IR 05000461/1993011
| ML20045G465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1993 |
| From: | House J, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045G458 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-93-11, NUDOCS 9307140012 | |
| Download: ML20045G465 (9) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-461/930ll(DRSS)
Docket No. 50-461 License No. NPF-62 Licensee:
Illinois Power Company 500 South 27th Street Decatur, IL 62525 Facility Name:
Clinton Nuclear Power Station, Unit l'
Inspection At:
Clinton Site, Clinton, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
June 15-18, 1993 bbM
'
Inspector:
.
eu J. House Date Approved By:
(;)
R._,N 7/r/M WiTlTam Snell, Cfil6f Date '
'~
Radiological Controls Section 2 Inspection Summary Inspection on June 15-18. 199? (Report No. 50-461/930]l(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of the chemistry program-including:
audits, quality assurance, chemistry comparisons, radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP), post accident sampling system, and an inspection follovup item (IP 84750).
Results: The licensee's performance in the chemistry comparison program was excellent (24 agreements in 24 comparisons). The laboratory QA/QC program was well managed. Morale in the chemistry laboratory has improved during the assessment period and chemistry management was more visible. The water chemistry program and plant water quality were good.
The post accident sampling system was not fully operable and continues to be a problem. Audits were performance based and thorough.
The REMP was well managed, but one problem with calibration frequency was identified.
9307140012 930708 PDR ADOCK 05000461 G
_
.
.
.
.
,
!
l
.
I DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
H. Brophy, Chemist-Nuclear
- 0. Carter, Specialist, Radiological Engineering
- J. Cook, Vice-President, Plant Manager-l
- M. Craig, Environmental Technician
,
- L.
Everman, Director, Radiation Protection
- C.
Huttes, Administrative Assistant
!
- S..Klein, Assistant Supervisor, Chemistry
.!
- T. Leffler, Process Sampling System Engineer
- J. Lewis, Supervisor, Nuclear Programs Analysis Group
- R. Manganaro, Supervisor, Engineering Projects
'
- P. Mergen, Supervisor, Chemistry
- K. Moore, Director, Technical Department
- R. Morgenstern, Manager, Nuclear Training
.
- M. Niswander, Supervisor, Radiological Environmental
'
- J. O'Brien, Supervisor, Independent Safety Engineering Group l
- J. Palchak, Manager, Nuclear Support Services
- R. Phares, Director, Licensing
'
- M. Reandeau, Licensing Specialist
,
- J. Sipek, Supervisor, Licensing
- F. Spangenberg, Nuclear Program Strategic Change Leader i
- J. Wiesmann, Senior Chemistry Technician j
- R. Wyatt, Manager, Nuclear Assessment
,
- M. Zinsky, Chemistry Technician
!
- B. Clayton, Branch Chief, NRC
- P. Brochman, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC
,
The inspector contacted other licensee personnel during the inspection.
- Present at the Exit Meeting on June 18, 1993.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findina (IP 84750)
(Closed) Inspection Followup Item (50-461/92003-02):
In response to the post accident sampling system (PASS) problem of reactor coolant being i
drawn into the stripped gas sample vial during sample collection, the licensee agreed to analyze the situat. ion and provide Region III with a
,
letter by August 3,1992, outlining any proposed modifications to the
)
post accident sampling system.
This letter, which was received by Region III, described a modification to the sampling program which would eliminate the stripped gas sample and the two analyses performed on its contents:
hydrogen and noble gases. As these proposed changes are being submitted to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for
'
approval, and the licensee has maintained the capability to obtain the stripped gas sample, no further action will be required by Region III at this time. This item is closed.
2
..
.
_ _
_
.
.
_
.
__
__
.-
_
__
l
.
.
!
!
.
3.
Management. Oroanization. and Trainina (IP 84750)
'
Significant personnel and organizational changes have occurred in the Chemistry Department since the last inspection. The former
,
Supervisor-Chemistry has left the' utility and was replaced by an Assistant Supervisor who is a degreed chemist with over 30 years of i
,
experience in the nuclear power industry. His experience includes work
at nuclear utilities, nuclear vendors, and the navy reactor program.
He i
has considerable experience in nuclear plant chemistry and has spent the
-
previous five years in the licensee's chemistry department.
.
Two Assistant Supervisors report to the Supervisor. One Assistant
,
Supervisor is responsible for laboratory operations.
The 14 chemistry
'
technicians report to a Chemist-Nuclear who reports to the Assistant Supervisor.
Three Chemists-Nuclear report to the other Assistant Supervisor who is responsible for laboratory support. The
,
Chemists-Nuclear are well qualified in terms of training and experience.
All positions in the laboratory are filled and the 14 chemistry i
technician positions represent an increase of two positions..It j
appeared that these additional positions had removed some of the job l
stress in the laboratory.
l i
During the previous inspection (Region III Inspection Report
No. 461/92003(DRSS)), it was noted that a lack of communication between
chemistry managers and the technicians had resulted in morale problems
.
'
in the department.
Discussions with technicians during this inspection l
indicated that laboratory morale had improved and chemistry managers
were more visible and accessible to the technicians.
j No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Water Chemistry Control Proaram (IP 84750)
!
The licensee's water chemistry program is consistent with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) guidelines for the BWR Owners Group i
Guidelines. Trend charts of chemistry parameters are maintained in a computer data base with grab samples providing most of the data for i
trending.
Trend chart data is reviewed daily by chemistry management
!
and a daily report is prepared for plant management.
A review of p
,
selected charts from the previous 12 months indicated that reactor
)
i coolant chemistry parameters were within the EPRI guidelines.
l sulf ate, and conductivity levels averaged less than 2 parts per billion l
(ppb), 3 ppb, and 0.2 microsiemens/ centimeter (gS/cm) with EPRI guidelines of 15 ppb, 15 ppb, 0.2 g S/cm, respectively. Although chloride and sulf ate levels were very low, there was approximately j
40 ppb of chromate in the reactor water which contributed to the i
conductivity.
When this chrome is subjected to the neutron flux of the
core, it is activated to chrome-51. Gamma spectroscopic analyses of reactor coolant indicated that approximately 0.01 microcuries per
!
'
milliliter (uC/ml) of chrome-51 were in the reactor coolant and the level appeared to be increasing. A licensee representative stated that the source of this material was a stainless steel alloy in the fifth and
,
l
.
i
,,
-
-
-
--
.-
-
.
.
sixth feedwater heaters. While the chrome is not a corrosion problem in the reactor coolant system (RCS), it does. represent an additional source term for ALARA considerations.
Feedwater chemistry parameters were good. Conductivity averaged 0.06 pS/cm or less (theoretical limit of 0.055 pS/cm); dissolved oxygen ranged from 15-25 ppb, which is slightly below the EPRI achievable range of 20-50 ppb but well within the 10-200 ppb window. Copper was approximately 0.03 ppb, weil within the achievable limit of 0.5 ppb.
_
Iron levels ranged from 2-5 ppb, which was above the achievable level of 2 ppb but within the limit of 5 ppb. A licensee representative stated that continuous oxygen injection into the feedwater train started in February 1993 and, since then, feeowater iron levels appeared to stabilize.
This additional oxygen protects the magnetite layer which, in turn, prevents or reduces the formation and release of iron oxides.
Another source of feedwater iron is the hotwell where particulate _ iron levels exceed 10 ppb. The deep bed demineralizers (condensate polishers) do not efficiently filter this iron. The license is experimenting with a new highly cross linked ion exchange resin for the demineralizers which might provide additional filtration capability.
In addition, a plan is under investigation to install filters ahead of the condensate polishers to remove the particulate iron.
The water quality program is good. Chemistry problems, which are the result of plant design, are being addressed and solutions developed.
A comparison of boron concentrations and volumes in the standby liquid control tank, for the past 12 months, with Technical Specifications (T/S) indicated that the requirements had been met.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Chemistry Comparison Procram (IP 84750)
The inspector submitted chemistry samples to the licensee for analysis-as part of a program to evaluate the laboratory's capabilities to monitor nonradiological chemistry parameters in various plant systems with respect to regulatory and administrative requirements. These samples had been prepared and standardized for the NRC by the Analytical Chemistry Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The samples were analyzed by the licensee using routine methods and equipment.
The samples were diluted by licensee personnel in order to bring the concentrations within the ranges normally analyzed by the laboratory.
These samples were then analyzed in a manner similar to that of routine samples. The results are presented in Table 1, which also contains the criteria for agreement. These criteria are based on ORNL analyses of the standards and on the relative standard deviations (RSD) derived from the results of nuclear power plants participating in a 1986 interlaboratory comparison (Table 2.1, NUREG/CR-5442, Evaluation of Non-Radiological Water Chemistry at Power Reactors). The acceptance criteria were that the licensee's value should be within 2 Standard
_
_
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ --__ __ _
.
.
Deviations (SD) of the ORNL value for agreement and between 2 and 3 SD-for qualified agreement. A qualified agreement may indicate a bias in the assay.
The licensee analyzed eight unknowns at three concentrations each. All 24 comparisons were agreements. The licensee's performance in the chemistry comparison program was excellent.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Chemistry Ouality Assurance /0uality Control (IP 84750)
The inspector reviewed the chemistry quality assurance (QA) program which incorporated control charts, independent controls, and multiple point calibration curves. Control charts were reviewed weekly by a chemist-nuclear and an assistant supervisor. Data from selected charts was randomly scattered about the mean indicating that instrument performance was under statistical control.
Control charts were neat and provided an easy appraisal of instrument performance.
No instrument problems were observed during this review.
Licensee performance in vendor supplied laboratory cross check programs was very good. No analytical problems were evident from a review of selected data from this program. The control chart data, results from the interlaboratory cross check program, and results of the NRC chemistry comparison program indicated that the licensee's chemistry program is excellent.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Post Accident Samplina System (IP 84750)
The inspector reviewed the status of the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) and observed its operation with licensee representatives. The system was only partly functional. A containment air sample was obtained; however, a reactor coolant sample (RCS) and the stripped gas from the reactor coolant could not be obtained due to malfunctioning valves which are used for recirculation and to flush part of the sample lines with deionized water.
This part of the panel (reactor coolant)
has been inoperable since February 19, 1993.
Licensee representatives stated that a maintenance request had been written to remove the problem valves from the system, a 50.59 review was in progress, and that the work should be performed during July 1993.
Progress in restoring operability of the PASS will be followed under Inspection Followup Item (50-461/93011-01).
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Audits (IP 84750)
The inspector reviewed Audit Q38-93-03, conducted January 25 through February 5, 1993, of the Chemistry Department. The audit team reviewed
m
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
.
.
-
-.
-.
.
-
.-
L
.
.
.j laboratory operations in detail, including the interlaboratory crosscheck program; instrument repair, calibration, and control charts; procedure updates; the post accident sampling system; standby liquid.
control tank surveillances; in-line monitor testing; and technician performance, qualification, and training. ' The audit. also addressed
previous audit findings along with problems identified during the last NRC inspection of the chemistry program (RIII Inspection Report i
No. 50-461/92003(DRSS)). The auditors interviewed laboratory personnel and noted the improvements in communication within the laboratory.
l There were no major findings. This audit team was knowledgeable of the i
chemistry program and appeared to have performed a technically competent audit in the review of the chemistry program.
Audit Q38-92-24 of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
,
(REMP) was conducted September 14 through 30, 1992. The audit team
,
consisted of two licensee auditors and one outside specialist from
'
another utility. The team observed surveillances, reviewed documents, and interviewed personnel.
Sample collection was observed and the
!
qualifications of the environmental technician were verified.
The
'
qualifications and performance of the vendor laboratory that analyzed the environmental sample were reviewed. These audits were performance i
based and covered the departments' operations in adequate detail.
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
9.
Radioloaical Environmental Monitorina Program (IP 84750)
The inspector reviewed the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
!
(REMP) and the 1992 Annual Operatin, Report which appeared to comply
with the REMP requirements.
Environmental samples had been collected
and analyzed as required. Missing samples were documented, the causes
investigated, and noted in the report. No increase in background i
radiation levels were observed as a result of the operation of Clinton
'
Power Station. The land use census had been. updated and the licen'see I
had planted two small gardens within the owner controlled area to i
provide additional vegetation for environmental sampling.
Licensee personnel collect all samples and use a vendor laboratory for environmental analyses.
,
A tour of the air sampling stations was conducted with the REMP technician responsible for sample collection. The technician replaced
.
air particulate and charcoal filter media, checked that the flowmeter delivered the required flow rate. and tested the filter train for air in-leakage.
The equipment was in good condition. The inspector noted to licensee representatives that there was some confusion over required i
calibration frequency of the air sampler flowmeters.
Procedure CPS
No. 9911.70, Radiological Environmental Surveillance Airborne i
Radiciodine and Particulate Monitoring, Revision 30, March 6,1992, i
stated that " Normal calibration frequency for the rotameter and vacuum gauge used in this procedure is at least once every six months." A
review of calibration records in the Calibration and Instrument (C&I)
'
Group indicated that the flowmeters were calibrated annually.
When this
i I
, _ _
__
.. _., -.
..-.
i
!
.
.
l was discussed with licensee representatives, REMP personnel were not
-
aware of the discrepancy between the procedure and actual practice of l
the C&l Group.
Licensee representatives, after contacting the vendor,
'
stated that the instrument manufacturer recommended an annual calibration based on the licensee's use of the flowmeters. The.
.
procedure was immediately changed, eliminating the 6 month calibration frequency, and retained the annual calibration of the C&I Group.
,
'
Although the REMP appeared to be operating satisfactory, the lack of understanding of instrument calibration frequencies represented a-
,
weakness in the program.
{
No violations or deviations were identified.
j 10.
Inspection Followuo Items
Inspection Followup Items (IFI) are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and r
which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both, i
Two IFIs are discussed in Sections 2 and 7.
11.
Exit Interview
i The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee
[
representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on-
!
June 18, 1993. The inspector discussed the Inspection Followup Items in
.j Sections 2 and 7, licensee performance in the chemistry comparison i
program along with observations on laboratory quality assurance, the
!
water chemistry program, and the REMP. During the exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed during the inspection.
Licensee representatives did not identify any such
. '
documents or processes as proprietary.
,
!
Attachment: Table 1, Chemistry Comparison i
Results, 2nd Quarter 1993 i
[
i
!
,
,
!
r
-
I
.
i
!
l t
i
i
!
i
,
h
,_
.
,-
..
-
_.
.
- -
- - - - -
.
..
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ __ _ ___ _ __
-
..
.
5-TABLE 1 Nonradiological Chemistry Comparisons Results Clinton Nuclear Power Station June 15-18, 1993 I
3
5 Analyte Method Conc Ratio Acceptance Ranges Result i 2RSD i 3RSD PlLb Chloride A
1.025 0.933-1.067 0.900-1.100 A
B
1.072 0.919-1.081 0.887-1.113 A
C
1.051 0.926-1.074 0.895-1.105 A
Sul f ate A
1.040 0.895-1.105 0.842-1.158 A
B
1.053 0.895-1.105 0.868-1.132 A
C
1.044 0.900-1.100 0.867-1.133 A
Iron G
AA/FL 2000 0.990 0.904-1.096 0.854-1.146 A
H 2000 0.975 0.903-1.097 0.857-1.143 A
2000 0.962 0.903-1.097 0.855-1.145 A
Copper G
AA/FL 2000 0.985 0.904-1.095 0.859-1.141 A
H 2000 0.973 0.904-1.096 0.857-1.143 A
I I
2000 0.972 0.904-1.096 0.857-1.143 A
Nickel G
AA/FL 2000 0.995 0.936-1.064 0.906-1.094 A
H 2000 0.970 0.938-1.062 0.908-1.092 A
2000 0.965 0.938-1.062 0.907-1.093 A
Chromium G
AA/FL 2000 1.010 0.905-1.095 0.855-1.145 A
H 2000 0.983 0.903-1.097 0.854-1.146 A
I 2000 0.985 0.903-1.097 0.853-1.147 A
S Spec
0.982 0.906-1.094 0.859-1.141 A
Silica T
0.945 0.906-1.094 0.859-1.141 A
U
1.018 0.909-1.091 0.860-1.136 A
PAm Boron D
Titr 1000 0.992 0.979-1.021 0.968-1.032 A
E 1500 0.996 0.979-1.021 0.968-1.032 A
F 1200 1.003 0.979-1.021 0.968-1.032 A
l
-__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ ___
-
- _ -. -
.
. - -
-
-
-
_. - _
,
F
P.O l
1.
Methods: Titr - Titration
,
- lon Chromatography
.
'
'
' Spec - Ultraviolet / Visible Spectrophotometry
.
AA/FL _ Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry l
Flame
!
-
2.
Conc: Approximate concentration analyzed.
,
3.
Ratio of Licensee mean value to NRC mean value.
l 4.
The relative standard deviations (RSD) in the sixth and seventh columns
represents the coefficient of variation obtained from averaging licensee
!
'
data from the preceding cycle (Table 2.1 of NUREG/CR-5244). A result is considered to be in agreement if it falls within the 2 SD range; a qualified agreement if it lies outside i2 SD, but within l3 SD; and in disagreement if it is outside the 3 SD range.
.
'
5.
Result:
A = Agreement: Licensee value_is within 2 SDs of the NRC mean value.
A+ = Qualified agreement, licensee is between 2 and 3-SDs of i
the NRC value.
,
D = Disagreement: licensee value is outside 3 SDs.
I
.
?
i I
i i
$
i
.
i'
j
i i
-
.
.
..
-
_ _.
-,