ML19351G048
| ML19351G048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1981 |
| From: | Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351G045 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102230018 | |
| Download: ML19351G048 (2) | |
Text
,
(
Attachment to Be Withheld b
l from Public Disclosure Contains 10 CFR 2.790 Materir.1 Wisconsin Electnc posta couesur 231 W. 'dlCHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 January 16, 1981 Mr. J.
G. Keppler, Regional Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region III U.
S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM.'ISSION 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Dear Mr. Keppler:
REPLY TO NRC IE INSPECTION REPORTS 50-266/80-20 AND 50-301/80-20 POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 Your letter dated December 23, 1980 (received January 2, 1981) transmitted the subject inspection reports which contained two Notices of Violation identified as Appendix "A" and Appendix "B",
respectively.
Appendix "A" referenced a violation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Technical Specifications in that personnel failed to reset the high neutron flux setpoint after the axial flux difference had deviated from its target band.
In order to fully understand the initiating events, the following excerpt is provided from Licensee Event Report 80-01]/03L-0 (Unit 2) which we filed on December 11, 1980:
"During a normal startup following an outage to repair a safety injection pump, the indicated axial flux difference was noted as deviating from its target band.
After unsuccessfully attempting to return the axial flux to within the target band within the time allatted, the reactor was limited to 50% power as required in Technical Specification 15.3.10.B.2.e.
However, the reduction of the high neutron flux set-point as indicated in Technical Specification 15.3.10.B.2.d.1 to no greater than 55% was not performed.
Administrative controls were employed to ensure reactor power was maintained below 50%.
The indicated axial flux was within the target band at 0621 hours0.00719 days <br />0.173 hours <br />0.00103 weeks <br />2.362905e-4 months <br /> on November 19, 1980 and reactor power was increased as allowed by Technical Specifications above 50% at 0435 hours0.00503 days <br />0.121 hours <br />7.19246e-4 weeks <br />1.655175e-4 months <br /> on November 20, 1980.
"Upon the expiration of the allotted time to return the axial flux to the target band, the Duty Shift Supervisor contacted the Duty & Call Superintendent 810 2 2 8 0 ottb
.JAN 21 1981
(..
a l
Mr. J. G. Keppler January 16, 1981 and in the ensuing discussion they decided that the provisions of Technical Specification 15.3.10.B.2.d did not apply.
Technical Specification 15.3.10.B.2.d refers to a power level "no greater than 90 percent of rated power" and the paragraph following is descrip-
~
tive of a reduction in power from 90% due to exceeding the delta flux limits at an appreciable power level.
The Duty Shift Supervisor and Duty & Call Superintendent resolved the resetting of the power' range setpoint was not applicable to the condition of a normal startup sequence.
Technical Specification 15.3.10.2.e, "at a power level no greater than 50% of rated power",
was the paragraph interpreted as applicable and power was administratively controlled to levels less than 50% until the flux was reestablished in the 4
target band for the period required by the Technical i
Specifications.
The Superintendent - Technical Services conducted a technical review of the event upon his return on November 21, 1980, with several of the Manager's Supervisory Staff members and the NRC resident inspectors.
At this meeting it was determined that the Technical Specifications had been improperly interpreted and that the high neutron flux setpoint should have been lowered to less than or eqfal to 55% of rated power.
All other reactor protecti n and safety devices were operable and the functional requirement of the high neutron flux setpoint was not compromised."
As a result of the event, on December 22, 1980 a revision to Reactor Engineering Instruction REI 12.0, " Technical Specifications and Delta Flux", was issued to clearly incorporate I
the correct interpretation of the Technical Specification.
Appendix "B" contained an item of noncompliance which is considered exempt from disclosure in accordance with the-provisions of 10 CFR 2.790.
Therefore, our response to this item is contained in Attachment "A".to this letter.
We request that Attachment "A" be accorded proprietary treatment' pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790 and_be withheld from public disclosure.
Similarly, we request 'that any reply you make concerning this iten also -be withheld if it deals with details of'our security plan.
Very truly yours,
//
g f
I C. W. Fay, Director Nuclear Power Department Attachment Copy to NRC Resident Inspector
.