ML20090L511
| ML20090L511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1974 |
| From: | Wachter L NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20090L510 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9102110274 | |
| Download: ML20090L511 (2) | |
Text
.
s '.
I NOMTHERH STATES POWER C0MPANY Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 April 29, 1974 Mr. J. G. Keppler, Regional Director Directorate of Regulatory Operations Region III United States Atomic Energy Comission 799PRcosevelt Poad Glen Ellyn, 1111ncis 61037
Dear Mr. Keppler:
FONTICELLO NUCLF/R GENERATING PIAh7 Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22 Response to Items Listed on Enclosure of letter Dated April 9, 1974
'Ihis letter is written in response to the items noted on your letter of April 9, 1974. Your letter, addressed to Leo J. h'achter, Vice President Power Production and Systems Operation, referred to three activities which appeared to be in violation of AEC requirements. The three activities were:
1.
The reactor coolant was not analyzed for gross beta activity every 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> between the period of February 14 and 21,1974.
2.
An isotopic analysis of the reactor coolant was not performed during November 1973.
3.
Conductivity and chloride analyses were not performed at four hour intervals during the period of February 16-18, 1974, while steaming at less than 100,000 pounds per hour.
The three subjects are discussed separately.
1.
Reactor coolant was not analyzed for gross beta activity every 96~
hours between February 14 rad 21, 1974 On Febmary 18, 1974, the day that the 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> reactor coolant gross beta activity sample was due, the Chemistry Specialist responsibic for the analysis misunderstood the Technical Specification roquirement and did not perform the test.
To prevent the possibility of future violations of this sort, the purpose and requirements of this test have been discussed with the Chemistry Group.
In addition, a radiochemistry memorandum has been written to the Chemistry Group specifically discussing the above requirements.
9102110274 740510 PDR ADOCK 05000263 MAy 3 1974 p
-.. m
l e,
1
- 2-I, A }bnthly~ Reactor Coolant Isotopic Analysis was not performed during 1
?
2.
J November,1973
\\
l The monthly reactor coolant isotopic analysis was perfomed in the latter part of November, 1973. liovever, at this time a new Ge(LI) j countingsystemhadbeenbroughtintousewhichrequIredalonger counting time than the original Na(I) counting equipment. The Chemistry Specialist used a counting time based on the old Na(1) d thesystem and consequently, the sample was not counted sufficiently long an l
data was incomplete.
the time that the data was reviewed by the Plant Chemist, in early Decem er, the sample had been disposed of and it was too 4
j late to resample for that period.
hhen informed that the sample had not been counted long enough, the Chemistry Specialist decided it wasn't necessary to retain the raw data and he disposed of it.
i To prevent future actions of this type, the circumstances and consequences l
of counting errors and premature sample disy sal has been discussed with the Chemistry Group.
In addition, a radiochemistry memorandum has been i
i written recuiring the retention of all Technical Specification related j
31cs and data until specific direction has been given by the Plant s
1 Ch ist. The memo also directs that any analysis of th U nature be y
l completed and approved in a timely manner to preclude the retention of 1
inadequate data.
j 3.
Conductivity and Chloride Analyses were not performed eve n four_ hours during the period of February 16 18, 1974
)
The Technical Specification related conductivity and ride analyses vere not performed during this period because of a mL....erstanding of the plant conditions and the required surveillance tests.
1 1
l To prevent the possibility of future violations of the chemistry require-i ments below 100,000 lb/hr steam flow, the plant operating procedures have been modified recuiring the Shift Supervisor to notify the Chemistry Group l
to complete the leur hour surveillance anytime the reactor water is above r
212*F and the turbine is not on the line.
j The chemistry requirements of the Technical Specifications have been discussed with 1
r and explained to the Chemistry personnel. Also, all Technical Specification related chemistry surveillance test procedures have been revi, sed to state the aurpose and requirements of each analysis.
It is believed that the actions descri)cd above 4
provide adequate assurance similar occurrences will be prevented in the future.
ll Should you have any questions concerning our actions, please comunicate directly i
with the plant management.
j Yours very truly, a
r Vice Pres. dent - Power Production i
and System Operations IJh'/mm i
cc: J F O'Irary, Directorate of Licensing G Charnoff Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Atta:
E A Pryzina File
_.-_,__..__.__._._.._._____.__,_-.______i