ML20024G339
| ML20024G339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1977 |
| From: | Thornburg H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Wachter L NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G340 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9102110328 | |
| Download: ML20024G339 (3) | |
Text
, - - -_____-.
.'*R v me m 1
[.,. 3
-' y h,I.A(, &<.v
. '~ v
<a e
7;, n ~
, y <g *p/; tg a
.g 9
<3 c
1,
-.>r.,,,..n.s.,.t..e c..
t a., g j-
- 4..,,
,u...,s-p s
r.,
n'
- ~ ~
.C s..,..
v.
j p-y,e,.4 n
~
u, JUN 1 4 W7 ',
. f.
. ~ $
c 1
e,,,. 3 9..
q
+
1 J
,1
-4 g
-f, rV Docket No. 50-263 s
"r.,.
~
=, < +,.
~
s.
. ; e,
' ~-
Northern States Power Company 1.
ATTH: Mr. L. J. Wachter f*
^-
Vice President, Fever.
~
.l.
, ~,,,
A -, 4l
1%
Production and Systems
.... '. ~ '
.1 ;.. '.,
Operaties
%+
8 s
414 Rico11st Mall
(
y Minneapolis. NN 55401 3
s u;*
Q Gentlemen:
,y
., r.
c O
This refers to the special inspection conducted by Messrs. W. S.: -
3 Little J. 5. Creswell and G. A. Phillip of our Regios III,
{p;!
of fice on February 25 and March 17 aM 18,1977 regarding the circum-t.
W stances surrounding the three short reactor periods experienced during k
a reactor startup at the Monticello Euclear Plant om Yebruary 23, 1977. 'e
,/
This also refers to the meeting that was held on April 12, 1977, by g
Mr. J. C. Keppler and members.of the Region III staff with you and other.
representatives of the Northaru States Power Company to discuss the findings of this inspection.
The inspection was coMoceed to determine both the reactor conditions -
6 eich caused the short periods and the management considerations nich!
1ed to the decision to restart the reacter following the scram. As a -
result of the inspection, certata of your activities appaar to be in noncomplisoce with KRC require r.:.nts.
The itene of noncompliance identi.
'ind during the inspection are described in the enclosure to this letter.
r n
Although no specific health and safety consequences resulted from the short periods which occurred on February 23, 1977, we are concerned J
J, with the following related matters which, in our view, inAf r sta a 9
lack of adequate manageunent controls associated with the operation 1
~1 of the reactors
?
.v.
'y' y
s, s
a 1.
The Shif t Suparvisor was not promptly notified of the anomalous reactivity conditions following the first of three short periods.
(
5 s'
b
}
}
a
-O ( },,
+
~,
+-
,4
...i. ',. < ~
w,
}
'b...
i
! 7,
't CERTIFIED MAIL 2
,j,
,,.q
- m..
.. c
. l~
- Y
.5
~
^
RETURN ECEIFT REQUESTI*D
,y r
t
-t
-m
-(
q~
,7
.)
~'
9102110328 770614
~
or a eh,,
/
}gy,
=
m....
~
__ l.__ T 1 7 1
m 9
4, 4
A
.i j /. [ $):
^
,, ; o..,a :..
e c,
c, Northern Statas power Company a.2 a.
.\\.
- 1 14 II[
4
- ,, r l
t
.4
~
resulting from'oentrol red withdrawals.' This was des tothe failure of operating personnal to believe the maalear tastrw-'
mentation and/or f ailure.to resegnise that poorly understeed ' r reactor conditions shon14 he preuptly reported to higher empervisory i
1evels.
g,
,f f
E
~ - l"
~
1.
An appropriate evaluation of the anomalous core reactivity esadition.
was not performed to alert operators to the existanas of the high.
-.?
1 reactivity worth of each.aotah of eentrol rod nevessant folieving the unexpected fast period resulting from the withdrawal of a single.,'
l E
control rod notch. Because af this osmission in osa61mation with the ossaiasions identifind in item I above, subsequent control red withdre N '^
~V wals were raade within minutes after the abert periode eesurred under s
..o J~
conditions which were not well undarstood. The resulting cituaties '
was sentrary to the disciplined approach that ta central to safe resator
'e operations.
n r
3.
Although management had recognized the need to calculate the reactivity worth of those control rods associated with the ehert' s
period events, action was initiated to restart the reactor prior c
to completion of these calculations and prior to obtaining assurmsoe,,.
a that the Technical specification requirement associated with tho '
g rod drop accident would not be violated (i.e. maximas reactivity s,
worth of inserted segment of any control rod shall not exceed 1.3%
{
delta k at criticality). t
~
Based on the above matters, together with the nature of the items of noncompliance, it is our view.that proper emphasis was not given by Y,*
licensee management and the oparating staff to daaling with anomalour J.;
reactivity conditions during reactor startup and to avoiding conditions which could land to excessively short reactor periods. Accordingly, f,
~.
the enforcement aspects of this case have been e6scalated from our. '
Regional office to Headquartare for handling.
b
-e p
As you are avere from the " Criteria for Determining Enforcement Actions," '
which was provided to you by letter dated Decembar 31, 1974, and from (~
discussions with our Region III personnel, the enforcement actions
+
t J
available to the Co:: mission in the exercise of its regulatory responsi-l bilities include administrativa actions in the form of written noticas of violation, civil sonetary penalties, and ordare partaining to the o
e
/
modification, suspension, or revocation of a license. We have carefully revieni the items of noncompliance set forth in the enclosure and tho' /.
i
?.
matters discussed above, and conclude that a Notice of Violation is the.
j F ~
appropriate enforcement action at this time. The results of futura
,s inspections to reviw your correctiva actions will determine if addi ? " r m
.,, ' 'f tional ascalation of enforcemant action is necessary..?
.n, s.L 4
O Based on the meeting of April 12, 1977, we understand that you will " < :
e 61ug Q 2.i-Steetiv- - '
"-u ex tune your ps cadut o sum
}
l
,4 r.
,,..w.....--
w 4>
j' w
... - _.. _._... 4 g*
Northern States Power company JUN 14194 review and evaluation of significant operating events of this type, y
and, reconsider the need for additional definition of authority to permit reactor restart.
gt This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2. Iitle 10, Code of Federal C
i Regulations. Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office 0
within twenty (20) days of your receipt of this notice a written state -
amnt or explanation in reply, including for each item of noncompliance:
g (1) corrective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective 4,
- f JQ action to be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date g
when full compliance will be achieved.
In addition to your reply to the ita:ss of noncompliance, you should describe the specific actions you
.s
'l>
have taken or will take to achieve effective management control related to the matters discussed above.
Sincerely, I
%er %
4 sa %
Harold D. Thornburg, Director Division of Reactor Operations l
Inspection Office of Inspection and Enforcement Encleaura: Appendit A. Notice of Violation cc w/ encl:
E. L. Eliason, Plant Manager bec:
. 'I Central Files F. Ingram, PA IE Files J. P. Murray, ELD Gm PDk J. Lieberman, ELD M. King, AITS I
Local PDR M. Crossman, ELD Lana Cobb, IE NSIC D. J. Skovholt NRR P'"
TIC J. Crooks, MIPC IE Reading"
[
Anthony Roisman, Esq.,-
R. P. Snaider, NRR G. L. Constable, IE Attorney State of Minnesota A8 p 3 M j k I
('
?
E. Volgenau, IE J. G. Davis. IE V
H. D. Thornburg, IE '
u r
W. P. Ellis, XOOS
-=
A/ :ROI: E.
Q/ ROI.IE_ D:RO,*1 s
ons Ga _e. ofni HD%
.urg_
~
_6/it/77_
.6//4 /77
,.6. M/77 '
~,
o c. m ca... m u m u.
- m.......
i
-