IR 05000400/1988007
| ML18005A410 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1988 |
| From: | Hughey C, Kahle J, Ross W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18005A409 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-88-07, 50-400-88-7, NUDOCS 8805030097 | |
| Download: ML18005A410 (16) | |
Text
~gR RCCII "fp0
- " 'iQLi =-.( i
~ ~br
~
C,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 Report No.:
50-400/88-07 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company P. 0.
Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Docket No.:
50-400 Facility Name:
Shearon Harris License No.:
NPF-63 Inspection Conducted:
March 28-31, 1988 Inspector ;
M<~
.
Ross Da e S'gned C
.
Hughey I
Accompanying P
onnel:
J.
B. Kahle r
Approved by:
~
B. Kahle, Sec ion Chief 0'vision of Radiation Safety and Safeguards D
e igned D
e igned SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the area of plant chemistry.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
PLlR 030097 880402
K
~000400 DCO
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
"N. Baker, QA Specialist J.
Harness, Plant General Manage~
"S. Johnson, Laboratory Supervisor, Enviroqmental and Radiological Control (E&RC)
T. Johnson, Chemist, E&RC J. Johnston, Chemistry Technician, E&RC T. Lentz, Technical Support Supervisor H. Lipa, Chemistry Supervisor, E&RC B. McKenzey, Chemistry Specialist, E&RC
"C. Rose, QA Supervisor B. Sears, Laboratory Supervisor, E&RC
"J. Sipp, Manager, E&RC
"D. Tibbitts, Director, Regulatory Compliance
"M. Wallace, Senior Specialist Regulatory Compliance L. Woods, Technical Support Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, security office members, and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
"G. Maxwell
"Attended exit interview 2..
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 31, 1988, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detai
the inspection findings listed below.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
Plant Chemistry (79701)
a.
General" At the time of thi s inspection, the Shearon Harri s facility was operating at 90% power.
This was the first inspection in the area of
plant chemistry since the plant went commercial in May 1987.
Several short shutdowns occurred during July, August, and September 1987.
Shutdowns of a longer duration occurred in October 1987 and March 1988 because of mechanical damage to the main condenser tubes.
b.
Balance of Plant The inspectors, through an audit of chemistry control data and discussions with cognizant plant personnel, reviewed the effectiveness of the major components of the secondary system to maintain plant chemistry within the guidelines recommended by the Steam Generator Owners'roup (SGOG).
(1)
Main Condenser (a)
Air Inleakage Because of continuing problems with air inleakage (20-40 scfm, above water line),
a technician had been assigned full time to cyclically monitor approximately 800 possible sources of inleakage.
Using helium leak detection equipment, about 150 possible sources per month could be monitored.
The licensee suspected turbine gland seals to be a large source of the air inleakage.
The goal of 5 scfm (EPRI Guidelines)
had not been met consistently at the time of the inspection.
Low dissolved oxygen concentrations in the condensate pump discharge (5+2 ppb)
confirmed, however, that the air inleakage was almost totally above the water line of the hotwell.
(b)
Mechanical Damage of Condenser Tubes During October 1987, a loose part (flange from a feed pump recirculation line) caused damage to the main condenser and required the plugging of 13 tubes.
During March 1988, failure of the stainless-steel low-pressure turbine expansion bellows resulted in 19 tubes being defensively plugged.
During both incidents the deep bed condensate polishing system prevented ingress of contaminants into the steam generators.
Visual examination of the condenser and tubes while the tubes were being plugged revealed no corrosion problems.
(c)
Hotwell Chemistry The copper/nickel alloy condenser tubes are mechanically rolled into double tube sheets at both ends.
The areas between the tube sheets are pressurized with demineralized water.
This design provides a
double barrier against circulating water contamination of the condensate.
Under stable plant conditions hotwell (condensate)
chemistry (as
sampled at the condensate pumps discharges)
had been very good.
Normal average values were:
Cation conductivity - 0.08 uS Dissolved oxygen -
5 + 2 ppb pH - 9.0 + O. 1 Sodium 0.2 ppb (2)
Condensate Cleanup System (a)
System Operati on The condensate cleanup system consists of 6 deep bed demineralizer vessels.
After a resin bed (charge)
in a
vessel is depleted, it is sluiced to separate tanks to be regenerated.
Normally 5 beds are in service with one in standby.
The system is operated by Radwaste Operators, sampled and analyzed by Chemistry Technicians and overseen by a
Chemistry Coordinator.
(b)
Regeneration During the la'st inspection in this area (Report No. 87-18 dated May 8, 1987) it was noted that the licensee was using about 100,000 gallons of water to regenerate each bed.
At the time of this inspection that amount had been reduced to about 50,000-60,000 gallons.
This improvement could be attributed to better regeneration
,techniques and general water quality improvement since startup of commercial operation.
A technical specification change approved since the last inspection allowed the licensee to discharge regeneration waste water as a continuous release directly to the waste neutralization basin, thereby bypassing the liquid radwaste system, and resulting in less input to the radwaste system.
Prior to the regeneration all of the ion-exchange resins with'ulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide anion and cation resins are separated.
Since complete separation cannot be achieved some of the cation resin is converted to the sodium form rather than to the hydrogen form.
Likewise, some of the anion resin is converted to the sulfate form rather than being re-converted to the hydroxyl form.
Consequently, an ammonium hydroxide rinse is used after regeneration to deplete any cation resin in the sodium form and anion resin in the chloride form prior to placing the
. bed'back in service.
Beds are also rinsed (recycled) with demineralized water until the specific conductivity of the
effluent is less 0.10 uS prior to placing them in service.
After the bed has been placed back in service it is used up to the ammonia break point.
(Total capacity is
to 60 million gallons per bed per run.)
The licensee was regenerating an average of 3 beds per week when the plant was at full power.
(c)
Pol i sher Effluent Chemi stry Under normal operating conditions values of samples taken at the condensate polisher effluent averaged about 0.06 uS specific conductivity and 8 parts per billion (ppb)
dissolved oxygen.
Entrained air in the polisher vessels accumulated during resin regeneration and transfer operations resulted in momentary dissolved oxygen spikes in the feedwater as vessels were placed back in service.
(3)
Steam Generators (a)
Preventive Measures (b)
The licensee had taken several preventive measures prior to startup to reduce the possibility of steam generator tube degradation.
These were ( 1) roto-peening of tubes within the tube sheets to relieve residual stresses, (2) heat treatment of Rows one and two (inner rows)
to relieve residual stresses in the U-bend areas, and (3) base-line 100% eddy current testing of the steam generator tubes.
Steam Generator Chemistry A review of chemistry data obtained by the licensee since November 1987 revealed that the plant had been operating consistently near 100%
power.
Feedwater cation conductivity during that period averaged about 0.07 uS, well below-the 0 '
uS level recommended by the SGOG.
Resultan't steam generator blowdown cation conductivity averaged between 0.20 and 0.27 uS in the three generators which was well within the 0.8 uS level recommended by the SGOG.
Grab samples from the steam generator blowdown recovery system also indicated average iron and copper levels of 2 ppb.
Even though steam generator chemistry generally appeared adequate, results from sludge lancings and eddy current testings of the steam generators during upcoming outages will be a more direct and better indicator of steam cycle chemistry effectivenes (4)
Mater Treatment Plant The makeup water treatment plant consisted of two redundant trains of garnet upflow filters, filtered water carbon filters, demineralizer carbon filters and, cation, anion and mixed bed ion exchangers.
The system was operated by radwaste operators and sampled by chemistry technicians.
Flow rate through each train was approximately 300 gallons per minute when the plant was in service.
The licensee indicated that the present system provided sufficient, amounts of makeup water at a specific conductivity of less than 0. 1 uS.
(5)
Sampling Systems The inspector examined the primary system sample panel and also observed a liquid sample of reactor coolant being taken.
During the sampling the inspector observed reactor coolant leaking onto the floor from a valve on the front of the panel.
Also observed were corrosion products and boric acid crystals on valves behind the sample panel and yellow deposits on the floor.
These solids were attributed to the leak of chromate component cooling water from the sample coolers.
The inspector discussed with the licensee t,he benefits of reducing the potential for increased contamination problems associated with reactor coolant leaks in and around the sample panel.
The primary sampling sink not only contained reactor coolant and other primary systems s'ample taps, but also contained sample taps for the three main steam line and three steam generator blowdown sample points.
To reduce the possibility of radioactive cross-contamination of the main steam and blowdown samples, the licensee planned to move these sample points to a
non-contaminated area during a system upgrade during 1990.
Staffing Chemistry The Chemistry Department consisted of a Chemistry Supervisor, two Laboratory Supervisors, a group of Chemistry Specialists and
Chemistry Technicians.
Half of the
,technicians were contractors.
Since the last inspection the Specialist Supervisor and a
secondary Chemistry Specialist had been transferred to the Corporate Training Department.
As a result, all Specialists now report directly to the Chemistry Superviso The chemistry technician training program consisted of an INPO-accredi ted, 5-1 eve 1, 10-step sequence requiring approximately 5 years to complete from an entry level position.
This craft and technical development program included generic offsite training in basic health physics and chemistry principles, basic systems training, site specific training, on-the-job training (OJT)
and qualification card sign-offs, and various vendor courses.
Contract technicians completed only the OJT and qualification card portion of the program prior to being considered qualified.
(2)
Seven of the 12 utility technicians had completed the training program, one had completed through Step 9, two through Step
and two through Step 4.
Radwaste Five shifts of radwaste operators were permanently assigned to operate only the radwaste systems, which included the condensate cleanup system and the makeup water treatment plant.
This specialization helped optimize the performance of the condensate cleanup system and the water treatment plant
~
Stability in the radwaste group had been excellent.
Out of 18 operators, 15 had been in the group since 1981.
A Craft and Technical Oevelopment training program for the operators, had been accredited by INPO and was similar in structure to the Chemistry Technician Training Program.
Both the chemistry and radwaste training programs were due for re-accreditation during September 1988.
d.
Chemistry equality Control Program (1)
Program Review The inspec'tors discussed with appropriate chemistry department personnel the effectiveness of their quality control (gC)
program to prov'ide adequate confidence in the laboratory analytical results.
This assessment also included a review of the procedure describing the gC program (CRC-020, Chemistry (}uality Control Program, September 2, 1987).
The gC program included both an internal spiked-sample program and an external interlaboratory comparison program for critical parameters normally analyzed in the laboratories.
The licensee was maintaining a large number (approximately 100)
of accuracy control charts.
Because of the unwieldiness of so many control charts, the fact that no precision control charts being maintained, and other difficulties, the gC program was under review for possible streamlining and revision by both the
plant and offsite chemistry groups.
The revised system will be reviewed during later inspections.
The inspector held a brief discussion with the plant (}A department supervisor and the gA specialist who audit the chemistry group.
The gA specialist was a former E&RC technician who was very familiar with department methods, procedures, and policies.
A brief review of selected E&RC audits by the inspector revealed that the deficiencies identified were substantive and were corrected with a reasonable time.
(2)
Non-Radiological Confirmatory Measurements To help assess the capability of the chemistry staff to perform acceptable analyses, the inspectors submitted a
series of non-radiological chemistry samples.
These
"unknowns" were prepared for the NRC by Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL).
The'icensee diluted the samples, as directed by the inspectors, to bring the concentrations to within the ranges normally observed in plant aqueous systems.
The results are presented in Attachment 1.
The methodology for determining agreement or disagreement between the licensee and NRC values is discussed in Attachment 2.
All samples were in agreement except for one Boron sample (87D)
and one Silica sample (87U).
Even though these two samples were in disagreement according to the methodology described in Attachment -2, it should be noted that the licensee's values were within 5% of the NRC values.
No violations or deviations were identifie ATTACHMENT
NONRADIOLOGICAL INTERLABORATORY TEST RESULTS SIIEARON HARRIS (ALL RESULTS IN PART PER MILLION (PPM) )
A~nal la Fluoride 87A 87B 87C Chloride 87A 878 87C Sulfate 87A 878 87C Boron 870 87E 87F I ron 87G 87H 87 I Copper 87G 87H 87I Nickel 87G 87H 871 Chromium 87G 87H 87I Sodium 87J 87K 87L Lithium 87J 87K 87L Ana lys i s(4)
Method IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC Titration Titration Titration AA (GF)
AA (GF)
AA (GF)
AA (GF')
AA (GF)
AA (GF)
AA (GF)
AA (GF)
AA (GF)
AA (GF)
AA (GF)
AA (GF)
AA (GF)
AA (GF)
AA (GF F
lame
)
(.Flame)
Flame)
Dilution Iix 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 2000 1000 1000 2000 Hone
10 250 1000 1000 250 1000 1000 250 1000 1000 250 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
50
HRC Results Y~+.d n
22.5
+ 2.0(7)
42.3
+ 0.4(7)
82.8 i 1.7(7)
18.5
'+ 0.1(7)
37.3
+ 0.3(7)
76.5
+ 1.2(8)
19.5
+ 1.<<(7)
38.3
+ 2.7(7)
78.0
+ 2.3(9)
10<<0 i 10(7)
3100 X 100(7)
5000
+ 90(7)
18.6
+ 0.5(7)
39.8
+ 0.5(6)
58.5
+ 1.5(7)
20.0
+ 0-3 7)
40.3
+ 1.5 7)
60.O X 1.5 7)
20.3
+ 0'(7)
41.7 2 0.7(7)
6O.5
+ 2.5(7)
19.8 2 0.5(7)
38.5
~ 0 ~ 5(7)
58.0
+ 1(7)
6.05 2 0.7(7)
10.6 2 0.6(6)
15.8 X 0.9(6)
19.7 + 0.4(7)
30.0 A 0.7(7)
41.3
% 1(7)
Licensee Results
~X+,d n 21.1
+ 0.6(3)
43.2
+ 1.8(3)
81.9
+ 4.4( 3)
19.8
+ 1.4(3)
36.5
+
~ 1(3)
74.4
+ 2.3(3)
19.4
+ 0.1(3)
39.1 X 0.2(3)
76.9
+ 1.4(3)
1005.1
+ 0.7(2)(2)
3008
+ 2.8(3)
4957
+ 0.4(3)
19.4
+ 0.6(3)
37.8
+ 1.3(3)
58.6
+ 3.1(3)
20.2
+ 0.2(3)
41.3
+ 2.5(3)
60.7 + 3 ~ 1(3)
2O.2 + O.<<(3)
38.4
+
1'( 3)
57.9 4 0.8(3)
20.4
+ 0.5(3)
41.6
+ 2 ~ 0(3)
61.0
+ 1.9(3)
5.1
+ 0.3(3)
9.4 2 0.4(3)
13.5
+ 1.2(3)
20.2
+ 0.2(3)
31.3
+ 0.2(3)
41.4 2 0.3(3)
Ratio
0.938 1. 021 0.989 1.,070 0.978 0.972 0.995 1. 021 0.986 0.966 0.970 0.991 1.043 0.950 1.002 1.010 1. 025 1. 012 0.995 0.921 0.957 1.030 1.080 1.052 0.8<<3 0.887 0.854 1.025 1.043 1.002 Comparison
~+2 a. d.
l D(3)
'
A
Ammonia 87H as NH3 87N 870 Hydrazine 87P 870 87R Si I ica 87S 87T 87U SIE SIE SIE VIS SPEC VIS SPEC VIS SPEC VIS SPEC VIS SPEC VIS SPEC 1000 1429 4000 100 500 714 1000 1000 1667 104
+ 5 (8)
301
+ 3.0(8)
492 t 23(6)
19.9
+ 0.3(7)
49.9 i 0.5(7).
100
+ 1(7)
52.8 2 2.8(7)
104
+ 4(7)
157
+ 2(7)
115 2 30(3)
292
+ 13(3)
497 X 43(3)
20.7
+ 0.5(3)
50.8 i 1.4(3)
103.9
+ 1.7( 3)
49.3
+ 0.6(3)
99.3
+ 2.1 150100 1. 106 0. 970 1. 010 1.040 1.018 1.039 0.934 0'955 0.955 A
A A
A A
A A
A D(3)
(1)
A=Agreement, D=Disagreement (2)
Licensee analyzed unkown only two times because of insufficient.sample amount.
For comparison purposes, the licensee's valve that was nearest the NRC'
value was used as the third value in the comparison calculations.
(3)
Although the values were in disagreement according to the methodology described in Attachment 2, the I icensee'
value for Boron (870) was within 3.4g of the NRC value and the licensee's value for Silica (87U) was within 4.5$
, of the NRC value.
(4)
IC=lon chromatography AA(GF)=Atomic Absorption Spectrometry with a Graphite Furnace AA( Flame)=Atomic Absorption Spectrometry SIE=Specific lon Electrode
)
VIS SPEC=Visual Spectrophotometry
ATTACHMENT 2 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICALMEASUREMENTS This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of the capability tests.
The acceptance limits are based on the uncertainty (standard deviation)
of the ratio of the licensee's mean value (X) to the NRC mean value (Y), where (I)
Z = X/Y is the ratio, and (2)
S is the uncertainty of the ratio determined from the propagation of z
the uncertainties of licensee's mean value, S
and of the NRC's mean value, S.'hus, Y
S
=
S
+
S so that z
x y
'Z
~X YY~
S
=
Z
~
z
+
x Y
~X Y~
The results are considered to be in agreement when the bias in the ratio (absolute value of difference between unity and the ratio) is less than or equal to twice the uncertainty in the ratio, i.e.,:
1Z f
< 2
~
S National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, A Handbook of
'Radioactivit Measurement Procedures, NCRP Report NO. 58, Second Edition, 1985, Pages 322-326 see Page 324).