Text

Forwards Insp Rept 50-461/98-07 on 980323-27 & Notice of Violation Re Failure of Staff to Perform Adequate Safety Evaluation for Discrepancy Between Asbuilt Facility
	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: ML20217F424; ML20217F443; ML20217F461;
References
	50-461-98-07, 50-461-98-7, EA-98-214, NUDOCS 9804280162
	Download: ML20217F424 (6)
	v • d • e

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 ,

l

'

SUBJECT: NRC RADIATION PROTECTION INSPECTION REPORT 50-461/98007(DRS)

AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION

l

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

PDR ADOCn 05000461

G PDR

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: 1. Notice of Violation

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

!

.

/

'

!

l

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: 1. Notice of Violation

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 co y

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 uti P ~

@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: 1. Notice of Violation

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 l

Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission I

1

l

'

1

,

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 -

,

'/[b[

l

Rlli PRRw/ nel ~ . _

.,PUBLIC I w/ encl.; ,

Docket Fil w/enci / i

/

GREENG

IEO (E-Mail)

! DOCDESK (E-Mail)

!

,

%

i

1

/ ,

/

T

38002i

!

ML20217F424

Text

Navigation menu

Search