L-15-091, SG-CCOE-14-4-NP, Revision 1, Examination of Steam Generator Tubes Removed, Part 2 of 4

SG-CCOE-14-4-NP, Revision 1, Examination of Steam Generator Tubes Removed, Part 2 of 4

ML15119A105
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	03/31/2015
From:	Thomas Magee Westinghouse
To:	FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co, Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML15119A101	List: L-15-091, SG-CCOE-14-4-NP, Revision 1, Examination of Steam Generator Tubes Removed, Part 2 of 4 ML15119A103 ML15119A104
References
L-15-091 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP, Rev. 1
Download: ML15119A105 (141)

Text

4-1 4.0 DEPOSIT PH A quick screening test was performed on the deposits that remained on the TTS, FDB and TSP regions following the tube pulling operation. The purpose of this test was to determine if the crevice chemistry was highly acidic or highly caustic. This test simply involved lightly wetting a piece of pH paper (Hydrion pH 0.0-13.0, Lot 233713, expiration date: 12-01-2016) with deionized water and pressing it against the deposits of interest. The resulting color of the pH paper was then compared with the color chart that came with the paper.

In all cases, in all TSP region surfaces/deposits and at both TTS regions, the pH paper indicated a neutral pH of 7.

Deposit pH SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-1 5.0 LEAKAGE SCREENING AND BURST TESTING 5.1 Introduction To determine if a leak path had developed through the tube wall, each of the two TSP regions with confirmed crack-like eddy current indications were screened for leakage. If leakage had been identified, leak rate measurements would have been conducted.

Each TSP region was pressurized to the pressures identified for in situ leak testing in the Degradation Assessment (Reference 18) using room temperature water. An assessment was made if the sample was leaking based on visual observations and the loss of internal pressure.

The leak screening was performed without internal bladders and without fixtures that simulate the constraints of TSP intersections.

The primary purpose of the burst testing was to determine if the degraded tube sections exceeded the NEI 97-06 requirements on burst strength (Reference 19), as implemented by EPRI Tube Integrity Assessment Guidelines (Reference 20). The most limiting requirement is that the tube must sustain three times normal operating pressure differential (3NOP) without burst. 3NOP is approximately 4446 psid for Beaver Valley Unit 2 at temperature, or 4950 psid for room temperature testing (Reference 18).

All four TSP regions and two freespan samples were pressurized to burst failure using room temperature water. Burst testing of the TSP regions were conducted with fixtures that simulate the constraints of TSP intersections under accident conditions. The freespan samples were tested without constraints.

5.2 Sample Preparation A total of six samples were cut from the tube segments for leak screening and burst testing.

Samples having a TSP region were cut, as best as possible, to center the TSP region along its length. The ends of each sample were deburred prior to testing. The samples are summarized in Table 5-1, as are referenced to their corresponding sectioning diagrams.

Sections were stored in individual containers, each labelled with the appropriate row, column and section number. Traceability was maintained in accordance with appropriate WCS work instructions (Reference 11).

The two TSP regions with field ECT indications (02H from R19C38-3B and 04H from R24C41-6B) were leak screened and subsequently burst tested. The two TSP regions without confirmed field ECT indications (02H from R24C41-3B and 03H from R24C41-5B) were burst tested without leak screening. Freespan sections were also burst tested, so as to determine the burst pressure of an unflawed section from each tube.

The diameters and wall thicknesses of each sample were measured after cutting. These are presented in Table 5-2. OD measurements were made at the elevation where the section was expected to burst; in the case of sections with TSP regions, this was the TSP region and in the case of the freespan sections, this was at the mid-length of the sample. Wall thickness Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-2 measurements were made at the bottom end of each section; measurements may include deposit thickness.

In preparation for leak screening and burst testing, a dummy piece was tested for each type of test to check for proper operation of the equipment and for any leakage in the test lines. All equipment was found to be working properly and all sources of leakage from the test lines were sealed. The results of the dummy samples are not included in this report.

Swagelok fittings were then affixed to the tube ends and each tube was pre-filled with deionized water. One end of each sample had a fitting that allowed pressurized room temperature water to pass into the sample from a 1/8 inch diameter supply line.

5.3 Leak Screening 5.3.1 Procedure Leak screening was conducted in accordance with the appropriate WCS work instructions (Reference 21). These work instructions are in compliance with EPRI Guidelines (Reference 22).

Each sample was connected to pressurization equipment, which included a calibrated pressure transducer used to measure the internal pressure of the tube, a valve to isolate the pressure inside the tube and a data acquisition system for recording the pressure transducer reading versus time.

Axial flaw leak test pressures included a temperature adjustment factor of 1.10 and 50 psi was added for measurement uncertainty. The actual combined accuracy of the pressure transducer and digital measurement systems was well within the 50 psi adjustment.

Target test pressures were rounded up to the nearest increment of 25 psi. Three target test pressures were used: normal operating pressure differential (1700 psig), an intermediate test pressure (2250 psig), and steam line break (SLB) condition (2875 psig).

Each sample was pressurized to the target pressure of 1700 psig, held for five (5.0) minutes, pressurized to the second target pressure of 2250 psig, held for five (5.0) minutes, then pressurized to the final target pressure of 2875 psig and held for five (5.0) minutes. The reported hold times do not include a one-minute hold to allow for the test system to stabilize after the pressure had been increased.

During each hold period, each sample was periodically observed for signs of leakage.

Tissue paper was pressed against the sample to aid in this observation. Also, the loss of internal pressure was observed as a second criterion. A loss of 100 psi (maximum) was allowed during the hold period to account for system stabilization.

5.3.2 Results Neither sample showed any sign of leakage by either the visual observation or the pressure loss criteria at any pressure. The results are summarized in Table 5-3.

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

5-3 As neither sample with a confirmed eddy current indication leaked during room temperature testing, it was deemed unnecessary to test the samples at an elevated temperature.

5.4 Burst Testing 5.4.1 Procedure Room temperature burst tests were performed in accordance with the Reference 23 procedure and the Reference 22 EPRI Guidelines. The pressurized water for the burst test was supplied by a piston delivery system. Pressure was increased and supplied to the sample with a single, controlled stroke of the piston. A feedback loop was used to establish a relatively constant pressurization rate of 20-500 psi/second. The internal pressure of the specimen was recorded digitally through a data acquisition system and a redundant data acquisition system.

The Reference 22 guidelines and the Reference 23 procedure allow the use of an internal bladder and backing foil in order to achieve a successful burst test elevated pressure when there is a pre-identified leak path from the tube. Since none of the samples had a leak path and all eddy current signals were relatively small, an internal bladder or foil was judged to be unnecessary and not used.

The TSP regions were laterally restrained by a support system designed to simulate the conditions in the Beaver Valley Unit 2 steam generators under accident conditions.

Figure 5-1 shows a sketch of the support system. An unpressurized extension was attached to the top end of each sample by a welded cap that both sealed the top end and added several feet to its length. The top end of the extension passed through a 3/4 inch wide support plate simulation while the attached test sample passed through another 33/4 inch wide support plate simulation. The tube-to-support clearance was obtained from the Reference 24 document. The support plate simulations were spaced a fixed 50.5 inches apart (see Table 1-1). The centerline of the TSP region on each section was positioned two (2.0) inches above the centerline of the support plate simulation to conservatively approximate the displacement encountered by the bowing of the tubesheet with tubes that are not locked into their supports during accident conditions. The specimen was pressurized through a Swagelok fitting that connected the bottom of the specimen with the pressurization equipment.

The freespan samples were not tested with the support system.

Once each sample was connected to the pressurization equipment, it was pressurized to burst, without hold points, at a rate of 20-500 psi/second. Section 2.2 of the EPRI Guidelines (Reference 22) provides the acceptance criteria for a burst test.

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-4 5.4.2 Results Figure 5-2 through Figure 5-7 provides the burst pressurization data for all of the burst tests. Table 5-4 summarizes the burst test results. All burst pressures were significantly greater than the 3NOP criteria of 4950 psig and thus meet NEI 97-06 (Reference 19) and EPRI Guideline (Reference 20) criteria.

The 02H region of R19C38 and the 04H region of R24C41 both burst within the TSP region, both at 9678 psig. The other four samples burst in a freespan region at pressures equal to or above 10,733 psig. All bursts were axially-orientated.

5.4.3 Post-Burst Observations Table 5-4 presents a summary of the post-test measurements made on the burst test samples.

Figure 5-8 through Figure 5-13 present photos of the burst openings. Tearing was confirmed at all burst tips, by microscope, for all six samples, thus (in accordance with Reference 22 criteria) each burst test was considered to be a valid burst test. The 02H region of R19C38 and the 04H region of R24C41 (Figure 5-8 and Figure 5-12, respectively) show secondary cracks outside of the burst opening; the freespan bursts of the other four samples showed no evidence of any cracks.

Each burst test sample was viewed under a stereomicroscope around its entire circumference in the vicinity of the burst. No corrosion or cracks were observed in the vicinity of any freespan burst.

Each burst test sample with a TSP location was also viewed under a stereomicroscope around its entire circumference in the vicinity of the TSP region. Cracks were observed in all four TSP regions of various depths and numbers. Cellular cracking was not observed.

One TSP region had marginally-discernable OD corrosion that was difficult to distinguish as a region of short axial cracks or intergranular attack (IGA). Cracking was not found outside of a TSP region.

Each TSP region was viewed under a stereomicroscope (up to 20X magnification) to identify the location of cracks, corrosion or other features. These were mapped out to show location and extent, such as that shown in Figure 5-14. The features were photographed to provide qualitative documentation of the feature. In this section, each photo is oriented with the axial direction as horizontal and the bottom side of the view to the left side of the photo.

The 02H TSP region of tube R19C38 burst in the TSP region. The center of the burst was skewed about 0.2 inches above the TSP centerline and the burst opening extended above and below the TSP region. The burst occurred at the 3500 orientation. There were several regions of short (<0.15 inch) axial cracks around the circumference, most of which were located near the burst opening. These are shown in the Figure 5-14 diagram. Some of Leakage Screening and Burst Testing March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

5-5 these short cracks can be seen near the burst opening as shown in Figure 5-8; others are shown in Figure 5-15, Figure 5-16 and Figure 5-17.

The 02H TSP region of tube R24C41 did not have a burst. There was a region of marginally-discernable (shallow) corrosion that was partially obscured by surface deposits, and was either a patch of short axial cracks or IGA. It also had another region with shallow corrosion that was discernable as axial cracks. These are shown in the Figure 5-18 diagram and in the Figure 5-19 photo.

The 03H TSP region of tube R24C41 did not have a burst. There were two regions with shallow cracks. These are shown in the Figure 5-20 diagram. The photo in Figure 5-21 shows the shallow axial cracks located near the 1800 orientation, as indicated by the two arrows. Figure 5-22 shows the shallow cracks at the top of the TSP region near the 00 orientation. These cracks are all less than 50 mils long and are primarily axial. The axial crack nearest the bottom of Figure 5-22 appears to have a circumferential element, but this is a shadow cast by raised surface deposits and is not a crack.

The 04H TSP region of tube R24C41 burst in the TSP region. The center of the burst was aligned with the TSP centerline and the burst opening extended above and below the TSP region. The burst occurred at the 900 orientation. There were several regions of small axial cracks around the circumference, most of which were located near the centerline of the TSP region. There was another region of larger axial cracks, located between 3150 and 3600, all within the center third (0.25-inch long) portion of the TSP length. These are shown in the Figure 5-23 diagram. Figure 5-24 and Figure 5-25 show the region of the larger cracks. These cracks are significantly oriented in the axial direction. Figure 5-12 shows some cracking adjacent to the burst opening; Figure 5-26 shows a closer view of these cracks.

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

5-6 Table 5-1:

Leak and Burst Test Samples R19C38 3

TSP (02H) x Figure 6-3 R19C38-3B x

x 4

Freespan Figure 6-7 R19C38-4B x

R24C41 3

TSP (02H)

Figure 6-13 R24C41-3B x

5 TSP (03H)

Figure 6-18 R24C41-5B x

6 TSP (04H) x Figure 6-21 R24C41-6B x

x 1

7 Freespan 1 Figure 6-24 R24C41-7B I

x Table 5-2:

Pre-Leak/Burst Test Wall Thickness Measurements Tube R1938 R1938 R24C41 R24041 R24C41 R24C41 Segment 3B 4B 3B 5B 6B 7B Region 02H TSP fresa 03H1 TSP 04H TSP 05H1 TSP freespan Length (in) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 OD Measuremen BES+6.0 BES+6.0 BES+6.0 BES+4.5 BES+6.0 BES+6.0 Location (in)

OD (0'-180') (in) 0.876 0.876 0.873 0.879 0.880 0.873 OD (90'-270') (in) 0.876 0.876 0.869 0.880 0.876 0.874 Wall Thickness 00 (in) 0.056 0.056 0.054 0.056 0.057 0.052 Wall Thickness 900 (in) 0.060 0.058 0.055 0.056 0.057 0.056 Wall Thickness 180' (in) 0.057 0.053 0.055 0.057 0.056 0.055 Wall Thickness 2700 (in) 0.054 0.055 0.057 0.055 0.057 0.057 Note - OD and wall thickness measurements may also include deposits BES = Bottom End of Section Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-7 Table 5-3:

Leak Screening Results 1700 2250 1/77 1789 2243 no 2875 2905 2892 no R24C41-6B 04H 1700 1743 1719 no 2250 2335 2315 no 2875 3070 3040 no Table 5-4:

Burst Results and Post-Burst Measurements Tube R19038 R19038 R24C41 R24C41 R24C41 R24C41 Section 3B 4B 3B 5B 6B 7B Region 02H Freespan 02H 03H 04H Freespan Burst Pressure (psig) 9,678 10,983 10,741 10,733 9,678 10,770 Burst Orientation axial axial axial axial axial axial Avg. Pressurization Rate (psi/sec) 100 99 98 99 99 97 Location of Burst 02H freespan freespan freespan 04H freespan Center of Burst, inches above bottom 6.20 4.91 8.20 7.73 6.00 5.29 Azimuthal Location of Burst 350' 3100 3150 2200 900 2400 Length of Burst Opening (in) 1.20 1.91 1.42 1.83 1.28 1.82 Width of Burst Opening (in) 0.33 0.38 0.32 0.36 0.33 0.41 Maximum Diameter (in) 1.180 1.249 1.309 1.265 1.102 1.285 Diameter, 90' from Maximum (in) 1.066 1.103 1.154 1.129 1.076 1.137 Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-8 Upper TSP simulation Screws i

Hosteclamp (aff*et extension to serve as a stop on the upper TSP simulation)

Swagelok fitting welded to extension Specimen TSP region on specimen Lower TSP simulation (tube moves freelv)

Screws Swagelok fitting that allows water entry Source of pressure I-50.5" 2.0" Threaded rod, to help in positioningof lower TSP during set-up Figure 5-1:

Burst Test Support Simulation Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-9 Beaver Valley 2, Tube R19C38-36 06/24/2014 12000 10000 1 6000 U.

I 6000 4000 2000 IOU-t 0

a 20 40 o

80 100 120 140 ISO Tim. (Seconds Figure 5-2:

Burst Pressurization of R19C38-3B (02H)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

5-10 Beaver Valley 2, Tube R19C38-4B 06/24/2014 12000

,10,N" *ap 10000 8000 0-4000 2000 0

5500- Idawpui 105 paws so -sw Pat#

0 40 s0 80 100 120 Time (seconds) 140 160 Figure 5-3:

Burst Pressurization of R19C38-4B (Freespan)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-11 Beaver Valley 2, Tube RZ4C41-3B 06/24/2014 12000 745--1 10000 8000

.3:

5500-Imo 1

6000 4000 2000 0

39aw/a n--WpiG-0 20 40 so so 100 120 140 Time (seco1d) 160 Figure 5-4:

Burst Pressurization of R24C41-3B (02H)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-144-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-12 12000 Beaver Valley 2, Tube RZ4C41-SB 06/24/2014 10,7 733 Pa 10000 8000 600 4000 2000 I" p/l SW-1wo psi 1ftwsu0 0

-r 0

20 40 s0 80 100 120 140 lime (seconds) 160 Figure 5-5:

Burst Pressurization of R24C41-5B (03H)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

5-13 Beaver Valley Z, Tube RZ4C41-6B 06124/2014 12000 10000 U5-13 moo*

IA SSW 6000 4000 2000 a

0 20 40 00 80 100 120 Time (secods) 14o Figure 5-6:

Burst Pressurization of R24C41-6B (04H)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-14 Beaver Valley 2, Tube RZ4C41-7B 06/24/2014 12000 lo7 '/p*e 10000 8000 6000 I

"9P644 sm - ZWOO pxf#

4000

£05 oo 1M-sad0 ps 2000 a

I -

0 40 s0 80 100 Time (seconds) 120 14 1IO Figure 5-7:

Burst Pressurization of R24C41-7B (Freespan)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-15 i14 4 5ee 1234~6 Figure 5-8:

Burst Opening at R19C38-3B (02H)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-144-NP March 2015 Revision 1

5-16 Figure 5-9:

Burst Opening at R19C38-4B (Freespan)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

5-17

~ETT 24 32 4C Figure 5-10:

Burst Opening at R24C41-3B (Burst in Freespan, Outside of 02H)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-18

3

£42 i

Figure 5-11:

Burst Opening at R24C41-5B (Burst in Freespan, Outside of 03H)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-19 I

8 a34 5

IIIiIi1~I1 Figure 5-12:

Burst Opening at R24C41-6B (04H)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-20 k '.

C4 Figure 5-13

Burst Opening at R24C41-7B (Freespan)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

5-21 I = axiatcrack Burst350" Burst Tip TSP Top TSP center TSP Bot Burst Tip I

Ii 4

4 I

Il

• lI l11i il iI on 9W 180" 270-360" Figure 5-14:

Post-Burst Observations on R19C38-3B (02H Region)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-22 Axial Figure 5-15:

Short Cracks near the Bottom of the 02H TSP of R19C38 (00 Orientation)

Axial Figure 5-16:

Short Cracks near the Top of the 02H TSP of R19C38 (0' Orientation)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-23 Axial Figure 5-17:

Short Cracks near the Bottom of the 02H TSP of R19C38 (2000 Orientation)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-24 I= shallow axial cracks 99 9

'9 9,

II 999

= very shallow IGA / short axial cracks TSP Top TSP center TSP Bot O 0 900 1800 270" 360" Figure 5-18:

Post-Burst Observations on R24C41-3B (02H Region)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-25 Axial

-).

Figure 5-19:

Shallow Corrosion Partially Obscured by Surface Deposits, Near the 00 Orientation of R24C41 02H Leakage Screening and Burst Testing March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

5-26 I = shallow crack TSP Top TSP center TSP Bot I,

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I II I

II.t~~

T III I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I O

0 900 1800 2700 3600 Figure 5-20:

Post-Burst Observations on R24C41-5B (03H Region)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

5-27 Figure 5-21:

Shallow A Up Shadows caused by raised surface deposits xial Cracks (Marked with Arrows) Near Center ofR24C41 03H TSP Region (180' Orientation) 30 Figure 5-22:

Shallow Cracks at Top of R24C41 03H TSP Region (0' Orientation)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-28 Burst=90*

Series of axial cracks, along center third of TSP region, from 3150 -0*

Burst Tip TSP Top TSP center TSP Bot Burst Tip 3600 Shallow axial cracks Figure 5-23:

Post-Burst Observations on R24C41-6B (04H Region)

Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

5-29 Axial

-+

Figure 5-24:

Larger Axial Cracks Near the Centerline ofR24C41 04H TSP Region, Between 335O-350O Leakage Screening and Burst Testing March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

5-30 Axial Figure 5-25:

Larger Axial Cracks Near the Centerline of R24C41 04H TSP Region, Between 305o-340' Leakage Screening and Burst Testing March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision 1

5-31 Axial Burst Opening Figure 5-26:

Example of Shallow Cracks Located Adjacent to the Burst Opening Of R24C41-6B (04H) at the 900 Orientation Leakage Screening and Burst Testing SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

6-1 6.0 SECTIONING Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-27 show where selected pieces from both pulled tubes were obtained. TSP and FDB regions are shown as darker blue regions. Burst locations are indicated as a red line on the tube, and by text to the left of the applicable red line. In certain diagrams, the circled "A" and "B", and the adjacent dotted line, represent the cuts that were made within the section. These cuts were made in order of the "A" cut first and the "B" cut second (where applicable).

The table below (Table 6-1) provides an index for the cutting diagrams:

Table 6-1:

Sectioning Diagrams Segment/

Tube Section Figre Page 1

Figure 6-1 6-2 2

Figure 6-2 6-3 3

Figure 6-3 6-4 3A Figure 6-4 6-5 3B Figure 6-5 6-6 R19C3832 Figure 6-6 6-7 4

Figure 6-7 6-8 4A Figure 6-8 6-9 4B Figure 6-9 6-10 4B2 Figure 6-10 6-11 1

Figure 6-11 6-12 2

Figure 6-12 6-13 3

Figure 6-13 6-14 3A Figure 6-14 6-15 3B Figure 6-15 6-16 3B4 Figure 6-16 6-17 4

Figure 6-17 6-18 5

Figure 6-18 6-19 R24C41 5B Figure 6-19 6-20 5B4 Figure 6-20 6-21 6

Figure 6-21 6-22 6B Figure 6-22 6-23 6B2 Figure 6-23 6-24 7

Figure 6-24 6-25 7A Figure 6-25 6-26 7B Figure 6-26 6-27 7B2 Figure 6-27 6-28 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-2 Section 1C: 1o0" Section 1B: 12.O" white mark at bottom 0*

TTS: 8.44" from bot white mark at bottom 0° ECT Dimensional characterization Section 1A: 12.63" white mark at bottom 0*

Figure 6-1:

Sectioning Diagram for R19C38 Segment 1 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-3 Section 2: 31.75" FDB: 15.3" from bot (not easily visible) notch I

Dimensional characterization

<= 0" elevation Figure 6-2:

Sectioning Diagram for R19C38 Segment 2 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-4 Section 3C: 5.92" white mark at bottom 0O Section 3B: 12.0"

" 02H: 6.0" from bot

" Burst at 350',

centered 6.2' from bottom, not centered on TSP S

S S

ECT Dimensional characterization Leak Screen Burst Test Post-Burst Observations / Photos SEM/EDS Deposits Sectioned further white mark at bottom 0° Section 3A: 7.5" notch Sectioned further Figure 6-3:

Sectioning Diagram for RI 9C38 Segment 3 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-5 U

R19C38-3A5: 1" (Bulk Chemistry)

R19C38-3A4: 1" (Archive)

R19C38-3A3: 0.5" (Sensitization Test)

R19C38-3A2A: 0.5" (Microstructure / Microhardness)

R19C38-3A2B: 0.5" R19C38-3A: 7.5" Am notch R19C38-3Al: 4.1" Sectioning Diagram for R19C38 Section 3A Figure 6-4:

Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-6 R19C38-3B: 12" Figure 6-5:

Transverse R1 cut at each (sE burst tip RI Sectioning Diagram for R19C38 Section 3B Ri9C38-3B3: 5.1" 9C38-3B2: 1.2"

.e next page) 9C38-381: 5.5" Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-7 region of small cracks Burst Tip 3B2C:

Archive A

R19C38-3B2: 1.2" TSP Top TSP center 3B2A TSP Bot BurstTip 0.

3B2C 3B2B

180, B5 90" 270° 360' Burst=350' A

3B2A:

• SEM Depth Profile SEM High Mag for details

• EDS fracture face and OD 3B2B:

Defect Metallography Figure 6-6:

Sectioning Diagram for R19C38 Section 3B2 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-8 819C38-413: V R19C38 - 4C: 12" R19C38 - 4B: 12" Burst at 310",

centered 4.91" above bottom LN

• t

" Tensile Test

" Burst Test

" Post-Burst Observations / Photos Sectioned further R19C38 - 4A: 7.2"

• ~k Sectioned further Figure 6-7:

Sectioning Diagram for R19C38 Segment 4 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

6-9 R19C38-4A: 7.2" R19C38-4A2: 0.5" (Sensitization Test)

R19C38-4A1: 6.6" (Archive) no notch Figure 6-8:

Sectioning Diagram for R19C38 Section 4A Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-10 R19C38 - 4B: 12" Transverse cut at each burst tip I

R19C38-4B3: 6.1" (Archive)

R19C38-4B2: 1.91" (see next page for more cuts)

R19C38-4B1: 3.8" (Archive)

Figure 6-9:

Sectioning Diagram for R19C38 Section 4B Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

6-11 A

Burst Tip R19C38-4B2: 1.91"

• 482B:

Archive 4B2B 180" 270" 4B2A 360' Burst Tip 0'.

A 90" Burst=310°

!4B2A:

SEM Depth Profile Figure 6-10:

Sectioning Diagram for R19C38 Section 4B2 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-12 white mark at bottom 0o Section IC: 1.0" TTS: 9.69" from bot Section 18: 12.0W ECT Dimensional characterization white mark at bottom 0° Section 1A: 11.25" white mark at bottom 0*

Figure 6-11:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Segment 1 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

6-13 Section 2: 31.20" FDB: 16.68" from bot (not easily visible) notch Dimensional characterization

<= 0" elevation Figure 6-12:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Segment 2 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-14 Section 3C: 5.7" white mark at bottom 0° Burst at 315°,

centered 8.20" above bottom 02H: 6.0" from bot Section 38: 12.0" white mark at bottom 0° 4

Sectioned further Sectioned further ECT Dimensional characterization Burst Test Post-Burst Observations / Photos Section 3A: 9.69" notch Figure 6-13:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Segment 3 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-15 U

R24C41-3A5: 1" (Bulk Chemistry)

R24C41-3A4: 1" (Archive)

R24C41-3A3: 0.5" (Sensitization Test)

R24C41-3A: 9.69" notch Figure 6-14:

R24C41-3A2A: 0.5"'

(Microstructure / Microhardness)

R24C41-3A2B: 0.5" R24C41-3A1: 6.5" Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Section 3A Sectioning March 2015 SG-CCOE-I 4-4-NP Revision 1 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-16 R24C41-3B: 12,0" Transverse cut at each burst tip Transverse cut at TSP centerline II I

R24C41-3B3: 1A" R24C41-382: 0.4"

• It Metallography to show view of cracks just below TSP centerline (at 170' and 315-10)

R24C414385: 3" R24C41-384: 1.42" (see next page for more cuts)

R24C41-3BI: 5.6" Figure 6-15:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Section 3B Sectioning SG-CCOE-1444-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-17 A

3B4B:

• Archive Burst Tip R24C41-3B4: 1.42" HIM 3B4B 3B4A 360" Burst Tip 90O 1,80" 270*

Burst=315° A

3B4A:

, SEM Depth Profile Figure 6-16:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Section 3B4 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-18 Section 4: 33.945" notch

<= 0" elevation Figure 6-17:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Segment 4 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-19 Section 5C: 20.44" white mark at bottom 0" Section SB: 12.0" BuSm at 220' (rotated into view),

centered 7.73" above bottom 03H1 4.50'" from bol white mark at bottom O"

, ECT

" Dimensional characterization

" Burst Test

• Post-Buirst Observations / Photos

" SEM/EDS Deposits See next page notch Section SA: 0,19" Figure 6-18:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Segment 5 Sectioning March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I Sectioning SG-CCOE-144-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-20 I

Transverse cut at each burst tip Transverse cut at TSP centerline R24C4158: 12.0' I

I R24C41-582: 0.4"

• I R24C41-5B5: 3.2" R24C41-5B4: 1,83" (see next page for more cuts)

R24C41-5B3: 2.25N Metallography to show view of shallow cracks juSt below TSP centerline (at 180")

R24C41-5B1: 4.1" Figure 6-19:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Section 5B Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-21 5B4B:

Archive Burst Tip A

5B4A R24C41-5B4: 1.83" gin 5B4B Burst Tip 0.

90 180*

270" 360*

Burst=220° A

5B4A:

• SEM Depth Profile Figure 6-20:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Section 5B4 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-22 I

Section 6C: 3.56" Section 68: 12.0" white mark at bottom 0, 04H9 6.0" from bot Burst at 90° (rotated into view), centered 6.0' above bottom white mark at bottom 0° how I

• q ECT Dimensional characterization Leak screen Burst Test Post-Burst Observations / Photos SEM/EDS Deposits See Next Page Section 6A-16.94" notch Figure 6-21:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Segment 6 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-23 R24C41-6B3: 5.25" R24C41-6B2: 1.28" (see next page)

Transverse cut at each burst tip R24C41-6B: 12.0" R2 Figure 6-22:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Section 6B 4C41-6B1: 5.25" Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-24

= region of small cracks 1AB2C:

I"Archive A

Burst Tip TSP Top R24C41-682: 1.28" 3 TSP center TSP Bot 1800 6B2C B

6B2B 270' 360' Burst=90' Burst Tip 0.

90 A

i6B2A: -

I-SEM Depth Profile SEM High Mag for details 1-EDS fracture face and OD f6B2B:

• Defect Metallography Figure 6-23:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Section 6B2 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-25 R24C41 -7): 1" R24C41 - 7C: 12" nf*

• Tensile Test R24C41-79:12'

" Burst Test

• Post-Burst Observations / Photos Burst at 240*

(rotated into view),

centered 5.29" above bottom Sectioned further R24C41 - 7A; 10.5" Figure 6-24:

Sectioned further Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Segment 7 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-26 R24C41-7A: 10.5" no notch Figure 6-25:

• 0 R24C41-7A2: 0.5" (Sensitization Test)

R24C41-7Al: 10" Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Section 7A Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

6-27 R24C41-7B: 12" U.-

R24C41-7B3: 5.6" Transverse cut at each burst tip R24C41-7B2: 1.82" (see next page for more cuts)

R24C41-7B1: 4.25" Figure 6-26:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Section 7B Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

6-28

" Archive A

BurstTip R24C41-7B2: 1.82' 1

7B2B 7B2A Burst Tip O0 900 180" 270' A

360*

Burst=240*

• SEM Depth Profile Figure 6-27:

Sectioning Diagram for R24C41 Section 7B2 Sectioning SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

7-1 7.0 SEM FRACTOGRAPHY 7.1 Sample Preparation A '/2-inch wide sample was cut from the right side of each burst opening, as was depicted in the diagrams of Section 6.0. The cuts were made so as to include both tips of the burst opening. Each sample examined by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) was blown with a jet of dry oil-free air to minimize non-conductive particulates from the fracture surfaces that would otherwise collect an electrical charge (and thus hinder the view) during the SEM examination.

7.2 Procedure Observations made during the SEM examination were documented with micrographs. A TESCAN LYRA Scanning Electron Microscope was used for the fractography examination.

Operation of the SEM followed the manufacturer's instruction. ASTM has not published procedures for fractography examinations. However, surfaces examined by SEM in accordance with accepted scientific principles and EPRI guidelines can be compared with fractographs presented in various fractography textbooks, such as "Metals Handbook, Volume 12, Fractography," 9 th Edition, American Society of Metals, 1985.

SEM fractographs were taken of the entire fracture surface of each burst opening. These fractographs were then aligned end to end to complete a photomontage of each crack surface.

The photomontage was obtained using the back-scattered electron SEM detector. The depth of the corrosion was measured at selected intervals, providing a set of depth vs. axial location measurements. The depths were converted to percent throughwall (%TW) values by dividing the depth measurement by the nominal wall thickness of 50 mils.

Fractographs were taken of selected locations at higher magnifications to characterize the crack morphology. Crack characterization was performed using the secondary electron SEM detector.

Uncorroded ligaments within the length of the crack were sized in terms of depth, area and axial location. Ligaments were characterized as "in-plane" (the face of the ligament running parallel with the crack face) or "out-of-plane" (running perpendicular to the crack face), depending on which direction most of the ligament area was oriented.

7.3 Fractography Depth Profiles The four burst openings that occurred in regions of freespan tubing were confirmed to have no sign of intergranular corrosion on the burst surfaces. The remaining two burst openings that occurred on the TSP regions in section RI 9C38-3B (02H) and R24C41-6B (04H) both displayed intergranular corrosion morphologies within each TSP region. Degradation (a crack-like or volumetric feature not associated with the tube pulling operation) was not observed outside of any TSP region.

Each burst opening was cut from its tube so as to include both the upper burst tip and the lower burst tip in the same sample. Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2 show low magnification views of the burst opening fractography photomontages for R19C38-3B (02H) and R24C41-6B (04H),

SEM Fractography March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

7-2 respectively. Because of the length of each image, the photomontage was split in two with some overlap. The top of the burst opening is shown in the upper end of the left photomontage and the bottom of the burst opening is shown in the lower end of the right photomontage.

Appendix A presents the crack depth and ligament size data. The depth profiles of the cracks in these two burst openings are shown in Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4, respectively. Crack depth measurements were taken along the axial direction of the burst opening, starting at the lowest elevation of the burst opening (bottom of the sample, located at the bottom tip of the burst opening) and proceeding up the tube, in the axial direction, to the upper tip of the burst opening.

Figure 7-1 shows how one crack depth measurement was obtained at the indicated distance from the bottom of the sample. Table 7-1 summarizes the ligament sizing results.

Table 7-2 provides a summary of the depth profiles for the burst openings. R19C38-3B (02H) had the deepest corrosion, at 49.9%TW. The burst opening of R24C41-6B (04H) had a maximum depth of corrosion of 48.6%TW.

7.4 Crack Surface Characterization Figure 7-5 presents an example of the crack surface of the R19C38-3B burst opening. The surfaces having the rock candy appearance is intergranular cracking - this degradation of the tube wall occurred during in-service operation. The dimpled surface is ductile tearing - the part of the tube wall that mechanically failed during the burst test. Figure 7-6 presents another region of the fracture surface with intergranular cracking. The entire R19C38-3B burst opening was composed of ductile tearing and intergranular cracking of varying depth.

Figure 7-7 shows the OD surface of R19C38 02H near the burst opening. In this view, the axial direction is horizontal. This fractographic montage shows several secondary axial cracks with some minor branching and a small patch of intergranular attack (IGA). All of the secondary cracks are intergranular. This surface is typical of axial OD initiated stress corrosion cracking (ODSCC).

Figure 7-8 shows an area on the crack surface of the R24C41-6B burst opening. The figure shows both intergranular cracking (the rock candy topography) and ductile tearing. The figure shows a higher magnification view of the intergranular fracture surface. The entire R24C41-6B burst opening was composed of ductile tearing and intergranular cracking of varying depth.

Figure 7-9 shows the OD surface of R24C41 04H near the burst opening. In this view, the axial direction is horizontal. This fractographic montage shows several secondary axial cracks and some patches of shallow intergranular attack (IGA). This surface is typical of axial ODSCC.

The corrosion morphology observed on all surfaces was intergranular; there was no evidence of transgranular stress corrosion cracking.

SEM Fractography March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

7-3 Table 7-1:

Ligament Sizing Results Axial Position Ligament Tube Above Bottom Crack Orientation Ligament Ligament TSP End of Sample Depth Compared to Uncorroded Depth Sample (mils)

(%TW)

Crack Face Area (mils2)

(%TW) 90.84 23.1 Out-of-Plane 123.65 13 129.04 20.6 In-Plane 37.44 14 163.08 26.0 In-Plane 68.80 19 R19C38 192.07 28.1 Out-of-Plane 275.32 24 02H 221.40 22.2 Out-of-Plane 14.42 15 Sample 3B2A 404.38 11.7 Out-of-Plane 26.56 10 507.67 39.2 Out-of-Plane 128.28 19 637.29 39.1 Out-of-Plane 32.72 11 686.43 44.6 Out-of-Plane 29.27 18 R24C41 507.67 20.2 Out-of-Plane 40.33 14 04H 669.91 37.8 Out-of-Plane 18.14 19 Sample 6B2A 732.92 13.1 Out-of-Plane 16.31 13 Table 7-2:

Summary of Burst Opening Depth Profiles Section Region of Burst Crack Lenth (in) Maximum Depth (%TW)

R19C38-3B 02H 0.702 49.9 R19C38-4B Freespan 0

0 R24C41-3B Freespan 0

0 R24C41-5B Freespan 0

0 R24C41-6B 04H 0.270 48.6 R24C41-7B Freespan 0

0 SEM Fractography SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

7-4 I = 1000 Pm = scale --

ID OD r*

Crack Depth Distance Above Bottom of Sample Bottom of Burst Opening Figure 7-1:

SEM Photomontage of R19C38-3B (02H) Burst Opening SEM Fractography SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

7-5 Top of Burst Opening I 500 prn = scale --

OD ID Bottom of Burst Opening Figure 7-2:

SEM Photomontage of R24C41-6B (04H) Burst Opening SEM Fractography SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

7-6 60.0 50.0 40.0

.C

%.30.0 20.0 10.0 4 0 I

4 0.0 I...

U w

0 200 400 600 80O Distamne Above Bottom of Sample (mffs) 1000 1200 1400 Figure 7-3:

R19C38-3B (02H) Burst Opening Depth Profile SEM Fractography SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

7-7 60.0 50.0 40.0

• U, 30.0 I

20.0 10.0 0.0 0

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Distance Above Bottom of Sample (mils) 1400 Figure 7-4:

R24C41-6B (04H) Burst Opening Depth Profile SEM Fractography SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

7-8 Intergranular Cracking ("Rock Candy" Surface)

Intergranular Cracking ("Rock Candy" Surface)

Ductile Tearing I

Ductile Tearing Figure 7-5:

Example of R19C38-3B Burst Opening Fracture Surface (Near Top End of Crack)

SEM Fractography SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

7-9 Figure 7-6:

Example of R19C38-3B Burst Opening Fracture Surface (Center of Crack)

SEM Fractography March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision 1

7-10 Figure 7-7:

OD Surface of R19C38 02H, Adjacent to Burst Opening (Axial Direction is Horizontal)

SEM Fractography March 2015 SG-CCOE-I 4-4-NP Revision I

7-11 I -

-wiffisor-Figure 7-8:

Example of R24C41-6B Burst Opening Fracture Surface SEM Fractography March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

7-12 rd Figure 7-9:

OD Surface of R24C41 04H, Adjacent to Burst Opening (Axial Direction is Horizontal)

SEM Fractography SG-CCOE-i 44-NP March 2015 Revision 1

8-1 8.0 METALLOGRAPHY OF CRACKS 8.1 Procedure One transverse section was taken from each of the support plate regions. Table 8-1 summarizes the defect metallography samples. Table 8-2 provides a summary of the deepest cracks on each sample; these are discussed in the following sections.

The metallographic samples were mounted in epoxy to show the cracks in a transverse cross-section. Each mounted sample was ground with SiC papers, followed by diamond wheels using polishing oil, followed by diamond aerosol sprays, leaving the edge to be examined with a mirror finish. Samples were then examined and photographed after an electrolytic Nital etch. The electrolytic Nital etch was used to highlight the relationship between the cracks and the grain boundaries.

All of the images were taken on a Zeiss Observer Model DIM optical light microscope. Each image included a calibrated scale. Photographs were analyzed using the software program PAX-it (Version 7.8.0.0), which has a feature that allows the measurement of distances based on the calibrated scale on the image. Crack depths were measured using PAX-it. Depth measurements were converted to percent throughwall (%TW) by dividing by the nominal wall thickness.

8.2 R19C38 02H Figure 8-1 shows a view of a transverse cross-sectional sample (3B2B) taken from the 02H TSP of R19C38. The gap in the circumference is the SEM sample (refer to the Figure 6-6 sectioning diagram). The left side of the burst opening is just to the left of the '2' mark in the figure.

At this elevation of the TSP, there were only two areas, other than the burst opening that showed any sign of corrosion; these are indicated by the number markers in Figure 8-1. The '1' marker is where the cracks at the 2000 azimuthal location were identified (see Figure 5-14 and Figure 5-17). The number '2' marker is associated with the cracks near the 3400 location (see Figure 5-14). Cracks near the 00 location are on the SEM sample and the cracks near the 2800 location were very short and were not captured in this cross section.

Figure 8-2 shows a closer view of the cracks at the 2000 location. The cracks have been widened by the swelling of the tube during the burst test. Cracking is intergranular without signs of IGA and are thus intergranular stress corrosion cracks (IGSCC). As these initiate from the outer surface, they are also ODSCC. The figure shows several cracks, two of which break the OD surface at this elevation and two cracks which break the OD surface at another elevation that is not shown in this view. The deepest of these (the middle crack) is 25.7%TW.

Figure 8-3 shows a crack at the 3400 location, as well as the left side of the burst opening. The 3400 crack is 22.9%TW and the crack depth of the burst opening is approximately 27%TW at this elevation. The figure also shows two other cracks which break the OD surface at another elevation that is not shown in this view.

Metallography of Cracks March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

8-2 8.3 R24C41 02H Figure 8-4 shows a view of a transverse cross-sectional sample (3B2) taken from the 02H TSP of R24C41. As the burst occurred outside of the TSP region, the entire circumference is shown. The white circular marker "0" that is mounted inside the tube corresponds with the 00 location (since the view is in the down direction, azimuthal locations proceed in the counter-clockwise direction.

This elevation was chosen to show the cracks at about the 1700 location and the patch of shallow corrosion on both sides of 00 (see Figure 6-15 and Figure 5-18). The '1' marker is located at about 200, the '2' marker is at about 1600 and '3' marker is located at about the 3400 location.

Figure 8-5 shows the 20' location of Marker '1'. It shows two shallow axial ODSCC, without any IGA. The maximum depth shown is 11.3%TW.

Figure 8-6 shows the 1600 location of Marker '2'. It shows three shallow axial ODSCC, without any IGA. The maximum depth shown is 14.2%TW.

Figure 8-7 shows the 3400 location of Marker '3'. It shows two shallow axial ODSCC, without any IGA. The maximum depth shown is 10.7%TW.

8.4 R24C41 03H Figure 8-8 shows a view of a transverse cross-sectional sample (5B2) taken from the 03H TSP of R24C41. As the burst occurred outside of the TSP region, the entire circumference is shown. The "0" that is inside the tube corresponds with the 00 location (since the view is in the down direction, azimuthal locations proceed in the counter-clockwise direction). This elevation was chosen to show the cracks at the 1800 location and the patch of shallow corrosion (see Figure 6-19 and Figure 5-20). The '1' marker is located at about 1800.

Figure 8-9 shows the cracks at the 1800 location. The cracks are intergranular, but are shallow.

These are only 2-4 grains deep. The deepest crack in this view is 4.4%TW.

8.5 R24C41 04H Figure 8-10 shows a view of a transverse cross-sectional sample (6B2B) taken from the 04H TSP of R24C41. The gap in the circumference is the SEM sample (refer to the Figure 6-23 sectioning diagram). The left side of the burst opening is just to the right of the '1' mark in the figure, and the "0" that is inside the tube corresponds with the 00 location (since the view is in the down direction, azimuthal locations proceed in the counter-clockwise direction).

As the mid-plane of the visual observation map shows (Figure 5-23), there were several patches of cracks around the mid-plane of the 04H TSP. There were small cracks at the 800 location (Marker '1'), the 400 location (Marker '2'), and larger cracks in the 315'-360' range (Markers

'3', '4' and '5').

Figure 8-11 shows the 800 location of Marker '1'. It shows several axial ODSCC cracks with a patch of shallow (<2 grains deep) IGA. The maximum crack depth shown is 16.4%TW.

Metallography of Cracks March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

8-3 Figure 8-12 shows the 400 location of Marker '2'. It shows three axial ODSCC cracks, without any IGA. The maximum crack depth shown is 23.2%TW. This location closely corresponds with the Ghent probe indication that was identified at the 29' location during the laboratory ECT (see Table 3-2).

Figure 8-13 shows the 350' location of Marker '3'. It shows several axial ODSCC cracks, without any IGA. The maximum crack depth shown is 35.2%TW.

Figure 8-14 shows the 325' location of Marker '4'. It shows several axial deep ODSCC cracks, without any IGA. The maximum crack depth shown is 40.8%TW.

Figure 8-15 shows the 305' location of Marker '5'. It shows several axial deep ODSCC cracks, without any IGA. The maximum crack depth shown is 45.4%TW.

Many of the cracks in the 3050-350' region approached the maximum crack depth in the burst fracture (48.6%TW). This region had a laboratory +Point/Ghent probe indication (at the 3330/3360 locations, respectively) that likely corresponded with one of the field +Point indications (see Table 3-2). Consequently, another series of levels were examined to characterize the crack depths. The mounted sample was ground/polished and etched another eleven levels.

The five largest cracks had depths measured along their lengths. Figure 8-16, which is a merger of Figure 5-24 and Figure 5-25, shows the cracks that were further characterized. Figure 8-17 provides a plot of the crack depths. The 3500 orientation had a maximum depth of 46%TW at the 20 mil level (Figure 8-18).

Metallography of Cracks SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

8-4 Table 8-1:

Defect Metallography Samples Tube TSP Section Mount#

View Sectioning Diagram R19C38 02H 3B2B M3136 Transverse - Down Figure 6-6 R24C41 02H 3B2 M3139 Transverse - Down Figure 6-15 R24C41 03H 5B2 M3138 Transverse - Down Figure 6-19 R24C41 04H 6B2B M3137 Transverse - Down Figure 6-23 Table 8-2:

Maximum Crack Depth Measurement Results Other Azimuthal Maximum Depths Tube Support Orientation Depth (%TW)

(%TW)

Figure R19C38 02H 2000 25.7 Figure 8-2 3400 27.0 22.9 Figure 8-3 200 11.3 Figure 8-5 02H 1600 14.2 Figure 8-6 3400 10.7 Figure 8-7 03H 1800 4.4 Figure 8-9 R24C41 800 16.4 Figure 8-11 400 23.2 Figure 8-12 04H 3500 35.2 Figure 8-13 3250 40.8 See Figure 8-17 Figure 8-14 3050 45.4 Figure 8-15 1

3350 46.0 1 Figure 8-18 Metallography of Cracks SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

8-5 Figure 8-1:

R19C38 02H - Overall View of Transverse Section Metallography of Cracks March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

8-6 Figure 8-2:

R19C38 02H, Transverse Section: Cracks at 2000 F

I Burst Opening ODSCC Burst Opening Ductile Tearing Figure 8-3:

R19C38 02H, Transverse Section: Crack at 340' Metallography of Cracks SG-CCOE-1 4-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

8-7 Figure 8-4:

R24C41 02H - Overall View of Transverse Section Metallography of Cracks SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

8-8 Figure 8-5:

R24C41 02H, Transverse Section: Cracks at 20' Figure 8-6:

R24C41 02H, Transverse Section: Cracks at 1600 Metallography of Cracks SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

8-9 Figure 8-7:

R24C41 02H, Transverse Section: Cracks at 3400 Metallography of Cracks March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

8-10 Figure 8-8:

R24C41 03H - Overall View of Transverse Section Figure 8-9:

R24C41 03H, Transverse Section: Cracks at 1800 Metallography of Cracks SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

8-11 Figure 8-10:

R24C41 04H - Overall View of Transverse Section Metallography of Cracks March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

8-12 Figure 8-11:

R24C41 04H, Transverse Section: Cracks at 80' Figure 8-12:

R24C41 04H, Transverse Section: Cracks at 400 Metallography of Cracks SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

8-13 Figure 8-13:

R24C41 04H, Transverse Section: Cracks at 3500 Figure 8-14:

R24C41 04H, Transverse Section: Cracks at 325' Metallography of Cracks March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

8-14 Figure 8-15:

R24C41 04H, Transverse Section: Cracks at 3050 Metallography of Cracks March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

8-15 Figure 8-16:

Cracks Further Characterized by Metallography (305o-350')

Metaliography of Cracks SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

8-16 50.0 45.0

-+--Crack A (~350°)

45.0

-,l--Carck 8 (-335°)

-- *b-Crack C (-325°)

40.0

.- *)-Crack D (-320°) --

40.0 35.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Axial Distance (mils)

Figure 8-17:

R24C41 04H Crack Depth Profiles Between 305'-350' Metallography of Cracks March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

8-17 Figure 8-18:

R24C41 04H, Transverse Section: Crack at 3350, 20 mil Axial Location Metallography of Cracks March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

9-1 9.0 MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION 9.1 Tensile Test Mechanical properties of tubes RI19C38 and R24C41 were determined by room temperature tensile tests of full cross-section tubular specimens. A 12-inch long sample was taken from a freespan region of each tube: section R19C38-4C (see Figure 6-7) and R24C41-7C (see Figure 6-24).

Tensile testing was performed in accordance with the Reference 25 work instructions and ASTM E8 test methods (Reference 26). Tests were performed on an Instron 5900 Series material testing system. An Epsilon Technology extensometer (part number 3542L-0350-200T-ST) and a 3.50 inch gauge length were used in the tests.

Both full cross section tubular specimens were fitted with snug-fitting stainless steel plugs (mandrels) that were in accordance with ASTM Standard Method E8 (Reference 26). Crosshead speeds of 0.075 inch/minute through the yield point and 0.75 inch/minute beyond the yield point were used during testing.

Figure 9-1 provides the engineering stress-strain curves for both tubes in the lower strain region, to show the yield point. Figure 9-2 provides the entire stress-strain curves for both tubes. The results of the tensile tests are provided in Table 9-1. Included in Table 9-1 are the tensile test results of the tube pulled from Beaver Valley Unit 1 in 2002 (Reference 27), the two tubes pulled from Beaver Valley Unit I in 1992 (Reference 28), the three tubes pulled from Beaver Valley Unit I in 1995 (Reference 29) and the average and standard deviation of the Reference 30 database for 7/8" tubes. As the table shows, Rl19C38 and R24C41 both have relatively low yield and ultimate tensile strengths in comparison with other pulled tubes, but are within a standard deviation of the database average. The yield strength of both tubes is higher than the tube that was pulled in 2002 from Beaver Valley Unit 1.

9.2 Bulk Chemistry The chemical composition of the base metal of each tube was determined by a quantitative chemical analysis of a one inch section from both pulled tubes. Bulk chemical composition of the material was assessed to determine if the material met Alloy 600 specifications, which is the material for which GL 95-05 applies (Reference 1). Sample R19C38-3A5 was taken from tube R19C38 (see Figure 6-4) and sample R24C41-3A5 was taken from tube R24C41 (see Figure 6-14). The radioactive contamination of each section was removed by several cycles of immersion in a room temperature solution of 35% HN0 3 + 4% HF (by volume), plus surface abrasion with silicon carbide wheels. Quantitative analysis was performed using a combination of x-ray fluorescence, inductively coupled plasma, inert gas fusion, and combustion methods (Reference 31 ).

The results of the chemical analyses are provided in Table 9-2. The composition of the tube is within the limits set by specification ASME SB167 (1977) (Reference 32). R19C38 and R24C41 have nearly identical compositions.

Material Characterization March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

9-2 The carbon content of the pulled tubes was 0.017 - 0.018 wt%. This matches the lower end of the range of carbon content (0.018 - 0.029 wt%) found in five tubes that were pulled from a Model D4 steam generator for laboratory examination in 1996, having tubes manufactured just before the Beaver Valley Unit 2 tubes. It is concluded that the Beaver Valley Unit 2 tubes have a composition that is within ASME specifications for Alloy 600, and the tubes have a carbon content that is within the range of Westinghouse produced mill annealed Alloy 600 tubing.

9.3 Microstructure Analysis 9.3.1 Procedure The microstructure of both pulled tubes was examined to determine the grain size and the general distribution of the carbide precipitation. From tube R19C38, section 3A2 was taken from a freespan location (see Figure 6-4) above 02H that had not been burst tested.

Section 3A2, a 1/2-inch long section, was then cut axially to expose a longitudinal view for metallography, sample 3A2A (section 3A2B was not used).

Likewise, from tube R24C41, section 3A2 was taken from a freespan location (see Figure 6-14) above 02H that had not been burst tested. Section 3A2, a 1/2-inch long section, was then cut axially to expose a longitudinal view for metallography, sample 3A2A (section 3A2B was not used).

The samples were mounted in epoxy to show a longitudinal view. Mounted samples were examined for carbide precipitation by SEM following polishing and etching in a 2%

bromine-methanol solution. This etchant reveals both carbides and grain boundaries at the same time, allowing for a direct assessment of the amount of grain boundary carbide precipitation and the level of intragranular carbides. The etched samples were then examined with a Zeiss Supra Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope. Three areas were examined on each sample, and each area was documented at three different magnifications.

Samples were examined for grain size rating per the intercept method of ASTM E 112 (Reference 33).

9.3.2 Results Figure 9-3 through Figure 9-5 show a representative example of the carbide distribution and grain boundaries from R19C38, at three levels of magnification. Likewise, Figure 9-6 through Figure 9-8 show a representative example of the carbide distribution and grain boundaries from R24C41, at three levels of magnification.

The grain boundaries of the material are the linear features, as shown in Figure 9-5. The grain boundaries form cells that surround the grains of the material. Carbides are shown as the small white dots in the figures. The carbides may occur in the same location as the grain boundaries (intergranular carbides) or may be intragranular, as shown in Figure 9-5.

The microstructure for both tubes is similar. The microstructure of both tubes shows few grain boundary carbides; most grain boundaries had no carbides. Nearly all carbides were Material Characterization March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

9-3 intragranular. Such a carbide distribution may be described as a discontinuous network of carbides, as there is no correspondence between carbides and grain boundaries. As Figure 9-4 and Figure 9-7 show, the carbides form linear features that are independent of the grain boundaries. These are carbides that were present on the grain boundaries of a prior grain boundary structure.

Figure 9-3 and Figure 9-6 were used to measure the average grain size for tubes R19C38 and R24C4 1, respectively. There are a considerable number of annealing twins present in both microstructures. Annealing twin boundaries are not counted as grain boundaries.

The average grain size for tube RI 9C28 is ASTM 7.2 and the average grain size for tube R24C41 is 7.0. These values indicate that the grain size for these tubes is coarser than the average for Westinghouse Alloy 600 7/8 inch OD mill annealed tubing. For example, Beaver Valley Unit tubes pulled for examination in 1995 had grain sizes of ASTM 8.0-11.0 (Reference 29). The coarser grain size is consistent with the lower yield strength properties and lower hardness readings observed.

9.4 Microhardness Testing 9.4.1 Procedure Microhardness tests are used to provide information such as general hardness, verification of specific heat treatment, and random hardness variations.

The mounted samples used in the microstructure analysis of Section 9.3 (one from each tube) were ground and polished to remove the etch. Five sets of Vickers microhardness measurements were obtained from the mid-wall and near the OD of each sample.

The Vickers microhardness tests were performed in accordance to the Reference 34 work instructions on a Tukon Microhardness Tester. Vickers microhardness is determined by dividing the applied kg-force load by the surface area of the indentation in square millimeters, computed from the mean of the measured diagonals of the indentation. A 500-g load was used for the measurements on a polished transverse cross-section.

9.4.2 Results Table 9-3 summarizes the microhardness results. The results show a consistent microhardness across the tube wall. The average microhardnesses (166-181 HV500) are similar (164-170 HV500) to other pulled tubes in Westinghouse experience that were mill annealed Alloy 600 and were pulled using relatively low pull forces. Other pulled tubes, such as those from Beaver valley Unit I (Reference 29), had higher average microhardnesses (184-204 HV500).

Material Characterization March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

9-4 9.5 Sensitization Assessment 9.5.1 Procedure During the manufacturing of the Alloy 600 tubing, carbon that has been dissolved during the final mill annealing operation and has been retained in solid solution, may precipitate to form (primarily) intergranular chromium carbides. Short-range diffusion of chromium to the grain boundaries in order to effect the precipitation of intergranular M23C6 can result in a Cr-depleted region adjacent to the grain boundaries. This condition is typically referred to as "sensitization," and is a condition that renders the material to become susceptible to intergranular attack in aggressive oxidizing chemical environments (but not generally in PWR primary water).

For mill annealed tubing, the only intergranular carbides that form do so during the cooling transient from peak temperature to about I 000'F. Negligible precipitation would be expected.

The extent of grain boundary carbide precipitation is controlled by: alloy composition (in particular carbon and chromium), final mill annealing temperature relative to carbon content, diffusivity of carbon during cooling from mill annealing, grain size, and the availability of dissolved carbon for precipitation at the grain boundaries.

Westinghouse has adopted a modified version of the Huey test (ASTM A262 Practice C -

Reference 35) as the principal tool for the evaluation of grain boundary chromium depletion in Alloy 600. The test was modified to a single 48-hr exposure in boiling 25 wt% nitric acid. This modification was necessary to enhance the sensitivity of the test for detecting chromium depletion in nickel alloys. Modified Huey testing of the Beaver Valley tubes was performed in accordance with the approved work instructions (Reference 36).

Two 0.5-inch samples were taken from each tube for sensitization testing. These were tested so as to identify any significant variations, possibly from failures in annealing.

From R19C38, the two samples were 3A3 (see Figure 6-4) and 4A2 (see Figure 6-8).

From R24C41, the two samples were 3A3 (see Figure 6-14) and 7A2 (see Figure 6-25).

9.5.2 Results The results of the 25 wt % HNO 3 modified Huey tests are summarized in Table 9-4. The pulled tubes showed weight losses of 28-33 mg/dm 2/day. These results are less than that associated with a sensitized condition (200 mg/dm 2/day) as stated in Westinghouse work instructions (Reference 36).

The Modified Huey results do not indicate any inconsistencies in annealing or other heat treatments. The results (28-33 mg/dm 2/day) are at the low end of the range (17-103 mg/dm 2/day) of other pulled tubes in Westinghouse experience that were Westinghouse supplied mill annealed Alloy 600 tubing.

Material Characterization March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

9-5 9.6 Material Characterization Conclusions The low density of intergranular carbide precipitation suggests that few carbides were precipitated on cooling from the mill annealing temperature. The fact that the grain size is the larger than average for Westinghouse mill annealed tubing is indicative of grain growth during the mill annealing treatment being relatively unimpeded by the presence of a large number undissolved carbides. The material has a relatively coarse grain size consistent with the relatively low carbon content and the range of mill annealing temperatures used at the Blairsville tube mill.

For a single phase face-centered cubic material, the strength and hardness properties are typically dictated by the grain size due the Hall-Petch relationship. The slightly larger than average grain size is consistent with the slightly lower than average yield strength and hardness.

The relationship between the location of the carbides and the grain boundaries is an important factor in characterizing a nickel alloy's susceptibility to intergranular stress corrosion cracking.

Material with an elevated resistance to stress corrosion cracking tends to have low strength, coarse grains, few intragranular carbides and a semi-continuous to continuous network of intergranular carbides. These Beaver Valley Unit 2 tubes have low strength, coarse grains, and few intragranular carbides but no semi-continuous network of intergranular carbides. Without an intentional thermal treatment, these carbides would have to precipitate and grow during slow cooling from the mill annealing temperature through the carbide precipitation range. Slow cooling was not the practice at the Westinghouse tube mill.

The material characteristics of the pulled Beaver Valley Unit 2 tubes are consistent with Westinghouse supplied mill annealed Alloy 600 tubing that is applicable to the Alternative Repair Criteria (Reference 1).

Material Characterization SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

9-6 Table 9-1:

Tensile Test Results Maximum Tensile 0.2% Offset Ultimate Load Strain Yield Strength Tensile Percent Observed at Yield Tube (KSI)

Strength (KSI)

Elongation (lbf)

(in/in)

R19C38 49.4 98.9 41.9 13,385 0.00327 R24C41 51.1 98.9 44.3 12,938 0.00314 Beaver Valley Unit I (R15C62) 48.5 105.0 37.8 (Reference 27)

Beaver Valley Unit I (R11C48) 55.6 104.4 41.0 (Reference 28)

Beaver Valley Unit 1 (RI 6C60) 61.0 111.0 41.0 (Reference 28)

Beaver Valley Unit 1 (R10C48) 65.7 115.7 29.3 (Reference 29)

Beaver Valley Unit I (R22C38) 63.0 111.6 29.8 (Reference 29)

Beaver Valley Unit 1 (R28C42) 58.5 106.1 32.0 (Reference 29)

Average for 7/8" tubes 57.5 104.8 not (Reference 30 Database) y = 9.9

(; = 7.2 reported I

Material Characterization SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

9-7 Table 9-2:

Chemical Composition of Bulk Material (C'*mnosition in wt%)

________it peinicaton Element R19C38 R24C41 Specification1 Notes Co 0.04 0.04 Cr 15.22 15.25 14.0-17.0 Both in spec Cu 0.30 0.30 0.5 max Both in spec Fe 7.38 7.40 6.0-10.0 Both in spec Mg 0.02 0.02 Mn 0.17 0.17 1.0 max Both in spec Mo 0.07 0.07 Nb 0.05 0.04 Ni 75.88 75.84 72.0 min Both in spec Si 0.16 0.16 0.5 max Both in spec Ti 0.26 0.26 V

0.03 0.02 Al 0.37 0.38 Pb 0.00003 0.00012 C

0.018 0.017 0.15 max Both in spec S

<0.001 0.001 0.015 max Both in spec N

0.0082 0.0070 Note 1: Reference 32 Material Characterization SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

9-8 Table 9-3:

Microhardness Summary Vickers Hardness Value (HV500)

Tube Point Mid-Wall Near OD R19C38 1

166 167 2

161 177 3

171 180 4

169 167 5

162 171 Average 166 172 R24C41 1

177 181 2

170 178 3

162 180 4

171 184 5

174 180 Average 171 181 Table 9-4:

Summary of Modified Huey Results Tube Sample Weight loss, mg/dm2 /day R19C38 3A3 27.65 R19C38 4A2 31.23 R24C41 3A3 33.19 R24C41 7A2 27.71 Material Characterization March 2015 Material Characterization SG-CCOE-14-4-N P March 2015 Revision I

9-9 70000 65000 60000 55000 50000 45000

_ 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

Strai (hi/l) 2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

Figure 9-1:

Stress-Strain Curves (Low Strain)

Material Characterization SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

9-10 120000 -

100000 80000 60000 100..

-R24-C41-7C 40000 Ri9-_____

20000 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Strain (in/in)

Figure 9-2:

Stress-Strain Curves (All)

Material Characterization March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

9-11 WD -

4A mm Sompis ID0- OWi, RID 06. 3AZA I-Oat

6 Sp 51 Figure 9-3:

General Microstructure of Tube R19C38 (Low Magnification View)

Material Characterization SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

9-12 Prior structure carbides EHT-5,S Signal A-SE2 WD -

4.4 mm Sample 10 - OW, R9-01, 3AWA 20 p" i,-4DaIs t6 Sep 2134*W ~

im~s Figure 9-4:

General Microstructure of Tube R19C38 (Medium Magnification View)

Material Characterization SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

9-13 Intragranular carbide Grain boundary carbide Grain boundary WD-4A mm Semple ID - fiVZ mi-Os.3*2A I

p2t Figure 9-5:

General Microstructure of Tube R19C38 (High Magnification View)

Material Characterization SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

9-14 EIIT-5AIW Signal A-SE2 WD - 6.1 mm SampleJ10-8V2. R24-GAI, 3AZA ZU "r

'i Dat. :16 Sep 2O11 AMest" 110400 Figure 9-6:

General Microstructure of Tube R24C41 (Low Magnification View)

Material Characterization SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

9-15 IOD

- 6.1 Mmn Sample 10 - OW, 1424-01, 3A2A I

21 UiMmum Figure 9-7:

General Microstructure of Tube R24C41 (Medium Magnification View)

Material Characterization March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

9-16 EHT-S.0kIN Signal A - SE2 WD - 6.1 mm Sample ID - 1V2, R24-C41, 3A2A 10pmo 10pen Date :IS Sup 2014 s

j Figure 9-8:

General Microstructure of Tube R24C41 (High Magnification View)

Material Characterization SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

10-1 10.0 EDS ANALYSIS OF SURFACES AND DEPOSITS In conjunction with the performance of the SEM fractography, discussed in Section 7.0, Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) was performed to characterize the elemental composition of surface oxides and outer surface deposits remaining on the surfaces of the areas that were examined by SEM.

In addition, TSP deposits that spalled off the tube during the expansion of the tube diameter during burst testing were collected for analysis by SEM/EDS.

A TESCAN LYRA Scanning Electron Microscope was used in conjunction with an Oxford Instruments Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy System for the analysis. EDS is an integral part of the SEM instrument. EDS provided a semi-quantitative elemental analysis using AZtec software.

Analyses were conducted at 20 keV at a working distance of 9.3 mm. The results in this section are provided for information only and are not a GL 95-05 reporting requirement.

10.1 SEM/EDS Analysis of Burst Opening Surfaces EDS analyses were performed on selected areas of each of the two burst openings that had degradation (see sample R19C38-3B2A from 02H in the Figure 6-6 sectioning diagram and sample R24C41-6B2A from 04H in the Figure 6-23 sectioning diagram).

On the fracture surface of each sample, both the crack surfaces and the ductile tearing surfaces were examined. As the ductile tearing is a surface that opened as a result of the burst test, EDS analysis of the ductile surfaces represents an analysis of the base metal.

The OD surfaces of the two TSP region were also examined. The OD surfaces that were examined were adjacent to the cracking.

Figure 10-1, Figure 10-2 and Figure 10-3 show three areas of the R19C38-02H burst opening fracture surfaces that were examined by SEM/EDS. The boxes indicate the areas that were examined. The results of the R19C38-02H fracture surface EDS analyses are summarized in Table 10-1. The elements identified on the ductile surfaces are approximately the same as the bulk chemistry results shown in Table 9-2. The crack surface analyses did not identify any unusual or deleterious elements, such as copper, lead or sulfur.

Figure 10-4 and Figure 10-5 show the OD surface adjacent to the RI19C38-02H cracking in low and high magnification views. The belt polish marks are evident in the higher magnification view as the vertically-oriented features on the OD surface. Much of the OD surface is free of hydrothermal deposits in these views, but there are remnants of deposits (or thick oxide) in patches on the surface. The analyses performed on the low magnification view were all spot analyses, as indicated by the white dots in Figure 10-4. In the higher magnification view the analyses were performed in area scans, as indicated by the boxes in Figure 10-5. The results of the R19C38-02H OD surface EDS analyses are summarized in Table 10-2. The analyses performed on areas 18 and 19 are bare OD surfaces. Spots 12-16 were collected from areas that had renmants of deposits. These areas showed a relatively high concentration of iron, as would EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision 1

10-2 be expected. They also showed moderate levels of deposit binding agents (Al, Si, Mg, and Ca).

Small concentrations of copper, sulfur and barium were also identified, but not consistently.

Figure 10-6 shows an areas of the R24C41-04H burst opening fracture surface that was examined by SEM/EDS. The boxes indicate the areas that were examined. The results of the R24C41-04H fracture surface EDS analyses are summarized in Table 10-3. The elements identified on the ductile surface are approximately the same as the bulk chemistry results shown in Table 9-2. The crack surface analyses did not identify any unusual or deleterious elements, such as copper, lead or sulfur.

Figure 10-7 shows the OD surface adjacent to the R24C41-04H cracking. The belt polish marks are evident in Figure 10-7 as the vertically oriented features on the OD surface. Much of the OD surface is bare in this view, but there are remnants of deposits (or thick oxide) in patches on the surface. Table 10-4 summarizes the results of the EDS examination of the areas in Figure 10-7.

Large-to-moderate levels of deposit binding agents (Al, Si, Mg, and Ca) were identified in the deposits. Copper was identified in all but one of the areas. Sulfur and phosphorus were found in some of the areas. Barium was identified in a relatively high amount in two locations, prompting further examination for confirmation.

10.2 SEM/EDS Analysis of Spalled Deposits Lightweight tape was wrapped around three TSP regions (RI 9C3 8-02H, R24C41-03 H and R24C41-04H) before burst testing. As the burst test caused the tube diameter to swell, the deposits in the TSP regions popped off the tube. Most of this spalled deposit was retained on the tape. The deposits on the tape were subsequently examined by SEM and EDS.

Figure 10-9 shows the deposit surface that was pressed against the tube surface of R19C38 in the 02H TSP region. The deposits have provided a replica of the tube surface: the circumferential belt polish marks on the tube surface are shown (as a negative) as the vertical lines in the deposit surface. Figure 10-9 also shows a likely scratch in the tube that would have been created during installation (the horizontal feature that passes through the bottom of the Spectrum 3 box).

Figure 10-10 and Figure 10-11 shows the deposit surfaces that were pressed against the tube surfaces of R24C41 in the 03H and 04 TSP regions, respectively. Circumferential belt polish mark replications are clearly evident as the nearly vertical parallel lines in the deposit surface.

The presence of the replicated circumferential belt polish marks is significant as they show that this was the deposit that was pressed directly against the tube surface.

Table 10-6 provides a summary of the EDS analyses that were performed on the spalled deposits from R19C38 in the 02H TSP region. The results show some deposit binding agents (Si and Al),

but no unusual or deleterious elements. These results are somewhat similar to the OD surface analyses summarized in Table 10-2.

Table 10-7 and Table 10-8 provide summaries of the EDS analyses that were performed on the spalled deposits from R24C41 in the 03H and 04H TSP regions. The results show some deposit binding agents (Si and Al). Copper was identified in five of the six areas examined on the 03H EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

10-3 deposits and on one of the six areas examined on the 04H deposits. Sulfur was also identified in three of the twelve areas.

EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

10-4 Table 10-1:

Results of EDS Analyses Performed on R19C38-02H Fracture Surfaces Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum 1

8 10 2

7 11 Crack Crack Crack Ductile Ductile Ductile Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface C

6.62 0

10.63 1.26 4.88 5.98 1.33 Al 0.57 0.61 2.60 0.81 0.63 0.72 Si 2.79 0.35 0.29 1.33 0.31 Ca 0.12 Ti 0.23 0.47 0.30 0.29 0.47 Cr 13.97 15.83 18.89 15.09 15.05 15.76 Fe 6.74 7.70 10.69 7.50 7.42 7.85 Ni 64.96 73.78 62.94 69.39 69.30 73.56 Total 100.01 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Spectra 1 and 2 - See Figure 10-1 Spectra 7 and 8 - See Figure 10-2 Spectra 10 and 11 - See Figure 10-3 EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision 1

10-5 Table 10-2:

Results of EDS Analyses Performed on RI19C38-02H OD Surfaces Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 17 20 21 Element Deposit Deposit Deposit Deposit Deposit Bare OD Bare OD Mixed Mixed Mixed Remnant Remnant Remnant Remnant Remnant Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface C

16.90 9.41 11.93 0

1.50 22.92 26.59 10.81 13.42 3.39 11.70 14.37 12.81 M2 0.65 Al 4.94 4.44 6.32 6.36 4.21 2.54 2.62 4.30 2.14 2.42 Si 2.95 9.84 10.23 10.22 5.76 0.34 1.05 0.60 0.63 S

0.20 Ca 1.34 7.38 9.86 14.15 7.37 0.45 0.28 Ti 0.40 0.31 Cr 1.20 1.02 0.58 11.77 13.00 13.09 17.22 17.28 Mn 3.85 2.27 1.45 1.76 1.83 0.91 0.78 Fe 83.25 33.79 39.36 41.81 51.81 6.26 6.59 9.37 10.75

.11.13 Ni 2.16 1.59 4.97 2.71 2.10 75.70 77.79 59.60 54.07 54.36 Cu 0.98 Ba 1.75 1

Total 99.99 99.98 99.98 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.00 100.02 100.00 100.00 Spectra Spectra 12 See Figure 10-4 18 See Figure 10-5 EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

10-6 Table 10-3:

Results of EDS Analyses Performed on R24C41-04H Fracture Surface Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum 22 23 24 Crack Crack Ductile Surface Surface Surface 0

14.05 9.55 Mg I

Al 0.65 0.82 0.72 Si 2.43 1.64 0.35 Ca Ti 0.20 0.54 Cr 13.2 14.10 16.13 Mn 0.41 Fe 6.85 7.27 8.02 Ni 62.2 66.61 74.24 Total 99.99 99.99 100.00 Spectra 22 See Figure 10-6 Table 10-4:

Results of EDS Analyses Performed on R24C41-04H OD Surface Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Element Deposit Partial Partial Partial Deposit Deposit Bare OD Remnant Deposit Deposit Deposit Remnant Remnant Surface C

1.28 1.39 1.61 2.23 1.93 1.77 0

10.42 10.94 12.73 10.68 17.17 12.30 3.19 Mg 1.85 1.02 0.91 0.73 1.74 1.79 Al 5.03 3.62 2.50 4.30 5.92 30.09 6.60 Si 4.50 4.03 3.92 4.51 17.29 4.20 0.52 P

0.19 0.48 0.47 S

1.05 0.17 0.30 Ca 0.77 1.72 1.76 0.41 1.02 Ti 0.89 0.73 0.58 0.36 1.69 Cr 11.45 1.4.04 14.47 13.39 3.25 0.48 12.76 Mn 1.42 1.87 1.75 1.49 1.86 8.40 0.86 Fe 23.38 21.41 20.27 12.22 11.13 30.52 7.00 Ni 30.40 36.84 36.17 41.52 39.41 2.14 63.43 Cu 1.09 1.90 2.68 10.40 3.77 3.88 Ba 6.27 1.38 Total 99.99 99.99 99.99 100.01 100.00 100.01 100.01 Spectra 37 See Figure 10-7 EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

10-7 Table 10-5:

Results of EDS Analyses Performed on R24C41-04H OD Surface Detailed Area Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum 45 46 47 48 Light Light Light Element Shaded Shaded Shaded Dark OD Particle Particle Particle Deposit C

1.82 1.75 1.70 0

9.62 11.41 12.71 15.81 Mg 0.31 2.62 Al 1.35 4.47 1.32 5.22 Si 0.49 1.00 0.53 8.60 S

8.32 9.98 12.37 0.24 Ca 0.41 0.34 0.57 Ti 0.78 Cr 14.78 Mn 1.77 Fe 18.30 6.02 1.93 25.34 Ni 4.03 1.98 1.65 22.57 Mo 1.98 Ba 57.49 60.69 67.74 Total 100.01 100.00 100.00 100.00 Spectra 45 See Figure 10-8 EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

10-8 Table 10-6:

R19C38-02H Spalled TSP Deposit EDS Analysis Results Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum 3

4 5

6 7

Element' Area Area Area Point Point.

Scan Scan Scan Scan Scan C

8.18 Al 1.44 1.20 1.22 1.29 0.96 Si 0.48 0.54 0.72 0.48 Ti 1.73 1.70 1.83 0.88 0.51 Cr 11.17 23.71 23.40 18.81 17.21 Mn 1.11 1.31 1.47 0.88 Fe 49.50 39.13 41.83 21.65 22.23 Ni 26.39 32.41 30.24 55.76 58.61 Total 100.00 100.00 99.99 99.99 100.00 Spectra 3 See Figure 10-9 Note 1: Results do not include oxygen. Oxygen other elements.

removed to provide emphasis to Table 10-7:

R24C41-03H Spalled TSP Deposit EDS Analysis Results Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum 8

9 10 11 12 13 Element' Area Area Area Point Point Point Scan Scan Scan Scan Scan Scan C

8.49 9.15 14.94 12.72 Al 1.35 1.07 1.21 1.23 1.02 1.55 Si 0.60 0.82 1.16 S

0.49 Ti 1.38 1.34 1.27 0.63 0.79 0.87 Cr 24.18 18.49 14.41 14.44 5.20 18.73 Mn 1.47 1.11 1.79 0.93 2.84 1.99 Fe 36.22 36.05 41.93 26.14 70.46 25.07 Ni 34.80 31.28 27.89 39.05 11.82 33.85 Cu 2.16 2.34 1.82 7.86 3.57 Total 100.00 99.99 99.99 100.00 99.99 100.00 Spectra 8 See Figure 10-10 Note 1: Results do not include oxygen. Oxygen removed to provide emphasis to other elements.

EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

10-9 Table 10-8:

R24C41-04H Spalled TSP Deposit EDS Analysis Results Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum 14 15 16 17 18 19 Element' Area Area Area Point Point Point Scan Scan Scan Scan Scan Scan C

7.85 8.50 14.52 Al 0.91 0.88 1.46 0.92 1.53 0.66 Si 0.57 0.53 Ti 1.18 1.25 1.47 0.43 0.67 0.65 Cr 13.09 14.51 18.57 14.46 3.11 2.02 Mn 1.24 1.05 1.49 1.00 0.97 2.29 Fe 54.42 45.47 42.85 20.83 71.17 67.47 Ni 28.58 28.99 33.64 62.36 14.06 6.34 Cu 6.06 Total 99.99 100.00 100.01 100.00 100.01 100.01 Spectra 14 See Figure 10-11 Note 1: Results do not include oxygen.

other elements.

Oxygen removed to provide emphasis to EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits March 2015 EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-14-4-N P March 2015 Revision I

10-10 Figure 10-1:

R19C38-02H Burst Opening - Crack Area 1 for EDS Analysis Figure 10-2:

RI9C38-02H Burst Opening - Crack Area 2 for EDS Analysis EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

10-11 Figure 10-3:

R19C38-02H Burst Opening - Crack Area 3 for EDS Analysis Figure 10-4:

R1 9C38-02H Burst Opening - OD Surface Area 1 for EDS Analysis EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

10-12 Figure 10-5:

R19C38-02H Burst Opening - OD Surface Area 2 for EDS Analysis Figure 10-6:

R24C41-04H Burst Opening - Crack Area for EDS Analysis EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

10-13 Figure 10-7:

R24C41-04H Burst Opening - OD Surface Area I for EDS Analysis EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits March 2015 EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

10-14 Figure 10-8:

R24C41-04H Burst Opening - OD Surface Area 2 for EDS Analysis Figure 10-9:

RI19C38-02H Spalled Deposits - View of Surface Next to Tube EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

10-15 Figure 10-10: R24C41-03H Spalled Deposits - View of Surface Next to Tube Figure 10-11: R24C41-04H Spalled Deposits - View of Surface Next to Tube EDS Analysis of Surfaces and Deposits SG-CCOE-1 4-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

11-1 11.0 DISCUSSION /CONCLUSIONS 11.1 Characterization of Corrosion SEM and metallography examinations confirmed that localized corrosion morphology in the TSP regions was predominantly axially-orientated ODSCC with a few small and shallow patches of IGA. Cellular corrosion was not observed. The observed degradation is in accordance with the morphology criteria provided in Section L.a of GL 95-05 (Reference I). The observed degradation is consistent with the current GL 95-05 database (Reference 30).

All four TSP regions that were pulled for laboratory examination had some degree of degradation in the form of stress corrosion cracking. There was no degradation found outside of the TSP regions.

The two TSP regions that had confirmed bobbin coil indications (R I 9C3 8-02H and R24C4 1-04H) had the deepest cracking. The R1 9C38-02H TSP had a maximum crack depth of 49.9%TW. The R24C41-04H TSP had a maximum crack depth of 48.6%TW located within the burst fracture, but there was another region of multiple axial cracks that were nearly as deep (maximum measured depth of 46.0%TW).

The two TSP regions that did not have confirmed bobbin coil indications (R24C41-02H and R24C41-03H) had shallower cracks. The R24C41-02H TSP had a maximum crack depth of 14.2%TW. The R24C41-03H TSP had a maximum crack depth of 4.4%TW.

11.2 Characterization of Tubing Material Tensile testing, material chemistry evaluations, microstructure analyses, microhardness testing and sensitization assessment all demonstrated that both tubes are typical of Westinghouse mill annealed Alloy 600. The characteristics of the pulled Beaver Valley Unit 2 tubes are consistent with those in the Alternative Repair Criteria (ARC) database (Reference 30).

Tensile test results showed that the yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of both tubes are low, but well within a standard deviation of the ARC database (Reference 30) for 7/8" tubes.

11.3 Tube Integrity Room temperature leak screening was conducted at pressures up to and including SLB pressure.

None of the tubes that were pulled for laboratory examination leaked.

Room temperature burst tests were conducted on all of the TSP regions provided. All of the TSP regions had burst pressures far in excess of 3NOP. The lowest burst pressure was 9678 psig.

Table 11-1 presents a comparison of the field ECT calls and the laboratory results. The table shows that both bobbin and +Point provided excellent characterization of the degradation.

Figure 1 -1 presents the ARC database (Reference 30) plot of the ligament-corrected burst pressure vs. bobbin amplitude. The Beaver Valley Unit 2 tubes, including the unconfirmed DSI Discussion / Conclusions SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

11-2 of R24C41-02H, are indicated on the plot. It is important to note that the raw burst pressure data from the Beaver Valley Unit 2 tubes is indicated. The figure shows that the Beaver Valley Unit 2 raw burst pressures fall above the regression line for ligament-corrected burst pressures.

The degradation assessment (Reference 18) notes that bobbin coil technique ETSS 128411 was used for detection of axial ODSCC at TSP intersections and +Point technique ETSS 128424 was used for confirmation. The probabilities of detection for these techniques are shown in Figure 11-2 and Figure 11-3, respectively. Figure 11-2 shows that the probability of detection for the 14.2%TW maximum depth of the crack in R24C41-02H is greater than 20% for bobbin, while Figure 11-3 shows that probability of detection is nearly zero for the +Point technique. This is consistent with the reported field results. Figure 11-2 shows a probability of detection of nearly zero for the 4.4%TW crack depth of R24C41-03H, which is also consistent with the report field results.

Table 11-1 shows that the +Point probe accurately characterized the degradation in R19C38-02H and R24C41-04H as two areas of cracking. As the depth profile of Figure 7-3 shows, the degradation consisted of a bottom region of cracking with a lot of ligaments, and an upper region of cracking with few ligaments. This is consistent with the +Point report of a larger top SAI and a smaller bottom SAL. Similarly for R24C41-04H, there were two regions of cracking and the field eddy current data indicated two SAIs.

11.4 Conclusion Section 4c of Attachment 1 of GL 95-05 (Reference 1) provides criteria for examination and testing of the removed tube sections. The leak and burst testing performed under this program meet these criteria. None of the degradation from these pulled tubes leaked at SLB pressure. All of the TSP regions had burst pressures far in excess of 3NOP.

Subsequent to burst testing, the intersections were to be destructively examined to confirm that the degradation morphology is consistent with the assumed morphology for ODSCC at the tube-to-TSP intersections. Section 1 a of Attachment I of GL 95-05 (Reference 1) provides the definition of the assumed morphology for ODSCC. The degradation morphology of the Beaver Valley ODSCC was shown to be consistent with GL 95-05 assumed morphology for ODSCC at the tube-to-TSP intersections. The dominant degradation mechanism affecting tube burst and leakage properties was axially-oriented ODSCC.

In addition, it was demonstrated that material and mechanical characteristics of the pulled Beaver Valley Unit 2 tubes are consistent with Westinghouse mill annealed Alloy 600 tubing.

The testing performed on the pulled tubes, and the results of the tests, satisfy the Alternative Repair Criteria of Reference 1.

Discussion / Conclusions SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

11-3 Table 11-1:

Comparison of Field Sizing and Lab Results Pre-Pull Field Eddy Current Laboratory Characterization Maximum Tube Bobbin Coil

+Point Depth Burst TSP IND / Volts IND / Volts Crack Description

(%TW)

(psi)

Burst opening had an upper and a lower region of SAI (Top&Bot) corrosion. The upper region R19C38 was -5%TW deeper with 02H DSI / 0.62v SAI(Top) 0.25v fewer ligaments.

49.9 9678 SAI(Bot) / 0.15~v Multiple short shallow axial cracks occurring in groups all around the circumference R24C41 Multiple short axial cracks, 10,741 DSI / 1.19v NDF all in one closely spaced 14.2 Burst in 02H region freespan 10,733 R24C41I NDD NI Two closely spaced shallow 4.4 Burst in 03H short axial cracks freespan Burst opening had a single 1/4/4 SAI (2 Reported) inch long crack. 1000 from 48.6 (900)

R24C41 DSI / 0.47v the burst opening were 9678 04H SAI(1) / 0.23v multiple parallel axial cracks 46.0 (350')

SAI(2) / 0.09v of nearly equal maximum I__I__I_

depth I

_II DSI - Distorted Support Indication NDF - No Degradation Found NDD - No Detectable Degradation NI - Not Inspected SAI-Signal Axial Indication Discussion / Conclusions SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

11-4 0.1 j

10 0OO Bobbin Amplitude (Volts)

Figure 11-1 :

ARC Database: Burst Pressure vs. Volts for 7/8" OD Alloy 600 SG Tubes Discussion / Conclusions SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

11-5 Generalized Linear Model LogLogistkc Solution I

a

=

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 90 100 Aximum Depth, %TW Figure 11-2:

Detection Probability for Bobbin Coil Technique ETSS 128411 Discussion / Conclusions SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

11-6

=

0 to 20 30 40 50 60 70 8o 90 100 MAimD=Ikptb %TW Figure 11-3:

Detection Probability for +Point Technique ETSS 128424 Discussion / Conclusions SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

12-I

12.0 REFERENCES

1.

NRC Generic Letter 95-05, "Voltage-Based Repair Criteria for Westinghouse Steam Generator Tubes Affected by Outside Diameter Stress Corrosion Cracking," USNRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, August 3, 1995.

2.

"Beaver Valley Unit 2 End-of-Cycle 17 Analysis and Prediction for End-of-Cycle 18 Voltage-Based Repair Criteria 90-Day Report," SG-SGMP-14-17, Revision 1, July 2014.

3.

"Industry Recommended Steam Generator Tube Pull Program," NRC Adams Accession Number ML003678700, January 28, 2000.

4.

FENOC Task Authorization, P.O. 47320244, February 28, 2014.

5. to "Westinghouse Offer to Provide the Steam Generator Services for Beaver Valley Unit 2 (DMW) 2R17 in the Spring of 2014," LTR-AMER-MKG-13-599, Revision 4, March 6, 2014.

6.

"Interim Report: Examination of Steam Generator Tubes Removed from Beaver Valley Unit 2," SG-CCOE-14-1, Revision 0, July 2014.

7.

"Beaver Valley Unit 2 Post-Tube Pull Eddy Current Testing (ECT) Results," LTR-SGMP-14-49, June 23, 2014.

8.

"Beaver Valley Unit 2 Model 51 M Steam Generator Secondary Side Tube Support Plate Elevations for Eddynet Confirmation," DLC-98-768 / NSD-CPM-98-142, August 25, 1998.

9.

"Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 2R17 Steam Generator Condition Monitoring Evaluation," SG-SGMP-14-14, Revision 0, May 2014.

10.

"Transmittal of LTR-CCOE-14-54 'Pulled Tubes Receipt'," FENOC-14-41, June 3, 2014.

11.

]axc

12.

Starrett Dial Caliper Model 120-A, S/N 06295903, Equipment #30009308, Calibration Record #0010775617, Exelon Power Labs. Test Date 8/14/13, Calibration Due Date 8/14/14.

13.

"Bobbin 24 IPS ETSS," DMW-02-14, Revision 0, March 2014.

14.

"3 Coil +PT ETSS," DMW-05-14, Revision 0, March 2014.

15.

"Ghent G3/G4 ETSS," DMW-12-14, Revision 0, March 2014.

16.

"Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 Steam Generator Examination Guidelines," ISIEI-8, Revision 15, April 2014.

17.

"Beaver Valley Unit 2 Post-Tube Pull Non-Destructive Examination (NDE) Eddy Current Instructions," LTR-SGMP-14-44, Revision 1, June 20, 2014.

18.

"Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 2R17 Refueling Outage Steam Generator Degradation Assessment," SG-SGMP-14-4, March 2014.

19.

"Steam Generator Program Guidelines," NEI 97-06 Revision 3, March 2011.

References March 2015 SG-CCOE-14-4-NP Revision I

12-2

20.

"Steam Generator Management Program: Steam Generator Integrity Assessment Guidelines," Revision 3. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1019038.

21.

a,c

22.

"Steam Generator Tubing Burst Testing and Leak Rate Testing Guidelines," Revision 0.

EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2002. 1006783.

23.

[

axc

24.

"Steam Generator Information Report," LTR-SGDA-11-189, Revision 0, August 2011.

25.

[

ax

26.

"Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials," ASTM E8/E8M-1 3a, 2013.

27.

"Beaver Valley Unit I Steam Generator Tube Examination," SG-SGDA-02-19, Revision 0, December 2002.

28.

"Post Service Examination of Tubes RI lC48 and R16C60 from a Beaver Valley-i Steam Generator," TR-MCC-191, Revision 0, April 1992.

29.

"Examination of Beaver Valley Unit I Hot Leg Steam Generator Tubes," 95-5TE2-BVRTB-RI, September 1995.

30.

"Steam Generator Tubing Outside Diameter Stress Corrosion Cracking at Tube Support Plates Database for Alternate Repair Limits," Addendum 7 to NP-7480-L Database.

EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2008. 1018047.

31.

Dirats Laboratories, Report Number R589753, August 28, 2014.

32.

"Specification for Nickel-Chromium-Iron Alloy (UNS N06600) Seamless Pipe and Tube," SB-167, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, ANSI/ASME BPV-II, 1977.

33.

"Standard Test Methods for Determining Average Grain Size," ASTM E 112-13, October 1, 2013.

34.

asc

35.

"Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steel," ASTM A262-14, July 1, 2014.

36.

axc References SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

A-I APPENDIX A - CRACK DEPTH PROFILE DATA R19C38 - 02H (Sample 3B2A)

Axial Position Ligament Above Bottom Crack Orientation Ligament Ligament End of Sample Depth Compared to Uncorroded Depth (mils)

(%TW)

Crack Face Area (mils2)

(%TW) 0 0.0 4.86 0.0 6.65 11.2 11.01 14.4 15.97 17.5 21.09 23.3 26.51 29.2 31.12 33.0 36.03 30.8 40.62 30.9 45.53 32.5 50.43 39.8 55.48 38.4 60.48 39.7 65.76 44.2 70.73 44.0 75.98 43.8 80.68 38.1 85.39 34.4 90.84 23.1 Out of Plane 123.65 13 95.18 9.2 99.64 15.2 104.67 20.8 109.58 21.6 114.50 12.0 118.82 0.0 123.75 0.0 129.04 20.6 In-Plane 37.44 14 133.97 26.2 138.39 32.3 143.26 36.4 148.04 31.5 Appendix A SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

A-2 Axial Position Ligament Above Bottom Crack Orientation Ligament Ligament End of Sample Depth Compared to Uncorroded Depth (mils)

(%TW)

Crack Face Area (mils2)

(%TW) 153.15 20.0 157.93 8.2 163.08 26.0 In-Plane 68.80 19 168.21 26.6 173.01 34.5 177.81 36.7 182.41 34.5 187.10 33.3 192.07 28.1 Out of Plane 275.32 24 197.00 24.1 202.01 0.0 211.93 0.0 216.56 16.0 221.40 22.2 Out of Plane 14.42 15 226.41 26.4 231.59 24.8 236.24 17.0 240.87 11.4 245.64 0.0 394.82 0.0 399.52 11.7 404.38 11.7 Out of Plane 26.56 10 410.13 8.4 414.63 0.0 429.26 0.0 434.96 25.1 439.82 27.5 444.83 27.1 449.65 29.2 454.69 26.6 458.87 26.0 463.61 27.3 468.80 28.3 473.31 29.4 477.89 30.2 Appendix A SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

A-3 Axial Position Ligament Above Bottom Crack Orientation Ligament Ligament End of Sample Depth Compared to Uncorroded Depth (mils)

(%TW)

Crack Face Area (mils2

(%TW) 482.86 29.8 487.71 31.4 493.02 31.6 497.57 31.9 502.68 30.6 507.67 39.2 Out of Plane 128.28 19 512.44 42.5 517.51 37.7 522.78 35.6 528.03 32.5 532.56 29.2 537.32 28.5 542.48 31.5 547.86 31.6 553.20 36.1 558.14 36.8 562.98 39.6 567.92 41.6 573.36 44.2 578.49 42.9 583.21 46.9 587.93 48.0 592.75 46.6 597.06 49.4 602.70 48.4 607.72 49.9 612.75 48.7 617.46 48.5 622.30 47.7 626.90 47.8 631.99 43.0 637.29 39.1 Out of Plane 32.72 11 642.06 41.8 646.66 41.1 651.75 43.6 Appendix A SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

A-4 Axial Position Ligament Above Bottom Crack Orientation Ligament Ligament End of Sample Depth Compared to Uncorroded Depth (mils)

(%TW)

Crack Face Area (mils2)

(%TW) 656.65 42.8 661.71 43.6 666.78 41.4 671.96 38.1 675.92 40.6 681.31 41.9 686.43 44.6 Out of Plane 29.27 18 692.12 41.9 697.11 31.7 701.86 18.6 706.95 0.0 876.50 0.0 994.91 0.0 1123.15 0.0 1208.99 0.0 Appendix A SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

A-5 R24C41 - 04H (Sample 6B2A)

Axial Position Ligament Above Bottom Orientation Ligament Ligament End of Sample Crack Depth Compared to Uncorroded Depth (mils)

(%TW)

Crack Face Area (mils2)

(%TW) 0.00 0.0 163.20 0.0 299.25 0.0 454.50 0.0 483.33 0.0 487.24 6.0 492.40 13.8 497.75 13.9 502.61 16.7 507.67 20.2 Out of Plane 40.33 14 512.59 22.1 517.48 22.9 522.81 24.3 527.86 22.2 532.35 22.3 537.78 25.9 543.18 28.0 548.00 33.5 553.37 32.5 558.67 20.2 563.34 30.0 568.61 37.6 573.76 43.4 579.08 42.7 584.05 40.3 589.03 40.2 594.22 41.9 598.88 43.0 603.65 44.7 608.52 43.6 614.99 40.2 619.55 48.1 624.54 48.4 629.75 48.6 Appendix A SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

A-6 Axial Position Ligament Above Bottom Orientation Ligament Ligament End of Sample Crack Depth Compared to Uncorroded Depth (mils)

(%TW)

Crack Face Area (mils2)

(%TW) 634.57 46.5 640.38 46.7 645.34 46.0 650.81 42.7 655.64 43.6 660.57 44.9 665.22 46.4 669.91 37.8 Out of Plane 18.14 19 675.37 35.7 680.82 39.1 685.83 38.1 691.28 31.7 696.97 17.8 702.07 17.2 706.74 21.2 711.95 17.0 717.11 15.2 722.37 14.9 727.86 14.2 732.92 13.1 Out of Plane 16.31 13 738.29 15.7 742.83 12.2 747.99 11.8 753.63 0.0 898.54 0.0 1038.66 0.0 1154.26 0.0 1229.63 0.0 1325.34 0.0 Appendix A SG-CCOE-14-4-NP March 2015 Revision I

Enclosure B L-15-091 Affidavit for Examination of Steam Generator Tubes Removed from Beaver Valley Unit 2, Proprietary Information Notice, and Copyright Notice (6 Pages Follow)

CAW-15-4153 March 30, 2015 AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:

ss COUNTY OF BUTLER:

I, James A. Gresham, am authorized to execute this Affidavit on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse), and that the averments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

ames A. Gresham, Manager Regulatory Compliance

2 CAW-15-4153 (1)

I am Manager, Regulatory Compliance, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse),

and as such, I have been specifically delegated the function of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public disclosure in connection with nuclear power plant licensing and rule making proceedings, and am authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of Westinghouse.

(2)

I am making this Affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.390 of the Commission's regulations and in conjunction with the Westinghouse Application for Withholding Proprietary Information from Public Disclosure accompanying this Affidavit.

(3)

I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by Westinghouse in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or financial information.

(4)

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.390 of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Commission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure should be withheld.

(i)

The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure is owned and has been held in confidence by Westinghouse.

(ii)

The information is of a type customarily held in confidence by Westinghouse and not customarily disclosed to the public. Westinghouse has a rational basis for determining the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utilizes a system to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in confidence. The application of that system and the substance of that system constitute Westinghouse policy and provide the rational basis required.

Under that system, information is held in confidence if it falls in one or more of several types, the release of which might result in the loss of an existing or potential competitive advantage, as follows:

(a)

The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.) where prevention of its use by any of

3 CAW-15-4153 Westinghouse's competitors without license from Westinghouse constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies.

(b)

It consists of supporting data, including test data, relative to a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.), the application of which data secures a competitive economic advantage, e.g., by optimization or improved marketability.

(c)

Its use by a competitor would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing a similar product.

(d)

It reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of Westinghouse, its customers or suppliers.

(e)

It reveals aspects of past, present, or future Westinghouse or customer funded development plans and programs of potential commercial value to Westinghouse.

(f)

It contains patentable ideas, for which patent protection may be desirable.

(iii)

There are sound policy reasons behind the Westinghouse system which include the following:

(a)

The use of such information by Westinghouse gives Westinghouse a competitive advantage over its competitors. It is, therefore, withheld from disclosure to protect the Westinghouse competitive position.

(b)

It is information that is marketable in many ways. The extent to which such information is available to competitors diminishes the Westinghouse ability to sell products and services involving the use of the information.

(c)

Use by our competitor would put Westinghouse at a competitive disadvantage by reducing his expenditure of resources at our expense.

4 CAW-15-4153 (d)

Each component of proprietary information pertinent to a particular competitive advantage is potentially as valuable as the total competitive advantage. If competitors acquire components of proprietary information, any one component may be the key to the entire puzzle, thereby depriving Westinghouse of a competitive advantage.

(e)

Unrestricted disclosure would jeopardize the position of prominence of Westinghouse in the world market, and thereby give a market advantage to the competition of those countries.

(f)

The Westinghouse capacity to invest corporate assets in research and development depends upon the success in obtaining and maintaining a competitive advantage.

(iv)

The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence and, under the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.390, it is to be received in confidence by the Commission.

(v)

The information sought to be protected is not available in public sources or available information has not been previously employed in the same original manner or method to the best of our knowledge and belief.

(vi)

The proprietary information sought to be withheld in this submittal is that which is appropriately marked in SG-CCOE-14-4-P, Revision 1, "Examination of Steam Generator Tubes Removed from Beaver Valley Unit 2" (Proprietary), for submittal to the Commission, being transmitted by the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company letter and Application for Withholding Proprietary Information from Public Disclosure, to the Document Control Desk. The proprietary information as submitted by Westinghouse is that associated with steam generator manufacturing parameters and test setup methodology, and may be used only for that purpose.

5 CAW-15-4153 (a)

This information is part of that which will enable Westinghouse to:

(i)

Provide steam generator design, testing and licensing defense services to utilities worldwide.

(b)

Further this information has substantial commercial value as follows:

(i)

Westinghouse plans to sell the use of similar information to its customers for the purpose of offering steam generator design, testing and licensing defense services.

(ii)

Westinghouse can sell support and defense of industry guidelines and acceptance criteria for plant-specific applications.

(iii)

The information requested to be withheld reveals the distinguishing aspects of a methodology which was developed by Westinghouse.

Public disclosure of this proprietary information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Westinghouse because it would enhance the ability of competitors to provide similar steam generator design, testing and licensing defense services for commercial power reactors without commensurate expenses. Also, public disclosure of the information would enable others to use the information to meet NRC requirements for licensing documentation without purchasing the right to use the information.

The development of the technology described in part by the information is the result of applying the results of many years of experience in an intensive Westinghouse effort and the expenditure of a considerable sum of money.

In order for competitors of Westinghouse to duplicate this information, similar technical programs would have to be performed and a significant manpower effort, having the requisite talent and experience, would have to be expended.

Further the deponent sayeth not.

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE Transmitted herewith are proprietary and non-proprietary versions of documents furnished to the NRC in connection with steam generator manufacturing parameters and test setup methodology, and may be used only for that purpose.

In order to conform to the requirements of 10 CFR 2.390 of the Commission's regulations concerning the protection of proprietary information so submitted to the NRC, the information which is proprietary in the proprietary versions is contained within brackets, and where the proprietary information has been deleted in the non-proprietary versions, only the brackets remain (the information that was contained within the brackets in the proprietary versions having been deleted). The justification for claiming the information so designated as proprietary is indicated in both versions by means of lower case letters (a) through (f) located as a superscript immediately following the brackets enclosing each item of information being identified as proprietary or in the margin opposite such information. These lower case letters refer to the types of information Westinghouse customarily holds in confidence identified in Sections (4)(ii)(a) through (4)(ii)(f) of the Affidavit accompanying this transmittal pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(b)(I).

COPYRIGHT NOTICE The reports transmitted herewith each bear a Westinghouse copyright notice. The NRC is permitted to make the number of copies of the information contained in these reports which are necessary for its internal use in connection with generic and plant-specific reviews and approvals as well as the issuance, denial, amendment, transfer, renewal, modification, suspension, revocation, or violation of a license, permit, order, or regulation subject to the requirements of 10 CFR 2.390 regarding restrictions on public disclosure to the extent such information has been identified as proprietary by Westinghouse, copyright protection notwithstanding. With respect to the non-proprietary versions of these reports, the NRC is permitted to make the number of copies beyond those necessary for its internal use which are necessary in order to have one copy available for public viewing in the appropriate docket files in the public document room in Washington, DC and in local public document rooms as may be required by NRC regulations if the number of copies submitted is insufficient for this purpose. Copies made by the NRC must include the copyright notice in all instances and the proprietary notice if the original was identified as proprietary.