IR 05000413/1986032

Insp Repts 50-413/86-32 & 50-414/86-35 on 860811-15.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Plant Chemistry

ML20206S453
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	09/09/1986
From:	Ross W, Stoddart P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20206S442	List: IR 05000413/1986032 ML20206S437
References
50-413-86-32, 50-414-86-35, NUDOCS 8609220231
Download: ML20206S453 (8)

Text

_.-- - ,

,

> ~

.-

, .

'

. - $ >R RfC UNITE] STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'

-[ , REGION ll g j 101 MARIETTA STREET. * 2 . ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30323

'+4+.. .&O -

SEP 111995

'

~ Report Nos.: 50-413/86-32 and 50-414/86-35 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 So~uth Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.: 50-413 and 50-414 License Nos.: .NPF-35 and NPF-52 Facility Name: Catawba 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: August 11-15, 1986 Inspector: tmL O hp 9 f,) h St,-

frn W. J. Ross 'O'aBe Signed Approved b : ~3 hu h [x a 7 fd l78G etP.G.Stodfart,Ac~ ng Section Chief Date Signed Division otlRadiat n Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection covered the area of. plant chemistr '

-

Results: No violations or deviations were identifie ,

I

'

.

c s

e 8609220231 860911 PDR ADOCK 05000413 G PDR

,.

. :.1

-

.-

REPORT DETAILS

Persons Contacted-Licensee Employees

• D. Tower, Operations Manager

• R. H. Charest, Station Chemist R. Painter, Power Chemistry Coordinator C. Bolin, Primary Chemistry Supervisor C. Therrien,: Secondary Chemistry Supervisor-A. Jackson, Chemistry Support Coordinator Other licensee employees contacted included ' chemistry staff chemists, engineers, and technician * Attended exit interview

. Exit Interview The ' inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 15,-1986, with-those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. ,The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding No dissenting comments-were received from the licensee. . The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspectio . Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during the inspectio . Plant Chemistry (79502, 79701)

At the time of this inspection, Catawba Unit 1 had just shut down for its first refueling outage and Unit 2 had reached ~90% full power during its initial power ascension tests. The inspector reviewed the operational experience of Unit 1 and the interrelationship between plant operation and chemistry control . Discussions were also held with cognizant licensee personnel related to modifications and inspections that were to be performed on Unit 1 during the refueling outag Inasmuch as Unit 2 had been operational for only six weeks, the inspector focused his review primarily on the efforts of the licensee to achieve the level of chemistry control that had been recommended by the Steam Generator Owners Group (SGOG) in its guidelines for PWR secondary water chemistr t

. .-

3 Review of Unit'l Chemist'ry_

At the time of the last inspection in this ' area (Inspection LReport No. 50-413/85-36, . dated August 29,1985), - Unit 1 had been operational only one month. The planned -14-month fuel cycle was terminated three weeks _ earlier than ' planned, on August _ 13, 1986, because' of a leaking-

. seal . in- one of the reactor coolant pumps. The inspector observed that-the unit was in cold : shutdown, and the reactor coolant was _ being treated with hydrogen peroxide to reduce radiation buildup throughout the reactor coolant system (RCS).

(1) Control of the Reactor Coolant Chemistry Technical Specification 3/4.4.'4 - requires that the concentrations of dissolved oxygen, chloride and fluoride be maintained !below 0.1 ppm, 0.15 ppm, and 0.15 ppm respectively in the reactor coolant to minimize corrosion of the boundary of .the RC The inspector audited the licensee's computerized data log and-verified that these limits had not been exceeded. In a number of cases, the concentration of ' chloride had exceeded the detectable limit (10 ppb); however, these values were always' less than'the Technical Specification (TS) limit and were usually considered.to have been spuriou Technical Specification 3/4 1.2.6 requires that the boron-concentration in the Boric ' Acid Storage System be kept above 7,000 ppm and .the boron concentration of the Refueling Water Storage Tank be at least 2,000 ppm for reactivity control. 'The inspector's audit established that these concentration limits had been met during the first fuel cycl In an effort to reduce the radiation background of the RCS_before reloading activities were begun, the licensee had begun adding hydrogen peroxide to the reactor coolant u August 13, 1986, to solubilize radioactive contaminants (both fission and activation products) on the metal surfaces and, thereby facilitate cleanup of these contaminants through use of the letdown - demineralizer Preliminary results indicated that the " crud burst" that reflected contaminant removal was less (e.g. , 0.9 x 10 2 pCi/ml "Co and 0.7 x 10 3 pCi/ml "Co) than the level of contamination removed during RCS transients earlier in 198 The inspector plans to maintain contact with the licensee to establish the total level of

" crud burst" that was removed so that the level of cot. amination and out-of-core radiation can be correlated with the passivation treatment given to the RCS during the preoperational hot functional tests (40 days at temperatures in excess of 500 F).

Various studies indicate that the level of radiation should be inversely proportional to the time applied to passivating the stainless steel and inconel components of the RCS and steam generato (Catawba Unit 2 also underwent a 40-day passivating period during its hot functional tests.)

.

.

. .

The inspector was informed that the draft guidelines.for a PWR

~

primary coolant chemistry program that were being developed by

~

-EPRI had been reviewed by the licensee, and some of the EPRI recommendations had already been adopted During _.this phase of 'the inspection, no violations orLdeviations were identifie .(2) Control of Secondary Water-Chemistr Because of . the unplanned nature of the Unit I shutdown that'

terminated ,the :first fuel cycle, the licensee was:not able to utilize the normal rate of cooldown to effect removal,of " hideout

. return" by maximizing blowdown when the . temperature of . the . steam -

generator water was 200-400 The inspector was informed that fill and: bleed procedures would be used after the plant was shutdown to remove soluble chemistry specie The steam generators were to be partially. drained so that repairs could be made on the. moisture separators. During the initial fuel cycle, moisture carry-over at the steam generators had been ~0.65% and thus posed a hazard for potential erosion and corrosion of the main steam 11nes and valves as well as the high pressure turbin The licensee hopes to reduce carry-over to less than 0.25% during future cycles by modifying the moisture separators during the refueling outag The steam generators were to be completely drained during this outage- for eddy current testing of the steam generator tubes and removal of sludge from the tube sheet regions. These activities will not only provide indications of the integrity of the primary coolant pressure boundary, but will permit the licensee to assess the degree to which the steam generators had been exposed to solid-metal oxide sludge and corrosive chemical species. An analysis of any sludge- found in the steam generator will also provide an indication of the extent of copper transfer from the tubes of the moisture separators and reheaters to the steam generators. The inspector will also follow these activitie The inspector observed that the licensee was initiating plans to maintain the steam generator under lay-up environments (water-treated with AVT chemicals and, when possible, inert atmosphere in the steam regions) recommended by the SGOG, Through an audit of plant records and discussions with members of the Chemistry Department, the inspector established that the

~

licensee had been able to maintain secondary chemistry control within the criteria recommended by the SGOG to prevent degradation of the steam generato However, as discussed in Inspection Report 50-413/85-56, inleakage of air into the main condensers continued to be relatively high (15-35 cfm), although the concentration of air (oxygen) dissolved in the hotwell water

_

m=

', y

5

_

remained less than 5 ppb. l No additional inleakage of ' condenser cooling water had been experienced since the -two incidents in July 1985, that were also discussed earlier. Ingress of. potential

.

contaminants into the hotwell/ condensate through the makeup water pathway had also been minimal because most of the makeup water had:

been . acquired from purified steam generator blowdown. 'Althoug ion exchange resin fines had continued to leak-- through the

. condensate polishers and into the feedwater, the polishers' were kept in use .most of , the fuel cycle and produced. high quality feedwater with a cation conductivity of ~0.15-umho/cm.- _ However, the quality .of the 'feedwater was - further improved when the

~

polishers were bypasse The licensee. had acquired two new types of leak detecters to facilitate the determination of air / water leaks in the condenser and associated pumps and pipin The inspector was informed that during the refueling outage, the

"C" low pressure turbine was to be removed, sand-blasted, and inspected for degradation caused by steam and carry-over moisture and chemical As a result of this part of his inspection, the inspector considered the licensee's control of secondary water chemistry during the initial fuel cycle had been within the SGOG guideline The fact that the numerous power transients during this period had little effect on the key chemical parameters in the steam generator. water indicated that chemical hideout had been very small. A better assessment of the cleanliness of the steam generators can be made through an analysis of the blowdown when the steam generators are drained in preparation for eddy current inspections and sludge lancin The inspector was informed of only one significant contamination problem since the condenser tube leaks in July 198 In June 1986, a leak in the blowdown heat exchanger caused contamination of the blowdown by the closed cycle cooling water that had been treated with a proprietary chemical (that included sodium nitrate) to control corrosion. Although the water in the hotwell was contaminated, the condensate polishers prevented subsequent degradation of the feedwate *

b. Review of Unit 2 Chemistry During the interval since the inspector's last site visit the licensee had completed the pre-operational tests for Unit 2 and had achieved initial power in May 1986. As mentioned earlier in this report, the hot functional test period had been maintained for forty days to maximize the passivation of the stainless steel components of the RCS in an effort to minimize the out of-core radiation level of the RCS during future refueling outages. Power ascension tests were begun in

__ ._

.

. .

July 1986, and the unit achieved 100% power durir he inspector's site visi Through audits of chemistry data logs the inspector observed that during most of the power ascension period the secondary water chemistry had been in Action level I condition because of the high cation conductivity of the water in the steam generators. Although this high level of conductivity could be partially attributed to sulfate (~ 60 ppb) and phosphate (~ 30 ppb) and smaller amounts of chloride, evidently other ionic species were also presen The presence of phosphate was thought to result from the process that had been used by the vendor to clean the piping in the balance of plant components (phosphate was also still being found in the blowdown of Unit 1). The licensee was concentrating efforts (especially through the use of ion chromatography) to determine why the blowdown cation conductivity remained in the range of 1-2 umho/c During .the initial period of unit operation the concentration of sulfate in the steam generator blowdown increased as the power level was raised. The licensee assumed that sulfate was being derived from thermal degradation of resin fines that had leaked through the condensate polishers. During the inspector's site visit two bundles of polisher tubes were being replaced with tubes of a new design in an attempt to prevent leakage of the powdered resin into the feedwate The licensee was also experiencing excessive transfer of powdery black iron oxide from the steam generators to the pre-cleanup filter in the blowdown recovery system. As a consequence, these filters were having to be replaced more frequently than planned. The source of this solid material had not been identifie .c. Review of the Licensee's Chemistry Program In addition to controlling the chemistry of Unit 1 during the first fuel cycle and supporting the preoperational tests and the startup of Unit 2 the Chemistry Department was striving to develop full capability to implement a chemistry program that met the goals of the SG0G guideline The inspector established that the organizational structure of the Chemistry staff remained the same as during the last inspection when only one unit was operationa The Station Chemist continued to have responsibility for both radwaste and chemistry, and managed the activities of ~ 80 peopl Under the Plant Chemist, a Power Chemistry Coordinator managed three laboratories with a Supervisor and ten Chemistry Technicians in each laboratory. A support group of chemists and engineers also reported, through a supervisor, to the Plant Chemist. Since the inspector's last site visit the former

~

Supervisor of the Environmental Chemistry Laboratory had been promoted to the position of Power Chemistry Coordinator, and other changes in supervisory positions were being planned as part of a training program to rotate both supervisors and technicians through all three laboratorie _

.

.. .

!

,

l The activities of the Chemistry staff continued to be scheduled so that five teams of technicians (one technician from each laboratory) manned two 12-hour shifts each day on a complex rotating basis. All other members of the Chemistry staff, including those shift technicians who were not on shift duty, worked 8-hour day schedules. This schedule theoretically provided for the equivalent of ten weeks per year for training of each shift technician; however, the inspector was informed that a structured on-the-job training program had not been initiated because of the work loa Though discussions with supervisors and technicians, and especially through observations of the activities in the secondary water chemistry laboratory, the inspector detected considerable frustration related to a perceived lack of training and opportunities to initiate more training. The major areas of concern to both the Chemistry personnel and to the inspector were the following:

lack of sufficient understandrig of plant systems associated with the chemistry progra the significant time required to become proficient in and to perform duties of an operational nature (e.g., operation of the water treatment plant, the condensate polishing system, and the blowdown cleanup system)

lack of classroom or on-the-job training in the operation of key analytical chemistry instruments such as atomic absorption spectrophotometers, ion chromatograph, and total organic analyze the necessity to use technicians for work for which they are qualified during designated training periods rather than furthering their qualification progra the lack of cross training of supervisors and technicians in the duties of all three laboratorie The inspector discussed with both chemistry and plant management the perceived need to expedite inter- and intra-laboratory training and qualification programs while maintaining control of the chemistry of the two operating unit The licensee responded that increased attention was being given to the laboratory and operating responsibilities of the secondary laboratory with the goal of reducing the work load of the supervisor and technicians assigned to this laboratory so that training could be emphasized mor *

The inspector considered the licensee to be making effective use of the i chemistry support group to rectify deficiencies in plant design and

'

operation (e.g., condenser inleakage detection, improvement of condensate polishers, and enlarging the secondary laboratory) as well as improving the chemistry staff's capabilities to control plant chemistry (e.g., installation of additional inline sampling instrumentations including a proposed ion-chromatographic system, and development of a computerized data processing system). These chemists i

I t

--

,_

.. ..

and engineers were also involved in activities that were being performed for the first time, such as those associated with the shutdown, layup, and fueling of Unit 1 and were also attempting to identi fy the cause of the high cation conductivity observed in the blowdown of Unit During this phase of the inspection no violations or deviations were identified. The chemistry staff was performing all of the requirements of the Catawba Chemistry program and the SGOG guidelines; however these tasks were being complicated by leakage of resins from the condensate cleanup systems of both units and by the need to develop a competent staff while meeting the demands of a plant refueling outage and a plant initial startup at the same tim The inspector intends to pursue the following activities through telephone communication with the licensee:

Results of the inspections of Unit 1 steam generator, including the analyses of hideout retur Effectiveness of the new condensate polisher tubes in Unit Completion of the secondary laboratory annex, including installation of the in-line ion-chromatographic syste Actions to be taken to increase the training and qualification of supervisors and technician n