ML19325E509
| ML19325E509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1989 |
| From: | Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325E506 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-89-29, NUDOCS 8911070312 | |
| Download: ML19325E509 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000461/1989029
Text
m
-
'q,
y,
.
gp ' .
,
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
REGION III
'
s
Report tio. 50-461/89029(DR$$)
Docket No. 50-461
License No NPF-62
e
Licensee:
Illinois Power Company
500 South 27th Street
Decatur. Il
62525
Facility Name: Clinton Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1
Inspection At: Clinton Site, Clinton, Illinois
.
Inspection Conducted:
September 19-22 and October 11-12, 1989
,
d.
6.b
.
Inspectors: A.G.danusta
8/84
7//. A k = &
Approved By:
M.C. Schumacher, Chief
A
Wadiological Controls and
Date
Chemistry St.ction
,
.
Inspection Summary
Inspection on September 19-22 and G.+.ober 11-12, 1989
,
' (Report No. 50-461/89029(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection of confirmatory measurements
and radiological environmental monitoring includ'.ng: review of an Open Item
(IP 92701); audits and appraisals; changes in organization, equipment,
facilities and instrumentation; implementation of the quality assurance and
confirmatory measurements program; postaccident sample analyses; implementation
i
of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Progiam (REMP) and implementation
,
of the REMP quality assurance program (IP 84750).
'
Results:
Confirmatory measurements sample results during this inspection were
very good as were the results of analyses of vendor cross-check samples
i
performed since the last inspection. One violation (failure to perform
,
required Post Accident Sampling System Preventive Maintenance Tests and
l
Chemistry Maintenance Item Tests since April 1987 in accordance with Technical Specification 6.8.4.c - Section 5) and no deviations were noted.
I
i
89110703'2 891031
ADO 6K 05000461
0
,
.
F:1
_
P
.
t
..
.
<
r
.
DETAILS
I
[
'
i
1.
_ Persons Contacted
!
i
- K. Baker, Supervtsor. I&E Interface
}
J. Brownell, Project Specialist Licensing
R., Campbell, Manager, QA
i
J. Cook, Manager, CPS
,
L
S. Daniel, Supervisor, Che- ;try
!.
R. DeLong,' Supervisor Radiation Protection Engineericig
!
R. Freeman, Manager, Nuclear Station Engineering Department
!
5. Hall, Director, Nuclear Program Assessment Group
.
C. Harper, Chemist, Nuclear
[
[
D. Holtzscher, Acting Manager, Licensing and Safety
i
A. Lones, Chemist, Nuclear
,
J. Lyons, Senior Chemistry Technician
'
,
J. Mansker, Director, Planning and Programniing
P. Mergen, Assistant Supervisor Chemistry, Lab Operations
G. Miller, Director, Outage Maintenance
- #R. Morgenstern, Director, Plant Technicial
,
J. Niswander, Acting Director, Plant Radiation Protection
- P. Otis, Assistant Supervisor Chemistry, Support
J. Palmer, Director, Maintenance and Technical Training
J. Perry, Assistant Vice President
D. Seiller, Radiation Protection Technician
J. Weaver, Director, Licensing
- J. Withrow, Supervisor, Audits
- P. Brockman, NRC Senior Resident Inspector
5. Ray, NRC Resident Inspector
-
- Present at the Exit Meeting or September 22, 1989
- Present at the Exit Meeting on October 12, 1989
Other plant personnel were also contacted during this inspection.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (IP 92701)
a.
(Cloted) Open item (No. 50-461/88015-01):
Licensee to analy7e a liquid sampic for gross beta, H-3 Sr-89, Sr-90
and Fe-55 and report the re J1ts to Region IM. The results of the
comparisons are contained in Tab'e 2; the comparison criteria in
Attachment 1.
Disagreements were noted for gross beta, Sr-89 and
No reason for the disagreements could be found.
Sr-90 was
not comparea because of poor statistics.
Further sampling is
discussed in Section 4.
2
,
--.
.
'
-
.,
'
L
.
3.
fhanges in Organization, Equipment, Facilities and Instrumentation
(IP 84750)
!
.
There wc"i no changes in the management structure of the Chemistry
Departn....t since the last inspection. One of two Assistant Chemistry
?
Supervisors (ACS) was replaced due to a voluntary termination. Each ACS
(
answers to the Supervisor-Chemistry who reports to the Ofrector plant
i
Ter.hnical. The ACS-Support supervises one Engineer and currently has one
'
Staff vacancy. The ACS-Leb Operations supervises two Chemists-Nuclear who
,
direct a compliment of 12 technicians (one current vacancy). A new
'
rotational schedule is in use which has reduced the amount of overtime
required for the Chemistry group.
Staffing appears to be adequate to
perform routine chemistry functions.
,
t
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Confirmatory iteasurement (IP 84750)
a.
Sample Split
Six samples (air particulate, charcoal, charcoal spike, gas, reactor
.
coolant and liquid waste) were analyzed for gamma emitting isotspes
!
by the licensee and in the Pegion 111 Mobile Laboratory on site.
Comparisons were made on all detectors in both the Chemistry and
i
the Radiation Protection count rooms. Results of the sample
comparisons are given in Tabic 1; the comparison criteria are given
in Attachment 1.
The licensee achieved all agreements out of 48
comparisons.
The charcoal filter had no detectable activity.
To verify this
i
geometry the licensee's charcoal standard was counted as an unknown
'
by both the licensee and the NRC; agreement n s achived. A portion
of the liquid waste sample collected during this inspection will be
i
analyzed for gross beta. H-3 Sr-89. Sr-90 and Fe-55 by the licensee
and the results reported to Region III for comparison with an analysis
'
by the NRC Peference Laboratory on a split of the same sample.
Because the samp e has low activity which may result in poor
statistics the inspector will alto have a spiked liquid sample sent
to the licensee for analysis to te resolve previous disagreements
(Section 2) and verify the licensee's capability to accurately
i
quantify beta emitters.
(0 pen Item No. 50-461/88029-01)
!
b.
Audits
The inspector reviewed Chemistry audit Q38-99-13, Teledyne Isotope
'
Quality Assurance Program audit Q36-88-38 and auditor qualifications.
The auditors observed field functions which placed emphasic on
obcerving performance. A Chemistry audi+. finding was not applicable
to this inspection.
Teledyne's responses when closed out were
adequate. The Quality Assurance Department only has four auditors
I
owing to a layoff and in the process lost its most chemistry qualified
auditor by transter to another group. Licensee records indicate
3
--
3
.
-
,
,
"
i
!
'
..
.
l
L
that the current lead auditor for chemistry has limited education in
i
Chemistry; however, the licensee routir.ely uses specialists not
affiliated with the Chemistry Department for technicial assistance.
The inspector discussed the importance of chemistry training for
auditors. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments.
,
I
,uality Assurance
Q
c.
,
The inspector reviewed the radinactivity measurements laboratory
'
,
quality issurance program including physical facilities and
laboratory operations.
Housekeeping w$s good and is probably a direct
result of the weekly laboratory cleanup by the technicians which the
inspector observed.
Laboratory and counting room work space is above
the norm. Chemistry Technicians were observed taking appropriate
precautions when handling radioactive materials. The licensee
participates in an intercomparison cross-check program with an outside
vendor.
The inspector examined the third quarter 1988 results thy wgh
and including the second quarter of 1989. There were no disagreements
for results of samples analyzed on site. Daily implementation of the
instrume1t quality control program was examined. Daily checks for
all count room equipment was performed as required and control charts
i
are generated daily by hand for non-computer based equipment, and
retrieved weekly for those instruments that are computer based.
No violations or deviations were identified
5.
P_ost Accident Sampling (IP 84750)
The inspector discussed the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) and its
operation with the licensee and observed tt.e cellection of a mock sample
during an emergency exercise.
The sample, a dilute primary coolant was
collected by two chemistry personnel while a Radiation Protection
t
Technician provided radiation monitoring during the operation.
The PASS p.ogram is defined in CPS No. 1890.30 Revision 2 in accordarce
with Technical Specification 6.8.4.c which requires, in part, the inclusion
of provisions for maintenance of sampling and analysis equipment. When the
inspector attempted to re'.*iew results of Section 6.0 of CPS 1890.30,
" Maintenance of Sample and Analysis Equipment," the licensee determined
,
that during transfer of responsibilities for maintenance of plant process
!
monitoring eqi.'pment, Preventive Maintenance (PM) was inadvertently
omitted for the liquid sample gamma and the gas sample gamma PASS monitors.
Further, when established PASS PMs were inccrporated f nto a Chemistry
-
coecklist . the pf. monitor requirement was overlooked.
The gamma monitors
are on an 18 month frequency and the pH monitor is on a weekly frequency.
.
Since April 1987, when the plant was issued an operating license, routine
maintenance on the gamma and tne pH mor.itors has not been performed in
accordance with Sections 6,1.1 and 6.1.2 which is an item of noncomplian.e
with respect to Technical Specification 6.8.4.c.
(Violation No. 50-461/890?9-02)
The inspector saw training records of Chemistry Technicians
that have received overview training on the PASS.
4
-- .
--
i
r
.
V
-
,
,
,
One violation was identified.
l-
!
,
, Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP)(IP 84750)
6.
>
b~
t
The inspector reviewed the 1988 Annual Environmental Report. The Report
t
complies with the REMP requirements. All required samples were collected
L
<
'
and analyzed except as noted in the report. The results do not indicate
f
any significant contribution to the environmet.t due to plant operation.
i
,
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Oren Items
Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which
{
will be reviewed turther by the inspector, and which involve some action
l
on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. An Open Item disclosed during
'
the inspection is discussed in Section 4.a.
l
8.
Exit Interview
I
The scope and findings of the inspection were reviewed with licensee
representatives (Section 1) on September 22, 1989, at which time the
,
inspector discussed the following.
a, sample split results
[
b. audits
'
c. training for auditors in Chemistry
d. the PASS system preventive maintenance
i
,
A subscquent examination ef tht. FASS (Section 5) which revealed an item
l
of ncncornpliance was discussed with licensee represertatives (Section 1)
j
on October 12, 1989.
,
i
During tne exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely informational
'
content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes
reviewed by the inspector during the inspection.
Licensee representatives
,
did not identify any such documents or preces,ses as proprietary.
[
i
Attachments:
1.
Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements
[
Program Results, 3rd Quarter 1989
2.
Attachment 1, Criteria for Comparing
Radiological Measuremerits
-
3.
Table 2, Confirmatory Measurements
,
Program Results, 3rd Quarter 1988
'
t
I
!
!
5
l
,
. _ _ - , _ - . . , _ -
- - .
,
I
!
'
-
.
.
- .
,
9
TABLE 1
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
a
OFFICE OF IitSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
L
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
'
FACILITY: CLINTON
FOR THE 3 OUARTER OF 1999
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEEINRC----
}
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE RFSULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
T
'
L WASTE
5.4E-07
8.3E-08
3.5E-07
4.6E-08
6.6E-01
6.5E 00
A
CH M. A
PRIMARY
CR-51
9.8E-03
1.2E-04
9.dE-03
4.3E-05
9. 8F.-01
7.9E 01
A
CH H.3
AS-76
1.9E-04
9.9E-06
1.3E-04
3.7E-06
C.4E-01
1.9E 01
A
I-132
1.8E-04
1.1E-05
1.8E-04
4.6E-05
9.7E-01
1.7E 01
A
!
I-133
4.8E-05
4.5E-06
i.7E-05
1.5E-06
9.7E-01
1.1E 01
A
!
I-134
5.0E-04
3.7E-05
5.9E-04
2.4E-09
1.2E 00
1.3E 01
(
I-135
1.2E-04
1.8E-05
1.4E-04
6.0E-06
1.2E 00
6.3E 00
A
i
C SPIKED CO-57
3.8E-02
3.7E-04
4.5E-02
3.9E-04
1.2E 00
1.0E 02
A
g g g.a
2.4E-01
1.6E-03
2.3E-01
1.5E-03
9.8E-01
1.5E O2
A
HG-203
1.7E-02
4.3E-04
1.9E-02
4.3E-04
1.1E 00
4.1E 01
A
Y-88
1.5E-01
1.4E-03
1.5E-01
1.3E-03
1.OE 00
1.1E O2
A
i
SN-113
9.OE-02
9.4E-04
9.1E-02
8.,E-04
1.OE 00
9.6E 01
A
2.OE-01
1.3E-0*
1.9E-01
1.2E-03
9.7E-01
1.5E 02
A
i
CE-139
4.5E-02
4.1E-04
4.9E-02
3.7E-04
1.1E 00
1.1E 02
A
l
s
L WASTE
3.7E-07
9.2E-08
2.3E-07
3.8E-08
6.1E-01
4.OE 00
A
CHH-B
P FILTER CR-51
3.9E-12
3.4E-13
3.3E-12
2.GE-13
8.4E-01
1.2E 01
A
CHM.A
7.8E-14
8.1E-14
2.6E-14
1.OE 00
2.4E 00
A
1.7E-13
4.4E-14
1.0E-13
3.6E-14
5.8E-01
4.OE 00
A
L WASTE
4.OE-07
1.0E-07
2.7E-07
3.4E-08
6.6E-01
4.OE 00
A
!
R P. A
'
PRIMARY
CR-51
9.9E-03
1.1E-0'
8.6E-03
4.2E-05
8.7E-01
9.2E 4'?
A
R p. A
8.1E-06
2.8E-06
5.7E-06
8.8E-07
7.1E-01
2.9E 00
A
AS-76
1.2E-04
1.2E-05
1.7E-04
3.9E-06
1.4E 00
9.8E 00
6
'
I-132
2.1E-04
1.3E-05
1.8E-04
5.7E-06
S.6E-01
1.6E 01
A
I-133
6.0E-05
4.2E-06
4.5E-05
1.6E-06
7.5E-01
1.4E 01
A
'
I-134
S.4E-04
6.9E-05
4.9E-04
4.4E-05
9.1E-01
7.8E 00
A
2.0E-04
2.4E-05
1.4E-04
8.1E-06
6.9E-01
G.4E 00
A
.
t
T TEST RESULTS
A= AGREEMENT
D= DISAGREEMENT
c= CRITERIA RELAXED
N=NO COMPARISON
~
m
c
.
,
,
.
i.
.
,f
A
It
!
l
!
TABLE 1
,
'I $ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
,
OFFICF OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
!
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITY: CLINTON
FOR THE 3 OUARTER OF 1989
,
,
j
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEEINRC----
-_ .-
'
SAMPLE
ISOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
T
OFF GAR
KR-85M
3.7E-05
4.9E-06
8.7E-05
5.9E-06
1.OE 00
1.8E 01
A
g g g .a
KR-87
4.7E-04
3.7E 05
5.2E-04
2.1E-05
1.1E 00
1.3E 01
A
XE-135
2.7E-04
6. 3trO6
2.7E-04
1.1E-05
1.OE 00
4.3E 01
A
P FILTER CR-51
3.9E-12
3.4E-13
2.6E-12
1.6E-13
6.6E-01
1.2E 01
A
g p. A
7.8E-14
3.2E-14
9.9E-14
1.9E-14
1.3E 00
2.4E 00
A
,
1.7E-13
4.4E-14
1.5E-13
2.2E-14
8.9E-01
4.0E 00
A
C SPIKED CO-57
3. 8E-O'!
3.7E-04
4.7E-02
2.4E-04
1.2E 00
1.OE O2
A
e p.3
2.4E-01
1.6E-03
2.4E-01
9.7E-04
1.OE 00
1.5E 02
A
HG-203
1. 7E-0:
4.3E-04
1.8E-02
2.6E-04
1.OE 00
4.1E 01
A
Y-G8
1.5E-01
1.4E-03
1.6E-01
9.1E-04
1.OE 00
1.1E O2
A
SN-113
9. OE- 02
9.4E-04
9.3E-02
5.3E-04
1.OE 00 9.6E 01
A
(
2.OE-01
1.3E-03
2.OE-01
7.8E-04
1.0E 00
1.5E O2
A
CE-139
4.SE-02
4.1E-04
5.OE-02
2.7E-04
1.1E 00
1.1E O2
A
OFF GN
KR-85M
8.7E-05
4.9E-06
8.-4E-05
5.7E-06
9.9E-01
1.GE 01
A
cun.4
KR-87
4'.7E-04
3.7E-05
3.9E-04
3.6E-05
8.3E-01
1.3E 01
A
KR-88
3.OE-04
2.0E-05
3.0E-04
1.9E-05
1.0E 00
1.5E 01
A
1.9E-05
4.9E-06
1.5E-05
6.1E-06
7.4E-01
4.OE 00
A
XE-135
2.7E-04
6.3E-06
2.6E-04
6.1E-06
9.5E-01
4.3E 01
A
"
L WASTE
4.OE-07
1.OE-07
2.SE-07
3.4E-08
6.3E-01
4.OE 00
A
RP.9
P FILTER CR-51
3.9E-12
3.4E-13
2.9E-12
1.4E-13
7.4E-01
1.2E 01
A
g p. 3
7.GE-14
3.2E-14
7.OE-14
1.6E-14
8.9E-01
2.4E 00
A
,
1.7E-13
4.4E-14
1.1E-13
2.1E-14
6.5E-01
4.0E 00
A
Y TEST RESULTS
C= AGREEMENT
!
D=DICAGREEMENT
C= CRITERIA RELAXED
NY:lO COMPARISON
1
-2-
j
.
1,
ATTACHMENT 1
.
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
,
This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability tests
,
and verification measurements. The criteria are based on an empirical
relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this
program.
In these criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the com-
parison of the NRC's value to its associated one sigma uncertainty. As that
'
ratio, referred to in this program as " Resolution", increases, the acceptability
i
of a licensee's measurement should be more selective. Conversely, poorer
agreement should be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases. The
values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures to
maintain statistical consistency with the number of significant figures reported
by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed
category of acceptance.
1
RESOLUTION
RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE
Agreement
<3
No Comparison
2.5
j
2,3 and
<4
0.4
-
2.0
2,4 and
<8
0.5
-
1.67
JJ 6nd
<16
0.6
-
, 16 and
<51
0.75 - 1.33
<
>
251 and
<200
0.80 -
1.25
l
2200
0.85 - 1.18
i
l
l
l
Some discrepancies may result from the use of different equipment, techniques.
l'
'
and for some specific nuclides. These may be factored into the acceptance
crMeria and identified on the data sheet.
!
l
l
,
,
-T
gy
~V:
_- -
--
,
o
o
>
..
.
,
.:"
-l
'
TABL E 2
h-
U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
'
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM
FACILITYt CLINTON
,
FOR THE 3 OUARTER OF 1988
NRC-------
LICENSEE----
---LICENSEEINRC----
SAMPLE-
3SOTOPE RESULT
ERROR
RESULT
ERROR
RATIO
T
L WASTE
G-BETA
1.8E-06
8.0E-08
2.9E-06
2.4E-07
1.6E 001 2.2E 01
D
0.2E-04
1.2E-05
8.7E-04
5.4E-07
1.1E 00
6.8E 01
.A
SR-89
1.6E-08
9.0E-09
0.0E-01
0.0E-01
0.0E-01
1.8E 00
D
1.1E-07
5.0E-08
2.2E-06
1.0E-07
2.0E 01. 2.2E 00
D
T. TEST'RESULTS8
A=AGREEM NT
D= DISAGREEMENT.
- = CRITERIA RELAXED
1
N=NO COMPARISON
.
%
.
'k
4
E
P
b
>