IR 05000263/1979002
| ML19249F266 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello, Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1979 |
| From: | Heishman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Wachter L NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18079B086 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910110189 | |
| Download: ML19249F266 (2) | |
Text
-
_
__
r-
,,
.
.*
UNIT E D STATES g,
N UCLE A R REGULATORY COMMISSION f
. n
'
.
.
j
.
O REGION sti
-
l f
- >Ns..'
c t
799 moost vi g' moAo
- *k* %,.
D J.4.4 w J
OLE N I LL vN * L LINO'S 60'37
%
g
'.....-
.m";'
AFF.10 195
'
k E
ti Docket No. 50-263 fw V
M
$
I"'
Northern States Po er Conpany
!h N
/ )
!
g*.j/[ hl ATTN:
Mr. Leo Wachter p.
Vice President
Power Productier: and Systen Operation w
s
'"
414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401-en:lenan:
This refers to the inspec: ion conducted by Messrs. T. L. Harps:::,
J. E. Menning and G. C. Wrigh: of this office on !* arch 19-23, 1979, of activ,:les at Mcr.:icello Nuclear Generating Plant authericed :--
NRC Operating License No. DPE-22 and to the dis:ussion cf cur findi.g3 with Pr. E11asen and ethers of yeur staff at the conclusi:n :f :he inspec:1on.
The enclosed ccpy of our inspectie-rep::: identifies areas exacined during the inspec:1en.
Within these areas, the insps ion tensisted of a selective examination of procedures and rt;resen:ative records, ebservations, and interviews vi:h personnel.
No itens of nonconpliance with NRC recuirenents were identified during the course of this inspectier.
In accordance vi:5 Section 2.790 of the yRC's " Rules of Prac: ice," Part 2 Title 10, Coie of Federal Regulations, a c o p'.
of thia letter and the enclosed inspection report vill be placed in the NRC's Public Docunen: Roon, except as folices.
If this report contains infornatior that you or your contracters believs to be proprietary, you nust apply in vri:ing to this office, within twenty days of your receipt of this letter, te withhold such infornation fro public disclosure.
The application nus include a full statenent of the reasens fer which the information is considered proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary infor=a:1on identified in the
'
application is contained in an enclosure to the application.
P00R BRlB M N1** " "
1077 132 EXHIBIT A
.-
,,
.
,
Northern States Power-2-APR I O 1379 Company We vill gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
- /
-
R. F. Heish=an, Chief Reactor Operations and Nuclear Suppert Branch
Enclosure:
II Inspectier Repert No. 50-263/79-02
REGION III==
Report No. 50-263/79-02 Docket No. 50-163 License No. DPR-22
'
Licensee:
Northern States Pover Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, FCI 55401 Facility Name:
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
"~
Inspection At:
hunticello site, Monticello, M'?
Inspection Conducted:
Marc 19-23, 1979
~
/L n 5%
')
.
Inspectors:
T. L. Harp ster H 9/~M
.
'
./
,
.
.
..
/
er
.sf1 ME Men,ning
//
-
,
.hs
!
//
~ g.k h'!f 7[
' c. wr ht
.
/
//YiW:r&,g;:t
'
.
hief V/4[;
..
Approved By:F.R.
F. b'ar_ nick,6
~
'
Reactor ?:ojects Section 2
.
Insoection Sunnarv Inspection on March 19-23, 1970 (Recort No. 50-263/79-02)
Areas Insocet9,:
Routine, unannounced inspection of design changes and modifications; design change and modification progras; review of plant operations; cleanliness; followup on license amend =ent conditions; and follevup of Bulletins, Circulats and LER's.
This inspection involved approxi=ately 85 inspecto- -'"ours on site by three NRC inspectors.
Results:
No ice =s of noncer.pliance or deviations were identified in any of the areas inspected.
1077 134
<
-
-
m' w\\
,
us-
...
!
,
e Am
~ 7'l05
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Personnel Contacted
- L.
Eliason, Plant Manager M. Clarity, Plant Superintendent, Engineering and Radiation Protection
'
- W.
Anderson, Plant Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance D. Anthony, Superintendent, Operations Engineering
- W. Shamla, Superintendent, Technical Engineering R. Fey, Superintendent, Radiation Protection R. Scheinost, Senior Quality Engineer E. Earney, Training Supervisor D. Nevinski, Senior Nuclear Engineer A. Myrabo, Assistant Nuclear Engineer
-
L. Nolan, Chenical Engineer
-
..
O. Iverson, Associate Production Engineer R. Goranson, Assitant Produccion Engineer G. S=ith, Assistant Productica Engineer S. Shurts, Engineer
,
P. Tobin, Engineer
,
S. Ha=mer, Engineer T. Overlid, Engineer
-...
D. Pedersen, Engineer 5f5 R. Nelson, Quality Engineer, Corporate
...
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
-
.
2.
Inoffice Review of Licensee Event Recorts The inspector conducted a review within the regional office of selected licensee even reports to ascertain whether additional reactive inspection effort or other response was warranted;
'
whether corrective action discussed in the event reporrs appeared appropriate; and whether reporting require =ents were satisfied.
The following events are considered closed as a result of the review:
M-RO-78-18 M-RO-78-27 M-RO-78-21 M-RO-78-23 M-RO-78-22 M-RO-79-01 No itecs of nonco=pliance or deviations were identified.
10/7 i35
...
-2-
.
.
.
-
.
..
.
_
3.
Onsite Licencee Even: 70 '. : r=,
r=
,.,..
The inspec:or ccaducted fc'_::wuo '.spaction of celected events to ascertain whe:her :hs _i:_..sce's reciew, correc:ive action and reports of the.iden'. _ fi2c eren.2 and associcted conditions are adequate and in confo mance i:h regulatory require =ents, technical specifications, and licensee procedures and controls.
.
The following events are considered closed as a result of this inspection:
.
M-RO-78-15 M-RO-7 8-23 M-RO-78-26 M-RO-78-19 M-RG-78-24 M-R0-78-29 M-RO-78-20 M-RO-78-25 M-RO-78-30 No items of nonco=pliance or devia: ions were identified.
4.
IE Bulletin Follevuo
. -
The inspector verified that ~for the follcuing II 3ulletins, the bulletins and responses were reviewed by apprqpriate onsite management representatives; infor:ation discussed in the replies was accurate; any corrective actions taken were effected as described in the replies; and the replies were pro =pt and within
- he ti=e periods requested.
t r9
,
==
,
.
- m The following Bulletins are considered closed as a result of this 2-inspection
,
IE3 78-09 IE3 78-14
-
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
IE Circular Follevuo The inspector verified that the following IE Circulars were re-ceived by licensee canage=en:; a review for applicability was
-
perfor=ed; and for circulars applicable to the facility, action taken or planned is appropriate.
The following Circular is considered closed as a result of this inspection:
IEC 78-16
.No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
S--
'
- .3. L. $ l O%
c..::.2
)"I 3-
... U. m ;m'
,
_
1Q77 1,s A J
e I ( Jw
.
~.
-
.
.
6.
Decirn Chances and 'dodifications Procra:
The inspector reviewed the licensee! s design change and codi-fication progrc= to ascertain whether the progrne is in con-for=ance with regulatory recuire=ents, cocniements in the application and industry guides or standards.
As part of this review, the. inspector reviewed the following procedures:
1 ACD 3.3 (Rev. 3, 10/12/77)
3 AWI 5. 3. 4 (Rev. 2, 11/6/78)
Design Change Control New Drawings 3 ACD 4.1 (Rev. 5,12/8/78)
3 AWI 5. 3. 6 (Rev. 1, 11/6/78)
Design Change Control Drawing Deletions 3 ACD 4.2 (Rev 3,11/4/77)
4 ACD 3.11 (Rev. 4, 8/12/78)
Design Change installation Procedure Procedure Review and Approvai 3 ACD 4.3 (Rev. 3, 11/4/77)
4 ACD 3.10 (Rev. 2, 3/8/77)
Design Change Preoperational/
Doce=ent Control Operational Testing
.
3 ACD 5.3 (Fev. 4, 11/6/78)
4 ACD 4. 8 (Rev. 5, 3/18/77)
Drawing Control Bypass Control
-
.....GE:
,
3 AWI 4.1.1 (Rev. 1,,3/25/75)
Document control ?rocedure II-gg Safety Evaluations (Rev. O, 12/30/77)
Plant Controlled Drawing Files
.
3 AWI 5.3.4 (Rev. 3, 11/6/78)
Docu=ent Control ?rocedure I-3 Drawing Revisions (Rev. 1 11/10/76) Blanh For=s and Procedures Prirting, Distribution and Control No itens of nonco=pliance or deviations were identified.
~
7.
Design, Design Changes, and Mod'ifications The inspector reviewed the docu=entation for selected design changes to ascertain whether the changes were cade in accordance with the Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50.59.
The inspector initially reviewed the licensce's annugl report of changes, tests, and experi=ents which were carried out pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 in 197S.
The following three activities vere then selected for detailed review:
"::.
.
"
.
.
-
.-
.
a.
ATk'S Modifica tion.
Design Change No. 77ZO24.
b.
Core Spray Isolation Valve 3ypass Switch.
Design Change No. 78 M075.
Increase Allevable Nu=ber of Reactor Vessel Startup/ Shutdown c.
Cycles to 208.
Safety Review Ite: No. 131.
'
.
In conducting the design change reviews, the inspector noted that design change packages for the following four co=pleted activities vera not closed out and available in the plant files:
a.
Load Micigating Spargers.
Design Change No. 78 M012.
,
b.
Shorten Torus Vent Header Downcocers.
Design Change No.
78 M014.
.
c.
Installation of Torus Ven: Header Deflector.
Design Change No. 78 M015.
d.
Design Change No.' 78ZO28.
Investigation revealed that these design changes were under the cognizance of the licensee's Plant Engineering and Construction Depart =ent and that related ins:allation vork was performed during m=-
the cost recent refueling outage.
Failure to have these four desig=
-
packages closed out at the ti=e of this inspection appeared to be in violation of the licensee's procedure 3 ACD 4.1 (Rev. 5, 12/3/78),
'
Design Change Control, which recuires that design changes be closed out three =onths after installation.
This inconsistency was sub-sequently discussed with the Plant Superintenden: Engineering and Radiation Protection who related that a significan: back log of open design change packages existed.
Since the revision to 3 ACD 41. which established the three-=onth close out require =en:
vas fairly recent (12/7S), the inspector did not consider the failure to have these four design packages closed cut to be an ite= of nonco pliance.
However, the inspector did encourage the licensee representative to institute the controls necessary to the timely close out of design change packages.
The inspec-ensure tors's concerns in this area were rei:erated during the exit interview.
No ite=s of nonce =pliance or devia: ions were identified.
8.
License Arend=ents Nos. 34, 35 and 36 The inspector reviewed the i= placentation of license a=end=ents 34, 35 and 36 to verify co=pliance with co==i:=ents cade therein.
_..
-
1077 138
-3_
.
.
..
.
i l
.
Amendeent 34; Mich Density Fuel Storage System (HDFS S )
~
The inspector reviewed procure =ent documents, receiving inspection reports, installation procedures, special test procedure and codi-fication procedure for the f our High Density Fuel Storage Racks new installed to verify compliance with con =itments cade in the license amendment.
The review of the procurement documents verified that; appropriate product quali:y certification documen:s froe the designer / vendor were available; analysis of the boral sheets used in the fue!
racks were available; and that certificates of co=pliance frc the assembler were available.
Receiving inpsection reports including; inspection for cleanliness, dimensional checks and confir:a: ion of poison plate ins:alla:io-by neutron source'/ detection were reviewed for cc:pleteness and conf o r=i:y with co==itments.
The folleving procedures were reviewed for each of the four
=edules installed.
a.
HDFES Medule Inspec:ier and Preparation ?rocedure b.
HDFSS Boral Test Equipment Setup Procedure c.
HDF55 Module Boral verifica: ion Procedure d.
HDFSS Drilling and Re-sizing Procedure e.
HDFSS Module Installation Procedure f.
HDE55 Module Re-installation Procedure g.
HDF55 Module Unloading Procedure Dimensional cheeks, vi:h a 5.960" go/ne-go gauge, after fri?fal
'
" ~ ~ '
installation ravealed that 11 of the 676 fuel storage leca:1 ens
'
-
would not aceeot the gauge and that eve of the 11 locatiens veuld not acceot a du=-v fuel ele =ent.
After removal of the modules, drilling of 3/16" holes in the tep adjacent corners of each boral tube, re-sizing of eacP tube bv vacuu: and mechanical means, and re-ins:allation of the =odules into the fuel pool, six of the crietnal 11 rube locarters veuld still not accep: the 5.690" gauge however, all locatiens new acceoted the du==v fuel element.
The licensee instituted a special test prograr te test ea:h beral tube, in each =odule, after 60 days and again after 90 days prier to storing fuel io the =odules.
The results of the 60 dav tes:
.
10/7 i39-6-
..,
.
.
i
,
revealed that _sev.en of the ericinal 11 locations would no: accec:
the go/no-ge gauce and :he results of the 90 dav test revealei that eight of the original 11 locations would not acceot the go/no-go gauce.
In all cases the du==v fuel ele =ent could be inserted with no probler.
The license is__presentiv storing fuel in both boral tubes and
_
adjacent spaces with the excep, tion of the,e,1 ht locations iden-
tified during the 90 day t,es_:.
These eight locations have be.:-
_
" Red" flagged and the licensee stated they vovld not be used unless absolutely necessary.
At the time of the inspection the test speci= ens, both stainless steel boral and boral alone configurations, had not been installed.
Tne caterial certifications had jus: been received and plans te install the specimens are in progress.
In addition the inspector reviewed the Safe:y Evaluatio-F.ep:::
pertaining to the High Densi:y Tuel Storage Syste,=.
Ne iters of noncompliance er devia:icns were identified.
C.
Reviev ef Plan: Oceratiens
.
The inspec:cr cendu::ed a reviev of plant opera: ions te as:er:ad-whether facility opera:ior va.: ir confor=ance with technical sp e :i-fiac:fons, regula:ery recu: eren:s, adminis:ra:dve procedures, er other co==1:=en:s.
The inspec:er reviewed selected epera:ing recerds for the perfed January 1 - March 21,1979.
These included:
Cen:rel 7.ce: Opera:ers Laily Legs, Shift Supervisers Dail. Leg,.Turper and Sypass '_og, Nigh: Order Book, Held and Secure Card Leg.
The inspector conducted a tour of :he control roo= and ::her a::es-sible plant areas to observe ins:ru=enta:icn; radiation, fire pre-vention, and equip =en: :agging controls; and sta:us of selec:ed plant systees and equio=ent.
In addition, housekeeping was observed on two separate tours through the reactor buildin; and found to be comple:ely accep:able at this ti=e.
No items of nonco:pliance or deviations were identified.
10.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspec: ion on March 23. 1979, the inspec: ors met with Station Manage =ent personnel (Denoted in Paragraph 11 and suc=arized the scope and findings of the inspection.
1077 140
_
.,.
_.
.
.
g(
'b (dN A
6,#
E If g
'S thTED STAT.S OF AMERICA
%
MUCEAR REGULHORY COEESSION g
b
"
Before the Accraic Safety and Licensing Board m
In the Matter of
PUBLIC SERVICE EECIRIC
-
DCCKET to. 50-272
& GAS CO.
(Salem Ceerating Staticn Unit #1)
.
.
Lt:ua1CATE OF SERVICE I hereby certif that copies of Intervenors' Colecans, Motions to :
f Recpen Contentiens Itu, Six and 'Ihirteen in the above captioned untter have been served upcn the-parties hereto by deposit in the United States cail at the post office in Trenten, N.J., with proper postage thereon, this 2nd day of August,1979.
,. O f.' /b i U x b y l
,
-
.
mm a. mSooarr c
Dated:
ya r'.2/Of u
-
1077 141