IR 05000263/1998019

Insp Rept 50-263/98-19 on 981214-18.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Review of Various Aspects of Licensees Chemistry & Radiation Protection Programs,Specifically REMP, PASS & Chemistry QC & Matl Condition

ML20198R205
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	12/30/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198R204	List: IR 05000263/1998019 ML20198R200
References
50-263-98-19, NUDOCS 9901080125
Download: ML20198R205 (11)

Text

. . . . ._ .__ -

_ . _ _ . -

-

_ - ._. . . _ __~ _.__._- _._._ _.____.. .

i

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGIONlli Docket No: 50-263 License No: DPR-22 ,

Report No: 50-263/98019(DRS)

Licensee: Northern States Power Company Facility: Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Location: 2807 W. County Rd. 75 Monticello, MN 55362

,

Dates: December 14 - 18,1998 i

inspectors: R. Glinski, Radiation Specialist M. W. Mitchell, Radiation Specialist Approved by: G. Shear, Chief, Plant Support Branch 2 ,

Division of Reactor Safety i

l i

.1 l

(

9901090125 981230 PDR G ADOCK 05000263 PDR

. . . _ - . _ . . _ _ - . _ .

,

.. .

C-

'

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant NRC Inspection Report 50-263/98019

'

L

'

- This inspection included a review of various_ aspects of the licensee's chemistry and radiation I

. protection programs, specifically in the following areas-

!

'

.

The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP)

.

Plant Water Quality

'.

General Radiation Protection (RP) Practices

..

The Post Accident Sampling System (PASS)

.

Chemistry Quality Control (QC) and Material Condition .

- The following conclusions were reached in these areas:

i:

l .-

Implementation of the REMP was effective and no discemible impact on the i

'

. environment from plant operations was identified. (Section R1.1)

l

.-

Plant water quality and fuel integrity remained excellent, and chemistry staff used the

Data Acquisition System to effectively monitor various chemistry parameters throughout -

.the facility. (Section R1.2) '

... - The RP staff properly implemented radiological controls and assessed radiological conditions within the plant, with limited exceptions, so as to adequately limit dose to i plant personnel. (Section R1.3)

.

The PASS system was maintained operable, and with ona minor procedure change to allow the use of an 18 gauge needle for sample collection, the licensee had no problems collecting and analyzing samples. (Section R2.1)

'

! .

The in-line instrumentation system remained operable, as the licensee had no problems collecting data and analyzing samples'used in verifying operability during the perio . (Section R2.2) .

l -.

Chemistry personnel were knowledgeable of their various responsibilities, demonstrated goou laboratory practice, and displayed ownership of chemistry department activitie The analytical performance of the chemistry technicians (cts) was excellent as evidenced by blind QC data for a variety of analytes.- (Section R4.1)

,

.

Performance in the intercomparison programs for chemistry and radiochemistry was l cxcellent. Analyticalinstrumentation generally remained within acceptable control

'

parameters. Chemistry staff effectively reviewed biases related to instrument constancy and took appropriate action, if required. (Section R7.1)

=. , inspection Follow-up item 50-263/98014-01: Failure to ensure the Main Steam Line

'

,

Radiation Monitor (MSLRM) Hi Alarm was within applicable limits was closed based on review of licensee actions. The actions were adequate to prevent recurrence. (Section

.

R8.1)-

.

4 -

.

,

- - , , . -

~ _ _ _

'

.

_Peport Details R1 Radiological Protection and Chemistry (RP&C) Controls R Implementation of the Radioloaical Environmental Monitorina Proaram (REMP) Inspection Scope (IP 84750) I l

The inspectors observed the collection of air and water samples in the vicinity of the I plant, examined air sampling equipment, and interviewed REMP staff regarding the packaging, transportation, and analysis of samples. The inspectors also reviewed the 1C97 land use census, the 1997 Annual Radiation Environmental Monitoring Report and several sampling procedures, in addition to selected REMP data for 1998.

! Observations and Findinas The inspectors observed a REMP staff member collect air and water samples at various sample points. The sampling was conducted according to applicable procedures and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). In addition, the inspectors observed that the environmental sampling stations were adequately maintained and that sampling equipment was operable. However, the inspectors noted that in the past year, air sampling equipment reliability declined. In 1998, a total of seven weekly air samples (of approximately 260 possible) were incomplete due to sampler failures or torn filters. As a result, the licensee did not consic'er the partial data collected as representative because samples were not continuously collected. The REMP staff initiated a more frequent and thorough preventative maintenance program for sampling station equipment to improve its reliabilit The 1997 Annual REMP Report indicated that plant operation had no measurable radiologicalimpact on the surrounding environment. The REMP staff conducted sampling and analysis according to the ODCM, and all deviations were appropriately noted in the REMP Report. The inspectors reviewed the 1997 land use census and found that there were no changes to the land use or to the closest receptor in location or type, in addition, no changes were made to the ODCM since the last inspectio Conclusions implementation of the REMP was effective and no discernible impact on the environment from plant operations was identifie R1.2 Control of Plant Water Quality

,

' Inspection Scoce (IP 84750)

[ The inspectors reviewed the water quality data for reactor coolant and feedwater from last startup in May 1998 to the present, interviewed plant personnel regarding the overall plant water quality, and reviewed the licensee's administrative controls for plant water qualit l l

. - --

.

. Observations and Findinas The licensee's administrative controls for all the plant water chemistry parameters were identical to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Action Level guidelines. Plant water 0,m!dy curing power operation was well managed and remained excellent. The inspectors determined that plant staff maintained the chloride, sulfate, and conductivity levels in the reactor water generally below the licensee's administrative chemistry limits and were consistent with industry performance. The feedwater iron and copper values were also maintained below the licensee's administrative limit On November 29,1998, the sulfate levels increased to 71.7 ppb, and conductivity levels rose to 0.26 uS/cm. The sulfate level was above the EPRI Action Level 2 values (20 ppb) but less than the EPRI Action Level 3 value (100 ppb). This excursion was precipitated by intrusion of pump oil and glycol from the General Electric Zinc Injection Program (GEZIP) pump used for zinc injection. Prompt identification and corrective action by the chemistry and operations staff limited the time the levels exceeded these values. The levels returned to below the Action Level 2 value within 11.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> and below the Action Level 1 value within 30.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br />, and did not exceed EPRI guidelines for limiting plant operation Reactor water dissolved oxygen and dose equivalent iodine were also maintained well below the plant Action Level 1 value and Technical Specifications limits. The dissolved oxygen levels indicated that the hydrogen water chemistry program was functioning as planned. The dose equhtalent lodine level indicated that there were no fuel integrity issue The chemistry department used a Data Acquisition System to monitor parameters from various in-line detection instruments throughout the site. The data was updated every minute and displayed on terminals in the chemistry laboratory and offices. The Data Acquisition System recently enabled the chemistry staff to quickly identify increased sulfate levels in the reactor water as noted abov Conclusions Plant water quality and fuel integrity remained excellent, and chemistry staff effectively monitored various chemistry parameters throughout the facility and promptly responded to momentary excursion R1.3 Walkdowns Within the Radioloaically Controlled Area (RCA) Inspection Scope (IP 83750)

The inspectors conducted walkdowns of various areas within the RCA and interviewed Radiation Protection (RP) staff regarding radiological conditions and controls within the plan Observations and Findinas During the plant walkdowns, the inspectors verified the adequacy of radiological postings and the placement of contamination boundaries. The plant was operating at

.

full power and there was little work being done around the plant in or near contaminated areas. The inspectors noted that portions of the turbine floor were appropriately posted

,

as a high radiation area due to the hydrogen water chemistry program, which also produced radiation levels up to 50 millirem per hour (mrem /h) in a mezzanine office above the turbine deck. Although the RP staff indicated that the office was not assigned or frequently used, the area contained office furniture and office equipment and could be used by plant staff to conduct assigned duties, not in keeping with the as-low-as-is-reasonably-achievable (ALARA) concept. The staff evaluated the use of the area and disconnected the telephones in the office to prevent inadvertent and unnecessary use of the area during plant operatio The inspectors identified one storage box in the turbine building rail access bay that displayed contact radiation levels of 12 mrem /h per hour. The labels on the container indicated the maximum dose rate was 1 mrem /h per hour. The licensee conducted a thorough survey of the box and identified isolated areas ranging up to 9 mrem /h, consistent with the NRC measurements. The RP staff took immediate corrective action to properly label the container and was investigating the discrepancy. The staff indicated that corrective actions would be taken based on the finding The inspectors discussed the inconsistency in the posting of area survey maps in the reactor building and turbine building. The reactor building had updated survey maps located at the entry points to each floor, while the turbine building did not have survey maps at the entrance points. The survey maps for all buildings were available at RP Access control. The licensee stated that while the current practice provided adequate information to the plant staff, especially during normal plant operations, RP staff planned to review this matter to determine if a change to the current program was warrante During the walkdowns, the inspectors observed good worker awareness of radiological hazards (e.g., workers properly donned protective clothing, survey maps were consulted, dosimetry was worn correctly, etc.). Conclusiorg The RP staff properly implemented radiological controls and assessed radiological conditions within the plant, with limited exceptions, so as to adequately limit dose to plant personne R2 Facilities and Equipment in RP&C R2.1 Post Accident Samolina System (PASS) Insoection Scope (IP 84750)

The inspectors reviewed the operation and maintenance of the PASS, interviewed cognizant plant personnel regarding the system, and walked down the PASS panels and sample points.

!

l 5

l l l

l Observations and Findinas The PASS panel and sampling equipment was maintained in good materiel condition with no work requests pending, and no modifications had been made to the control panel. The inspectors reviewed the last two functional tests of the PASS and noted that the system delivered representative samples of reactor coolant, as evidenced by comparative analysis. The plant staff also verified reactor coolant gas collection capability. On May 7,1998, during scheduled sampling through the PASS system, the I technicians experienced problems in collecting the proper sample volume and tried numerous times to obtain the proper large volume water sample. On May 7,1998, a temporary change was made to the procedure to allow the use of an 18 gauge needle rather than a 20 gauge needle. The change was consistent with the PASS technical manual, and Revision 9 of MNGP 1354, " Pass Functional Test * incorporated the change. No problems were identified during the next sampling on November 5,199 Conclusions The PASS system was maintained operable and with one minor procedure charige to allow the use of an 18 gauge needle for sample collection, the licensee had no problems collecting and analyzing sample R2.2 In-Line Plant Water Quality Instrumentation Insoection Scope (IP 84750)

The inspectors walked down the chemistry sampling panels with a chemistry technician (CT) on routine rounds. The inspectors also observed surveillance activities, interviewed staff, and reviewed functional test Observations and Findinas The chemistry sampling panels contained the in-line instrumentation which measured conductivity, pH, and dissolved oxygen. This information was input to the Data Acquisition System to provide staff with current plant operation parameters. No material condition concerns were identified regarding the panels and the in-line instrument Chemistry personnel indicated that this equipment routinely operated with few problem Functional tests and surveillances reviewed by the inspectors supported this finding. In addition, the periodic tests indicated that these instruments remained functiona Conclusions The in-line instrumentation system was maintained operable and the licensee had no problems collecting data and analyzing samples used in verifying operability during the period.

l l

l 6

. _ . . . ._ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ._. . __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.

l R4 Staff Knowledge and Performance in RP&C j R Performance of Chemistrv Samole Collection and Analysis Inspection Scope (IP 84710) 0 i l

The inspectors interviewed cts and observed chemistry sampling and analysis 1 activities. The inspectors also interviewed chemistry supervisory staff and reviewed CT proficiency data for laboratory analyses, Observations and Findinas The inspectors observed three cts, on separate occasions, operating rrocess instrumentation, conducting source checks on radiation monitors, conducting reactor i water samples and analysis. The inspectors observed that plani chemistry samples were collected appropriately. The cts were experienced and knowledgeable regarding proper sample collection, analysis, and generallaboratory practices. The cts also effectively used the chemistry laboratory database system to log quality control (OC)

and analytical results. The inspectors observed that the materiel condition of the sampling panels was excellent and that CT ownership was evident for the chemistry wor The cts conducted the daily QC checks for a variety of analytes on the different 4

'

laboratory instruments with standards having chemical concentrations which were calibrated. Also, the licensee used " blind" QC daily check standards which were changed regularly. For the past year, trended intracomparison and QC data indicated that the CT's analytical performance was excellen Conclusions Chemistry personnel were knowledgeable of their various responsibilities, demonstrated good laboratory practice, and displayed ownership of chemistry department activitie The analytical performance of the cts was excellent as evidenced by blind QC data for both chemistry and radiochemistry analyse R7 Quality Assurance in RP&C Activities R Chemistry Laboratorv Quality Control (QC) Inspection Scope (IP 84750)

i The inspectors reviewed QC records and interviewed laboratory staff regarding l- laboratory QC practices, in addition, the inspectors reviewed 1998 intercomparison data

, for chemistry and radiochemistry.

l I Observations and Findinas l

The inspectors observed that the material condition of the laboratory analytical and i

counting instrumentation was very good. The instrument QC data showed that

-

instrument operability was excellent, with only short out-of-service periods for two

.

l .

l gamma spectrometry detectors. One detector was sent to the vendor for repair, and the other problem was attributed to laboratory temperature fluctuations which were addressed by the staff, instrument control charts indicated that the instrumentation generally remained within control and that the licensee properly identifying biases in the QC charts in accordance with plant procedure, and took approisiate action for out of bias instrumentatio The inspectors noted that the laboratory performance in the vendor radiochemistry and chemistry intercomparison programs was excellent. There were no expired standards

observed during laboratory walkdown Conclusions Performance in the intercomparison programs for chemistry and radiochemistry was

'

excellent. The instrumentation generally remained within statistical control parameter Chemistry staff effectively reviewed biases related to instrument constancy and took appropriate action, if require R8 Miscellaneous RP&C lssues (92904)

R (Closed) Inspection Follow-up Item 50-263/98014-01: Failure to ensure the Main Steam Line Radiation Monitor (MSLRM) Hi Alarm was within applicable limits. The hi alarm set point is not dictated by technical specifications. The hi alarm set point on the MSLRM was set at 4000 mR/h, and the normal radiation level had decreased to 2500mR/h, which placed the hi alarm setting outside the 1.5 times normal reading band for expected operabir y. The hi alarm was not to exceed 1.5 times the normal full power N-16 gamma radiation level with hydrogen water chemistry on-line. Therefore, the set point was both non-conservative and outside the appropriate limit. The licensee took immediate corrective as described in Report No. 50-263/98014(DRS). The inspectors also reviewed the licensee's corrective action to Condition Report 9800193 Operations issued a memo informing the operators of a revision to the Operation Daily Log and the that MSLRM Hi Alarm set point was changed to 3500 mrem /h. The Operations Daily Log was revised to state that a MSL radiation value greater than or equal to 2333 mR/h met the operational requirement. There has been no recurrence of the previous problem, and all operators received the memo and reviewed the requirement change. This item is close X1 Exit Meeting Summary The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of licensee management during an exit meeting on December 18,1998. The licensee did not indicate that any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary.

l

l

!

. . . _ . . _ _ _ _ .. . _ _ . _ __ _ _ _ . _ _ __ .

i

,

PART!AL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED l Licensee C. Anderson, Health Physics Supervisor D. Carstens, Senior Production Engineer l D. Foster, Senior Production Engineer  !

M. Hammer, Plant Manager l M. Holmes, Radiochemistry Supervisor i K. Jepson, Superintendent, Chemistry / Environmental Protection R. Latham, Radiaticr )rotection Coordinator '

D. fielken, Radiation Protection Specialist l

l J. Windschill, General Superintendent, Radiation Services j

NRC D. Wrona, Resident inspector, Monticello S Burns, Senior Resident inspector, Monticello INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED l

,

IP 84750: Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring IP 83750 Occupational Radiation Exposure IP 92904: Followup - Plant Support l

ITEWIS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED  ;

I

'

Closed i

50-263/98014 IFl Failure to Ensure the MSL Rad Monitor Hi Alarm Was Within Limits !

I l

!

4

l l

I'

,

,

. .

!

' LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ALARA As-Low-As-Is-Reasonably-Achievable CT Chemistry Technician DRS' . Division of Reactor Safety EPRI' Electric Power Research Institute

'

IFl Ir,spection Followup item IP - Inspection Procedure mrem /h : millirem per hour MSLRM Main Steam Line Radiation Monitor ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual PASS Post Accident Sampling System QC Quality Control PDR Public Document Room RCA Radiologically Controlled Area l

'

REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program l RP Radiation Protection l'

TS Technical Specification l

!

l ,

i l

'

I

'

. ,

h t

-

l

l

,

a

. . _ _ ._. _ ~ . . - _ - . - _..__ _ _ __ _ _ - __ ._ _ _ . _ .__ _ . _ . _

,..

PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Technical Specifications Sections 4.16.

! 1997 Annual Radiation Environmental Monitoring Report L

Land Use Census and Critical Receptor Report, September 19,1998

. Monticello ODCM Section 05.01 Radioactive Environmental Monitoring Program Effluent Trend Charts (June 1997 - November 1998)

Inspection-related Condition Reports (June 1997 - December 1998)

.l MNGP Procedure ll.08 (Rev.14), " Chemistry QA/QC Program" MNGP Procedure 1.6.04 (Rev. 4), " Laboratory Quality Control" MNGP Procedure 1.6.05 (Rev.1), " Inter / Intra-Laboratory Analysis" MNGP Procedure 0492-1 (Rev. 7), " Weekly Radiological Monitoring Procedures (REMP)"*

l MNGP Procedure 0350a (Rev 4), " Service Water Effluent Monitor Source Check"* 4

,

" MNGP Procedure 5791-4031 (Rev. 4), " Weekly Sampling Schedule"* '

,

' MNGP Procedure 5791-401-1 (Rev. 0), " Land Use Census Work Sheet **

!-

MNGP Surveillance Procedure 0506 " Annual Land Use Census and Central Receptor

! Identification"*

MNGP Procedure 1354 (Rev. 8), " PASS Functional Test" l MNGP Condition Report 98001934, " Main Steam Line Radiation Monitor High Alarm Setpoint l- Exceeds Limit of NRC Commitment" I * Indicates that performance of the procedures was observed by the inspectors l

!. ,

'

'

~!

!.

I I-F

11 l-  ;

>

- . . _ . _ _ , . _ . . _ _ _ _