ML20024G140
| ML20024G140 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1976 |
| From: | Boyd D, Choules N, Pulsipher J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G134 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-76-18, NUDOCS 9102070580 | |
| Download: ML20024G140 (12) | |
See also: IR 05000263/1976018
Text
..
.
--
--
.
.
.
.
.
..
(
UNITED STATED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION MD ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Re'portofOperat1NsInspection
.
IE Inspection Report No. 050-263/76-18
Licensee: Northern States Power Company
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
License No. DPR-22
Monticello, Minnesota
Category:
C
Type of Licensee:
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced
Dates of Inspection:
November 16-19, 1976
.ChouNs
f 1 /f
['
Principal Inspector:
N.
'(Da t e )
,()c,/ ' (\\h
,
s
.,
f.a
.)-
,
j
(, .
(y , C
9.
. Pulsipher
/1/ /U/ 7[
Accompanying Inspector:
(Date)
Other Accompanying Personnel:
None
l
' A4w
Reviewed By:
D. u Boyd, Acting Chief
/2
d f[
Reactor Projects Section 2
/(Da(c)'
i
l
(
.
9102070580 761210
.
-
,
.
ADOCK 05000263
,
G
-. .
. . , . -
.. . . . . .
- -
,
..
a
,
- .
'
.
.
.
$UMMARY OF FINDINGS
'
-
,
.
,
Inspection Summary
I
.o .
Inspection on November 16-19, (76-18'):
Review of plant operations,
nonroutine event reports, calibrations, semisnnual reports, and
surveillance testing.
One item of noncompliance was identified
'
related to reporting of a missed surveillance test.
Enforcement Items
Centrary to Technical Specifications 6.7.B.2 and 6.7.B.2.c. the
licensee failed to report the f ailure to perform Surveillance Test
0015. Main Steam Radiation Detector Functional Test, the week of
September 12, 1976, as required by Technical Specifications Table
,
4.1.1.
(Paragraph 2.e, Report Details)
J
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enfore? ment items
Not reviewed.
i
Other Significant Items
A.
Systems and Components
None.
,
!
B.
Facility Items (Plans and Procedures)
{
.
None.
C.
Managerial Items
None.
!
D.
Deviations
l
l
None.
,
E.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
None.
{
!
t
1
.
.
(
2-
-
.
.
.
I
j'
.
.
..
,
. -
._
_ _.
j
-
.
\\
.
'
.
.
.
(
Management Interview
,
..
A management interview was conducted with Messrs. Eliason, Clarity.
Anderson, Antony and Shamla at the conclusion of the inspection on
November 19, 1976.
The following was discussed,
a . ./ *
A.
Plant Operations
The inspector stated that he had reviewed general plant operations
which included review of operating logs, night orders, significant
operating events (SOEa), jumper and tag out logs, discussions with
operators, reactor coolant chemistry records, and a tour of the
plant.
(Paragraph 2, Report Details)
'
The following items were discussed:
.
.
1.
The inspector stated that the housekeeping in the plant
looked good. The inspector also stated that during the plant
]
tour a small steam leak and water leak were noted in the
i
HPCI room. The licensee stated that a Work Request had been
prepared to correct these leaks.
i
1
2.
The inspector stated that in the review of SOEs, an item of
noncompliance was identified in that a missed surveillance
'
test wac not reported.
The inspector stated that this had
been reviewed with licensee's personnel and corrective
action had been taken, and a written response to the non-
compliance would not be required.
3.
The inspector stated that no other items of concern were
identified in the review of plant operations.
.
B.
Reportable Occurrences
The inspector stated he had reviewed Ros 76-11, 76-13, 76-15,
76-18 and 76-20, and it appeared t'aat the licensee's corrective
actions for these occurrences were adequate.
(Paragraph 3
Report Details)
C.
Surveillance Testing
1.
The inspector stated he had witnessed the performance of
Surveillance Test 0045/0046, RPM Downscale and Flow Variable
Block calibration, and no discrepancies were noted with the
exception that the test procedure did not require recording
the instrument number of the digital voltmeter used during
the test. The licensee stated they would revise the test
'
l
(
-3-
.
'
-
,
.
,
[
I
______ _
,
.*
.
-
..
(
procedure to require recording the digital voltmeter instru-
ment number.
(Paragraph 4.a. Report Details)
2.
The inspector stated he had reviewed the licensee's sur-
veillance program related to local power range monitor (LPRM)
calibrations, average power range monitor (APRM's) calibrations
and core thermal power calibrations.
The inspector stated one
discrepancy was no'ted in that a written calibration procedure
for the calibration of LPRMs does not exist.
The inspector
suggested that such a procedure be prepared.
The licensee
stated they would prepare such a procedure.
(Paragraphs 4.b,
c and d. Report Details)
D.
Calibration
The inspector stated he had reviewed the licensee's program or
calibration of equipment associated with safety related systems,
but are not identified in the Technical Specifications as requiring
specific calibration requirements.
The inspector stated that the
licensce's program appears to be well organized and no discrepancies
were identified.
The inspector stated he had witnessed the
calibration of some pressure switches and no discrepancies were
identified.
(Paragraph 5. Report Details)
l
E.
Outstanding and Miscellaneous Items
The status of several subject items were reviewed and discussed.
(Paragraph 6. Report betails)
.
S
i
-4-
.
,
.
.
_
_ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ __ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ - _
_
- c e si'.
.
.
.
'
-
.
s
-
.
.
.
,
REPORT DETAILS
(
-
s .,
-
.
1.
Persons Contacted
.
.'
'
L. R. Eliason, Plant Manager -
M. H. Clarity, Superintendent, Plant Engineering and Radiation
Protection
,
W. E. Anderson, Superintendent, Plant Operations and Maintenance
D. D. Antony, Plant Engineer, Operations
W. H. Shanda, Plant Engineer. Technical
W. H. Sparrow, Operations Supervisor
F. L. Fey, Radiation Protection Stoervisor
W. J. Hill, Engineer, Instruments
B. D. Day, Engineer
J. D. McVay, Engineer
G. R. Smith, Engineer
D. G. Wegener, Engineer
R. A. Mielke, Shift Supervisor
R. Seibel, Shift Supervisor
G. L. Gault, Plant Equipment and Reactor Operator
M. W. Onnen, Plant Equipment and Reactor Operator
W. J. Dheim, Plant Equipment and Reactor Operator
P. A. Yurczyk, Radiation Protection Specialist
E. M. Reilly, Instrument and Control Specialist
D. H. Alcott, Instrument and Control Epecialist
(
2.
Plant Operations
a.
Plant Tours
.
(1) The inspector performed a plant tour accompanied by
a licensee representative.
A small steam leak and small
water leak were noted in the HPCI room and was brought
to the licensee's attention.
The housekeeping of the
plant was good and no other discrepancies were noted.
(2)
During the tour, selected " Hold" and " Secure" cards were
reviewed for proper approval and the status log was reviewed
to determine if the tags were properly accounted for.
No
discrepancies were noted.
(3)
Selected valves for the control rod drive system were
checked for proper alignment and no discrepancies were
noted.
.
.
k
-S-
.
.
.
,
. - -
-
-
_ .
_
_
,
..is...
.
.
.
..
l
'
. (
(4) The inspecto: reviewed the status of various annunciators
which were 3it in the control room with a control room
operator. Adequate explanations were given as to why
these ar.nuncietors were lit,
- '
b.
The jumper-bypass log wa's reviewed and no discrepancies were
noted.
.
c.
Logbooks
The inspector reviewed the control room and reactor log, the
shift supervisor los and the radwaste building log for
selected days during the period September 24, to November 16,
1976, and confirmed that entries were filled out and initialed,
that entries give sufficient details to identify the action,
and the Operations Supervisor is reviewing and initialing
the log sheets indicating his review.
.
d.
Night Order Book
The subject orders were reviewed for the period October 1,
to November 16, 1976, and no discrepancies were noted.
e.
Significant Operating Events
The inspector reviewed the following events and had one
comment regarding M-SOE-76-10.
(1) M-SOE-76-08
Feedwater Heater Leaks
(2) H-SOE-76-09
Inadvertent Reactor Recire Pump Trip
(3) H-SOE-76-10
Failure to Complete Surveillance Test 0015
H-SOE-76-10 indicated that Surveillance Test 0035, Main
Steam Radiation Detector Functional Test, was not performed
the week of Scptember 12, 1976, as required by Technical
<
Specifications Tabic 4.1.1.
Technical Specifications 6.7.B.2
and 6.7.B.2.c require that " observed inadequacies in the
implementation of administrative or procedural control which
threaten to cause reduction of degree of redundancy provided
in reactor protection system or engineered safety feature
system" be reported by 30-day written reports.
The licensee
had reviewed this item and concluded it was not reportable
to the NRC under Technical Specification 6.7.B.2.c and
4
-6-
.
a
.
.
-
- _ - - .
_-
-
-.
. - . . - .
-
- - - .
.. . s
,
.
.*
'
l
'
..
documented this in the minutes of the Operations Committee
meeting on September 28, 1976.
During review of this SOE,'the inspector reviewed Regulatory
Guide 116 with the licensee and one of the examples listed
under the same criteria as Technical Specification 6.7.B.2.c
as requiring a 30-day written report was the failure to
perform surveillan'ce tests at the required frequency. The
licensee acknowledged his mistake and a report was prepared
before the inspector left the plant.
The licensee had
,
previously taken action as a result of this event to keep
closer track of surveillance tests.
The inspc-'
~1rified
by review of completed surveillance tests that
nad been
'
completed weekly since the week of September 12, Ai/6.
'
f.
Reactor Coolant Chemistry
Subject surveillance test (ST) records reviewed for the
period September 13, to October 28, 1976, are as follows:
(1)
ST 0122
Reactor Coolant Io61ne-131 Dose Equivalent
Activity
(2)
ST 0124, 0125 Reactor Coolant Chloride / Conductivity
(3)
ST 0228
Reactor Coolant 1-13?; Cleanup Flow Rate;
Power Level
Review of these records indicated:
(1) No evidence of fuel failure; and
(2)
Conductivity and chloride concentrations were maintained
far below the Technical Specifications limit.
'
3.
Reportable Occurrences
The following reportabic occurrences were reviewed by examination
of investigation reports, logs, records, observation of equipment,
and through discussion with plant personnel. Occurrences were
reviewed for completion of reporting requirements, investigation
and determination of cause, proposed corrective measures, and
completion of corrective action; and unless noted, no concerns
were identified.
a.
RO 76-11. RCIC Turbine Trip
b.
RO 76-13, Turbine Stop Reactor Protection System Switch Failure
J,/ RO 050-263/76-11, NSP to Region III, dtd 10/22/76.
2_/ RO 050-263/76-13, NSp to Region III, dtd 9/10/76.
.
(
-7-
.
'
,
.
.
,
-
-- -
.
n.
__
. - - --
.-. _- .
.-.
_
_-
. __ - - -
_
'
..
4
'
..
RO 76-15, Inog rability of RilR Loop "A" LPCI Suction Isolation
(
c.
Valve MO-203F
e
. , . ,
The valve was Anoperable because the undervoltage relay coil
failed causing loss of power.to the valve.
The same type
relay coil f ailed on two previous occasions (Ros 75-08 and
75-16).
The licensee hac issued a design change. DC-76-M-039,
which when implemented will change the undervoltage relay
function from loss of voltage to an alarm function on all
DC motor control centers with undervoltage relays.
This will
alert the operator in the control room that a problem exists,
but will not cause loss of power when a relay coil f ails.
.
d.
RO 76-18. Torus k'ater Volume Below Limit
The licensee lowered the torus water level on September 7,
1976. On September 9, 1976, the licensee realized that the
displacement of the water irom the downcomer vents caused
by the differential pressure between the drywell and the
torus had not been accounted for.
k' hen this was takt.i into
account, the licensee determined that the volume of water
in the torus was less than that required by Technical
Specification 3. 7. A.1(c) .
The licensee increased water
volume on September 9,1976, to be in compliance with the
Technical Specifications.
The inspector reviewed and checked
'
the licensee's revised volume calculations and found no
discrepancies.
RO 76-20, Cracked Feedpump Cooler Line5!
e.
f.
The following reportable occurrences were reviewed in the
-
office and are considered closed.
(1) RO 76-14,-
Failure to Meet Containment Inerting
Requiremegs
(2) RO 76-16,gf Turbine Steam Drain Line Leaks.
(3) RO 76-19.- Failure MSIV Scram Relay to De-energize.
4.
Surveillance Testing
a.
Review a.id witnessing of Test 0045/0046.
Surveillance Test 0045/0046 Rod Block Monitor (RPM) Downscale
and Flow Variable Rod Block Calibration, was reviewed and
3/ R0 050-263/76-15, NSP to Region III, dtd 9/24/76.
4/ R0 050-263/76-18, NSP to Region III, dtd 9/22/76.
}/ RO 050-263/76-20, NSP to Region III, dtd 10/29/76.
6/ R0 050-263/76-14, NSP to Region III, dtd 9/10/76.
'
J/ RO 050-263/76-16, NSP to Region III, dtd 9/27/76.
(
),/ RO 050-263/76-19, NSP to Region III, dtd 10/ /76.
-8-
.
g
.
s
l'
.
,
,
--
-
_.
s.
.
'
..
(
verified to be in conformance with Technical Specifications
requirements for setpoints.and approval.
The test was witnessed and the following was observedt
(1) The test was performed ~ ~by qualified technicians.
(2) Test prerequisites were completed.
(3) The digital v.oltmeter used in the test was calibrated;
however, the instrument number was not required to be
recorded in the test procedure.
(4) Test data vac recorded and evaluated as required by the
test procedure.
(5)
- he test was performed using an approved test procedure.
(6)
lue test results indicated that no as found setpoints
ceeded Technical Specifications limit s,
b.
The licensee's surveillance program regard..g the calibration
of local power range monitors (LPRM) was reviewed.
The review
'
established that:
(1) LPRMs are calibrated in accordance with an established
program.
The licensee, however, does not have a detailed
written procedure or instruction covering the calibration
of LPRMs.
(2) The licensee's program appears to be adequate to assure
proper calibration of LPRMs and that no limiting conditions
for operation are exceeded during the calibration.
(3) The licensee performed LPRM calibrations on a monthly
basis.
The Technical Specifications do not specify
the frequency of LPRM calibrations.
.
c.
The licensee's surveillance program regarding the calibration
of average power range monitors (APRMs) was reviewed.
The
review established that:
(1) APRMs are calibrated in accordance with an established
procedure, Surveillance Test 0017. APRM Scram Instrument
Calibration.
(2) APRMs are calibrated against core thermal p6ver.
(3) APRMs are calibrated every three days as prescribed
by the Technical Specifications.
The previous nemth's
'
calibration tests (0017) were reviewed to verify this
as being accomplished.
(4) The licensee's program appears to be adequate to assure
proper calibration of APRMs and that .so limiting condi-
tions for operation are exceeded.
.
(
-9
.
.
,
.
,
3*
.
-
,
.
.
.
-
':
..
(
d.
The licensee's surveillance program regarding core thermal
power etaluation was reviewe,d.
The review established thatt
(1) Core thermal power measurements are made in accordance
with as approved procedure which is part of APRM
Surveillance Test 0017.
(2) The licensee's equation for the calculation of core
thermal power.is apparently correct based on a sample
calculation made by the inspector using the licensee's
)
equations.
5.
Calibration
.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for the calibration
of equipment associated with reactor safety, but are not identified
in the Technical Specifications as requiring specific calibration
requirements.
The licensee stated that all such equipinent has
been placed on a calibration schedule and is accomplished by a
specific calibration procedure or a Work Request Authorization
is written to cover the calibration.
The inspector reviewed the
calibration cards and procedures for following systems and
equipment,
a.
Torus Level
'
(1) Levt1 Indicator 2996
(2) Level Transmitter 2996
B.
Standby Liquid L .itrol System
pressure Indicator 1165
c.
Standby Gas Treatment
Flow Indicator Controller 2943
d.
D#esel Tuel Storage
Level Indicator 1522
c.
riow Indicator 10-32A
f.
Low Pressure Coolant Injection
,
Flow Indicator 10-139B
.
I
- 10 -
.
.
,
a
g
,.
y.
..
..
..
__
-
- .
.
.
.
..
,
.
,
.
.
')N
i
,
. .c .
g.
(
5
(1) Flow Indicator 14 40B
(2) Flow Indicator 1450A .
h.
liigh Pressure Coolant Injection
Flow Indicator Con, troller 23-108
1.
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling
Flow Transmitter 13-58
j.
Condensate Storage Tank
Level Indicator 1360
Eight of twelve instruments above wire calibrated using approved
'
calibration procedur;s.
The other four were calibrated using
Work Request Authorizations.
The licensee's representative
indicated that they intend to prepare calibration procedures
for most of the instrument now covered by Work Request Authorizations.
i
The records indicated that all the above instruments had been
calibrated at the intervals spec;fied by the licensee.
The inspector witnessed the calibration of two main steam line
pressure switches, PS-1234A and PS-2134B.
The calibration was
accomplished using Surveillance Test 0055, Main Steam Line Low
Pressure Group 1 Isolation Instrument and Calibration Procedure.
No discrepancies were noted during the performance of the calibration.
~
6.
Outstanding and Miscellaneous Items
E
Undervolt'ge. Relays, A0 75-08, A0 76-1&
a
a.
As discussed in Paragraph 3.c the licensee will make modi-
fications to climinate the loss of voltage if the relay
coils fail,
Maintenance- /f5 Starting otesel cenerator rollowing covernor
Procedure f
b.
The licensee has not yet prepared the subject procedure.
The
licensee indicated that no mainteennce on governors had been
performed since RO 75-23 occurred.
The inspector urged the
licensee to get the procedure prepared such that'it will be
available when needed.
9/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/75-18.
10/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/76-03.
-
(
- 11 -
.
- .
,
.
,
-- -
. - - _ - _ _ _ _ . .
_
_
y
-
- _ - - - -
- _ _
!.
'
.
--
..
'.
c.
Saf ety Audit Commit tee (SAC) Audit Follow-up
,
In a previous inspection,11/'the inspector identified a weak-
-
ness in audit follow-up of the SAC audit program.
Subsequent
]
to this inspection, the inspector had determined that SAC
i
audit follow-up is conducted in accordance with Administrative
J
Work Instruction No. 2AWI 7.1.4.
The area of concern is
resolved.
l
d.
Standby Liquid Control (SBLC) Surveillance
In a previous inspection.12/ the licensee indicated they would
--
review their method of obtaining boron concentration in the
]
SBLC.
The licensee plans to perform periodic quantitative boron
analysis.
The licensec has had their corporate testing lab
1
perform boron analysis using a procedure prepared by the
licensee to verify the licensee analysis usiog the procedure.
i
-
At the time of inspection, all checks had been successfully
completed and the procedure was ready for fin >>l Opa-at..ss
Committee review.
7.
Semiannual Report
The subject report for the period of July 1, 1975, to December 31,
1975, was reviewed.
Review of this report indicated that the
information required by the Technical Specifications had been
,
reported.
Review of reactor logbooks indicated that the forced
'
shutdown on August 31, 1975, was as reported in the semiannual
report.
.
j[1/ 3E Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/76-11.
12/ IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-263/76-03.
.
(
- 12 -
.
'
l
<
.
,
-. .
- - _ .
_
. . _ .
_
_l
.(