutine event reports.
IE Circular follovup, and independent inspection.
The inspection involved 35 inspector-hours onsite ty one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance vere identified in five areas; one apparent item of noncompliance (Infraction -
conduct of LPT examination with a noncertified technician - Paragraph 7.c)
was identified.
.
9102120603 771014 PDR ADOCK 05000263
. _ _ _ - -
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
-
_ _ _. _ _.
_
.
.
t DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted L. R. E11ason, Plant Manager
- H. H. Clarity, Superintendent, Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection
- W. E. Anderson, Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance H. E. Nimo, Maintenance Supervisor
- P. A. Pochop, Quality Assurance Engineer
- R. L. Scheinost, Quality Assurance Engineer
- D. Vincent, Project Engineer, Nuclear Plant Projects
- H.
H. Kendall, Plant Office Supervisor F. L. Fey, Radiation Protection Engineer The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee employees, including members of the Operations.
Engineering, Radiation Protection, and Corporate Quality Assurance sections.
- denotes those present at the exit int e rview.
(
2.
Plant Operations a.
Plant Tour (1) The inspector performed a plant tour accompanied by a licensee representative. The plant was shut down for refueling at the time of the inspection.
T.everal areas whien are not accessibic during normal operations were inspected.
In teneral, the housekeeping in the plant was good considering all the maintenance and efuelin; activities that were being conducted.
(2) During the tour, selected " Hold" and " Secure" cards were reviewed for proper approval and the status log reviewed to determine ff the tags were properly accounted for. No discrepancies were noted.
(3) The inspector reviewed the status of selected annun-ciators which were lit in the control room with a control room operate Adequate explanations were given as to why thest snnunciators were lit.
(
2-i
_ _ - ~..
. _ _ _ _ _ _.
. -
_
__ - __
_
-
_
_-
,.
,, _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - -, _ _ _ _ _
,.
t
.
k
'
b.
The jumper-bypass log was reviewed and no discrepancies were noted.
c.
Logbooks The inspector reviewed the control room reactor log, the shif t supervisor log, and selected hourly logs for selected days during the period July 7 to September 27, 1977, and confirmed that entries were filled out and initialed, that entries gave sufficie.
4 tail to identify the action, and that management was int.:. ling the log sheets indicating their review.
d.
Hight Order Book The subject orders were reviewed for the period July 7 to September 27, 1977, and no discrepancies were noted, e.
Management Memos The subject memos which were in effect were reviewed and no
,
discrepancies were noted.
f.
Reactor Coolant Chemistry Subject surveillance test (ST) records reviewed for the
'
'
period July 1 to September 8,1977, are as follows:
(1)
ST 0122 - Reactor Coolant Iodine 131 Dose Equivalent Activity (2)
ST 0125 - Reactor Coolant Chloride / Conductivity Review of these records indicated:
(1) No evidence of fuel failure; and (2) Conductivity and chloride concentrations were maintained below the Technical Specifications limit.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the inspection of this area.
(
-3-
-
..
_ _ _. -
-
-. -.. -
-.
_
-_
_- - _ - -
_ -- _ -----
-_______--_-__;-.------_--._, ---- -----
, _ - - - - - -
- - - - -
-
. - - - -. - -. -
- - - - - - - - - -
.
..
3.
Organization and Adminirtration The inspector reviewed the licensee's organization and qualifi-cations of employees and detenmined the followings The licensee's onsite organization structure is as described a.
in the Technical Specifications.
b.
Key management personnel of the facility meet the requirements of ANSI 18.1.
c.
Authorities and responsibilities of licensee personnel are as delineated in the Technical Specifications and as delineated in Administrative Control Directive 4 ACD 3.1.
d.
The minimum shift crew composition is in accordance with the Technical Specifications. A review of Senior Licensed Reactor Operator and Reactor Operator licenses showed them all to be
'
current, The rakeup of the Of f site Review Committee and the Onsite e.
Review Committee (manager's supervisory staff) are as required by the Technical Specifications.
t No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the inspection of this area.
4.
plant Records The inspector reviewed the licensee program of control, storage and retrieval of records to determine if the requirements of Technical Specifications cf Section 6.6 and licensee's Adminis-trative Control Directive 4 ACD 3.8 vere being complied with.
At the time of the inspection, the licensee was not committed to ANSI N45.2.9-1974 When the licensee's QA program is approved, they will be at least partially committed to ANSI N45.2.9-1974 The inspector noted in his review that the licensee's program and storage facilities do not meet some of the requirements of the ANSI standard. The licensee is evare of this and plans are under-vay to meet the ANSI standard's requirements.
The inspector selected rnd verified that the following records were retrievable:
(
-4-
-
.
_
__
..
.*
k APRM recorder charts for January 1976.
a.
b.
Reactor low-low water level calibration Surveillance Test 0004 for July to December 1975.
Design Change M-74-42, M-75-10 ond '.6 75-57.
c.
d.
Shif t supirvisor's logbook for June 1975, The 1975 integrated leak rate test results.
e.
f.
Work Request Authorizations for 1975.
The inspector verified that as-built drawings were changed as spect-fled in Design Changes 76-MO-63 and 76-MO-67.
The licensee has prepared and maintains equipment history cards on major equipment. Maintenance performed on this equipment is recorded on these cards.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the inspection of this area.
(
5.
Reportable Occurrences The following reportable occurrences sere reviewed by examination of logs, records, observation of equipment, and through discussions with plant personnel. Occurrences vere reviewed for completion of reporting requirements, investigation and determination of cause, proposed corrective measures, and completion of corrective actions.
a.
RO 50-263/77-19O - HPCI Drain Line Leak b.
RO $0-263/77-20- - Failure of Voltage Dropping Resibtor to HPCI Woodward Governor c.
RO 50-263/77-21M - Inoperable Accumulator on CRD HCU 30-11 Review of thcae occurrences indicated that the licensee's corrective actions or proposed corrective actionc cppear to ba adequate.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the inspection of this area.
1/
LER 50-263/77-19, NSP to RIII, dtd 9/1/77, 2/
LER 50-263/77-20, NSP to RIII, dtd 9/2/77.
3/
LER 50-263/77-21, NSP to RIII, dtd 9/7/77.
~
(
-5-
.
, - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
______
..
..
6.
IE Circular 77-11 The inspector verified by discussion with the licensee that they had received and reviewed the subject circultr and concluded that no action is required on their part.
Miscellaneous and Outstanding Items a.
Reactor Building Crane Testing During a previous inspection, it was determined that the hadcommittedto.pepletedallthetestingthatthelicensee licensee had not g The licensee committed to performing a 10 CFR 50.59 review on testing which could not be performed and complete testing which could be performed. The inspector reviewed the licensee's saf ety evaluation f or the 50.59 review of testing not performed, and it appears to be adequate.
Since the previous inspection, the licensee determined that the weights used in the original load tests were lighter than they originally thought. The 325% load test was actually 93 tons instead of 106 tons, and the 100% test was 76 tons instead of 85 tons.
Before the licensee can get the crane certified for 85 tons, they must perform a 125% load test per their dis-cussions with the U.S. Crane Certification Bureau, Inc. The
,
licensee plans to perform the 125% load test after the refueling outage, b.
Observation of k'ork Activities During the inspection, the inspector witnessed several activ-ities on the refueling floor in regard to the feedvater nozzle inspection and cladding removal.
The licensee plans to mill off the stainless steel cladding from all four feed-water nozzles to prevent cracking in this area. No major discrepancies were observed.
c.
Control Rod Collet Incpection The inspector reviewed with the licensce's representative the inspection of the control rod collets for 22 control rod drives
'
which were removed for presentive maintenance between
"
September 14 and 22, 1977. No cracks were found in the collet area.
4/
IE Inspection Report No. 50-263/77-13.
-
(
-6-
_ - - - - - ______ - - __ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
__
'
_ _ _ _ _.
..
..
k During review of collet inspection results, the inspector determined that the technician performing the liquid renetrant c
test (LPT) apparently was not formally certified to perform (
LPT in accordance with SNT-TC-1A, June 1975 Edition. Work Request Authorization (WRA) 77-1404 required the testing to be accomplished in accordance with an approved test procedure.
The licensee's approved test procedure f or LPT is NSP-PT-1.
Section IV. A of NSP-PT-1 states:
e
" Personnel performing examination governed by this procedure shall be qualified and certified in accord-ance with en approved program that couplies with
_
requirements of SNT-TC-1A, June 1975 Editon, and as modified by ASME Section XI."
-_
Having e noncertified technician perform the collet LPT is an infraction of Technical Specifications 6.5 and 6.5.C.3 f
which require procedures to be prepared and followed.
L in reviewing the qualifications cf the technician Ierforming the LPT, it appears that he had adequate experience to be certified, but his work in the service group for the company does not require formal certification.
I 8.
Management Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 30, 1977.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of his inspection.
.
-
E-7-