IR 05000263/1978007
| ML20024G835 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1978 |
| From: | Harpster T, Ridgway K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G831 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-78-07, 50-263-78-7, IEB-78-05, IEB-78-5, IEC-78-02, IEC-78-03, IEC-78-04, IEC-78-2, IEC-78-3, IEC-78-4, NUDOCS 9104300468 | |
| Download: ML20024G835 (5) | |
Text
,
.
., _
_ _ - _ _ _ _ -
.
.
_-
.
..
.
.
k U.S. NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION OTTICE OF INSPECTION AND ENTORCEMENT REC 10N III Report No.:
50-263/78-07 Docket No.:
50-263 License No.: DPR-22 Licensee Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Hall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tacility Names Monticello Inspection Att Monticello, MN Inspection Conducted:
6 7-9/78
-
l l
9lSlT e Inspector (s):
T. L. Harps
?r
//
ld $ $d s n)
'7/3/7b (
K. R. Ridg ay Approved By:
R. T. k'arnick, Chief Reactor Projects Section 2 Inspection Sumary Inspection on June 7-9, 1978 (Report No. 50-263/78-07)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of plant operationsi procedures; nonroutine events; and follovup of IE Bulletins and Circulars.
The inspection involved 38 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the areas inspected, one item of noncompliance was identified concerning reactor protective system operability, (paragraph 6).
(
48* 28&M!188%p u
.-.
-
.
,
b
-
.
.
1s DETAILS 1.
Personnel contacted
.
- L. E11ason, Plant Manager
- W. Anderson, Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance
- H. Clarity, Superintendent Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection
- S. Pearson, Operations Supervisor
- D. Antony, Plant Engineer, Operations
- W. Shamla, Plant Engineer, Technical The inspector also interviewed s'veral other licensee employees, e
including members of the engineering staffs and reactor operations personnel.
- Denotes those attending the exit interivev.
2.
Onsite Licensee Event Follostp The inspector conducted a follovup inspection of selected events to ascertain whether the licensee's review, corrective action and
-
reports of the identified events and associated conditions are adequate and in conformance with regulatory requirements, technical k
specifications, and licensee procedures and controls.
The following events are considered closed as a result of this inspection.
M-RO-78-03 M-RO-78-04 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Review of Plant Operations The inspector conducted a review of plant operations to ascertain
!
whether facility operation was in conformance with technical specifications, regulatory requirements, administrative procedures.
l or other commitments.
The inspector reviewed selected operating records for the period May 1, through June 8, 1978. These included:
(
Control Room Operators Daily Logs, Shift Supervisors Daily Log,
<
Jumper and Bypass Log, Night Order Book Hold and Secure Card Log.
I The inspector conducted a tour of the control room and other accessible plant areas to observe instrumentation; radiation, fire prevention, and equipment tagging controls; housekeaping; and the status of selected plant systems and equipment.
-
2-
-
_. _.
. _ _, _
_
__
_ _ _ _ _ _
-
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _
. - -.. - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ -. _ _. _..
.
'
i
%
The inspector observed a reactor startup and return to power in the control room on June 8.
No items of noncompliance o'. deviations were identified.
,
4.
IE Circular pollevup The inspector verified that the following IE circulars were received by licensee management; a review for applicability was performed; and for circulars applicable to the facility, action taken or planned is appropriate.
IEC 78-02 IEC 78-03 IEC 78-04 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
IE Bulletin Po11ovup The inspector verified that for IE Bulletins 78-03 at.d 78-05:
the bulletins and responses were reviewed by appropriate onsite (
management representatives; information discussed in the replies was accurate; any corrective actions taken were effected as described in the replies; and the replies were prompt and within the time periods requested.
With regard to IEB 78-05, the plant had installed 114 G.E. Type CR105X auxiliary contact blocks in safety-related motor control centers. The changeout of parts suggested by General Electric for these contact blocks is expected to be completed by the end of the 1978 pall Refueling Outage.
!
No items of noncompliance or deviations were disclosed.
6.
Average power Range Monitor (APRM) Cains While returning to power following an outage on June 6, 1978, APRM
'
Gain settings were found to be outside the deviations allowed by technical specifications. Reactor power had been held at approximately
.
70% and 85% f or performance of core surveillances checks (computer l
periodic core evaluation program p-1).
At 90% power while performing a thermal balance, a nuclear engineer discovered that the APRM gains l
were 2-3% lov. power was held at 90% and the gains were immediately corrected. Region III was notified of the event.
I
_3_
-
- -
-
-
-
. _ _ -. _. _..
._
._.
_
__.
_
,
__
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
- --
-.
..--. - _. - - -
_.
.-
.
..
.
,
The P-1 data at the time of t!.e event (1220) was as follows:
APRM Channel
2 3*
5
.
Gain Adjust Factor (CAP)
1.03 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.03
- Channel 3 was bypassed Technical Specification 2.3 (Bases) restricts the allowable setpoint deviation to 2% (CAP i 1.02) for recirculation driving flows greater than 50%. Thus the required minimum number of operable APRM channels per trip system was not available in the reactor protective system as required by Ta ble 3.1.1 of Technical Specification 3.1. A.
This is considered to be an item of noncompliance.
The inspector discussed the event with station managements Particular emphasis was placed in three areas:
1.
Procedure Adequacy - Procedural guidance for checking APRM gains is presently every 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> during startup. This may not be adequate for certain conditions, e.g., startups at 30% per hour using the cooling towers so that the discharge canal is not limiting.
2.
Communications - Effective communications between the engineer (
directing the startup or conducting surveillance (and adjusting APRM gains) and the operations personnel are essential.
3.
Control Room Logs - The control room logs should record operations which ef fect reactor operation such as APRM gain settings (which in turn change protective system setpoints).
7.
Procedures The following procedures were reviewed by the inspector
,
s.
Administrative Control Directives (ACD) and Administrative Work Instructions (AWI)
1ACD Vol 1 Corporate Organization 2ACD Vol II Power Production and System Operations (Nuclear Support Services)
2ACD 7.1 Plant Operations Review and Audit 2AWI 7.1.3 Rev 2 Safety Audit Committee Charter 2AWI 7.1.4 Rev 2 Independent Audit of Nuclear Operations
'
2AWI 7.1.5 Rev 2 Operating License Administraticn 3ACD Vol 111 Power Production 3ACD 3.1 Rev 2 Organization
,
l 3ACD 3.2 Rev 2 Plant Operation 4ACD Vol II Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant j'
4ACD 3.1 Organization 4ACD 3.2 Operations Committee 4ACD 3.11 Procedure Review and Approval
.
E.1.7 Equipment Control
i-4-
__
._ - _
-
.
- .
&
.
- e Administrative procedures were reviewed to confirm that authorities tl, and responsibilities for safe operation and shutdown and proper equipment controls had been established.
b.
Startup, Operation, Shutdown and Procedures for the following systems were reviewed:
B.1.1 Nuclear Steam Supply System
'
B.2.2 Reactor Cleanup System B.3.3 Automatic Depressurization System B.2.4 Main Steam System B.B.4.1 Instrument Air System B.8.4.1 Service Water System C.1 startup Procedure C.2 Power Operation C.3 Shutdown C.5 Surveillance 0051 Mainsteam Line High Flow Group I Isolation Test and Calibration 0159 Mainsteam Isolation Valve Closure Timing Test Reviews of the above systems also included c.
(1) A review of one abnormal condition procedure for each system.
I (2) A review of one maintenance control procedure for each system.
(3) Confirmation that changes to the procedures temporary or permanent, were controlled and within 10 CFR 50.59 regulations.
(4) Confirmation that overall procedure content and technical content. were consistent with Technical Specification require-ments and applicable regulatory requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
8.
Monticello Annual Report The inspector reviewed inoffice the 1977 annual report to ascertain whether the information reported by the licensee is technically adequate and satisfies the reporting requirements established in 10 CFR, License, and Technical Specifications.
No items of noecompliance were identified.
9.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on June 9, 1978, the inspectors met with station management personnel (denoted in Paragraph 1) and summarized 1,
the scope and findings of the inspection.
-5-
, _.
_--
-
- _ -. --