ML19312D544

Responds to NRC 800111 Ltr Re Violation Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-266/79-18 & 50-301/79-19.Corrective Actions; Checklist Revised to Include Space to Ack Receipt of Acceptable Analysis Results

ML19312D544
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	02/11/1980
From:	Edy C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML19312D534	List: ML19312D544
References
NUDOCS 8003240593
Download: ML19312D544 (2)

Text

1

>e jy s

1 INSCOnSin Electnc m cwa 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. 801 2046. MILWAUKIE. WI $3201 February 11, 1980

Mr. James G. Keppler, Regional Director Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement, Region III U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 799 Roosevelt Road

-Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

Dear Mr. Keppler:

DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 REPLY TO IE INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 79-18 AND 79-19 POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT Your letter of January 11, 1980, which transmitted IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-266/79-18 and 50-301/79-19, included notice of an infraction item. This notice stated that contrary to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Technical Specification Item 15.4.10.1, the shoreline silt sample No. 5 for the second half of 1978 was not analyzed for gross beta or gamma isotopic activities. Pursuant to Section 2.201 of the Commission's Regulations, we are providing this response to the infraction notice.

As you indicated in your January 11, 1980 letter, a l review of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant records indicated that while this sample had been collected for analysis, no analytical results were, in fact, available for the sample. Discussions were held with representatives of the contractor responsible for performance of the analysis of the shoreline silt samples I to determine the status of the missing sample results. Although our forwarding letter lists this sample along with several unrelated samples as being sent to the contractor, the contractor has no record of receiving this shoreline silt sample. The contractor does acknowledge receipt of the forwarding letter and all samples except the shoreline silt samp'.e. Since the contractor does not have a record of the shoreline silt sample, a followup analysis on the sample is not possible.

An evaluation was performed to determine how to assure performance of required analyses. Discussions were held with I all plant personnel involved with radiological environmental FEB 121980 8003240$!]

1.. .

?

j eMr.-James G. Keppler February 11, 1980 sampling, during'which the importance of proper attention to radiological environmental monitoring was reemphasized. As a result of these discussions, an existing checklist was revised to include space.for acknowledging receipt of acceptable analysis results from the contractor. Space is allotted on the checklist for each sample type from all sample locations. This checklist will be reviewed and' maintained by the Chemistry and Health Physics Group. Delinquent contractor analysis results will be pursued in the future in a more timely manner.

It is believed that the described corrective actions will avoid further noncompliances of this type. These corrections were fully implemented as of January 1, 1980.

Very truly yours, Y '

C. W. Fay, irector Nuclear Power Department 1,