Fouling

Technical Report

Multivariable Assessment of FlowAccelerated Corrosion and SteamGenerator FoulingCollection and Evaluation of Plant Dataand Experiences

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in the document prior to publication.

pcdo001

Rectangle

EPRI Project Manager K. Fruzzetti

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 • USA

800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • [email protected] • www.epri.com

Multivariable Assessment of Flow Accelerated Corrosion and Steam Generator Fouling Collection and Evaluation of Plant Data and Experiences

1011777

Final Report, November 2005

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Babcock & Wilcox Research and Development Division

Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd.

ORDERING INFORMATION

NOTE

For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or e-mail [email protected].

Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright © 2005 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

iii

CITATIONS

This report was prepared by

Babcock & Wilcox Research and Development Division 1562 Beeson Street Alliance, Ohio 44601

Principal Investigator J. Sarver

Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd. 581 Coronation Boulevard Cambridge, Ontario N1R 5V3 Canada

Principal Investigator P. King

This report describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:

Multivariable Assessment of Flow Accelerated Corrosion and Steam Generator Fouling: Collection and Evaluation of Plant Data and Experiences. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1011777.

v

REPORT SUMMARY

EPRI has established a multiyear program to investigate the multivariable influence of water chemistry on flow accelerated corrosion (FAC) and steam generator (SG) fouling in nuclear power plants. One of the initial tasks of this multivariable assessment (MVA) program is an evaluation of plant data to determine any trends that may exist between environmental factors and fouling and/or FAC. This report describes the results of the plant data assessment.

Background Maintaining non-fouled steam generators has a first-order effect on maintaining a non-aggressive chemistry environment in them. The industry generally recognizes that flow accelerated corrosion (FAC) of piping and equipment is the largest contributor to the corrosion products transported to the steam generator. Researchers have also shown that local chemistry conditions can affect the fouling of steam generator surfaces.

Since industry researchers have studied and reported on the various aspects of fouling and FAC, the dependence of these processes on several of the major variables is now fairly well established. Understanding the effect of some factors, and particularly the interactions among factors (for instance the possible synergistic effects of soluble iron and amines chosen for chemistry control), remains less well developed.

Objectives • To develop an improved understanding of the individual synergistic effects of water

chemistry parameters on FAC and SG fouling.

• To report on the current state of knowledge with respect to the parameters affecting FAC and SG fouling, and provide insight into the design of the laboratory testing program.

Approach The project team divided the MVA program into four main tasks; utility data review, literature review, experimental work and model development. The project team performed the utility data review mainly from data supplied by the plants in response to a questionnaire generated for this assessment; however, they also considered other sources, including SMART ChemWorks data and conference presentations. The purpose of the current review was to draw out content, trends and behavior related to feedwater iron, dissolved oxygen, hydrazine, and amine influences to provide insight into the design of the test program. The project team adopted this strategy to clarify the effect(s) of pertinent chemistry parameters, either individually or synergistically, with respect to FAC and SG fouling.

vi

Results Feedwater pH most strongly influences feedwater iron concentration. Assuming that the feedwater iron concentration is an accurate indicator of the FAC occurring in the feedwater systems, and that the feedwater iron concentration directly correlates to the degree of fouling in a steam generator, then the feedwater pH appears to have a larger influence on FAC and fouling than any other feedwater constituent does.

Evidence from some plants suggests that ETA, morpholine and DMA are more effective in reducing feedwater iron concentrations than additions of ammonia. However, the present analysis of plant data was unable to identify a consistent trend demonstrating that these secondary side chemical additives have a significant beneficial effect on the feedwater iron concentration beyond their ability to increase the feedwater pH.

Variations in feedwater O2, condensate O2 and hydrazine concentrations did not produce a significant change in feedwater iron concentrations for the units studied, although data from some individual units suggested that increased condensate oxygen decreased the feedwater iron concentration.

Based on this effort, research reinforced the long held conclusion that it is possible to observe only first-order effects when comparing data from different units due to variability between plant chemistry, operating conditions, construction and history.

EPRI Perspective Secondary-side corrosion product deposits and other impurities in PWR steam generators are known to cause fouling, impede fluid flow through tube supports, and act as sites for the concentration of corrosive species. Flow accelerated corrosion of piping and equipment mainly generates these corrosion products. Numerous investigations, including some on-going studies, have resulted in significant progress (TR-106611-R1, TR-111113, 1000742, 1001472, 1002768, 1008208). They have addressed individual contributing factors, such as pH, hydrazine, dissolved oxygen, etc., or performed parametric investigations. One remaining challenge is to understand more fully how these factors collectively and synergistically contribute to these issues. EPRI published previous results from this effort based on an extensive literature review (1003619). This work to assess plant data is the next step in trying to meet this challenge.

Keywords Steam generator Corrosion product transport Fouling Flow accelerated corrosion Amine

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance in providing data and insight for this project: Keith Fruzzetti (EPRI), John Jevec (B&W), Tina Gaudreau and Sam Choi (EPRI Solutions), Rocky Thompson (Crystal River), Gail Gary (Callaway), Jeff Gardner (Diablo Canyon), Debra Bodine (Watts Bar), Oscar Flores and Regis Schmerheim (SONGS), Guy Bucci and Dennis Raught (Palo Verde), Ron Stanley (Waterford), Philip Robbins (ANO), Mike Upton (Bruce Power), Jack Bills (Calvert Cliffs) and Jim Stevens (Comanche Peak).

ix

ACRONYMS

The following acronyms are used in this report:

AECL Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Mn Stm Main Steam ANO Arkansas Nuclear One Mo Molybdenum B&W Babcock & Wilcox MSDT Moisture Separator Drain Tank CE Condenser Effluent MSR Moisture Separator Reheater CEP Condensate Extraction Pump mV Milivolts Cond Condenser N2H4 Hydrazine CPD Condensate Pump Discharge NEI Nuclear Energy Institute CPE Condensate Polisher Effluent NH3 Ammonia CPSES Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station NH4OH Ammonium Hydroxide Cr Chromium Ni Nickel Cu Copper O2 Oxygen DEI Dominion Engineering Incorporated Pb Lead DMA Dimethylamine PE Polisher Effluent DO2 Dissolved Oxygen PI Polisher Influent Drns Drains pol Polisher ECP Electrochemical Potential ppb Parts Per Billion eff Effluent ppm Parts Per Million EFPY Effective Full Power Years ppt Parts Per Trillion EPRI Electric Power Research Institute PWR Pressurized Water Reactor ETA Monoethanolamine RFO Refueling Outage FAC Flow Accelerated Corrosion S/G Steam Generator Fe Iron SCW SMART ChemWorks Fe3O4 Magnetite SG Steam Generator FFW Final Feedwater SGFW Steam Generator Feedwater FW Feedwater SHE Standard Hydrogen Electrode H3BO3 Boric Acid SONGS San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station HDPD Heater Drain Pump Discharge TiO2 Titanium Dioxide Htr Heater Tot Total IL In Line U Unit LPFW Low Pressure Feedwater XRF X-ray Fluorescence

xi

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background........................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Plant Data .......................................................................................................... 1-1

2 RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Feedwater Iron................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Fouling ............................................................................................................... 2-7

3 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 3-1

4 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 4-1

A SONGS: PLANT DATA SUMMARY ...................................................................... A-1

SONGS Discussion..................................................................................................A-1

Correlations with Feedwater Iron .............................................................................A-3

B WATTS BAR: PLANT DATA SUMMARY.............................................................. B-1

Watts Bar Discussion...............................................................................................B-1

Correlations with Feedwater Iron .............................................................................B-3

C PALO VERDE: PLANT DATA SUMMARY............................................................ C-1

Palo Verde Discussion............................................................................................ C-1

Correlations with Feedwater Iron ............................................................................ C-4

D CALLAWAY ............................................................................................................ D-1

Callaway Discussion ............................................................................................... D-1

Correlations with Feedwater Iron ............................................................................ D-3

E CRYSTAL RIVER.....................................................................................................E-1

xii

Crystal River Discussion ..........................................................................................E-1

Correlations with CE Iron .........................................................................................E-3

F DIABLO CANYON....................................................................................................F-1

Diablo Canyon Discussion .......................................................................................F-1

Correlations with Feedwater Iron .............................................................................F-3

G BRUCE POWER ..................................................................................................... G-1

Bruce Power Discussion ......................................................................................... G-1

Correlations with Feedwater Iron ............................................................................ G-2

H CALVERT CLIFFS .................................................................................................. H-1

Calvert Cliffs Discussion ......................................................................................... H-1

Correlations with Feedwater Iron ............................................................................ H-3

I COMANCHE PEAK .................................................................................................... I-1

Comanche Peak Discussion ..................................................................................... I-1

Correlations with Feedwater Iron .............................................................................. I-3

J ANO (SMART CHEMWORKS DATA) ...................................................................... J-1

ANO Discussion....................................................................................................... J-1

Correlations with Feedwater Iron ............................................................................. J-1

K WATERFORD (SMART CHEMWORKS DATA) ..................................................... K-1

Waterford Discussion...............................................................................................K-1

Correlations with Feedwater Iron .............................................................................K-1

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 1-3 Figure 2-1 Summarized Plant Data – Feedwater Iron vs Feedwater pH.................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Summarized Plant Data – Feedwater Iron vs Feedwater O2 .................................. 2-2 Figure 2-3 Summarized Plant Data – Feedwater Iron vs Condensate O2 ................................ 2-3 Figure 2-4 Summarized Plant Data – Feedwater Iron vs Feedwater Ammonia........................ 2-3 Figure 2-5 Summarized Plant Data – Feedwater Iron vs Feedwater ETA................................ 2-4 Figure 2-6 Summarized Plant Data – Feedwater Iron vs Feedwater Hydrazine....................... 2-4 Figure A-1 Total Feedwater Fe and Feedwater pH at SONGS Unit 2..................................... A-3 Figure A-2 Total Feedwater Fe and Polisher Effluent Dissolved Oxygen at SONGS Unit

2...................................................................................................................................... A-4 Figure A-3 Total Feedwater Fe and Feedwater pH at SONGS Unit 3...................................... A-4 Figure A-4 Total Feedwater Fe and Polisher Effluent Dissolved Oxygen at SONGS Unit

3...................................................................................................................................... A-5 Figure A-5 Steam Generator Global Fouling Factor at SONGS Unit 2 .................................... A-5 Figure A-6 Steam Generator Global Fouling Factor at SONGS Unit 3 .................................... A-6 Figure B-1 Feedwater Ammonia and Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar.......................................... B-3 Figure B-2 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar ............................ B-3 Figure B-3 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar.................................................. B-4 Figure B-4 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar......................................... B-4 Figure B-5 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar .................................................... B-5 Figure B-6 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar.......................... B-5 Figure B-7 Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar.................................................................................. B-6 Figure C-1 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1...............................C-4 Figure C-2 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1.......C-4 Figure C-3 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1 ...................C-5 Figure C-4 Feedwater Ammonia and Feedwater Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1 ....................C-5 Figure C-5 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1 ............................C-6 Figure C-6 Feedwater 2 pH and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1.........................C-6 Figure C-7 Feedwater 2 Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde

Unit 1...............................................................................................................................C-7 Figure C-8 Feedwater 2 Hydrazine and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1 .............C-7 Figure C-9 Feedwater 2 Ammonia and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1 ..............C-8

xiv

Figure C-10 Feedwater 2 ETA and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1.....................C-8 Figure C-11 Reactor Power at Palo Verde Unit 1 ....................................................................C-9 Figure C-12 Feedwater 1 pH and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 2.......................C-9 Figure C-13 Feedwater 1 Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde

Unit 2.............................................................................................................................C-10 Figure C-14 Feedwater 1 Hydrazine and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 2..........C-10 Figure C-15 Feedwater 1 Ammonia and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 2...........C-11 Figure C-16 Feedwater 1 ETA and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 2...................C-11 Figure C-17 Feedwater 1 DMA and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 2..................C-12 Figure C-18 Feedwater 2 pH and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 2.....................C-12 Figure C-19 Feedwater 2 Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde

Unit 2.............................................................................................................................C-13 Figure C-20 Feedwater 2 Hydrazine and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 2..........C-13 Figure C-21 Feedwater 2 Ammonia and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 2...........C-14 Figure C-22 Feedwater 2 ETA and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 2...................C-14 Figure C-23 Feedwater 2 DMA and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 2..................C-15 Figure C-24 Reactor Power at Palo Verde Unit 2 ..................................................................C-15 Figure C-25 Feedwater 1 pH and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 3.....................C-16 Figure C-26 Feedwater 1 Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde

Unit 3.............................................................................................................................C-16 Figure C-27 Feedwater 1 Hydrazine and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 3..........C-17 Figure C-28 Feedwater 1 Ammonia and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 3...........C-17 Figure C-29 Feedwater 1 ETA and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 3...................C-18 Figure C-30 Feedwater 1 DMA and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 3..................C-18 Figure C-31 Feedwater 2 pH and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 3.....................C-19 Figure C-32 Feedwater 2 Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde

Unit 3.............................................................................................................................C-19 Figure C-33 Feedwater 2 Hydrazine and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 3..........C-20 Figure C-34 Feedwater 2 Ammonia and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 3...........C-20 Figure C-35 Feedwater 2 ETA and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 3...................C-21 Figure C-36 Feedwater 2 DMA and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 3..................C-21 Figure C-37 Reactor Power at Palo Verde Unit 3 ..................................................................C-22 Figure C-38 Feedwater 1 and 2 Total Iron and Feedwater ETA at Palo Verde Unit 1............C-22 Figure D-1 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at Callaway.....................................................D-3 Figure D-2 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at Callaway..........................................D-4 Figure D-3 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Callaway .............................D-4 Figure D-4 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Iron at Callaway...................................................D-5 Figure D-5 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Callaway .............................D-5 Figure D-6 Steam Generator Global Fouling Factor at Callaway.............................................D-6

xv

Figure E-1 Condenser Effluent Total Iron vs Conductivity, Morpholine and Ammonia at Crystal River from January 1998 to May 1999................................................................. E-3

Figure E-2 Condenser Effluent Total Iron vs Conductivity, Morpholine and Ammonia at Crystal River from March 2000 to October 2000.............................................................. E-3

Figure E-3 Condenser Effluent Total Iron vs Conductivity, Morpholine and Ammonia at Crystal River from January 2001 to February 2002 ......................................................... E-4

Figure E-4 Condenser Effluent Total Iron vs Ammonia at Crystal River................................... E-4 Figure E-5 Condenser Effluent Total Iron vs Dissolved Oxygen at Crystal River ..................... E-5 Figure F-1 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 1 ......................... F-3 Figure F-2 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon

Unit 1............................................................................................................................... F-3 Figure F-3 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 1 .............. F-4 Figure F-4 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 1 ....................... F-4 Figure F-5 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon

Unit 1............................................................................................................................... F-5 Figure F-6 Reactor Power at Diablo Canyon Unit 1................................................................. F-5 Figure F-7 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 2 ......................... F-6 Figure F-8 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon

Unit 2............................................................................................................................... F-6 Figure F-9 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 2 .............. F-7 Figure F-10 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 2 ..................... F-7 Figure F-11 Condensate Dissolve Oxygen and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon

Unit 2............................................................................................................................... F-8 Figure F-12 Reactor Power at Diablo Canyon Unit 2............................................................... F-8 Figure H-1 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 .....................................H-3 Figure H-2 Condensate Dissolve Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 1.............H-4 Figure H-3 Feedwater Ammonia and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 1...........................H-4 Figure H-4 Feedwater DMA and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 1..................................H-5 Figure H-5 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 1..........................H-5 Figure H-6 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 .....................................H-6 Figure H-7 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2...........H-6 Figure H-8 Feedwater Ammonia and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2...........................H-7 Figure H-9 Feedwater DMA and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2..................................H-7 Figure H-10 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2........................H-8 Figure H-11 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2.................................H-8 Figure H-12 Reactor Power at Calvert Cliffs Units 1 & 2 .........................................................H-9 Figure I-1 Cycle Average Feedwater Iron for Comanche Peak Units 1 & 2 [11]........................ I-3 Figure I-2 Average Feedwater Iron at Comanche Peak Unit 1 [12]........................................... I-4 Figure I-3 Feedwater Iron vs Feewater Morpholine at Comanche Peak Unit 2 (1994) [13]....... I-4 Figure I-4 Feedwater iron at Comanche Peak Unit 1 (2002-2003)............................................ I-5

xvi

Figure I-5 Feedwater Iron at Comanche Peak Unit 2 (2002-2003) ........................................... I-5 Figure I-6 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen at Comanche Peak Units 1 & 2 (Jan 2001 – July

2003)................................................................................................................................ I-6 Figure I-7 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen at Comanche Peak Units 1 & 2 (January 2001

– July 2003)...................................................................................................................... I-6 Figure I-8 Steam Generator Global Fouling Factor at Comanche Peak Units 1 & 2 ................. I-7 Figure J-1 Feedwater Morpholine and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1 ......................................J-1 Figure J-2 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1........................................J-2 Figure J-3 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1 ...........................J-2 Figure J-4 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1 ...................................................J-3 Figure J-5 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1.........................J-3 Figure J-6 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1 (train B)......................................J-4 Figure J-7 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1 (train B)..............J-4 Figure J-8 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1 (train B) ..........................J-5 Figure J-9 Reactor Power at ANO Unit 1..................................................................................J-5 Figure J-10 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2...............................................J-6 Figure J-11 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2......................................J-6 Figure J-12 Feedwater Ammonia and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2.......................................J-7 Figure J-13 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2 .........................J-7 Figure J-14 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2 .................................................J-8 Figure J-15 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2 .......................J-8 Figure J-16 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2 (train B) ........................J-9 Figure J-17 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2 (train B)............J-9 Figure J-18 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2 (train B)..................................J-10 Figure J-19 Reactor Power at ANO Unit 2..............................................................................J-10 Figure K-1 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Waterford ............................ K-1 Figure K-2 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Iron at Waterford.................................................. K-2 Figure K-3 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at Waterford......................................... K-2 Figure K-4 Feedwater Ammonia and Feedwater Iron at Waterford.......................................... K-3 Figure K-5 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at Waterford.................................................... K-3 Figure K-6 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Waterford.......................... K-4 Figure K-7 Reactor Power at Waterford .................................................................................. K-4

xvii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Trends and Observations from Individual Plants ..................................................... 2-5 Table 2-2 Feedwater Soluble Iron as a Percentage of Total Iron............................................. 2-6 Table 2-3 Water Treatment Methodologies and Feedwater Iron Concentrations ..................... 2-7 Table A-1 Questionnaire Responses....................................................................................... A-2 Table B-1 Questionnaire Responses....................................................................................... B-2 Table C-1 Questionnaire Responses ......................................................................................C-2 Table D-1 Questionnaire Response ........................................................................................D-2 Table E-1 Questionnaire Responses....................................................................................... E-2 Table F-1 Questionnaire Responses....................................................................................... F-1 Table G-1 Questionnaire Responses ......................................................................................G-1 Table H-1 Questionnaire Responses ......................................................................................H-1 Table I-1 Questionnaire Responses ......................................................................................... I-2

1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

EPRI Project S520-1, Multivariable Assessment of Steam Generator Fouling and FAC, was initiated to investigate the influence of dissolved iron in combination with other chemical and electrochemical parameters on fouling processes within steam generators, and on corrosion processes such as flow accelerated corrosion (FAC) within the steam cycle. Specifically, this program, being jointly performed by B&W Canada, B&W Research Center and AECL, has been designed to identify/verify environmental factors that affect steam generator fouling and FAC through the evaluation of plant data and available literature, to identify areas where general knowledge regarding environmental effects on fouling and FAC is lacking, and then to perform experimental investigations that would fill the identified gaps in our knowledge.

This task of the overall program is entitled Collection and Evaluation of Plant Data and Experiences . In this task, operational data from operating PWRs is being sought to evaluate any trends that may exist between environmental factors and fouling and/or FAC. From this evaluation, it is hoped that the most critical variables that affect fouling and FAC might be identified, so that these variables can be further studied experimentally. Much of this evaluation has focused on data supplied by plants in response to a questionnaire generated on this Task; however, other sources of data (eg., SMART ChemWorks data and conference presentations) have also been considered.

In the following sections, data collected from several plants are presented and evaluated. From these data, an overall summary is provided.

1.2 Plant Data

The questionnaire shown in Figure 1-1 was sent to the following utilities/plants:

Diablo Canyon British Energy San Onofre (SONGS) Ontario Power Generation Comanche Peak Calvert Cliffs Watts Bar Millstone Palo Verde South Texas Ringhals Crystal River Duke Power Callaway Bruce Power

Introduction

1-2

The nine plants listed in bold type above provided information in response to the questionnaire. Of these nine plants, electronic data was provided by six of the plants, while three plants provided summaries of plant data. In addition, Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) and Waterford authorized the use of SMART ChemWorks information from their plants on this project.

Information from the individual plants is summarized in the Appendices. Plant data obtained from other sources are referenced in the individual plant data summaries.

In the individual plant summaries, plant data has been organized by the questionnaire questions. Plots showing variations of feedwater iron and other feedwater chemistry constituents (including pH) with time are also included for each plant (only condenser effluent data was available from Crystal River). A discussion of the data/observations provided by the plant, any independently retrieved plant information and any observed trends are provided for each plant.

Introduction

1-3

Figure 1-1 Questionnaire

Questionnaire EPRI Multivariable Assessment of Steam Generator Fouling and FAC

1. Please provide information regarding the levels of soluble and insoluble iron that have been measured in your secondary system (at all locations where measurements were taken, e.g. condenser, feedwater, heater drains, etc.). Spreadsheets/plots/charts of this data as a function of time over the past several years would be particularly useful. Also, please provide information as to the methodology used for sampling and the determination of soluble and insoluble iron levels.

2. Please provide information regarding the operational pH values that you have measured in your secondary systems (at all locations where measurements were taken, e.g. blowdown and feedwater). Spreadsheets/plots/charts of this data as a function of time over the past several years would be particularly useful.

3. Please provide information regarding the dissolved oxygen values that you have measured in your secondary systems (at all locations where measurements were taken, e.g. condensate and feedwater). Spreadsheets/plots/charts of this data as a function of time over the past several years would be particularly useful.

4. Please provide any electrochemical potential (ECP) data that has been collected from your secondary systems (at all locations where measurements were taken). Spreadsheets/plots/charts of this data as a function of time over the past several years would be particularly useful.

5. Please provide information regarding the levels of lead and copper that have been measured in your secondary system (at all locations where measurements were taken). Spreadsheets/plots/charts of this data as a function of time over the past several years would be particularly useful.

6. Please provide information regarding your operating water chemistry practices. Specific information is sought regarding amine and oxygen scavenger chemistry and level. Please provide specific dates when operational chemistry changes were implemented.

7. Please provide information regarding fouling within your secondary systems and flow assisted corrosion (FAC) at your facility. Include a description of the methodology that you use to evaluate fouling and FAC. Spreadsheets/plots/charts of this data as a function of time over the past several years would be particularly useful.

8. Please describe any instances when a specific operational change produced a significant effect (beneficial or detrimental) in fouling and/or FAC.

2-1

2 RESULTS

2.1 Feedwater Iron

FAC occurring in the feed train of a steam generator will lead to elevated iron levels in the feedwater. This iron will be transported into the steam generator where it will deposit on heat transfer surfaces, leading to fouling of these surfaces. To evaluate the variables that influence the FAC of the feed trains and fouling of nuclear steam generators, it is important to analyze plant data. Since online FAC and fouling data are not collected at nuclear power plants, other factors that correlate with FAC and fouling must be evaluated. The factor that best correlates with FAC and fouling is the feedwater iron concentration. Increases in the feedwater iron concentration may be indicative of an increased FAC rate of the feedwater system, and increased feedwater iron certainly has an adverse effect on fouling in the steam generator.

After collecting information from 21 units from 11 different plants, correlations were sought between the feedwater iron and other feedwater constituents (including pH). Finding consistent correlations between feedwater iron and other feedwater chemistry constituents from different units proved difficult. Averaged data from different units showing the effect of feedwater pH, O2 (feedwater and condensate), ammonia, ETA and hydrazine on feedwater iron levels are shown in Figures 2-1 through 2-6. Figure 2-1 demonstrates that feedwater iron generally decreases as the pH of the feedwater increases. The same trend is also observed with ammonia in Figure 2-3, probably because of ammonia’s influence in raising the pH of the feedwater. The summarized plant data in these figures do not show a strong trend between feedwater iron and feedwater O2, ETA or hydrazine, or condensate O2.

There are several factors that make a comparison of data obtained from different plants very difficult:

• each plant/unit operates with different chemistries and at different operating conditions (temperatures, pressures, flows, etc.)

• each plant/unit is constructed somewhat differently

• each plant/unit performs chemical analyses differently and at somewhat different locations

• each plant/unit has a unique history that impacts feedwater chemistry (eg., sludge inventory in feed train components).

Results

2-2

Fe vs pH

y = -4.2072x + 42.485R2 = 0.6014

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

8.8 9 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10

pH

Fe (p

pb)

Figure 2-1 Summarized Plant Data – Feedwater Iron vs Feedwater pH

Fe vs Feedwater O2

y = -0.6841x + 3.1042R2 = 0.2612

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5

FW O2 (ppb)

Fe (p

pb)

Figure 2-2 Summarized Plant Data – Feedwater Iron vs Feedwater O2

Results

2-3

Fe vs Condensate O2

y = -0.2676x + 4.5499R2 = 0.0435

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Condensate O2 (ppb)

Fe (p

pb)

Figure 2-3 Summarized Plant Data – Feedwater Iron vs Condensate O2

Fe vs NH3

y = -0.5826x + 3.3104R2 = 0.5663

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

NH3 (ppm)

Fe (p

pb)

Figure 2-4 Summarized Plant Data – Feedwater Iron vs Feedwater Ammonia

Results

2-4

Fe vs ETA

y = -0.5025x + 3.9041R2 = 0.1005

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5

ETA (ppm)

Fe (p

pb)

Figure 2-5 Summarized Plant Data – Feedwater Iron vs Feedwater ETA

Fe vs N2H4

y = -0.0191x + 3.8401R2 = 0.0433

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 20 40 60 80 100

N2H4 (ppb)

Fe (p

pb)

Figure 2-6 Summarized Plant Data – Feedwater Iron vs Feedwater Hydrazine

Results

2-5

It has long been known that elevated pH levels reduce feedwater iron, so the observation of this “first-order effect” is not a surprise. In fact, this effect of at-temperature pH on iron concentration was directly observed in the moisture separator drains at Catawba unit 1 based on plant data when transitioning from morpholine to ETA chemistry (see Figure 61 in reference 1). Another first-order effect is the influence of O2 level on the FAC of carbon steel (the occurrence of FAC should produce higher iron concentrations); however, the summarized plant data did not demonstrate this correlation (Figure 3). Since first-order effects were difficult to identify from plant data, it was not possible to identify more subtle second-order effects (eg., the effect of different amines).

It is possible to observe some trends by considering data collected over time from individual units. Variability caused by differences in history and construction are eliminated when individual units are considered, but changes in operating chemistry and conditions, and changes in chemical analysis procedures are common in the units, adding variability even to these data sets.

Trends observed in the data from individual plants/units, as well as specific observations from plant personnel, are collected in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Trends and Observations from Individual Plants

Plant Trend / Observation Watts Bar - FW iron drops as FW pH increases

Palo Verde

- FAC changes were observed with changes in pH - ETA injections reduced iron concentrations - the only operational changes that have significantly changed FAC or

fouling behavior are changes to pH

Callaway - FW iron drops as FW pH increases (weak correlation) - significant changes in O2 (1.5 – 5 ppb) and hydrazine (20 – 100

ppb) concentrations had no effect on FW ECP

Crystal River

- pH control was effective in minimizing fouling - FW iron concentration dropped when ammonia was replaced by

morpholine, most likely due to the lower volatility of morpholine and a resultant higher pH

- weak correlation between condenser effluent (CE) O2 and CE iron (as O2 increased, iron decreased)

Diablo Canyon - ETA appeared effective in reducing iron concentration, but pH

increases may have had an influence on this observation

Calvert Cliffs - DMA additions reduced FW iron concentrations, but the DMA

additions may have also corresponded to a pH increase

Comanche Peak

- increasing morpholine concentrations produced decreasing FW iron concentrations, due to increased pH

- DMA additions reduced FW iron concentrations to a greater extent than can be explained by an increase in pH

ANO - possible correlation between increased ETA concentration and

decreasing iron concentration

From Table 2-1, the correlation between iron concentration and increasing pH observed in Figure 2-1 is reinforced. ETA was felt to be beneficial in at least three plants (though this correlation was not always obvious from plant data), and other amines (morpholine and DMA) were felt to be effective in reducing iron concentrations at some units.

Results

2-6

It is significant that neither plant data nor observations by plant personnel identified a strong correlation between O2 or hydrazine concentration and feedwater iron concentrations. Berge [2] related that Gentilly 2 was operating on morpholine with no hydrazine and had feedwater iron levels of ~1 ppb. When Gentilly 2 began injecting 30-60 ppb hydrazine, the feedwater iron concentration increased to ~2.2 ppb, even though the feedwater pH increased. This result suggests that the oxygen concentration in the feedwater has a strong influence on the feedwater iron concentration (presumably due to FAC). Since the units analyzed in the Appendices reported hydrazine levels that ranged from ~35 to 95 ppb, it appears that variations within this hydrazine concentration are not sufficient to have a significant effect on the feedwater iron concentrations. While Figure 2-3 shows no trend between feedwater iron concentration and the condensate oxygen concentration, data from two plants (Watts Bar and Crystal River) suggested that the feedwater iron decreased when the condensate oxygen increased (at an essentially constant pH).

The percentage of particulate vs. soluble iron in the feedwater from several plants is shown in Table 2-2. Data from most of the plants indicates that the majority of feedwater iron is particulate in nature. However, the data from Callaway suggests that the sampling method is the controlling factor in making this determination. Until the analysis methods for determining particulate vs. soluble feedwater iron are standardized, a comparison of the results from different units will have limited value.

Table 2-2 Feedwater Soluble Iron as a Percentage of Total Iron

Plant Percent Soluble Iron in Feedwater Calvert Cliffs 15%

Diablo Canyon 7%

Callaway 5% using remote monitors 61% using local monitors

Palo Verde 11% (Unit 1) 8% (Unit 2) 3% (Unit 3)

Watts Bar 49% SONGS 18%

A summary of secondary side water treatment methodologies and the resultant feedwater iron concentrations from the plants evaluated in this program are displayed in Table 2-3. From Table 2-3, the importance of maintaining high pH to minimize feedwater iron is obvious. The amines used to achieve the elevated pH appear to be much less important than the resultant pH level. It also appears that DMA is effective in further reducing feedwater iron levels from that which can be accomplished by simply increasing the pH.

Results

2-7

Table 2-3 Water Treatment Methodologies and Feedwater Iron Concentrations

Feedwater Chemistry (ppb)

Plant/Unit Timeframe ETA N2H4 NH3 Mor

phol

ine

DMA Other FW pH @25°C

Mean FW Fe

(ppb)

SONGS 2&3 1999-2003 3500 110 TiO2, H3BO3

9 5

Watts Bar 1996-1997 350 75 500 9.1 10 Watts Bar 1998-1999 750 40 600 9.1 5 Watts Bar 2000-2001 3000 80 2000 9.6 3 Watts Bar 2001-2002 3000 90 4000 9.7 2 Watts Bar 2002-2003 3000 100 7000 9.9 1.3 Palo Verde

1, 2 & 3 2000-2003 1000 40 650 9.1 5

Callaway 2001-2003 2000 100 TiO2 9.2 4 Diablo Canyon

1&2 2002-2003 2100 80 H3BO3 9 6

Bruce 5-8 1998-2003 200 4000 8000 1 Calvert Cliffs 1 2000 90 5200 2.0 Calvert Cliffs 2 2000 2000 90 4200 1000 1.6 Calvert Cliffs 1 Oct 2002 92 4300 1050 9.82 0.6 Calvert Cliffs 2 Oct 2002 1900 90 3500 900 9.87 0.6 Calvert Cliffs 1 Jan 2003 91 6800 1100 9.89 0.6 Calvert Cliffs 2 Jan 2003 2000 90 4700 1000 9.86 0.7 Calvert Cliffs 1 May 2003 88 3700 960 9.82 0.6 Calvert Cliffs 2 May 2003 2100 97 1700 1000 9.75 1.3 Calvert Cliffs 1 July 2003 96 2800 900 9.76 0.7 Calvert Cliffs 2 July 2003 2000 89 1900 1000 9.77 0.9 Calvert Cliffs 1 Aug 2003 89 2500 1100 9.76 1.0 Calvert Cliffs 2 Aug 2003 2100 92 2200 1000 9.77 0.7

Comanche Peak 1

Jul 1990 – Oct 1992 30 5000 9

Comanche Peak 1

Dec 1992 – Oct 1993 30 9000 2.5

Comanche Peak 1

Dec 1993 – Mar 1995 30 20000 500 0.9

Comanche Peak 1

Apr 1995 – Mar 2001 30 35000 1000 0.4

ANO 1 2000-2003 60 30000 9.5 1.5 ANO 2 2000-2003 4500 60 1500 9.6 1.5

Waterford 2000-2003 1500 75 2000 9.6 1

2.2 Fouling

Fouling data for the units surveyed was not as readily available as feedwater chemistry data. For the units where data was available, Callaway and Comanche Peak have experienced consistently low fouling rates. SONGS 2 and 3 experienced severe fouling early in their operating life, but these units have experienced low fouling rates since they were chemically cleaned in 1996-97.

Results

2-8

Similarly, Watts Bar sludge lancing results suggest that changes in feedwater chemistry have been effective in reducing deposition in their steam generators.

The composition of the sludge observed in steam generators is predominantly magnetite (Fe3O4), with minor amounts of copper and lead.

As with the feedwater iron concentration trends described in Table 2-1, the fouling behavior of the units appears to be most strongly influenced by the feedwater pH (as pH increases, feedwater iron decreases, and steam generator fouling decreases). No clear correlation could be established between fouling and the addition of secondary side feedwater chemicals outside of the effect that these chemicals have on the pH of the feedwater.

3-1

3 CONCLUSIONS

• Feedwater iron concentration is most strongly influenced by the feedwater pH. Assuming that the feedwater iron concentration is an accurate indicator of the FAC that is occurring in the feedwater systems, and that the feedwater iron concentration can be directly correlated to the degree of fouling in a steam generator, then the feedwater pH appears to have a larger influence on FAC and fouling than any other feedwater constituent.

• It is possible to observe only first-order effects when comparing data from different units due to variability between plant chemistry, operating conditions, construction and history.

• Evidence from some plants suggest that ETA, morpholine and DMA are more effective in reducing feedwater iron concentrations than additions of ammonia. However, the present analysis of plant data was unable to identify a consistent trend demonstrating that these secondary side chemical additives have a significant beneficial effect on the feedwater iron concentration beyond their ability to increase the feedwater pH.

• Variations in feedwater O2, condensate O2 and hydrazine concentrations did not produce a significant change in feedwater iron concentrations for the units studied, although data from some individual units suggested that increased condensate oxygen decreased the feedwater iron concentration.

4-1

4 REFERENCES

1. Full-Scale Test of Ethanolamine at Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1993. TR-103042.

2. P. Berge, “Secondary Chemistry Control and Feedwater Iron Level – Foreign Experience”, 2002 Workshop on Pressurized Water Reactor Elevated Feedwater Iron Transport, Dana Point, CA, September 17-18, 2002.

3. Proceedings: 2002 Workshop on Pressurized Water Reactor Elevated Feedwater Iron Transport, Dana Point, CA, September 17-18, 2002, EPRI, 2002.

4. S. Sawochka, “SONGS 2 Iron Transport Root Cause Assessment”, 2002 Workshop on Pressurized Water Reactor Elevated Feedwater Iron Transport, Dana Point, CA, September 17-18, 2002.

5. Dominion Engineering, Inc. Memo M-5508-00-30, “Steam Generator Fouling Experience for a Selection of US Plants”, from M. Kreider (DEI) to J. Jevec (B&W) and K. Fruzzetti (EPRI), March 2, 2004.

6. K. Riggle, “Mitigation of Corrosion Product Transport”, Internal TVA Report, 2003.

7. “Evaluation of Westinghouse Chemical Analysis of the Watts Bar 1RO4 Steam generator Deposits”, LTR-CDME-02-48, Westinghouse Electric Company, March 2003.

8. G. Bucci, “Feedwater Iron Experience at Palo Verde”, 2002 Workshop on Pressurized Water Reactor Elevated Feedwater Iron Transport, Dana Point, CA, September 17-18, 2002.

9. R. Thompson and T. Gaudreau, “Modeling and Field Studies of Fouling in Once-Through Steam Generators”, presented at the Seventh International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors, August 7-10, 1995, Breckenridge, Colorado.

10. J. Correa, “Diablo Canyon Power Plant: 2002 DCPP History & Efforts on Iron Transfer”, 2002 Workshop on Pressurized Water Reactor Elevated Feedwater Iron Transport, Dana Point, CA, September 17-18, 2002.

11. J. Stevens, B. Fellers and S. Orbon, “Steam Generator Deposit Control Program Assessment at Comanche Peak”, CHIMIE 2002, April, 2002.

References

4-2

12. B. Fellers and D. Shenberger, “Dimethylamine Chemistry Demonstration; Nuclear Steam Cycle Application”, 55th Annual International Water Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 31 – November 2, 1994.

13. J. Stevens, B. Fellers and G. Nichols, “Amine Optimization at Comanche Peak Nuclear Station”, 1995 EPRI PWR Plant Chemistry Meeting, lake Buena Vista, Florida, November 1-3, 1995.

A-1

A SONGS: PLANT DATA SUMMARY

SONGS Discussion

The elevated iron transport that was experienced by SONGS has been well documented [3]. As described in the following table and figures, increases in feedwater iron were observed in both Units 2 and 3, though the increase in Unit 2 was more dramatic than that observed in Unit 3.

The increase in feedwater (FW) iron does not appear to correlate with the FW pH or the polisher effluent (PE) O2. Figure A-1 shows that in 1999 the FW pH in Unit 2 dropped from ~9.1 to ~8.8, but the FW iron remained constant. Conversely, when the Unit 2 FW iron began to increase in 2001, the FW pH remained essentially constant. Sawochka [4] stated that the increased iron transport in Unit 2 was due to “mechanical rather than chemical effects”. This is borne out by the fact that the iron is essentially all particulate in both Units 2 and 3. Thus, as shown in the data, the chemistry in Units 2 and 3 did not appear to play a significant role in the increased FW iron concentrations.

SONGS Units 2 and 3 experienced severe fouling through the mid 1990’s, as shown in Figures A-5 and A-6. The scale thickness averaged 0.007-0.009” over all heat transfer surfaces, and was composed primarily of magnetite, but with some copper. Following a chemical cleaning in 1997, these units have experienced low fouling rates, with a deposit thickness of only ~0.001” having accumulated since the chemical cleaning. [5]

SONGS: Plant Data Summary

A-2

Table A-1 Questionnaire Responses

SONGS

Question Topic Information

- Unit 2 SGFW between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged ~3 ppb until 4/2001, then ~8 until 3/2003 (essentially all particulate); point heaters between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged ~2ppb; heater drains between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged ~3ppb; MSDT in 1/2001 averaged ~4.5ppb

1 Fe levels - Unit 3 SGFW between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged ~3 ppb until 4/2001, then ~5 until 3/2003 (essentially all particulate); point heaters between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged between 1 and 5ppb; heater drains between 2/1999 and 7/2002 averaged ~4ppb

- Unit 2 between 2/1999 and 3/2003: Condensate pH averaged ~9.1; Blowdown pH averaged ~8.7; SGFW pH averaged ~9

2 pH levels - Unit 3 between 2/1999 and 3/2003: Condensate pH averaged ~9; Blowdown pH averaged ~8.7; SGFW pH averaged ~9

- Unit 2 Polisher Effluent between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged ~5ppb with a few spikes >30ppb

3 DO2 levels - Unit 3 Polisher Effluent between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged ~5ppb with a few spikes >30ppb

4 ECP data - No data

- Unit 2 SGFW Cu between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged <0.5ppb with a few spikes above 1ppb; point heaters between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged <0.2ppb; heater drains between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged <0.2ppb with a couple spikes above 0.5ppb; MSDT in 1/2001 averaged ~0.15ppb

- Unit 3 SGFW Cu between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged ~0.2ppb with a few spikes above 0.5ppb; point heaters between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged <0.1ppb; heater drains between 2/1999 and 3/2003 averaged <0.1ppb with a couple spikes above 0.5ppb

5 Pb & Cu

- No Pb data

- SONGS Chemistry programs are implemented in accordance with NEI directive 97-06. Secondary Water Chemistry is maintained as outlined in the EPRI PWR Secondary Water Chemistry Guidelines. SONGS design includes 90-10 Cu-Ni high temperature feedwater heaters and Admiralty brass low temperature feedwater heaters. EPRI guideline requirements are implemented because of this design fact. We have no deviations from the Control or Diagnostic parameters listed in the guidelines.

- SONGS Secondary Chemistry Control currently includes the addition of the following chemicals. Monoethanolamine (ETA) for pH control, hydrazine as an oxygen scavenger and to maintain a reducing environment in the Steam Generators (lower ECP), Boric Acid to mitigate S/G corrosion mechanisms (specifically denting), and Titanium Dioxide to mitigate S/G corrosion mechanisms are added.

6 Operating Practices

- In 1996 at Unit 3 ETA was implemented, then the following year ETA was implemented at Unit 2. Prior to implementation of ETA, ammonia was used for pH control. Nominal Feedwater ETA concentration is 3.5 ppm with an allowed range of 2.0 – 5.0 ppm ETA.


A-3

SONGS


- Hydrazine has been used since commercial operation began in 1984. Initial allowed hydrazine concentrations in the Feedwater were 10 – 50 ppb or 3 times condensate oxygen concentration. In 1987, hydrazine level in the Feedwater was elevated to 100 – 120 ppb. This is the current level of Feedwater hydrazine. In 1994 a study was performed to raise Feedwater hydrazine in a range of 150 – 500 ppb to determine the impact on iron transport.

- Titanium Dioxide addition to the Steam Generators was implemented in 1997.

- Boric Acid addition to the Steam Generators was implemented in 1998.

7 Fouling / FAC - No data

8 Effect of

Operational Changes

- No data

Correlations with Feedwater Iron

SONGS Unit 2

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9

9.2

9.4

9.6

9.8

7/24

/199

8

2/9/

1999

8/28

/199

9

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

pH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)

FW pHTotal FW Fe

Figure A-1 Total Feedwater Fe and Feedwater pH at SONGS Unit 2


A-4

SONGS Unit 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

307/

24/1

998

2/9/

1999

8/28

/199

9

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

O2

(ppb

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fe (ppb)

PE O2Total FW Fe

Figure A-2 Total Feedwater Fe and Polisher Effluent Dissolved Oxygen at SONGS Unit 2

SONGS U3

7.88

8.28.48.68.8

99.29.49.69.8

2/9/

99

8/28

/99

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

Date

pH

02468101214161820

Fe (ppb)

FW pHTotal FW Fe

Figure A-3 Total Feedwater Fe and Feedwater pH at SONGS Unit 3


A-5

SONGS Unit 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

102/

9/19

99

8/28

/199

9

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

O2

(ppb

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Fe (ppb)

PE O2Total FW Fe

Figure A-4 Total Feedwater Fe and Polisher Effluent Dissolved Oxygen at SONGS Unit 3

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Approximate EFPYs

Glo

ba

l Fo

ulin

g F

ac

tor

(µh

-ft²

-°F

/Btu

)

EOC11

EOC58/91

EOC66/93

EOC811/96

EOC91/99

EOC1010/00

EOC110/84

EOC22/86

EOC37/87

EOC48/89

EOC72/95

ChemicalCleaning

1% PowerUprate

Figure A-5 Steam Generator Global Fouling Factor at SONGS Unit 2


A-6

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Approximate EFPYs

Glo

ba

l Fo

ulin

g F

ac

tor

(µh

-ft²

-°F

/Btu

)EOC51/92

EOC610/93

EOC8

EOC93/99

EOC1

EOC19/85

EOC21/87

EOC34/88

EOC44/90

EOC77/95

EOC111/03

1% PowerUprate

ChemicalCleaning

1st Post-CCOutage

Figure A-6 Steam Generator Global Fouling Factor at SONGS Unit 3

B-1

B WATTS BAR: PLANT DATA SUMMARY

Watts Bar Discussion

As shown in Figure B-7 [6], Watts Bar has significantly reduced the concentration of FW iron since the plant began operation. The feedwater chemistry during this time is shown in the Table below.

Additive Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5

Hydrazine (ppb) 50-100 40 80 80-100 100

ETA (ppb) 200-500 500-1000 3000 3000 3000

Ammonia (ppb) 500 600 2000 2000-6000 7000

pH (SU) 8.9-9.2 9.1 9.6 9.6-9.8 9.8-10

from Mitigation of Corrosion Product Transport by Keith Riggle, TVA – Watts Bar Nuclear

A straightforward correlation exists between the feedwater pH in the above table, and the reduced FW iron observed in Figure B-6: as the pH increased, the FW iron decreased.

The recent data displayed in Figures B-1 through B-6 reinforces this correlation. The FW iron decrease from ~2 ppb to ~1 ppb correlates with increased ammonia (Figure B-1), increased hydrazine (Figure B-4) and increased pH (Figure B-5). The FW iron decrease did not correlate with the FW O2 level or the ETA concentration during this time period, both of which remained at essentially the same mean value. The FW iron decrease did appear to correlate with an increase in the Condensate O2 level (Figure B-6).

Sludge lancing has been periodically performed at Watts Bar since operation began. The sludge lancing performed in 2002 removed deposits with a thickness of >0.002”. The deposits were composed primarily of magnetite, but with significant copper and lead. The weight of deposits removed during the past two sludge lancings has been less than the average weight removed during previous lancings, suggesting that water chemistry changes may be having a positive effect on the fouling experienced at Watts Bar. [7]

Watts Bar: Plant Data Summary

B-2

Table B-1 Questionnaire Responses

Watts Bar


- information for feedwater from 4/00 to 4/03

- total iron generally ranged from 1-3 ppb, with some spikes to ~8 ppb

- total iron averages were ~2 ppb before ~5/01, then dropped to ~1 ppb after ~6/02 1 Fe levels

- information for feedwater Fe collected on millipore, and 3 cation filters in 4/03; total Fe ranged from 1.4 to 2.4 ppb

- data provided for condensate, feedwater and SG blowdown

- condensate pH averaged ~9.6 until ~10/01 when it increased to ~9.9-10

- feedwater pH averaged ~9.6 until ~10/01 when it increased to 9.9

- blowdown pH averaged ~9.2 until ~8/01 when it dropped to ~9

- SG blowdown boron levels increased from ~2 to ~5 in 8/01

2 pH levels

- a few brief excursion to pH levels of 7-8 were reported for cond, FW and blowdown

-DO2 levels reported for condensate and feedwater

- condensate DO2 level averaged between 2 and 3 ppb from 4/00 to 12/01; after 12/01, DO2 levels have risen to between 3 and 7 ppb with wide variation

- feedwater DO2 levels were generally between 0 and 1 ppb from 4/00 to 4/03; with a few spikes to much higher levels

- condensate N2H4 levels were generally between 10 and 15 ppb

3 DO2 levels

- feedwater N2H4 levels were between 70 and 80 ppb from 4/00 to 4/01, and ~100 ppb from 4/01 to 4/03


5 Pb & Cu - feedwater Cu averaged ~50 ppb with wide variation from 4/00 to 4/02; from 4/02 to 4/03 the average dropped to ~20 ppb with little variability


- ETA, ammonia and hydrazine

7 Fouling / FAC

- No data

8

Effect of Operational Changes

- No data


B-3


Watts Bar

0123456789

10

8/28

/99

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

NH3

(ppm

)

012345678910

Fe (ppb)

FW NH3FW Fe

Figure B-1 Feedwater Ammonia and Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar

Watts Bar

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

8/28

/99

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

DO2

(ppb

)

012345678910

Fe (ppb)

FW DO2FW Fe

Figure B-2 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar


B-4

Watts Bar

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

8/28

/99

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

ETA

(ppm

)

012345678910

Fe (ppb)

FW ETAFW Fe

Figure B-3 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar

Watts Bar

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

8/28

/99

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

N2H4

(ppb

)

012345678910

Fe (ppb)

FW N2H4FW Fe

Figure B-4 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar


B-5

Watts Bar

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

8/28

/99

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

pH

012345678910

Fe (ppb)

FW pHFW Fe

Figure B-5 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar

Watts Bar

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

10.0

8/28

/99

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

DO2

(ppb

)

012345678910

Fe (ppb)

Cond DO2FW Fe

Figure B-6 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar


B-6

TVA-Watts Bar Nuclear Feedwater Iron

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

2/5/96 3/11/97 4/15/98 5/20/99 6/23/00 7/28/01 9/1/02 10/6/03

Iron

(ppb

)

Figure B-7 Feedwater Iron at Watts Bar

C-1

C PALO VERDE: PLANT DATA SUMMARY

Palo Verde Discussion

The FW iron concentration in the following figures does not show a noticeable correlation with FW pH, O2, hydrazine, ammonia, ETA or DMA (Units 2 and 3). During the timeframe that the data was collected (mid 2000 to mid 2003), the iron levels in all three units remained essentially constant. Unit 1 FW iron was ~5 ppb, while Units 2 and 3 displayed FW iron of ~2 ppb. These values are in agreement with those reported by Bucci [8]. Interestingly, wide variations in the concentrations of other FW constituents were observed during this time period, but these variations appeared to have a negligible effect on the FW iron. An example of this is the FW pH measured in Unit 3 (Figure C-25), which experienced a step-changed from 10 to 9. The pH remained at 9 for several months, and then experienced another step-change back to 10. The FW iron concentration in Unit 3 remained essentially constant at ~2 ppb during these drastic changes in FW pH.

Figure C-38, however, does show a strong correlation between the ETA concentration and the feedwater iron concentration in Unit 1 from mid to late 2004. Palo Verde indicated that, in general, if there is no ETA in the system, iron is typically 5-6 ppb, but with ETA in the system, iron is generally 2.5-3 ppb. The room temperature pH increase realized during the ETA additions shown in Figure C-38 was no more than ~0.15 pH units. Palo Verde feels that a significant benefit of the ETA additions is the pH distribution change. Without ETA in the system, there is very little amine in the heater drains portion of the plant, but as ETA is added, the distribution is significantly different and heater drains pH is increased at least somewhat.

A comparison of Figures C-12 through C-23 with C-25 through C-36 demonstrates that Units 2 and 3 were operated with quite different FW chemistries. The FW pH for Unit 2 was typically ~9, while the FW pH for Unit 3 was ~10 for most of the time between 2000 and 2003. FW O2 and Hydrazine levels were about the same for both units during this time period, but the ammonia levels were significantly higher in Unit 3 than in Unit 2 (~22 ppm vs. ~0.5 ppm). The ETA level was also somewhat higher in Unit 3 than in Unit 2. As stated above, the increased FW pH level in Unit 3 did not result in lower FW iron levels as compared to Unit 2 (both had ~2 ppb FW iron). The DMA additions in Units 2 and 3 (Figures C-17, C-23, C-30 and C-36) did not appear to have an influence on the FW iron concentration.

In their response to the questionnaire, Palo Verde stated that they observe changes in FAC with changes in pH, and that they see a positive effect of ETA injection on iron concentrations (as compared to ammonia only injections). They feel that the only operational changes that have significantly changed FAC or fouling behavior are changes to pH.

Palo Verde: Plant Data Summary

C-2

Palo Verde does not assign a specific value to the degree of fouling experienced by their units. They do track the hideout returns during downpowers and shutdowns.

Table C-1 Questionnaire Responses

Palo Verde


- Unit 1: Polisher Influent (5/2000-5/2003), Polisher Effluent (5/2000-9/2001), SGFW (5/2000-5/2003), LPP FW Heater (6/2000-3/2001), Htr Drains (6/2000-3/2001)

- Unit 1: PI Fe Total ≈ Fe Suspended, averaged ~10ppb; PE Fe averaged ~4ppb until ~7/2000 then dropped to ~1.5ppb from 9/2000 - 3/2001 then dropped to ~0.5ppb from 8/2001 - 9/2001; SGFW averaged ~4ppb and was predominantly suspended Fe; LPP FW Htr averaged ~3ppb and was all suspended Fe; Htr Drns started at ~12ppb in 6/2000 and dropped to ~3ppb by 4/2001, Fe was predominantly dissolved

- Unit 2: Polisher Influent (5/2000-5/2003), Polisher Effluent (9/2000-11/2000), SGFW (5/2000-5/2003), LPP FW Heater (11/2000), Htr Drains (11/2000-12/2000)

- Unit 2: PI Fe Total ≈ Fe Suspended, averaged ~6ppb; PE Fe averaged ~5ppb (data only from 9/2000 to 11/2000) with a spike to 45ppb in 11/2000; SGFW averaged ~3ppb with a few spikes to >80ppb and was predominantly suspended Fe; LPP FW Htr averaged ~6ppb (data only in 11/2000); Htr Drns averaged ~10ppb with spikes to >100ppb, Fe was predominantly suspended

- Unit 3: Polisher Influent (5/2000-5/2003), Polisher Effluent (10/2000 and 8/2001), SGFW (5/2000-5/2003)

1 Fe levels

- Unit 3: PI Fe Total ≈ Fe Suspended, averaged ~6ppb with spikes >100ppb; PE Fe averaged ~0.9ppb (only 4 data points); SGFW averaged ~3ppb with a few spikes to >100ppb and was predominantly suspended Fe

- Unit 1 SGFW pH averaged ~9.1 between 5/2000 and 5/2003

- Unit 2 SGFW pH averaged ~10 between 5/2000 and 11/2000, and ~9 between 11/2000 and 5/2003

- Unit 3 SGFW pH averaged ~10 between 5/2000 and 2/2001, ~9 between 2/2001 and 12/2001, ~10 between 12/2001 and 3/2003, and ~9 between 3/2003 and 5/2003

- Unit 1 blowdown pH averaged ~8.5 (range of 7-10) from 4 brief reporting periods between 11/2000 and 3/2003. 3 of the 4 reporting periods were at ~0% power

- Unit 2 blowdown pH averaged ~9 (range of 7.5-10.5) from 9 brief reporting periods between 8/2000 and 4/2002. All 9 of the reporting periods were at <12% power

2 pH levels

- Unit 3 blowdown pH averaged ~9 (range of 7-10.5) from 7 brief reporting periods between 2/2001 and 4/2003. All but 1 of the reporting periods were at 0% power. The points taken at 99% power displayed a pH of ~8.78.

- Unit 1 PI averaged ~3ppb from 5/2000 to 5/2003; SGFW averaged ~1ppb from 5/2000 to 5/2003

- Unit 2 PI averaged ~3ppb from 5/2000 to 5/2003; SGFW averaged <1ppb from 5/2000 to 5/2003

3 DO2 levels

- Unit 3 PI averaged ~2.5ppb from 5/2000 to 5/2003; SGFW averaged <1ppb from 5/2000 to 5/2003



C-3

Palo Verde


5 Pb & Cu - No data

- The overall philosophy was to be in full polisher bypass when possible, but this was not possible for much of the time. When in bypass, the pH is raised to >10.0. This is indicated in the data by FW ammonia concentration being 10,000 ppb or greater. If it is near 500 ppb or so, it means the units are in full flow polishing. In June of 2000 Palo Verde began adding ETA again. Because of ongoing problems with resin that is associated with ETA, ETA is occasionally removed from the system to allow the resin to recover, then ETA injection is re-initiated several weeks later. This is obviously indicated by ETA concentration going to zero and ammonia concentration going to 500-700 ppb. ETA injections were begun very cautiously in the units as indicated by very low ETA concentrations initially. Tests were performed to try to determine the optimal concentration of ETA to use, so ETA has moved around quite a bit over the past few years. Additionally, ammonia is injected to supplement the ETA when on polishers, so even with ETA in the system, there is still a pretty significant ammonia concentration.

- Palo Verde injects nitrogen to the condenser to help keep oxygen under control. Palo Verde recognizes the fact the some oxygen helps to control FAC, so they have established a minimum oxygen target in condensate demin influent of about 2 ppb. There is not a hard spec on it, but they want to maintain some residual. This is accomplished by changing the nitrogen injection rate.

- Units 2 and 3 used DMA for a period of time while on bypass. That period(s) is indicated by the DMA data.


- Iron data is obtained by collecting large volume samples over a period of several days. A 0.45-micron filter is followed by a cation-impregnated filter. The filters are then analyzed by x-ray fluorescence (XRF). The sample for both iron and FW oxygen is taken locally rather than a remote sampler. The sample line length is <6 feet and is cooled immediately. Palo Verde began using the local sample location and the XRF analysis several years ago and have seen a dramatic change in both the value and the consistency of the results. They feel very confident that the oxygen and iron values are very accurate with this methodology.

- Palo Verde uses an engineer to monitor FAC. He tracks expected FAC rates throughout the plant using computer models. When changes in plant chemistry are made that could effect FAC he makes those changes in his models to reflect that. The site periodically performs ultrasonic testing to verify the model. At his recommendation, piping is replaced with a CrMo alloy. Most of these replacements have taken place in the heater drains portion of the plant. 7

Fouling / FAC - The fouling we see is mainly indicated in steam generator hideout. A number or value is not assigned to any degree of fouling, but they do track the amount of hideout and hideout return that they get on downpowers and shutdowns. The site chemically cleaned SG’s in 1994/1995 in all 3 units. Units 1 and 3 were chemically cleaned again this year. Unit 2 will replace SG’s this fall and have therefore not been chemically cleaned.

8 Effect of Operational Changes

- Each time pH control regimes are changed, as described above, a change in FAC results. Obviously when ETA is injected, a positive change in iron results is seen as compared to when the feedtrain is in full flow polishing and ammonia only injection. Other than changing pH control Palo Verde is not aware of any operational changes that have significantly changed FAC or fouling.


C-4


Palo Verde Unit 1 Feedwater

99.29.49.69.810

10.210.410.610.8

113/

15/2

000

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

pH

05101520253035404550

Fe (ppb)

pH (IL)Total Iron (Local)

Figure C-1 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1


0123456789

10

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

O2

(pp

b)

05101520253035404550

Fe (ppb

)

FW O2 (Local)Total Iron (Local)

Figure C-2 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1


C-5


0102030405060708090

100

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

N2H

4 (p

pb)

05101520253035404550

Fe (ppb)

Hydrazine (IL)Total Iron (Local)

Figure C-3 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

NH

3 (p

pb)

05101520253035404550

Fe (ppb)

AmmoniaTotal Iron (Local)

Figure C-4 Feedwater Ammonia and Feedwater Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1


C-6


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

ETA

(ppb

)

05101520253035404550

Fe (ppb)

ETATotal Iron (Local)

Figure C-5 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1

Palo Verde Unit 1 - Feedwater 2

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

pH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)


Figure C-6 Feedwater 2 pH and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1


C-7


0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

3/15/

2000

10/1/

2000

4/19/

2001

11/5/

2001

5/24/

2002

12/10

/200

2

6/28/

2003

1/14/

2004

O2 (p

pb)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)FW O2 (IL)Total Iron (Local)

Figure C-7 Feedwater 2 Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

N2H4

(ppb

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)


Figure C-8 Feedwater 2 Hydrazine and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1


C-8


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

8003/

15/2

000

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

NH3 (

ppb)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)


Figure C-9 Feedwater 2 Ammonia and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

ETA

(ppb

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)


Figure C-10 Feedwater 2 ETA and Feedwater 2 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 1


C-9

Palo Verde Unit 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1003/

15/2

000

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

Reac

tor P

ower

(%)

Reactor Power

Figure C-11 Reactor Power at Palo Verde Unit 1


8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

pH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fe (ppb)




C-10


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

103/

15/2

000

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

O2 (p

pb)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fe (ppb)FW O2 (Local)Total Iron (Local)



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

N2H4

(ppb

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fe (ppb)




C-11


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

NH3 (

ppb)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fe (ppb)AmmoniaTotal Iron (Local)



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3/15/2

000

10/1/

2000

4/19/2

001

11/5/

2001

5/24/2

002

12/10

/2002

6/28/2

003

1/14/2

004

ETA

(ppb

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fe (ppb)




C-12


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

3/15/2

000

10/1/

2000

4/19/2

001

11/5/

2001

5/24/2

002

12/10

/2002

6/28/2

003

1/14/2

004

DMA

(ppb

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fe (ppb)DMATotal Iron (Local)

Figure C-17 Feedwater 1 DMA and Feedwater 1 Total Iron at Palo Verde Unit 2


8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

pH

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Fe (ppb)




C-13


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

3/15/2

000

10/1/

2000

4/19/2

001

11/5/

2001

5/24/2

002

12/10

/2002

6/28/2

003

1/14/2

004

O2 (p

pb)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Fe (ppb)

FW O2 (IL)Total Iron (Local)



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

N2H4

(ppb

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Fe (ppb)




C-14


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

NH3 (

ppb)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Fe (ppb)




0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

ETA

(ppb

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Fe (ppb)




C-15


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

18003/

15/2

000

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

DMA

(ppb

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Fe (ppb)

DMATotal Iron (Local)


Palo Verde Unit 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3/15

/200

0

6/23

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

1/9/

2001

4/19

/200

1

7/28

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

2/13

/200

2

5/24

/200

2

Reac

tor P

ower

(%)

Reactor Power



C-16


8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.53/

15/2

000

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

pH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)




0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

O2

(ppb

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)

FW O2 (Local)Total Iron (Local)



C-17


0

50

100

150

200

2503/

15/2

000

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

N2H

4 (p

pb)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)




0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

NH

3 (p

pb)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)




C-18


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

60003/

15/2

000

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

ETA

(ppb

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)




0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

DM

A (p

pb)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)




C-19


8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.53/

15/2

000

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

pH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)




0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

3/15/2

000

10/1/

2000

4/19/2

001

11/5/

2001

5/24/2

002

12/1

0/200

2

6/28/2

003

1/14/2

004

O2 (p

pb)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)

FW O2 (IL)Total Iron (Local)



C-20


0

50

100

150

200

2503/

15/2

000

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

N2H4

(ppb

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)




0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

NH3

(ppb

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)




C-21


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

40003/

15/2

000

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

ETA

(ppb

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)




0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3/15

/200

0

10/1

/200

0

4/19

/200

1

11/5

/200

1

5/24

/200

2

12/1

0/20

02

6/28

/200

3

1/14

/200

4

DMA

(ppb

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fe (ppb)




C-22

Palo Verde Unit 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3/15/

2000

10/1/

2000

4/19/

2001

11/5/

2001

5/24/

2002

12/10

/2002

6/28/

2003

Reac

tor P

ower

(%)

Reactor Power


Palo Verde Unit 1

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6/22

/200

4

7/12

/200

4

8/1/

2004

8/21

/200

4

9/10

/200

4

9/30

/200

4

10/2

0/20

04

11/9

/200

4

Fe (p

pb)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

ETA (ppm)

FW 1FW 2ETA

Figure C-38 Feedwater 1 and 2 Total Iron and Feedwater ETA at Palo Verde Unit 1

D-1

D CALLAWAY

Callaway Discussion

The data displayed in Figures D-1 though D-5 may show evidence of a weak correlation between FW pH and FW iron concentration. During a brief timeframe between April and June 2001, the hydrazine concentration was ~60 ppb and the pH was ~8.9. During this same time, the FW iron concentration ranged between 5 and 8 ppb. After this date, the hydrazine level and pH both increased and the FW iron concentration decreased. In early 2002, the FW iron concentration once again increased. This increase did not appear to correlate with FW pH, hydrazine, O2, or ETA.

In 1994-1995, Callaway performed experiments to determine the influence of FW hydrazine and condensate polisher discharge (CPD) O2 on the electrochemical potential (ECP) of the FW. Increases to FW hydrazine apparently produced a decrease of the CPD O2 from ~4 ppb to ~1.5 ppb. The measured ECP remained constant during these changes to hydrazine and O2. Callaway reported that the ECP monitor responded significantly only to changes in temperature. Details of the ECP monitoring program are not known, but it is possible that, depending upon the location of the ECP probe, essentially all of the O2 was consumed before it reached the ECP probe, regardless of the CPD O2 concentration.

As shown in Figure D-6, Callaway has experienced very little fouling since operation began. Prior to a chemical cleaning in 1995, the tube scale was found to be composed primarily of magnetite with a thickness of ~ 0.004”. Fouling rates have been low since the chemical cleaning. [5]

Callaway

D-2

Table D-1 Questionnaire Response

Callaway


- Information for Fe in CPD, CPE, LPFW, MSR Drns, Htr Drns, SGFW, SG, Mn Stm from 8/92 to 4/01

- Information for Fe in CPD, LPFW, HDPD and SGFW from 11/99 to 3/03

- from 8/92 to ~4/93, the Fe concentrations at all locations averaged ~10ppb; the MSR Drns and Htr Drns averaged 10-20ppb; the LPFW and SGFW averaged ~7ppb

- from ~4/93 to 4/95, the Fe concentrations dropped to between 0 and 5ppb, averaging ~4 ppb

- from ~4/95 to 6/97, the Fe concentrations rose slightly to 4-5 ppb

- after ~6/97, the Fe concentrations dropped to ~2ppb

- little SG Fe data was reported; data between 12/99 and 4/01 ranged from ~8 to 22ppb

1 Fe levels

- Remote particulate Fe data was somewhat higher than Local particulate Fe data; Remote dissolved Fe data was significantly lower than the Local dissolved data; Total Fe was 1.5-2X higher with a local sampler

- Information for pH for SG A, SG B, SG C, SG D, Condensate, LPFW and SGFW from 4/01 to 4/03

- SG pHs track very closely; ~9.8 in 4/01 to ~9.2 in 5/01, then relatively stable at ~9.6from 8/01 to 4/03

- LPFW and SGFW pH varied from ~8.8 to 9.3

2 pH levels

- Condensate pH varied from ~8.6 to 9.4

- Information for dissolved O2 for Condensate and SGFW from 4/01 to 4/03

- Condensate O2 readings averaged ~7ppb

- SGFW O2 readings averaged ~3ppb 3 DO2 levels

- SG Hydrazine levels were 50-60ppb from 4/01 to 7/01, then were increased to 85-100ppb

- Information from ECP testing in 1994-1995

4 ECP data - FW hydrazine levels were varied between 20 and 100 ppb, condensate O2 was varied between 1.5 and 5 ppb; ECP was uninfluenced by these changes (between -450 and -500 mV)

- Information for Cu in CPD, CPE, LPFW, MSR Drns, Htr Drns, SGFW, SG, Mn Stm from 8/92 to 4/01

- Information for Cu in CPD, LPFW, HDPD and SGFW from 11/99 to 3/03

- all locations were generally below 0.1ppb except CPD which averaged ~0.5ppb

- LPFW Cu spiked to ~1ppb in 5/2000

- Local and Remote Cu sampling produced comparable values

5 Pb & Cu

- No Pb data

- startup 10/1984

- ETA (~2ppm) + N2H4 (~100ppb)

- 1992 implemented elevated hydrazine chemistry (~100 ppb)


- 1993 replaced ammonia with ETA for pH control

Callaway

D-3

Callaway


- 1995 implemented TiO2 additions to SGs

- corrosion product filter data from 1992-2002; mostly from SGFW; compares composition of corrosion products with operating chemistry

7 Fouling / FAC - corrosion products were primarily magnetite and hematite with no clear correlation to

operating chemistry


- No data


Callaway

8.78.88.9

99.19.29.39.49.59.69.79.8

1/9/

01

4/19

/01

7/28

/01

11/5

/01

2/13

/02

5/24

/02

9/1/

02

12/1

0/02

3/20

/03

6/28

/03

pH

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Fe (p

pb

)

SGFW pHSGFW Fe

Figure D-1 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at Callaway

Callaway

D-4

Callaway

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1/9/

01

4/19

/01

7/28

/01

11/5

/01

2/13

/02

5/24

/02

9/1/

02

12/1

0/02

3/20

/03

6/28

/03

N2H

4 (p

pb

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Fe (p

pb

)

FW N2H4SGFW Fe

Figure D-2 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at Callaway

Callaway

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1/9

/01

4/1

9/01

7/2

8/01

11/5

/01

2/1

3/02

5/2

4/02

9/1

/02

12/1

0/02

3/2

0/03

6/2

8/03

O2

(pp

b)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Fe (p

pb

)

FW O2SGFW Fe

Figure D-3 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Callaway

Callaway

D-5

Callaway

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1/9/

01

4/19

/01

7/28

/01

11/5

/01

2/13

/02

5/24

/02

9/1/

02

12/1

0/02

3/20

/03

6/28

/03

ET

A (

pp

m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Fe (p

pb

)

FW ETASGFW Fe

Figure D-4 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Iron at Callaway

Callaway

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1/9/

01

4/19

/01

7/28

/01

11/5

/01

2/13

/02

5/24

/02

9/1/

02

12/1

0/02

3/20

/03

6/28

/03

O2

(pp

b)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Fe (p

pb

)

Cond O2SGFW Fe

Figure D-5 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Callaway

Callaway

D-6

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Approximate EFPYs

Glo

ba

l Fo

ulin

g F

ac

tor

(µh

-ft²

-°F

/Btu

)

4.5% PowerUprate

Switch fromNH3 to ETA

ChemicalCleaning

Figure D-6 Steam Generator Global Fouling Factor at Callaway

E-1

E CRYSTAL RIVER

Crystal River Discussion

The condenser effluent (CE) iron levels for Crystal River have generally decreased over the past four years, as shown in Figures E-1 through E-3, although wide swings in the iron concentrations have been observed during that time. Iron concentrations during this time did not show correlation with ammonia or morpholine concentrations. Figures E-4 and E-5 demonstrate that CE iron levels do not correlate with ammonia, but do weakly correlate with the O2 concentration.

In 1995, Rocky Thompson from Crystal River stated, “Secondary system pH control at Crystal River-3 has been effective at minimizing fouling of the steam generators…” [9]. This paper goes on to state that Crystal River observed a large drop in FW iron concentration when ammonia was replaced by morpholine for pH control. The paper postulates that this benefit is primarily due to the higher pH values achieved with morpholine than with ammonia. The paper also states that “90% or more of the iron transported to the steam generators is particulate; therefore, the particle deposition is the predominant fouling mechanism”.

Crystal River

E-2

Table E-1 Questionnaire Responses

Crystal River


- Condenser Effluent (CE) data reported for 2/98 to 1/02

- Total Fe for CE-2 ranged from 0 to 100 ppb; the values were generally between 1 and 6 ppb with wide variations

- almost all readings were taken at 100% power, the 100 ppb reading was taken at the lowest recorded power: 17%

- no correlation between Total Fe and NH4OH concentration

1 Fe levels

- weak correlation between Total Fe and Dissolved O2 concentration (as DO2 increases, Total Fe decreases)

2 pH levels - No data

- data for CE-2 ranges from essentially 0 to 815 ppb; at 0% power DO2 reading were highest, often >10 ppb; at 100% power, values typically ranged from 4-8 ppb; data reported for 1/98 to 3/02

- N2H4 levels for CE-2 increased between 2/98 and 3/02; between 2/98 and 7/98 - 10-20 ppb; between 7/98 and 12/98 - 20-30 ppb; between 12/98 and 3/99 - 30-40 ppb; between 3/99 and 3/02 - 70-100 ppb

3 DO2 levels

- N2H4 levels were much higher during 0% power periods


5 Pb & Cu - No data


- morpholine, ammonia and hydrazine

7 Fouling / FAC

- No data

8


- No data

Crystal River

E-3

Correlations with CE Iron

Crystal River CE-2 Total Fe vs. Ks, Morpholine, and NH4OH

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1/5/98 2/24/98 4/15/98 6/4/98 7/24/98 9/12/98 11/1/98 12/21/98 2/9/99 3/31/99 5/20/99

Mor

phol

ine,

ppm

, NH4

OH/

10, p

pb, K

s, u

S/cm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Tota

l Fe,

ppb

CE-2 [NH4OH]/10, ppb

CE-9 Morph, PPM

CE-2 Total Fe, ppb

CE-9 Ks, uS/cm

Figure E-1 Condenser Effluent Total Iron vs Conductivity, Morpholine and Ammonia at Crystal River from January 1998 to May 1999


0

50

100

150

200

250

3/15/00 4/4/00 4/24/00 5/14/00 6/3/00 6/23/00 7/13/00 8/2/00 8/22/00 9/11/00 10/1/00

Morp

holin

e, pp

m, N

H4OH

/10, p

pb, K

s, uS

/cm

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tota

l Fe,

ppb


CE-9 Morph, PPM

CE-2 Total Fe, ppb

CE-9 Ks, uS/cm

Figure E-2 Condenser Effluent Total Iron vs Conductivity, Morpholine and Ammonia at Crystal River from March 2000 to October 2000

Crystal River

E-4


0

50

100

150

200

250

1/9/01 2/28/01 4/19/01 6/8/01 7/28/01 9/16/01 11/5/01 12/25/01 2/13/02

Mor

phol

ine,

ppm

, NH4

OH/

10, p

pb, K

s, u

S/cm

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tota

l Fe,

ppb


CE-9 Morph, PPM

CE-2 Total Fe, ppb

CE-9 Ks, uS/cm

Figure E-3 Condenser Effluent Total Iron vs Conductivity, Morpholine and Ammonia at Crystal River from January 2001 to February 2002

Crystal River CE-2 Total Fe vs. NH4OH Concentration

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250


CE-2

[Tot

al F

e], p

pb

Figure E-4 Condenser Effluent Total Iron vs Ammonia at Crystal River

Crystal River

E-5

Crystal River CE-2 Total Fe vs. CE-2 Dissolved O2 for Data > or = 1 Month After Sample Line In-service or After Outage Startup

y = -0.5251x + 4.3305R2 = 0.4057

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Dissolved O2 Concentration, ppb

Tota

l Fe

Con

cent

ratio

n, p

pb

Figure E-5 Condenser Effluent Total Iron vs Dissolved Oxygen at Crystal River

F-1

F DIABLO CANYON

Diablo Canyon Discussion

The following Figures indicate that Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 have relatively high FW iron concentrations (5-10 ppb). The iron levels displayed little variation over the timeframe of the data, and appeared to be unaffected by the hydrazine concentration step-change displayed in Figure F-9.

From [10], it appears that ETA was effective in reducing the FW iron concentration at Diablo Canyon Unit 1; however, initiation of ETA usage corresponded with a FW pH increase.

Table F-1 Questionnaire Responses

Diablo Canyon


- Information for soluble, insoluble and total feedwater Fe for unit 1&2 from 8/02 to 10/02

- Information for soluble, insoluble and total feedwater Fe for unit 1&2 from 8/02 thru 2/03

- mass balance of soluble, insoluble and total Fe for unit 2 condensate, cond pol eff, heater drip, feedwater alt & feedwater for 11/02 - 12/02

- unit 1 fedwater: soluble 0-1.34 ppb; insoluble 3-8.57 ppb; total 3-9.5 ppb (8/02 - 2/03)

- unit 1 ratio between soluble and insoluble appears to be increasing (8/02 - 2/03)

- unit 2 feedwater: soluble 0-1.35 ppb; insoluble 4.2-25.8 ppb; total 4.4-26.1 ppb (8/02 - 2/03)

- unit 2 condensate: soluble 0-.4 ppb; insoluble 2.69-7.21 ppb; total 2.75-7.21 ppb (11-12/02)

- unit 2 CPE: soluble 3.96-5.48 ppb; insoluble 0.32-0.91 ppb; total 4.62-5.85 ppb (11-12/02)

- unit 2 heater drip: soluble 0.5-0.72 ppb; insoluble 3.88-5.26 ppb; total 4.6-5.64 ppb (11-12/02)

- unit 2 feedwater alt: soluble 0.07-0.69 ppb; insoluble 4.22-6.61 ppb; total 4.43-7.24 ppb (11-12/02)

1 Fe levels

- unit 2 feedwater: soluble 0.29-1.6 ppb; insoluble 4.98-9.66 ppb; total 5.79-10.52 ppb (11-12/02)

Diablo Canyon

F-2

Diablo Canyon


- Information for feedwater and SG pH for unit 1&2 (all SGs) from 6/02 thru 12/02 (data for feedwater pH thru 2/03)

- unit 1 FW pH=9 from 6/02-10/02, then sharp increase to ~10.3 until 12/02, then sharp decrease to 7.5, then back to 9 in 12/02

- unit 1 SG pH averaged ~8.6 with short excursions up to ~9.2 from 6/02-10/02, then sharp increase to ~10.3 until 12/02, then sharp decrease to 7.5, then to ~9 in 12/02

- unit 2 FW pH ranged between 8.8 and 9.4 between 6/02 and 12/02, with a brief excursion to 9.9 in 11/02

2 pH levels

- unit 2 SG pH ranged between 8.4 and 9.0 between 6/02 and 12/02, with a brief excursion down to 8.2 then up to 9.4 in 11/02, and an increase to 9.2 in 12/02

- Information for condenser, cond polish eff and feedwater DO2 for unit 1&2 from 6/02 thru 12/02 (data for feedwater DO2 thru 2/03)

- unit 1 condensate DO2 levels were generally between 2 and 4 ppb between 6/02 an 12/02, 3 short excursions up to ~30 ppb occurred, with DO2 levels above 60 ppb (up to 6500 ppb) bewten 10/02 and 12/02

- unit 1 CPE DO2 levels were generally between 2 and 3 ppb, with some spikes exceeding 10 ppb (one exceeded 300 ppb) between 6/02 and 12/02

- unit 1 FW DO2 levels were generally <1 ppb between 6/02 and 12/02, with a few spikes between 2 and 9 ppb, with DO2 levels above 60 ppb (up to 6500 ppb) bewten 10/02 and 12/02

- extremely high N2H4 and DO2 levels reported in the unit 1 FW during the 10/02 - 12/02 shutdown

- unit 2 condensate DO2 levels were generally between 1 and 3 ppb between 6/02 and 12/02, a spike to >3000 ppb occurred in 11/02

- unit 2 CPE DO2 levels averaged ~1.7 ppb between 6/02 and 12/02, with values ranging fom 0.3 to 3.5 ppb, one spike reached 175 ppb

3 DO2 levels

- unit 2 FW DO2 levels were <0.1 ppb between 6/02 and 12/02, with one spike up to 2800 ppb in 11/02


5 Pb & Cu - Unit 1 & Unit 2 Pb <0.0082 ppb

- ETA (1.8-2.4ppm) + N2H4 (110-130ppb) in feedwater; boric acid additions and molar ratio control

- startup in 1985/1986

- SS feedwater heater tubes (1986)

- boric acid additions (1988)

- high hydrazine (>100ppb) (1992)


- replace NH3 with ETA (1993/1994)

7 Fouling / FAC

- No data


- No data

Diablo Canyon

F-3


Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Feedwater

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

7/13

/200

2

9/1/

2002

10/2

1/20

02

12/1

0/20

02

1/29

/200

3

3/20

/200

3

pH

01

2345

678

910

Fe (ppb)

pHFe (Tot)

Figure F-1 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 1


0

0.51

1.52

2.5

33.5

44.5

5

7/13

/200

2

9/1/

2002

10/2

1/20

02

12/1

0/20

02

1/29

/200

3

3/20

/200

3

O2

(ppb

)

0

12

34

5

67

89

10

Fe (ppb)

DO2Fe (Tot)

Figure F-2 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 1

Diablo Canyon

F-4


0

10

2030

40

50

60

7080

90

1007/

13/2

002

9/1/

2002

10/2

1/20

02

12/1

0/20

02

1/29

/200

3

3/20

/200

3

N2H

4 (p

pb)

0

1

23

4

5

6

78

9

10

Fe (ppb)

N2H4Fe (Tot)

Figure F-3 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 1


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.53

3.5

4

4.5

5

7/13

/200

2

9/1/

2002

10/2

1/20

02

12/1

0/20

02

1/29

/200

3

3/20

/200

3

ETA

(ppm

)

0

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

Fe (ppb)

ETAFe (Tot)

Figure F-4 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 1

Diablo Canyon

F-5


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

537

350

3740

0

3745

0

3750

0

3755

0

3760

0

3765

0

3770

0

O2

(ppb

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Fe (ppb)

Cond O2Fe (Tot)

Figure F-5 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 1

Diablo Canyon Unit 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

6/1/

2002

6/15

/200

2

6/29

/200

2

7/13

/200

2

7/27

/200

2

8/10

/200

2

8/24

/200

2

9/7/

2002

9/21

/200

2

10/5

/200

2

10/1

9/20

02

11/2

/200

2

11/1

6/20

02

11/3

0/20

02

12/1

4/20

02

Reac

tor P

ower

(%)

Figure F-6 Reactor Power at Diablo Canyon Unit 1

Diablo Canyon

F-6


88.2

8.48.6

8.89

9.2

9.49.6

9.810

4/4/

2002

5/24

/200

2

7/13

/200

2

9/1/

2002

10/2

1/20

02

12/1

0/20

02

1/29

/200

3

3/20

/200

3

pH

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14Fe (ppb)

pHFe (Tot)

Figure F-7 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 2


0

0.020.04

0.06

0.08

0.10.12

0.14

0.160.18

0.2

4/4/

2002

5/24

/200

2

7/13

/200

2

9/1/

2002

10/2

1/20

02

12/1

0/20

02

1/29

/200

3

3/20

/200

3

O2

(ppb

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fe (ppb)

DO2Fe (Tot)

Figure F-8 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 2

Diablo Canyon

F-7


0

20

40

60

80

100120

140

160

180

2004/

4/20

02

5/24

/200

2

7/13

/200

2

9/1/

2002

10/2

1/20

02

12/1

0/20

02

1/29

/200

3

3/20

/200

3

N2H4

(ppb

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14Fe (ppb)

N2H4Fe (Tot)

Figure F-9 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 2


1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

4/4/

2002

5/24

/200

2

7/13

/200

2

9/1/

2002

10/2

1/20

02

12/1

0/20

02

1/29

/200

3

3/20

/200

3

ETA

(ppm

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fe (ppb)

ETAFe (Tot)

Figure F-10 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 2

Diablo Canyon

F-8


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

537

350

3740

0

3745

0

3750

0

3755

0

3760

0

3765

0

3770

0

O2

(ppb

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14Fe (ppb)

Cond O2Fe (Tot)

Figure F-11 Condensate Dissolve Oxygen and Feedwater Total Iron at Diablo Canyon Unit 2

Diablo Canyon Unit 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

6/1/

2002

6/15

/200

2

6/29

/200

2

7/13

/200

2

7/27

/200

2

8/10

/200

2

8/24

/200

2

9/7/

2002

9/21

/200

2

10/5

/200

2

10/1

9/20

02

11/2

/200

2

11/1

6/20

02

11/3

0/20

02

12/1

4/20

02

Reac

tor P

ower

(%)

Figure F-12 Reactor Power at Diablo Canyon Unit 2

G-1

G BRUCE POWER

Bruce Power Discussion

In the 5 five year period from 1998 to 2003, Bruce Power Units 5, 6, 7 and 8 maintained consistent chemistry control. The constituent showing the largest amount of variation was hydrazine, which fluctuated from 30 to 100 ppb (pH and O2 data were not provided). The FW iron concentration in each of the units during this time period averaged at or below 1 ppb with short spikes to higher levels.

In 2003, a depth of 0.005-0.007” of hard sludge was observed on the hot leg side of the tubesheet in the center of the bundle.

Table G-1 Questionnaire Responses

Bruce


- Information for FW Fe for Units 5-8 from 1/1998-3/2003

- Unit 5 data showed a spike of Fe (up to ~190ppb) around 5/1999, otherwise values averaged ~1ppb with occasional spikes of between 10 and 50ppb

- Unit 6 data showed spikes of Fe (>150ppb) in ~2/1998 and ~6/2000; values between 7/98 and 3/00 averaged <0.5ppb; values between 9/00 and 3/03 averaged ~1.5ppb

- Unit 7 data showed spikes of Fe (>140ppb) in ~12/98, 10/99 and 12/00; values between 1/98 and 1/00 averaged ~0.5ppb; values between 3/00 and 3/03 averaged ~0.7ppb

1 Fe levels

- Unit 8 data showed a major spike of Fe in 7/98 and other minor spikes; values averaged ~1ppb with a relatively large scatter band up to 5ppb

2 pH levels - No data

- No DO2 data

- Condensate extraction pump (CEP) hydrazine levels for all units ranged from 0 to 100ppb with an average of ~45ppb 3 DO2 levels

- Boiler blowdown hydrazine levels for all units range from <50ppb up to ~500ppb with an average of ~200ppb


Bruce Power

G-2

Bruce


- Information for FW Cu for Units 5-8 from 1/1998-3/2003

- Unit 5 Cu spike (up to 5ppb) ~6/99; otherwise values averaged <0.02ppb

- Unit 6 Cu spikes ~1/98 (~3ppb) and ~6/00 (~4.8ppb); otherwise values averaged <0.02ppb

- Unit 7 Cu spike 12/00 (~3.1ppb); otherwise values averaged <0.02ppb

- Unit 8 Cu spike ~6/99 (~4.4ppb); otherwise values averaged ~0.04ppb

5 Pb & Cu

- No Pb data

- All units run on ammonia till 1993. Morpholine in conjunction with ammonia from hydrazine decomposition from 1993 till present

- Morpholine levels in condensate extraction pump (CEP) for all units ranged from 4-14ppm with an average of ~9ppm

- CEP ammonia levels for all units ranged from 6-16ppm with an average of ~10ppm

- Blowdown morpholine for all units ranged from 4-12ppm with an average of ~8ppm


- Blowdown ammonia for all units ranged from 2-6ppm with an average of ~4ppm

- Sludge depth measured by Eddy current; currently 5-7 cm of hard sludge on the hot leg tubesheet in the center of the bundle

7 Fouling / FAC - Quantities removed during a recent sludge lance: Unit 5 - 382 kg, Unit 6 - 40 kg, Unit 7

- 184 kg, Unit 8 - 425 kg


- No data


Electronic data was not provided.

H-1

H CALVERT CLIFFS

Calvert Cliffs Discussion

No clear correlations emerge between the FW iron and the other constituents listed in Figure H-1 through H-5 or H-6 through H-11. Unit 1 displayed a slightly lower average FW iron than Unit 2 during the timeframe covered in the Figures (0.7 ppb for Unit 1; 0.84 ppb for Unit 2). The only significant differences between Units 1 and 2 during this timeframe is that Unit 1 utilized ~4 ppm ammonia and no ETA while Unit 2 utilized ~2.8 ppm ammonia and ~2 ppm ETA. It is interesting to note that Calvert Cliffs reported a 30% decrease (0.7 ppb to 0.5 ppb) in the FW iron in Unit 1 in October, 2002 when DMA was added. This trend is not borne out over time, however. Figures H-1, H-3 and H-4 suggest that that increased FW iron in July and August 2003 may have been associated with a drop in FW ammonia and an increase in the FW DMA (while maintaining an approximately constant pH); however, Calvert Cliffs attributes the increase in FW iron to the removal of Pre-coat filters from service.

Table H-1 Questionnaire Responses

Calvert Cliffs


- in 2000 Unit 1 averaged 2.0ppb filterable Fe and an estimated 570lbm of Fe was transported to the SG; Unit 2 averaged 1.6 ppb filterable Fe and an estimated 350lbm of Fe was transported to the SG

- Preliminary results in 2000 suggest that the average non-filterable Fe is ~15% of the total transported

- the greater transport to Unit 1 is due to the greater number of shutdowns and startups in Unit 1 in 2000

- 10/2002: Unit 1 SGFW Fe averaged 0.6ppb, FW Fe decreased by ~30% when DMA was added to FW; Unit 2 SGFW Fe averaged 0.6ppb

- 1/2003: Unit 1 SGFW Fe averaged 0.6ppb; Unit 2 SGFW Fe averaged 0.7ppb

- 5/2003: Unit 1 SGFW Fe averaged 0.6ppb; Unit 2 SGFW Fe averaged 1.3ppb (1st samples after refueling)


1 Fe levels


Calvert Cliffs

H-2

Calvert Cliffs


- 10/2002: Unit 1 FWpH averaged 9.82; Unit 2 FWpH averaged 9.87

- 1/2003: Unit 1 FWpH averaged 9.89; Unit 2 FWpH averaged 9.86

- 5/2003: Unit 1 FWpH averaged 9.82; Unit 2 pH averaged 9.75


2 pH levels


- in 2000 hydrazine was maintained between 80 and 100ppb in the feedwater of both units

- 10/2002: Unit 1 Condensate O2 averaged 2.8ppb, hydrazine 92ppb; Unit 2 Condensate O2 averaged 2.7ppb, hydrazine 90ppb




3 DO2 levels

- 8/2003: Unit 1 Condensate O2 not available, hydrazine 89ppb; Unit 2 Condensate O2 averaged 4.3ppb, hydrazine 92ppb


- average Cu in both units in 2000 was ~0.03ppb with a maximum single observation of 0.18ppb

- 10/2002: Unit 1 filterable Cu averaged 0.002ppb; Unit 2 filterable Cu averaged <0.001ppb


- 5/2003: Unit 1 filterable Cu averaged 0.001ppb; Unit 2 filterable Cu averaged 0.002ppb



5 Pb & Cu

- No Pb data

- in 2000 Unit 1 ran with 3.1-9.0ppm ammonia (avg. 5.2ppm)+hydrazine; Unit 2 ran with 1.8-15.9ppm ammonia (avg. 4.2ppm)+1.0ppm DMA+2.0ppmETA+hydrazine

- in 2000 condenser leaks that required the use of full-flow condensate demineralizers decreased the amount of ammonia in the FW and ETA and DMA were suspended. The results was higher Fe transport for brief periods.

- 10/2002: Unit 1 ammonia 4.3ppm+DMA 1.05ppm+hydrazine; Unit 2 DMA 0.9ppm+ETA 1.9ppm+ammonia 3.5ppm+hydrazine






Calvert Cliffs

H-3

Calvert Cliffs


7 Fouling / FAC

- No data


- No data


Plots created from data contained in Calvert Cliffs Monthly Reports.

Calvert Cliffs Unit 1

99.19.29.39.49.59.69.79.89.910

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Dec-

02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Aug-

03

pH

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fe (ppb)

FW pHFW Fe

Figure H-1 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 1

Calvert Cliffs

H-4


0123456789

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Dec-

02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Aug

-03

O2

(ppb

)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fe (ppb)Cond O2FW Fe

Figure H-2 Condensate Dissolve Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 1


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Aug

-03

NH3

(ppm

)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fe (ppb)

FW NH3FW Fe

Figure H-3 Feedwater Ammonia and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 1

Calvert Cliffs

H-5


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2S

ep-0

2

Oct

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Aug

-03

DM

A (p

pm)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fe (ppb)

FW DMAFW Fe

Figure H-4 Feedwater DMA and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 1


85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Aug

-03

N2H

4 (p

pb)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fe (ppb)

FW N2H4FW Fe

Figure H-5 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 1

Calvert Cliffs

H-6


99.19.29.39.49.59.69.79.89.910

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Aug

-03

pH

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fe (ppb)

FW pHFW Fe

Figure H-6 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Aug

-03

O2

(ppb

)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fe (ppb)

Cond O2FW Fe

Figure H-7 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2

Calvert Cliffs

H-7


00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5S

ep-0

2

Oct

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Aug

-03

NH3

(ppm

)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fe (ppb)

FW NH3FW Fe

Figure H-8 Feedwater Ammonia and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2


0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

1.02

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Aug

-03

DM

A (p

pm)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fe (ppb)

FW DMAFW Fe

Figure H-9 Feedwater DMA and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2

Calvert Cliffs

H-8


8889909192939495969798

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Aug

-03

N2H

4 (p

pb)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fe (ppb)

FW N2H4FW Fe

Figure H-10 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2


1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

2.2

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Aug

-03

ETA

(ppm

)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fe (ppb)

FW ETAFW Fe

Figure H-11 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Iron at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2

Calvert Cliffs

H-9

Calvert Cliffs

90919293949596979899

100Se

p-02

Oct

-02

Dec-

02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Aug-

03

Reac

tor P

ower

(%)

Unit 1Unit 2

Figure H-12 Reactor Power at Calvert Cliffs Units 1 & 2

I-1

I COMANCHE PEAK

Comanche Peak Discussion

Since the beginning of commercial operations (Unit 1 in 1990, Unit 2 in 1993), Comanche Peak has systematically reduced the concentration of FW iron, as shown in Figure I-1. Comanche Peak has always operated with morpholine chemistry. They found that increased morpholine concentrations were beneficial in reducing the iron transport due to the resultant higher pH values. Comanche Peak also observed greater decreases in iron release from the addition of DMA than could be explained by a mere pH effect. The added benefits of DMA have been attributed to its surface-active properties.

Comanche Peak also limits the amount of hydrazine added to between 25 and 35 ppb with a goal of maintaining FW dissolved oxygen levels between 1 and 5 ppb. They have found that the electrochemical potentials (ECP) measured at these hydrazine levels are comparable to the ECP values measured in plants using high hydrazine concentrations, and that high hydrazine concentrations increase magnetite solubility and enhance FAC.

Employing a secondary side chemistry composed of 35 ppm morpholine, 1 ppm DMA and 25-35 ppb hydrazine, Comanche Peak consistently achieves FW iron concentrations of approximately 1 ppb, essentially all of which is in particulate form.

As shown in Figure I-8, Comanche Peak has experienced very little fouling. From 1993 through 1997, the scale thickness in the steam generator (based on iron transport values) was estimated as 0.0002”. No correlation between DMA soaks or additions and fouling could be established, but this is not surprising since Comanche Peak has very low iron transport. [5]

Comanche Peak

I-2

Table I-1 Questionnaire Responses

Comanche Peak


- Unit 1 FW Fe from 1990 (Cycle 1) to Present (Cycle 9)

- Unit 2 FW Fe from 1993 (Cycle 1) to Present (Cycle 6)

- Unit 1 avg. FW Fe dropped from 10 ppb during Cycle 1 to 8 ppb in Cycle 2, to 2.5 ppb in Cycle 3, to 0.9 ppb in Cycle 4, to ~0.5 ppb in Cycles 5-9

- Unit 2 avg. FW Fe was 1.3 ppb in Cycle 1, 0.81 ppb in Cycle 2 and ~0.5 ppb in Cycles 3-6

- Between 1/02 and 9/03 Unit 1 particulate FW Fe averaged ~0.4 ppb with a range of 0.1 - 3 ppb, anionic FW Fe was <0.1 ppb and cationic FW Fe ranged between 0.1 and 0.5 ppb

1 Fe levels

- Between 1/02 and 9/03 Unit 2 particulate FW Fe averaged ~0.5 ppb with a range of 0.2 - 2 ppb, anionic and cationic FW Fe was <0.1 ppb

- Between 1/01 and 9/03 Unit 1 FW pH ranged from 9.45 to 10.15 with an average of 9.8 2 pH levels

- Between 1/01 and 9/03 Unit 2 FW pH ranged from 9.2 to 10.1 with an average of 9.85

- Present goal is to maintain FW DO between 1 and 5 ppb

- Between 12/6/93 and 12/12/93 Unit 2 FW DO was ~0.5 ppb

- Between 12/9/94 and 12/16/94 Unit 2 FW DO dropped from 4.8 ppb to 3.5 ppb

- Between 3/27/95 and 3/31/95 Unit 2 FW DO was ~3.5 ppb

- Between 1/01 and 7/03 Unit 1 FW DO ranged from 0.5 to 2.1 ppb with an average of 1 ppb

3 DO2 levels

- Between 1/01 and 7/03 Unit 2 FW DO ranged from 0.6 to 1.9 ppb with an average of 0.9 ppb

4 ECP data - ECP monitoring information from week-long measurements in 1993, 1994 and 1995

- At a FW DO level of 0.5 ppb, carbon steel exhibited a potential of -575 mVSHE, Alloy 600 ehxibited a potential of -500 mVSHE and Pt exhibited a potential of -450 mVSHE

- At a FW DO level between 3.5 and 5 ppb, carbon steel exhibited a potential of -630 mVSHE, Alloy 600 ehxibited a potential of -580 mVSHE and Pt exhibited a potential of -540 mVSHE

- Recent data shows a FW anionic Pb concentration of 1.4 ppt and a FW cationic Pb concentration of 2.1 ppt in Unit 1, and a FW anionic Pb concentration of 0.3 ppt and a FW cationic Pb concentration of 0.4 ppt in Unit 2

- Pb is found on pulled tubes, crack faces, and averages ~50 ppm in sludge from the steam generators

- Wet layup DMA soaks are 10-15 times more effective than sludge lancing for mass removal of Pb

5 Pb & Cu

- Recent data shows a FW anionic Cu concentration of 3.5 ppt and a FW cationic Cu concentration of 1.9 ppt in Unit 1, and a FW anionic Cu concentration of 3.4 ppt and a FW cationic Cu concentration of 0.8 ppt in Unit 2

- Unit 1 Cycle 1 & 2 : 4-6 ppm morpholine + hydrazine

- Unit 1 Cycle 3 : 8-10 ppm morpholine + hydrazine

- Unit 1 Cycle 3 (end) : 8-10 ppm morpholine + 200-400 ppb DMA + hydrazine

- Unit 1 Cycle 4 : 20 ppm morpholine + 400-600 ppb DMA + hydrazine


- Unit 1 Cycle 5-8 : 35 ppm morpholine + 1 ppm DMA + 25-35 ppb hydrazine

Comanche Peak

I-3

Comanche Peak

Question Topic Information - Currently Units 1&2 are running high morpholine, DMA, 25-35 ppb hydrazine with a goal of maintaining pH >9.8 @ 25C and FW DO between 1 and 5 ppb

- Steam generators are treated with 10-20 ppm DMA + hydrazine during wet layup

7 Fouling / FAC

- FAC monitoring results trended since early operation indicate essentially no loss of pipe wall thickness

- Unit 1 sludge lancing results : RFO1 - 26 lbs; RFO2 - 10.5 lbs; RFO4 - 22 lbs; RFO5 - 2 lbs (chemical cleaning removed ~4,000 lbs); RFO7 - 19.5 lbs; RFO8 - 10 lbs

- Visual inspections indicate that the tubes and TTS are generally clean and free of accumulated material

- Increased morpholine concentration decreased Fe transport

8


- Addition of DMA and increased DMA concentration decreased Fe transport


Plots reproduced from Comanche Peak Publications/Presentations/Documentation.

0

2

4

6

8

10

P P B Iron Av e rage

U n it 1 1 0 8 2 .5 0 .9 0 .5 5 0 .2 7 0 .3 4 0 .4 0 1 0 .5 5

U n it 2 1 .3 0 .8 1 0 .4 9 5 0 .4 1 0 .4 2 0 .4 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figure I-1 Cycle Average Feedwater Iron for Comanche Peak Units 1 & 2 [11]

Comanche Peak

I-4

Figure I-2 Average Feedwater Iron at Comanche Peak Unit 1 [12]

Figure I-3 Feedwater Iron vs Feewater Morpholine at Comanche Peak Unit 2 (1994) [13]

Comanche Peak

I-5

Comanche Peak U1 FFW Iron 2002-2003Detection level = 0.01 ppb

0.01

0.1

1

10

05-Nov-01 13-Feb-02 24-May-02 01-Sep-02 10-Dec-02 20-Mar-03 28-Jun-03 06-Oct-03

PPB

Iron Fe Millipore

Fe CationFe Anion

Values that are <MDL (0.01) are recorded as 0.01 ppb

Startup from Refuelng Outage

Figure I-4 Feedwater iron at Comanche Peak Unit 1 (2002-2003)

Comanche Peak U2 FFW Iron 2002-2003Detection Level = 0.01 ppb

0.01

0.1

1

10

05-Nov-01 13-Feb-02 24-May-02 01-Sep-02 10-Dec-02 20-Mar-03 28-Jun-03 06-Oct-03

PPB

Iron Fe Millipore

Fe CationFe Anion

Values <MDL (0.01) are recorded as 0.01

ppb

All Cu values for these dates are

<0.01 ppb

Startup from RF Outage

Possible Sampling Error

Figure I-5 Feedwater Iron at Comanche Peak Unit 2 (2002-2003)

Comanche Peak

I-6

Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2 Feedwater

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5Ja

n-01

Mar

-01

May

-01

Jul-0

1

Sep

-01

Nov

-01

Jan-

02

Mar

-02

May

-02

Jul-0

2

Sep

-02

Nov

-02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jul-0

3

O2

(ppb

)

U1U2

Figure I-6 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen at Comanche Peak Units 1 & 2 (Jan 2001 – July 2003)

Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2 Condenser O2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Jan-

01

Mar

-01

May

-01

Jul-0

1

Sep-

01

Nov-

01

Jan-

02

Mar

-02

May

-02

Jul-0

2

Sep-

02

Nov-

02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jul-0

3

O2 (p

pb)

U1U2

Figure I-7 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen at Comanche Peak Units 1 & 2 (January 2001 – July 2003)

Comanche Peak

I-7

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Approximate EFPYs

Glo

ba

l Fo

ulin

g F

ac

tor

(µh

-ft²

-°F

/Btu

)

1

10

100

1000

10000

DM

A C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(p

pb

)

DMA Soak(1000 ppb)

DMA Soak(7000 ppb)

Reduced Power (75%)

Reduced Power (96%)

DMA Online Addition

Figure I-8 Steam Generator Global Fouling Factor at Comanche Peak Units 1 & 2

J-1

J ANO (SMART CHEMWORKS DATA)

ANO Discussion

The only possible trend that emerges from the ANO SCW data presented below is shown in Figure J-10. Unlike ANO Unit 1 which uses only morpholine for pH control, Unit 2 uses ETA and ammonia for pH control. In Figure J-10, the ETA concentration rises from ~4.5 ppm to ~5.5 ppm during the timeframe from about March to September 2003. During this same timeframe, the FW iron in Unit 2 decreases from ~1.5 ppb to ~1.0 ppb. Variations in other constituents (eg., ammonia and hydrazine) seemed to have no impact on the FW iron concentration.


ANO Unit 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

Mor

phol

ine

(ppm

)

0

0.51

1.52

2.5

33.5

4

Fe (ppb)

FW MorpholineFW Fe

Figure J-1 Feedwater Morpholine and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1

ANO (SMART ChemWorks Data)

J-2

ANO Unit 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1403/

15/0

0

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

Hydr

azin

e (p

pb)

0

0.51

1.5

2

2.53

3.5

4

Fe (ppb)FW HydrazineFW Fe

Figure J-2 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1

ANO Unit 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

2/13

/02

5/24

/02

9/1/

02

12/1

0/02

3/20

/03

6/28

/03

10/6

/03

1/14

/04

O2

(ppb

)

0

0.5

1

1.52

2.5

3

3.5

4

Fe (ppb)

FW OxygenFW Fe

Figure J-3 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1


J-3

ANO Unit 1

8.8

9.0

9.2

9.4

9.6

9.8

10.0

10.23/

15/0

0

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

pH

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4Fe (ppb)

FW pHFW Fe

Figure J-4 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1

ANO Unit 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

O2

(ppb

)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Fe (ppb)

Cond OxygenFW Fe

Figure J-5 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1


J-4

ANO Unit 1

9.09.19.29.39.49.59.69.79.89.9

10.02/

13/0

2

5/24

/02

9/1/

02

12/1

0/02

3/20

/03

6/28

/03

10/6

/03

1/14

/04

pH

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

FW-B pHFW-B Fe

Figure J-6 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1 (train B)

ANO Unit 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

2/13

/02

5/24

/02

9/1/

02

12/1

0/02

3/20

/03

6/28

/03

10/6

/03

1/14

/04

O2

(ppb

)

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

FW-B O2FW-B Fe

Figure J-7 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1 (train B)


J-5

ANO Unit 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

1202/

13/0

2

5/24

/02

9/1/

02

12/1

0/02

3/20

/03

6/28

/03

10/6

/03

1/14

/04

N2H4

(ppb

)

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

FW-B N2H4FW-B Fe

Figure J-8 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 1 (train B)

ANO Unit 1 - Power

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

Pow

er (%

)

Figure J-9 Reactor Power at ANO Unit 1


J-6

ANO Unit 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

73/

15/0

0

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

ETA

(ppm

)

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

FW ETAFW Fe

Figure J-10 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2

ANO Unit 2

020406080

100120140160180

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

N2H

4 (p

pb)

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

FW N2H4FW Fe

Figure J-11 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2


J-7

ANO Unit 2

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

53/

15/0

0

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

NH3

(ppm

)

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

FW NH3FW Fe

Figure J-12 Feedwater Ammonia and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2

ANO Unit 2

02468

101214161820

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

O2

(ppb

)

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

FW O2FW Fe

Figure J-13 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2


J-8

ANO Unit 2

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.03/

15/0

0

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

pH

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Fe (ppb)

FW pHFW Fe

Figure J-14 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2

ANO Unit 2

02468

101214161820

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

O2

(ppb

)

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

Cond O2FW Fe

Figure J-15 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2


J-9

ANO Unit 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

1203/

15/0

0

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

N2H4

(ppb

)

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

FW-B N2H4FW-B Fe

Figure J-16 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2 (train B)

ANO Unit 2

02468

101214161820

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

O2

(ppb

)

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

FW-B O2FW-B Fe

Figure J-17 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2 (train B)


J-10

ANO Unit 2

9.09.19.29.39.49.59.69.79.89.9

10.03/

15/0

0

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

pH

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

FW-B pHFW-B Fe

Figure J-18 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at ANO Unit 2 (train B)

ANO Unit 2 - Power

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

Pow

er (%

)

Figure J-19 Reactor Power at ANO Unit 2

K-1

K WATERFORD (SMART CHEMWORKS DATA)

Waterford Discussion

During the timeframe of 2000-2003, the FW iron level at Waterford has remained nearly constant at ~1 ppb. Figure K-1 shows a significant drop in the FW O2 level (1.5 ppb to 0.5 ppb); however, the FW iron levels appeared to be unaffected by the decrease in the FW O2 concentration.


Waterford

02468

101214161820

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

O2

(ppb

)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Fe (ppb)

FW O2FW Fe

Figure K-1 Feedwater Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Waterford

Waterford (SMART ChemWorks Data)

K-2

Waterford

0.00.51.0

1.52.02.53.0

3.54.0

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

ETA

(ppm

)

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

FW ETAFW Fe

Figure K-2 Feedwater ETA and Feedwater Iron at Waterford

Waterford

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

N2H

4 (p

pm)

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

Fe (ppm)

FW N2H4FW Fe

Figure K-3 Feedwater Hydrazine and Feedwater Iron at Waterford


K-3

Waterford

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

NH3

(ppm

)

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

Fe (ppm)

FW NH3FW Fe

Figure K-4 Feedwater Ammonia and Feedwater Iron at Waterford

Waterford

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

pH

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

Fe (ppm)

FW pHFW Fe

Figure K-5 Feedwater pH and Feedwater Iron at Waterford


K-4

Waterford

02468

101214161820

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

O2

(ppb

)

00.511.522.533.544.55

Fe (ppb)

Cond O2FW Fe

Figure K-6 Condensate Dissolved Oxygen and Feedwater Iron at Waterford

Waterford

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

3/15

/00

10/1

/00

4/19

/01

11/5

/01

5/24

/02

12/1

0/02

6/28

/03

1/14

/04

Reac

tor P

ower

(%)

Figure K-7 Reactor Power at Waterford

© 2005 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks ofthe Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America

Program:

Nuclear Power

1011777

Export Control Restrictions

Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with

the specific understanding and requirement that responsibility

for ensuring full compliance with all applicable U.S. and

foreign export laws and regulations is being undertaken by

you and your company. This includes an obligation to ensure

that any individual receiving access hereunder who is not a

U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted access

under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and

regulations. In the event you are uncertain whether you or

your company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI

Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it is your

obligation to consult with your company’s legal counsel to

determine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may

make available on a case-by-case basis an informal

assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification for

specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your company

acknowledge that this assessment is solely for informational

purposes and not for reliance purposes. You and your

company acknowledge that it is still the obligation of you and

your company to make your own assessment of the applicable

U.S. export classification and ensure compliance accordingly.

You and your company understand and acknowledge your

obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the

appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI

Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in violation of

applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or regulations.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with major locations in

Palo Alto, California, and Charlotte, North Carolina, was established

in 1973 as an independent, nonprofit center for public interest

energy and environmental research. EPRI brings together members,

participants, the Institute’s scientists and engineers, and other leading

experts to work collaboratively on solutions to the challenges of electric

power. These solutions span nearly every area of electricity generation,

delivery, and use, including health, safety, and environment. EPRI’s

members represent over 90% of the electricity generated in the

United States. International participation represents nearly 15% of

EPRI’s total research, development, and demonstration program.

Together...Shaping the Future of Electricity

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA

800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • [email protected] • www.epri.com

Fouling

Documents

Transcript of Fouling