ML20217F424
| ML20217F424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1998 |
| From: | Grobe J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Walter MacFarland ILLINOIS POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217F429 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-98-07, 50-461-98-7, EA-98-214, NUDOCS 9804280162 | |
| Download: ML20217F424 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000461/1998007
Text
I
1
1.
!
April 22,
1998
EA 98-214
Mr. Walter G. MacFarland IV
Senior Vice President
Clinton Power Station
Illinois Power Company
Mail Code V-275
)
P. O. Box 678
l
Clinton,IL 61727
,
'
SUBJECT:
NRC RADIATION PROTECTION INSPECTION REPORT 50-461/98007(DRS)
Dear Mr. MacFarland:
j
On March 27,1998, the NRC completed an inspection at your Clinton Nuclear Power Station.
The enclosed report presents the results of this inspection.
The inspection was an examination of activities conducted under your license as they relate to
radiation safety and to compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the
conditions of your license. The inspection consisted of a selective examination of procgdures
and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel. Specifically, the
inspection focussed on calibrations and functional tests of the area and process radiation
j
monitoring system; a February 4,1998, malfunction of a high range calibrator; and the follow-up
!
of previous inspection findings.
We observed that your staff properly calibrated and tested area and process radiation monitors,
as required by your Technical Specifications, Operations Requirements Manual, and Offsite
,
Dose Calculation Manual. Although your staff routinely relied on applicable extensions to the
{
stated performance frequencies to complete these required surveillances, recent
communication of management's expectations and additional system engineering involvement
in the work planning process appears to have affected a recent reduction of the routine use of
these extensions. Your staff also performed a comprehensive review of the design basis
'
requirements of the area and process radiation monitoring system and developed a
modification to address operability problems with the control room console, while incorporating
all of the design objectives and recommendations. However, we identified that tne radiation
protection staff did not effectively identify and resolve an anomalous radiation monitor
indication.
We also observed effective identification of problems; however, the outcome and resolution of
j
these assessments was sometimes not as effective. For example, we recognized the
thoroughness of your staff's self-assessment of a malfunction of a high range calibrator, but the
crew's initial decision to continue using the device to finish the activity demonstrated a
!
9804280162 980422
ADOCn 05000461
G
1
L
]
.
.
W. MacFarland
2
weakness in safety focus. Further, the Irispectors noted a recently identified problem in another
calibration procedure that the staff did not effectively resolve. Radiological hazards at the site
were property identified and controlled; however, access to safety related equipment was
encumbered by a significant number of contaminated areas.
A violation of NRC requirements was identified during this inspection. Specifically, we identified
that your staff did not perform an adequate safety evaluation for a discrepancy between the as-
built facility and the description of the facility in the Updated Safety Analysis Report concerning
radiation monitor locations. Although the discrepancy did not appear to be an unreviewed
safety question, the NRC is concerned about the quality of the evaluation and the thoroughness
of your staff's review. Since the safety evaluation was performed as part of the corrective
actions for another violation of NRC requirements, the NRC-identified deficiencies in the safety
evaluation also raise concerns related to the thoroughness of the original actions.
The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and the circumstances
surrounding it are described in detail in the enclosed report. Please note that you are required
to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when
preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether
further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its
enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
Original Signed by John A. Grobe
John A. Grobe, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket No. 50-461
License No. NPF-62
Enclosures:
2. Inspection Report 50-461/98007(DRS)
See Attached Distribution
l
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\DRS\\CLl98007.DRS
(SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE)
f
To receive a copy of this document. Indicate in the box: "C" = Co y w/o att/enci *E" o Copy wraft/enci "N" = No co y
OFFICE
Rill
l
Rlli
l
Rill
l
Rlli
Rillad
NAME
SOrth
GShear
TKozak
HBClayton
Jdr4R
DATE
04/ /98
04/ /98
04/ /98
04/ /98
04/4308
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
!
!
.
/
'
W. MacFarland
2
i
!
weakness in safety focus. Further, the inspectors noted a recently identified problem in another
calibration procedure that the staff did not effectively resolve. Radiological hazards at the site
were properly identified and controlled; however, access to safety related equipment was
. encumbered by significant numbers of contaminated areas.
A violation of NRC requirements was identified during this inspection. Specifically, we identified
that your staff did not perform an adequate safety evaluation for a discrepancy between the as+
built facility and the description of the facility in the Updated Safety Analysis Report concerning
radiation monitor locations. Although the discrepancy did not appear to be an unreviewed
safety question, the NRC is concemed about the quality of the evaluation and the thoroughness
of your staff's review. Since the safety evaluation was performed as part of the corrective
actions for another violation of NRC requirements, the NRC-identified deficiencies in the safety
evaluation also raise concems related to the thoroughness of the original actions.
The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and the circumstances
surrounding it are described in detailin the enclosed report. Please note that you are required
to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when
preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether
further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements,
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its
enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have conceming this inspection.
Sincerely,
1
John A. Grobe, Director
{
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket No. 50-461
License No. NPF-62
Enclosures:
2. Inspection Report 50-461/98007(DRS)
See Attached Distribution
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\DRS\\CLl98007.DRS
(SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE)
To receive a cop r of this document, Indicato in the bor: "C" e Co )y w/o att/enct "E" = Copy w/att/enci "N" = No coy
OFFICE
Rlli
Rill
l
Rlli
l
Rlli
Rlli
l
,
NAME
SOrth
GShear
TKozak
HBClayto6'.FJGr6BC
DATE
04/ /98
04/ /98
04/ /98
04/tP/98 U
04/ /98
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY t LW ut P ~
i
@ik
j
1
.
'
Mr. W. MacFarland
2
weakness in safety focus, in addition, your staff recently identified and corrected calibration
procedures to address a problem with the trip setpoints of the main steam line radiation
monitors; however, previous actions in 1990 failed to fully assess the deficiency and correct the
problem. Further, the inspectors noted a recently identified problem in another calibration
procedure that the staff did not effectively resolve. Radiological hazards at the site were
properly identified and controlled; however, access to safety related equipment was
encumbered by significant numbers of contaminated areas.
We also identified a violation of NRC requirements during this inspection. Specifically, we
identified that your staff did not perform an adequate safety evaluation for a discrepancy
between the as-built facility and the description of the facility in the Updated Safety Analysis
Report conceming radiation monitor locations. Although the discrepancy did not appear to be
an unreviewed safety question, the NRC is concemed about the quality of the evaluation and
the thoroughness of your staff's review. Since the safety evWaation was performed as part of
the corrective actions for another violation of NRC require its, the NRC identified deficiencies
in the safety evaluation also raise concems related to the i s oughness of the original
corrective actions.
The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and the circumstances
surrounding it are described in detailin the enclosed report. Please note that you are required
to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when
preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether
further enforcement action is necessary t ensure compliance with regulatory requirements,
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its
enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
John A. Grobe, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket No. 50-461
License No. NPF-62
Enclosures:
2. Inspection Report 50-461/98007(DRS)
See Attached Distribution
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\DRS\\CLl98007.DRS
To receive a cop r of this document, Indiente in the box: "C" = Co >y w/o attlenci *E* = Copy wlatt/enci *N* e No cog
OFFICE
Rill
lE Rlli
l6 Rlli
},
Rill
l
Rill
l
NAME
SOrth tat L
GShear ML TKozak M/ HBClayton
JGrobe
DATE
04/n/98"
04/t1/98 " k 04/[Y98
I"
04/ /98
04/ /98
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
.
.
W. MacFarland
3
cc w/encis:
G. Hunger, Station Manager
R. Phares, Manager, Nuclear Safety
and Performance improvement
J. Sipek, Director - Licensing
Nathan Schloss, Economist
Office of the Attomey General
>
G. Stramback, Regulatory Licensing
Services Project Manager
General Electric Company
Chairman, DeWitt County Board
State Liaison Officer
Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission
'
1
,
l
<
!
'
l
l
l
i
?.
,
- 4
W. MacFarland
4
Distribution:
Project Mgr, NRR w/enci-
A. Beach w/enci
J Caldwellw/enct
B. Clayton w/ encl
SRI Clinton w/enci
DRP w/enci
TSS w/ enc!
DRS (2) w/e I
-
.,PUBLIC I
w/ encl.; '/[b[
,
l
Rlli PRRw/ nel ~ . _
,
Docket Fil w/enci
/
i
/
GREENG
IEO (E-Mail)
!
DOCDESK (E-Mail)
!
,
,
%
i
1
/
,
/
T
38002i
- ---
-