Text

Enclosure 4 Special Report 04-02, Framatome-ANP Report 86-5049264-00 DCPP 1R12 Bobbin Voltage ARC 90 Day Summary Report
	ML042580462
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	09/02/2004
From:	Adrienne Brown; Framatome ANP
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	DCL-04-112 86-5049264-00
	Download: ML042580462 (99)
	v • d • e

Enclosure 4 PG&E Letter DCL-04-112 ENCLOSURE 4 SPECIAL REPORT 04-02 FRAMATOME-ANP REPORT 86-5049264-00 "DCPP 1R12 BOBBIN VOLTAGE ARC 90 DAY

SUMMARY

REPORT"

20697-8 (411/2004 At CALCULATION

SUMMARY

SHEET (CSS)

AREVA Document Identifier 86 - 5049264 - 00 Title DCPP UNIT I R12 VOLTAGE-BASED ARC 90-DAY REPORT PREPARED BY:

REVIEWED BY:

METHOD: 0 DETAILED CHECK [: INDEPENDENT CALCULATION NAME Alan M Brown NAME Jeffrey M Fleck SIGNATURE A

SIGNATURE TITLE Engineer IV DATE 2

f TITLE Manager DATE COST REF.

TM STATEMENT:

Ad

\\

CENTER 12742 PAGE(S) 95-96 REV1EWER INDEPENDENCE PURPOSE AND

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS:

this report summarizes the Diablo Canyon Unit I - 1R12 inspection of the steam generator tubing with respect to the implementation of the voltage-based repair criteria as specified In NRC Generic Letter 95-05. This document provides the projected probability of burst and leak rate calculations needed for submittal to the NRC.

This report provides a non-proprietary summary of the results. The supporting proprietary calculations and necessary code verifications required for safety-related calculations are contained In Reference 23.

Appended pages include Pages A-1 to A-2 THE FOLLOWING COMPUTER CODES HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS DOCUMENT:

THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS ASSUMPTIONS THAT MUST BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO USE ON SAFETY-RELATED WORK CODE/VERSIONIREV CODENERSION/REV lkr97v30.exe / Version 3.0 pob97v2D.exe I Version 2.0 YES 1 NO Framatome ANP, Inc., an AREVA and Siemens company Page 1

of 96'

86-5049264-00 Page 2 of 96 RECORD OF REVISIONS Revision Number Affected Page(s) 0 All Description of Change(s)

Original Release

86-5049264-00 Page 3 of 96 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

7 2.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

7 3.0 EOC-12 INSPECTION RESULTS AND VOLTAGE GROWTH RATES...................................................

9 3.1 EOC-12 INSPECTION RESULTS........................................................

'.9 3.2 VOLTAGE GROWTH RATES.12 3.2.1 SELECTION OF LIMITING GROWTH DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH STEAM GENERATOR.13 3.2.2 DEPENDENCY OF VOLTAGE GROWTH ON BOC VOLTAGE.14 3.2.3 DELTA VOLTS ADJUSTMENT.15 3.2.4 GROWTH

SUMMARY

15 3.3 PROBE WEAR CRITERIA

.16 3.4 UPPER VOLTAGE REPAIR LIMIT.17 3.5 NDE UNCERTAINTY DISTRIBUTIONS.......................................................

18 4.0 CHEMICAL CLEANING.60 5.0 DATABASE APPLIED FOR LEAK AND BURST CORRELATIONS.62 5.1 CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF BURST.63 5.2 PROBABILITY OF LEAK AND CONDITIONAL LEAK RATE.64 5.3

SUMMARY

OF DESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION RESULTS 1 Ri2 PULLED TUBE.65 6.0 BENCHMARKING OF EOC-12 CONDITIONS.67 7.0 EOC-13 PROJECTIONS FOR PROBABILITY OF BURST AND LEAK RATE.72 7.1 INPUTS FOR CALCULATIONS.72 7.2 PROJECTED EOC-1 3 VOLTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS.73 7.3 PROJECTED TUBE BURST PROBABILITY AND LEAK RATE FOR EOC-13.77 8.0 PROBABILITY OF PRIOR CYCLE DETECTION AND EOC-13 PROJECTIONS USING DCPP POPCD..78 8.1 UPDATED DCPP POPCD CORRELATION.78 8.2 INPUT TO INDUSTRY POPCD DATABASE.79 8.3 NRC REQUESTED INFORMATION FOR POPCD IN 90-DAY REPORT.79 8.4 EOC-1 3 PROJECTIONS USING UPDATED POPCD CORRELATION.81

9.0 REFERENCES

.95

86-5049264-00 Page 4 of 96 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Glossary of Acronyms....................................................................................

6 Table 3-1: 1R12 DOS Indications > 2

.0 Volts....................................................................................

19 Table 3-2: 1 Ri 2 AONDB Indications....................................................................................

20 Table 3-3: Summary of Inspection and Repair for Tubes Affected by ODSCC at TSPs................................................... 23 Table 3-4: Summary of Largest Voltage Growth Rates per EFPY................................................................................... 25 Table 3-5: DOS Voltage and Growth Distribution by TSP....................................................................................

26 Table 3-6: Voltage Growth for Cycles 9 through 12.....................................................................................

27 Table 3-7: Summary of Independent Cycle 12 Voltage Growth per EFPY...................................................................... 28 Table 3-8: Cycle 12 Voltage Dependent Growth Using Composite Breakpoints (BOC-12 Voltage < 0.50 Volts)........... 29 Table 3-9: Cycle 12 Voltage Dependent Growth Using Composite Breakpoints (BOC-12 Voltage from 0.51 to 1.02 Volts)....................................................................................

30 Table 3-10: Cycle 12 Voltage Dependent Growth Using Composite Breakpoints (BOC-12 Voltage >1.02 Volts).......... 31 Table 3-11: Delta Volts Adjustments....................................................................................

32 Table 3-12: VDG Distributions Used for Monte Carlo Simulations................................................................................... 33 Table 3-13: Re-tested DOSs 21.5 Volts that Failed the Probe Wear Check.................................................................... 34 Table 3-14: New 1R12 DOSs 20.5 Volts in Tubes Inspected With a Wom Probe in IRIl1.............................................. 37 Table 3-15: Summary of New DOS Indications for Probe Wear Comparison.................................................................. 40 Table 3-16: Summary of ARC Out Tube Inspections in I RiI....................................................................................

40 Table 3-17: NDE Uncertainty Distributions....................................................

41 Figure 3-1: As-Found Voltage Distributions SGs 1-1 and 1-2.................................................... 42 Figure 3-2: As-Found Voltage Distributions SGs 1-3 and 1-4.................................................... 42 Figure 3-3: 1R12 Repaired Voltage Distributions SGs 1-1 and 1-2....................................................

43 Figure 3-4: 1 R12 Repaired Voltage Distributions SGs 1-3 and 1-4....................................................

43 Figure 3-5: Indications RTS Voltage Distributions SGs 1-1 and 1-2...............

4.....................

44 Figure 3-6: Indications RTS Voltage Distributions SGs 1-3 and 1-4....................................................

44 Figure 3-7: 1 R12 DOS vs. TSP Elevation....................................................

45 Figure 3-8: Cycle 12 Growth Distributions SGs 1-1 and 1-2....................................................

46 Figure 3-9: Cycle 12 Growth Distributions SGs 1-3 and 1-4....................................................

46 Figure 3-10: SG 1-1 and SG 1-2 Cycle 12 Growth vs. BOC Voltage....................................................

47 Figure 3-11: SG 1-3 and SG 1-4 Cycle 12 Growth vs. BOC Voltage.................................................... 47 Figure 3-12: SG 1-1 Cycle 12 VDG Breakpoint Analysis Results....................................................

48 Figure 3-13: SG 1-2 Cycle 12 VDG Breakpoint Analysis Results....................................................

48 Figure 3-14: SG 1-3 Cycle 12 VDG Breakpoint Analysis Determination....................................................

49 Figure 3-15: SG 1-4 Cycle 12 VDG Breakpoint Analysis Determination....................................................

49 Figure 3-16: Cycle 12 VDG Breakpoint Analysis Determination - All SGs....................................................

50 Figure 3-17: SG 1-1 Cycle 12 VDG Curves....................................................

51 Figure 3-18: SG 1-2 Cycle 12 VDG Curves....................................................

51 Figure 3-19: SG 1-3 Cycle 12 VDG Curves....................................................

52 Figure 3-20: SG 1-4 Cycle 12 VDG Curves.......................................................

52 Figure 3-21: Cycle 12 VDG Curves for All SGs Combined.......................................................

53 Figure 3-22: Historical Change in Growth and BOC Voltage All SGs.......................................................

54 Figure 3-23: Cycle 12 vs. Cycle 11 SG Composite Growth Comparison.......................................................

55 Figure 3-24: Cycle 12 Independent Growth Curves -All SGs.......................................................

56 Figure 3-25: Cycle 11 vs Cycle 12 Growth Comparison SG 1-1.......................................................

57 Figure 3-26: Cycle 11 vs Cycle 12 Growth Comparison SG 1-2.......................................................

57 Figure 3-27: Cycle 11 vs Cycle 12 Growth Comparison SG 1-3.......................................................

58 Figure 3-28: Cycle 1 1

vs Cycle 12 Gr owth Comparison SG 1-4.......................................................

58 Figure 3-29: 1R12 Probe Wear Voltage Comparison.......................................................

59 Figure 3-30: Bobbin Voltage Uncertainty Distributions.......................................................

59 Figure 4-1: Chemical Cleaning Effect on DOS Voltage.......................................................

61 Table 5-1: Burst Pressure vs. Bobbin Amplitude Correlation.......................................................

63 Table 5-2: Probability of Leak Correlation.......................................................

64 Table 5-3: Leak Rate vs. Bobbin Amplitude Correlation (2405 psi).......................................................

65 Table 5-4: Bobbin and Plus Point Eddy Current Inspection Results Summary.......................................................

66 Table 5-5: Pulled Tube Burst and Leak Test Results.......................................................

66

86-5049264-00 Page 5 of 96 Table 6-1: As-found EOC-12 vs. Projected EOC-12 Conditions Using 0.6 POD............................................................. 68 Table 6-2: As-found EOC-12 vs. Projected EOC-12 Conditions Using DCPP POPCD and Extreme Growth Method.... 69 Figure 6-1: As-found SG 1-1 vs Projected Voltage Distributions from 1 R1 I revised OA (0.6 POD)............................... 70 Figure 6-2: As-found SG 1-2 vs Projected Voltage Distributions from 1 RI 1 revised OA (0.6 POD)............................... 70 Figure 6-3: As-found SG 1-3 vs Projected Voltage Distributions from 1 Ri 1 revised OA (0.6 POD)............................... 71 Figure 64: As-found SG 14 vs Projected Voltage Distributions from 1 RI I revised OA (0.6 POD)............................... 71 Table 7-1: Inputs for EOC-13 POB and Leak Rate Projections...................................................................................

72 Table 7-2: Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distributions (0.6 POD)...................................................................................

74 Figure 7-1: SG 1-1 EOC-13 Projected Voltage Distributions Using 0.6 POD.................................................................. 75 Figure 7-2: SG 1-2 EOC-13 Projected Voltage Distributions Using 0.6 POD.................................................................. 75 Figure 7-3: SG 1-3 EOC-13 Projected Voltage Distributions Using 0.6 POD.................................................................. 76 Figure 7-4: SG 14 EOC-13 Projected Voltage Distributions Using 0.6 POD.........................................................

76 Table 7-3: Projected Leak Rate and Burst Probability at EOC-13 POD 0.6 VDG.........................................................

77 Table 8-1: 1 RI 1 POPCD Results.........................................................

82 Table 8-2: DCPP Composite POPCD Results.........................................................

83 Table 8-3: 1 RI I POPCD Summary from 1 Ri 2 Inspection Results.........................................................

84 Table 84: DCPP Composite POPCD Summary.........................................................

84 Table 8-5: DCPP POPCD LogLogistic Parameters.........................................................

85 Table 8-6: Updated DCPP POPCD Correlation Comparison to Previous POPCD Correlation (Best Estimate)............. 86 Table 8-7: 1 Ri 1 POPCD Results In Industry Format...............................................................................

87 Table 8-8: DCPP Composite POPCD Results In Industry Format................................................................................ 88 Table 8-9: Extreme Growth Distribution for 7/8" Plants at 604F...............................................................................

89 Table 8-10: Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distributions Using POPCD............................................................................... 90 Table 8-11: Projected Leak Rate and Burst Probability at EOC-1 3 Using POPCD and Extreme Growth Model............ 91 Figure 8-1: 1 RiI POPCD Comparison to Composite POPCD...............................................................................

92 Figure 8-2:, SG 1-1 Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distribution Using POPCD and Extreme Growth.................................... 93 Figure 8-3: SG 1-2 Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distribution Using POPCD and Extreme Growth................................... 93 Figure 84: SG 1-3 Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distribution Using POPCD and Extreme Growth................................... 94 Figure 8-5: SG 1-4 Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distribution Using POPCD and Extreme Growth................................... 94

86-5049264-00 Page 6 of 96 Glossary of Acronyms Term Definition AONDB Axial ODSCC Not Detected by Bobbin ARC Alternate Repair Criteria BOC Beginning of Cycle CDS Computer Data Screening CPDF Cumulative Probability Distribution Function CFR Code of Federal Regulations CLT Cold-Leg Thinning DCPP Diablo Canyon Power Plant DIS Distorted ID Support Signal with possible Indication DOS Distorted OD Support Signal with possible Indication DNF Degradation Not Found EFPD Effective Full Power Day EFPY Effective Full Power Year ECT Eddy Current Test EOC End of Cycle FS Free Span FANP Framatome Advanced Nuclear Power GL NRC Generic Letter 95-05 GPM Gallons per Minute INR Indication Not Reportable ISI In-service Inspection LRL Lower Repair Limit LU Lookup MSLB Main Steam Line Break NDE Non Destructive Examination NDD No Degradation Detected NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ODSCC Outside Diameter Stress Corrosion Cracking PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company POB Probability of Burst POD Probability of Detection POPCD Probability of Prior Cycle Detection POL Probability of Leak PWSCC Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking RPC Rotating Pancake Coil RSS Retest Support Plate Signal RTS Return to Service SG Steam Generator SER Safety Evaluation Report TS Technical Specification TSP Tube Support Plate VDG Voltage Dependent Growth

86-5049264-00 Page 7 of 96 1.0 Introduction The Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Unit 1 completed the twelfth cycle of operation and subsequent steam generator ISI in April 2004. The unit employs four Westinghouse-designed Model 51 SGs with %/-inch OD mill annealed alloy 600 tubing and %-inch carbon steel drilled-hole tube support plates.

In accordance with the Generic Letter 95-05, ARC implementation requires a pre-startup assessment (Ref. 1) and a 90-day post-startup tube integrity assessment. The NRC Generic Letter 95-05, Ref. 2, outlines an alternate repair criterion (ARC) for allowing tubes containing ODSCC indications to remain in service if the indications are contained within the TSP structure and the measured Bobbin voltage is <2.0 volts. A complete list of criteria for excluding TSP intersections from ARC application is provided in section 1.b of Ref. 2 and in Ref. 3. The NRC has approved implementation of the voltage-based repair criteria at both DCPP units per Ref. 3. The steam generator TSP inspection results and the postulated MSLB leak rate and tube burst probabilities are summarized in this report. FANP uses Monte Carlo codes, as described in Refs. 4 and 5, to provide the burst and leak rate analysis simulations.

These evaluations are based on the methods in Ref. 6 (for burst) and the new slope sampling method for calculating the leak rate as defined in Section 9.5 of Ref. 8.

2.0 Executive Summary During the 1 R1 2 inspection, a total of 1367 DOS indications were detected with the bobbin coil. There were an additional 120 support plate intersections that were identified as containing AONDB (axial ODSCC not detected by bobbin). Since there was no DOS indication at these intersections, a bobbin voltage was inferred from the Plus Point results per the methodology provided in Reference 8. All of the inferred bobbin voltages were less than 1 volt.

There were 48 DOS indications greater than the lower repair limit of 2.0 volts. All of these indications were confirmed as axial ODSCC with Plus Point and were subsequently plugged.

An additional 74 DOS and AONDB indications less than 2 volts were also plugged for other reasons, such as ODSCC in the wedge region and pluggable indications at another location in the same tube.

A review of the growth rates over the previous cycle shows that axial ODSCC at support plates is once again most active in SG 1-1. SG 1-1 had the six highest growth rates during Cycle 12. Voltage dependent growth was evident in all steam generators, but its effect was minimal in SG 1-3. Following the DCPP Unit 2 2R1 1 inspection in 2003, a significant amount of analysis and evaluation was performed on voltage growth for ODSCC at TSPs. The evaluations primarily involved statistical breakpoint analyses to determine where the data suggests a change in the slope of the regression curve that defines the growth data. These efforts led to the development of guidelines for determining the breakpoints and growth distributions. These guidelines were provided to the NRC via Reference 24, and were used to determine the breakpoints and growth distributions for the OA. SG 1-1 showed the most voltage dependent growth and was the only steam generator to yield two breakpoints in the VDG analyses.

86-5049264-00 Page 8 of 96 The POB and leak rate projections for EOC-13 provided in this report use the constant POD of 0.6 as specified in GL 95-05. DCPP currently has a License Amendment Request (LAR) (Ref.

16) under NRC review to allow implementation of a voltage dependent probability of prior cycle detection (POPCD). Since this LAR has not been approved, the calculation of record for EOC 13 uses 0.6 POD, and the results are in Section 7.

Section 6 provides the results of a benchmarking study that compares the projected EOC-1 2 conditions to the as-found conditions. Both the constant 0.6 POD and the voltage dependent POPCD were used to predict the conditions. The EOC-12 projections using the 0.6 POD were not taken from the 1 R11 90-Day Report (Ref. 7); rather, the SG 1-1 projections were based on results calculated in Case 4 of Table 3-5 of FANP Document 86-5039942-00 (Ref.

19) submitted to NRC in DCL-04-019 dated March 16, 2004. The SG 1-2,1-3, and 1-4 projections were also recalculated based on the enhanced growth distribution development guidelines provided to the NRC in Reference 25. These results showed that the POBs and leak rates were overpredicted in SGs 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 compared to the as-found results. But, in SG 1-4, the POB and leak rate were slightly underpredicted by -5.7 x 10-5 and by 0.01 gpm, respectively. For the POPCD analyses, the POBs for SG 1-1 and SG 1-4 and the leak rate for SG 1-4 were slightly underpredicted. The underpredictions on POB were only 6.0 x 10-5 for SG 1-1 and 4.4 x 10-5 for SG 1-4, while the SLB leak rate underprediction for SG 1-4 was only 0.04 gpm for the steam generator with the smallest leak rate. The predictions using POPCD for SGs 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 were higher than obtained using the POD of 0.6, while the 0.6 POD results for SLB leakage are slightly higher than obtained with POPCD. None of these underpredictions meet the level of significance as defined in Reference 26.

Using the 0.6 POD and the conservative growth rate analyses discussed in Section 3.2, the projected POB at EOC-13 for the limiting steam generator (SG 1 -1) was determined to be 6.65 x 10-3. The projected leak rate for the limiting generator (SG 1-1) was 4.32 gpm. Both of these results are below the acceptance criteria of 1 x 1 0-2 and 10.5 gpm, respectively.

86-5049264-00 Page 9 of 96 3.0 EOC-12 Inspection Results and Voltage Growth Rates 3.1 EOC-12 Inspection Results The DCPP 1R12 bobbin coil inspection consisted of a 100% complete full-length bobbin coil examination of tubes in all four steam generators. 0.720" replaceable feet bobbin probes were used for the straight length examinations. Two TSP intersections in SG 1-4 (7H in Tube 7-89, and 7C in Tube 9-86) could not be inspected with.720" probes due to restrictions.

These intersections were inspected with.700" bobbin probes and Plus Point probes with no degradation detected. Special interest Plus-point examinations were conducted as follows in support of the voltage-based ARC.

100% of DOS 2 1.7 volts (as identified in Ref. 12) 100% of DOS ; 1.4 volts in SGs 1-1 and 1-2

100% of DOS in dented intersections (as identified in Ref. 12)

100% of DIS (distorted ID support signal at dented intersection)

100% of hot leg SPR (Support Plate Residual) 2 2.3 volts; minimum of five largest hot leg SPRs in each steam generator

Dented TSP examinations (as identified in Ref. 12)

Other Special Interest or test programs that may test TSP intersections (as identified in Ref. 12)

Based upon the 100% bobbin inspection of all steam generators; a total of 1367 DOS indications were identified. The results of the inspections are summarized as follows:

1) Voltage Dependent Growth was evident in all steam generators although the effect was minimal in SG 1-3. SG 1-1 showed the most voltage dependent growth and was the only steam generator to yield two breakpoints in the VDG analyses.

2) 48 DOS indications were greater than the lower repair limit (LRL-2.0 volts). Each of the indications were confirmed as ODSCC, required repair by plugging, and were distributed as follows: 27 in SG 1-1, 9 in SG 1-2, 6 in SG 1-3 and 6 in SG 1-4. Table 3-1 lists the DOS indications that were above the LRL (2.0 volts).

3) One indication was identified that exceeded the upper repair limit of 5.88 volts.

4) 120 indications were identified as AONDB (axial ODSCC not detected by bobbin). Table 3-2 lists the indications that were identified as AONDB. These are Plus-Point indications of axial ODSCC that have no signal present in the bobbin coil data (no DOS signal).

These locations are typically smaller voltage ODSCC, by Plus Point, and can be accompanied by a dent that masks the bobbin voltage. Per Ref. 8, a methodology has been developed to assign a bobbin voltage based on a correlation to the Plus-Point voltage. Once the calculated voltages are obtained per Reference 17, the locations are subjected to exclusion criteria defined in Ref. 12.

5) Overall, 122 DOS/AONDB indications were repaired during 1R12. The breakdown is: 45 in SG 1-1, 28 in SG 1-2, 32 in SG 1-3, and 17 in SG 1-4. This population was used in computing the BOC-1 2 distributions for the OA calculations.

86-5049264-00 Page 10 of 96 The average voltage was 0.71 volts, including AONDB indications. The 1 R1I1 average was 0.64 volts. The average voltage for new DOS indications, excluding prior AONDB indications, was 0.48v. The majority of the largest voltages were detected in SG 1-1, but SG 1-3 had the highest average voltage of 0.74 volts. Table 3-3 summarizes the voltage distributions for the as-found condition of the indications, the repaired indications, indications returned to service that were either confirmed by Plus-point or not inspected with Plus-point, and the total indications returned to service. 48 confirmed DOS had to be repaired because they exceeded the 2-volt repair limit. The main reasons for repair of the other 74 DOS included DOS > 2.Ov at different intersections in the same tube, the wedge exclusion criterion, combined ID/OD degradation at the same intersection, or other tube degradation (e.g., U-bend PWSCC)

The Plus Point inspections required for DOS indications were accomplished as a part of the special interest exams. 343 Plus-point inspections were performed where DOS indications were called by bobbin, excluding the AONDB intersections. Of these inspections, 319 were confirmed yielding an overall confirmation rate of about 93%.

The 1 R12 Plus Point TSP inspection scope also included intersections with signals that could potentially mask or cause a flaw to be missed or misread. These inspections included dented intersections based on the criteria in the degradation assessment (Ref 9) and hot leg intersections with support plate residuals (SPR) 2 2.3 volts. Per GL 95-05, a large mixed residual is one that could cause a 1.0 volt bobbin signal to be missed or misread. In Reference 9, DCPP determined that a 2.3 volt SPR is the threshold that could potentially mask bobbin indications 2 1.0 volt. Per the inspection requirements specified in References 9 and 12, all hot leg intersections with SPRs with voltages 2 2.3 volts were inspected with Plus Point. In addition, if there were less than five hot leg SPRs 2 2.3 volts in a given steam generator, the five largest hot leg SPRs in that steam generator were inspected with Plus Point. A total of 12 hot leg SPRs 2 2.3 volts were identified using CDS (Computer Data Screening). SGs 1-1, 1-2, and 1-4 had less than five SPRs 2 2.3 volts. Therefore, the five largest SPRs were inspected in these steam generators. None of the required SPR inspections resulted in ODSCC being confirmed with Plus Point. One intersection in SG 1-3 (R26C80 - 1 H) had a 0.33 volt Plus Point ODSCC indication reported at a 1.93 volt SPR.

This location was inspected with Plus Point since it had a DOS (1.55v) and a DNT (0.47v) at the same intersection. Since 1) the SPR did not cause the DOS to be missed, 2) the combination of the DNT and SPR would be expected to increase the DOS voltage, and 3) the DOS voltage was less than 2 volts, this tube was left in service.

Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the as-found voltage distribution (including AONDB) for all tubes that were in service during Cycle 12. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show the indications removed from service at 1R12. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 illustrate all of the indications returned to service following the 1R12 ECT inspection. Table 3-1 shows all of the indications greater than the 2.0-volt lower repair limit. As previously stated, all of these indications were confirmed as axial ODSCC and were removed from service by plugging.

Of the intersections containing DOS/AONDB indications that were returned to service, 296 contained confirmed axial ODSCC at dented intersections. 95 of these intersections contained dents <2.Ov and 201 of these intersections contained dents >2.0v. Of these indications, the largest bobbin voltage was 1.78v. This indication had a small corresponding

86-5049264-00 Page 11 of 96 Plus Point voltage of 0.26v. The largest Plus Point voltage from this population was 0.99v with a corresponding bobbin voltage of 1.28v.

The DOS voltage distribution as a function of TSP elevation is provided in Table 3-5. Table 3-5 and Figure 3-7 show that the ODSCC mechanism is most active at the lower hot leg TSPs and the number of indications tends to decrease as a function of higher TSP elevations. This distribution shows the temperature dependence of ODSCC.

Table 3-5 also includes a small number of cold leg DOS indications that were verified not to be cold leg thinning. At DCPP-1, potential cold leg ODSCC indications are distinguished from cold leg thinning indications by requiring that bobbin indications in the region of occurrence for cold leg thinning per Ref. 12, be Plus Point inspected (and confirmed as volumetric indications by Plus-Point) at the first occurrence of the bobbin indication. No cold leg ODSCC has been confirmed by Plus Point to date at DCPP-1. Non-confirmed bobbin DOS indications in the cold leg are retained in the ODSCC ARC calculations.

NRC letter to PG&E dated November 20, 2003, contained the following observation on volumetric indications at TSPs, and a response is provided below:

"in response to an RAI, the licensee indicated that if they had confirmed volumetric degradation in the cold leg thinning region, then they would have depth sized the indication as cold leg thinning (and presumably left it in sbrvice if the depth was less than the plugging/repair limit). Assuming the potential for closely spaced axially oriented outside diameter stress corrosion cracking (ODSCC) indications to display a volumetric indication in the eddy current data, the basis for this practice was not evident to the staff. To support their dispositioning criteria for these volumetric indications, the licensee should consider providing a discussion (in the reports submitted in accordance with their technical specifications) of how they distinguish (from the eddy current data) the various mechanisms that could result in a volumetric indication at a tube support plate intersection."

PG&E Response: The two mechanisms that could result in a volumetric indication at a tube support plate intersection are cold leg thinning and cellular corrosion (IGA). Cold leg thinning is limited to lower cold leg TSPs, where IGA would have a very low probability of occurrence.

Plus Point is capable of differentiating these damage mechanisms (bobbin coil cannot differentiate). Since cold leg thinning is caused by wastage at the support, it typically displays a large pancake coil response and larger volumetric Plus Point coil response, and has a bobbin response. Shallow cellular corrosion would produce little or no pancake coil response and a smaller (more complex) volumetric Plus Point coil response, and would have little or no bobbin coil response. For example, shallow cellular corrosion was identified in pulled tube intersection SG 11 R20C54 2H as part of the destructive examination following 1 R12. The corrosion was not detectable by bobbin, but was detectable by Plus Point in the post pull platform inspection.

86-5049264-00 Page 12 of 96 3.2 Voltage Growth Rates For projection of leak rates and tube burst probabilities at the EOC-13 operation, voltage growth rates were developed from the 1 RI 1 and 1 RI 2 inspection data. Cycle 12 was 1.61 EFPY in length per Ref.18. For repeat indications reported in both I RI Iand I RI2, growth rates were determined based on comparison of the voltages called in 1 RI 1 and 1 RI 2 (i.e., no 1 RI 1 lookups were performed). For indications not reported during the 1 Ri I inspection (i.e.

new at 1 RI 2), the indications were sized using the 1 RI 1 ECT signals based on a lookup review with the exception of the intersections that were AONDB in 1 RI 1 and DOS in 1 R12.

Since the AONDB intersections are dented, the 1 RI 1 bobbin voltage was not considered to be reliable even if an indication could be detected in a lookup. Therefore, with the exception of the three indications discussed in the next paragraph, the 1 R12 DOS indications that were AONDB in 1RI1 were not included in the growth rate analyses.

Per the Generic Letter, "voltage growth rates should only be evaluated for those intersections at which bobbin indications can be identified at two successive inspections, except if an indication changes from non-detectable to a relatively high voltage (e.g., 2.0 volts)". During 1 R12, there were three newly reported DOS indications that were greater than 2 volts but were not detected as OD (DOS) bobbin indications during the lookup (SG 11 R8C69 1 H, SG 12 R19C85 2H, SG 14 R14C34 1H). All three of these intersections are dented and were inspected with Plus Point during I RI Iand were confirmed as having axial ODSCC not detected with bobbin (AONDB). Therefore, the inferred bobbin voltages from the 1 RI 1 Plus Point inspections, and the non-inferred bobbin voltages from the 1R12 bobbin inspections, were used to determine the growth rates for these three indications. R8C69 and R19C85 contained multiple axial indications during both the 1 RI1 and 1 R12 inspections. The largest of these three bobbin indications was a 3.40v DOS indication at 1 H in R8C69 in SG 1-1. This intersection contained 3 small (s0.25v) Plus Point OD axial indications in 1 RI 1 and 4 OD axial indications in 1R12. One of the axial indications in 1R12 was measured at 2.29v with Plus Point. Therefore, this particular intersection did see significant growth during Cycle 12. The measured bobbin voltage for this indication (3.40v) compares relatively well with the voltage that would have been inferred if the bobbin signal had not been detected (2.84v inferred).

R19C85 and R14C34 showed more modest growth as measured by the maximum Plus Point voltage (0.32v to 0.49v and 0.31v to 0.72v, respectively). The measured bobbin voltages for both of these intersections are well above the voltage that would be inferred from the Plus Point voltage using the AONDB correlation (2.59 and 2.13 volts measured versus 0.93 and 1.03 volts inferred, respectively). This indicates that the small dents at these intersections may be artificially increasing the bobbin voltage. All three of these indications were conservatively included in the growth distributions (see Table 3-4) because of the GL guidance to include indications that change from bobbin non-detectable to a relatively high voltage (e.g., 2.0 volts), even though they were detectable by Plus Point in the prior outage.

There were 502 newly reported DOS indications in 1 R12. Twenty of these new DOSs were reported as AONDB during the 1 Ri I inspection and, with the exception of the three AONDBs discussed above, were not included in the growth distribution because there is no prior bobbin signal. Of the remaining 482 new indications, 416 were detected during the 1 RI 1 lookup and were assigned a 1 Ri 1 voltage and subsequently included in the growth distributions.

86-5049264-00 Page 13 of 96 There were 66 new DOS indications (excluding previous AONDBs) that were not detected during the 1 R11 lookup and were, therefore, not included in the growth rate analyses. The largest of these indications was 1.77v in SG 12 R22C54 1 H. Plus Point of R22C54 1 H identified 2 small SAls (0.19 and 0.30 volts Plus Point). The upper 95% growth rates of all new and repeat indications excluding prior AONDB were 0.31 and 0.53 v/EFPY, respectively.

The average growth rates for new and repeat indications excluding prior AONDB were 0.10 and 0.14 v/EFPY, respectively. These data indicate that the new indications are growing at a slower rate than the previously detected indications.

Table 3-4 provides a summary of indications with the largest growth during Cycle 12. Table 3-5 provides the maximum and average voltage growth distribution by TSP. Table 3-6 provides the average BOC voltage, average growth rate data and average percent growth for the last four cycles at DCPP-1. Figure 3-22 depicts this information graphically and shows the slight increases in the average growth rate and the average BOC voltage.

Table 3-7 shows the voltage independent growth distributions for each SG, the composite distribution for all four SGs, and the cumulative probability distribution function for each distribution. Figures 3-8 and 3-9 show the voltage growth distributions depicted in bar charts.

The negative growth values in the bar charts were included as zero growth rates in the ARC calculations, as required by Generic Letter 95-05.

Reviewing the Table 3-5 average and maximum voltage growth for all indications for each SG as well as the number of new indications in each SG shows that the ODSCC mechanism is most active in SG 1-1. This phenomenon of a leading SG in plants affected by ODSCC is common in the industry. Reviewing Table 3-6 and Figures 3-8 and 3-9 also supports this conclusion. As shown in Table 3-4, the largest growth rates occurred in SG 1-1.

3.2.1 Selection of Limiting Growth Distribution for Each Steam Generator In June 2004, PG&E received a set of RAls from the NRC on their submittal for a permanent POPCD approval. The responses to these RAls were provided in Reference 25. In response to one of the questions, PG&E prepared a guideline for determining the appropriate growth distribution to use for the operational assessments.

This guideline was used for the determination of the growth rates used for the EOC-1 3 projections provided in this document. This guideline either meets, or is more conservative than the guidance provided in References 2 and 6 and Enclosure 3 of Reference 24.

The first step in determining the most conservative growth distribution for each steam generator is to compare the SG-specific and the composite growth distributions for each of the last two cycles. These comparisons are initially done without considering the impact of voltage dependent growth. Figures 3-23 and 3-24 provide a simple comparison of both cycles and the different steam generators. Figure 3-23 provides a comparison of the Cycle 11 and Cycle 12 composite growth rates. This figure shows that, on a composite basis, the Cycle 12 growth bounds the Cycle 11 growth. Figure 3-24 provides a comparison of the SG-specific growth rates for Cycle 12. This figure shows that SG 1-1 bounds the other steam generators for Cycle 12 growth. This figure

86-5049264-00 Page 14 of 96 also shows that the composite growth curve clearly bounds SGs 1-2 and 1-3, and approximates SG 1-4.

In order to determine which growth distribution to use for each steam generator, four different growth curves must be compared (SG-specific for Cycle 11, SG-specific for Cycle 12, composite for Cycle 11, and composite for Cycle 12). Figures 3-25 through 3-28 provide these comparisons for each steam generator. Figure 3-25 shows that the SG-specific growth for Cycle 12 is clearly bounding for SG 1-1. Figures 3-26 and 3-27 show that the composite Cycle 12 growth curve is bounding for SGs 1-2 and 1-3. For SG 1-4, the bounding growth curve is not evident from examining Figure 3-28.

Therefore, additional Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis was required to determine which growth curve was bounding for SG 1-4, as discussed in Section 3.2.4, and it was determined that the composite Cycle 12 growth curve is bounding for SG 1-4.

3.2.2 Dependency of Voltage Growth on BOC Voltage For Cycle 12, growth rates were plotted against the BOC voltage for all steam generators. Their data are shown in Figures 3-10 and 3-11. As is demonstrated by the figures, a positive slope exists in all SGs (although very slight in SG 1-3) indicating that Cycle 12 voltage growth at DCPP-1 is a function of the BOC voltage. This phenomenon is known as voltage dependent growth (VDG) and the initiation of it was previously observed in the Cycle 11 data for SG 1-1, as documented in the 1 RI 1 90-day report. VDG is not a new concept, and has been documented by the European SGs affected by ODSCC. Because of their higher repair limits, their data encompasses a much broader and higher range of data than at DCPP and the US plants and provides significant basis for the VDG approach.

A significant amount of analysis and evaluation was performed following the 2R1 1 inspection on voltage growth for ODSCC at TSPs. The evaluations primarily involved statistical breakpoint analysis to determine where the data suggests a change in the slope of the regression curve that defines the growth data. These efforts led to the development of a guidelines document for determining the breakpoints. This document was transmitted to the NRC via Enclosure 3 of Reference 24. These methods were used to determine breakpoints for the Cycle 12 growth data.

Cycle 12 VDG breakpoint analyses were performed for each steam generator and for a composite growth distribution (including all steam generators). Figures 3-12 through 3-16 show the scatter charts and the resulting breakpoints for all of these analyses.

Figures 3-17 to 3-21 show the CPD curves for each SG and composite SG after applying these breakpoints. The SG 1-1 growth yielded two breakpoints at 0.50v and 0.99v. The composite growth distribution also yielded two breakpoints at 0.50v and 1.02v. SGs 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 yielded one breakpoint at 1.16v, 1.05v, and 0.82v respectively. Because 2 breakpoints generally yield a more conservative result than 1 breakpoint, this VDG analysis helps confirm that SG 1-1 should apply the SG 1-1 Cycle 12 VDG analysis and that SGs 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 should apply the composite Cycle 12 VDG analysis for determining the OA growth distributions. For SG 1-2, it was noted that the 1.16 volt breakpoint from the SG 1-2 specific growth curve was slightly higher than the 1.02 volt upper bin breakpoint from the SG composite growth curve. Higher

86-5049264-00 Page 15 of 96 breakpoints have the potential to result in more conservative results. Review of Figures 3-18 and 3-21 assists in determining that the composite curve should be limiting, because the composite Bin 3 curve has a much longer tail (out to 3 v/EFPY) than the SG 1-2 Bin 2 growth (out to 1.6 v/EFPY) and, in conjunction with a lower breakpoint, applies a higher growth to more indications. Nonetheless, further Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis was performed (see Section 3.2.4) to confirm that SG 1-2 should use the SG composite growth curve. For the composite data set across all steam generators that resulted in three separate growth bins with breakpoints at 0.50v and 1.02v, Tables 3-8 through 3-10 contain the three different sets of growth rates based on BOC voltages. The composite low bin has 743 indications, the composite middle bin has 418 indications, and the composite high bin has 123 indications. Figure 3-21 shows the growth rate distributions for each of these three bins. As shown in the figure, there is a consistent shift toward higher growth for larger BOC voltages. Similar charts were prepared for each steam generator individually and are shown in Figures 3-17 through 3-20.

3.2.3 Delta Volts Adjustment Another part of the growth guideline provided in Reference 25 involves implementation of a "delta volts adjustment" when implementing POPCD. Even though POPOD is not being implemented in Unit 1 Cycle 13, because a very conservative constant 0.6 POD is being used, application of the delta volts adjustment for Unit 1 Cycle 13 is being performed as an additional conservatism. The purpose of this adjustment is to account for the possibility that the growth rates may increase over the next operating cycle. The amount of this adjustment is determined by comparing the average growth from Cycle 12 to the average growth from Cycle 11 for each voltage bin. The average growth values from Cycle 11 used in this analysis are based on the same breakpoints determined from the Cycle 12 VDG analyses. Table 3-11 provides the average growth rates and the resulting adjustment for each steam generator as well as for the composite growth curve. Per the Reference 25 guideline, if the Cycle 12 data has a higher growth rate than the Cycle 11 data, then the difference between the average growth rates should be added to each growth rate value in the distribution being used prior to binning the data. As shown in Table 3-11, there were only two cases where the average growth rate decreased from Cycle 11 to Cycle 12. In these cases, no adjustment was made.

3.2.4 Growth Summary As discussed earlier, SG-specific Cycle 12 growth should be used for SG 1-1. SGs 1-2 and 1-3 should use the composite Cycle 12 growth curves.

For SG 1-4, however, it is not readily apparent from examining Figure 3-28 if the Cycle 12 composite or the Cycle 12 SG-specific growth is bounding. Therefore, a probability of burst calculation was performed using each curve (after the VDG breakpoint analyses and the delta volts adjustment) to determine the more conservative growth

86-5049264-00 Page 16 of 96 rate. These calculations showed that the composite growth curve was more conservative. Therefore, the composite growth curve was also used for SG 1-4.

Likewise, to confirm that SG 1-2 should use the composite Cycle 12 growth curves, a probability of burst calculation was performed using the Cycle 12 composite curve and the SG-specific curve (after the VDG breakpoint analyses and the delta volts adjustment) to determine the more conservative growth rate. These calculations showed that the composite growth curve was more conservative.

Table 3-12 shows the growth distributions that were used in the operational assessment calculations. These growth distributions reflect the delta volts adjustments as discussed earlier.

3.3 Probe Wear Criteria The first NRC requirement regarding probe wear is to minimize the potential for tubes to be inspected with a probe that had failed the probe wear check. This was accomplished by implementing the bobbin Examination Technique Specification Sheet (ETSS) #1 (Ref. 11),

which required the probe have its feet replaced when failing the probe wear check, or in the case of non-changeable feet probes, the probe discarded.

If the DOS voltage is at or above the retest threshold (1.5 volts or higher) and the cal is designated as "ARC Out" on the cal board, the indication code is changed from a DOS to an RSS (retest support plate signal) indicating that a retest is required with a new probe. No new indications were detected in the tubes when retested with the new probe.

The 1R12 eddy current inspection resulted in 37 intersections with bobbin indications greater than or equal to 1.5 volts that were inspected with a worn probe. These indications are shown in Table 3-13. The RSS and DOS voltage variation was tabulated for each worn probe inspection. The retest voltages compare reasonably with the final acceptable DOS voltages.

Figure 3-29 shows a comparison of the worn probe and good probe voltages. This figure shows that the voltages do not change significantly between the worn probes and the good probes. Therefore, continued use of the 1.5-volt retest threshold is justified (Ref. 13).

All support plate intersections were inspected in accordance with the Ref. 11 analysis guidelines. Review of the probe wear log sheets and the eddy current test results indicate that no tubes were inspected with a probe known to have failed the probe wear check. These reviews in conjunction with the results in Table 3-13 address the NRC requirements listed in Ref. 15.

Another NRC requirement involves monitoring tubes that contain new DOS indications that were inspected with probes that failed the wear check in the previous outage. This evaluation is intended to look for "new" large indications or a non-proportionately large percentage of "new" indications in tubes that failed the check in the previous outage. Table 3-14 shows the new 1 RI 2 0.5v DOS indications that are in tubes that failed the probe wear check in 1 RI 1.

The only new indications in Table 3-14 that exceeded two volts are R8C69 in SG 1-1 and R14C34 in SG 1-4. These two indications were AONDB in 1RI1 as discussed in Section 3.2 and shown in Table 3-4.

86-5049264-00 Page 17 of 96 Overall there were 1367 DOS indications detected in the 1 R1 2 inspection. 502 (or -37%) of the DOS indications were new indications. Table 3-15 is presented to assess the number of new indications against the probe wear requirements. Of the 502 total new indications, 289

(-58%) were in tubes inspected with a worn probe in I R11 and 213 were in tubes inspected with a good probe in 1 R1 1. Additionally, the number of new indications > 0.5 volts was determined to be 201. Out of these, about 57% (115/201) were in tubes that were inspected with a worn probe in 1 R1 1. This confirms that the number of new indications is approximately equivalent in both data sets.

Table 3-16 shows the ratio of the number of 1 R1i1 examinations performed with worn probes versus good probes. The total number of examinations shown in this table is greater than the number of tubes in service because several tubes have multiple examinations. This table shows that approximately 53% of the tubes were inspected with a worn probe in 1 R11. This percentage compares reasonably well with the percentages of new DOSs inspected with worn probes in 1 R11 (about 58%) and new > 0.5 volt DOSs inspected with worn probes in 1 R11 (about 57%). This demonstrates that the number of new indications is not biased towards the tubes that were inspected with worn probes in 1 R1 1.

In summary, the NRC analysis requirements regarding probe wear monitoring were met during the 1 R1 2 bobbin coil inspection and a more stringent wear tolerance is not required at DCPP.

3.4 Upper Voltage Repair Limit Per Generic Letter 95-05, the upper repair limit must be calculated prior to each outage. The more conservative of the plant-specific average growth rate per EFPY or 30 percent per EFPY should be used as the anticipated growth rate input for this calculation. Since the average growth rate for Cycle 11 was 19.8% (Ref. 7 and Table 3-6) and less than the 30% per EFPY criterion, the 30% value was used for the upper repair limit calculation. The structural limit used for this calculation was taken from Reference 27 and is based on the Addendum 5 database supplemented with the tube pull results from 2R1 1. Based on the following formula, the upper repair limit was calculated to be 5.88v.

VSL VURL =S

% VNDE

% VCG 1+

+

' 100 100 where:

VupL = upper voltage repair limit.

VNDE = NDE voltage measurement uncertainty = 20%,

VCG = voltage growth anticipated between inspections = 30%/EFPY x 1.36 EFPY = 40.8%,

VSL = voltage structural limit from the burst pressure - Bobbin voltage correlation, where the limit of 9.45 volts was used based on Ref. 27.

86-5049264-00 Page 18 of 96 3.5 NDE Uncertainty Distributions NDE uncertainties must be taken into account when projecting the end-of-cycle voltages for the next operating cycle. The NDE uncertainties used in the calculations of the EOC-12 voltages are described in Reference 6. The acquisition uncertainty was sampled from a normal distribution with a mean of zero, a standard deviation of 7%, and a cutoff limit of 15%

based on the use of the probe wear standard. The analyst uncertainty was sampled from a normal distribution with a mean of zero, a standard deviation of 10.3%, and no cutoff limit.

These uncertainty distributions are shown in Table 3-17 and Figure 3-30.

86-5049264-00 Page 19 of 96 Table 3-1: 1R12 DOS Indications > 2.0 Volts SG Row Col Ind l Elev [ Volts SG11 5

60 DOS IH 6.15 SG11 6

61 DOS IH 5.6 SG11 20 54 DOS 1H 5.6 SG11 8

72 DOS 1H 5.06 SG11 24 31 DOS 1H 4.45 SG11 17 73 DOS IH 4.01 SG11 8

69 DOS 1H 3.4 SG11 36 45 DOS 1H 3.08 SGII 12 71 DOS 1H 3.05 SG11 6

78 DOS 2H 3.04 SG1I 29 33 DOS 1H 2.73 SGI1 13 67 DOS 1H 2.61 SG11 42 37 DOS 1H 2.37 SG11 4

54 DOS 1H 2.28 SG1I 10 71 DOS 1H 2.28 SGI1 17 77 DOS 1H 2.27 SG11 19 39 DOS 1H 2.24 SG11 4

52 DOS 1H 2.21 SGI1 4

64 DOS 1H 2.09 SG11 8

71 DOS IH 2.07 SG11 35 43 DOS 2H 2.07 SG11 36 55 DOS 1H 2.07 SG11 26 61 DOS IH 2.03 SG11 30 37 DOS IH 2.03 SG11 46 50 DOS 1H 2.02 SG11 26 77 DOS 1H 2.01 SG11 31 38 DOS 1H 2.01 SG12 37 23 DOS 3H 4.08 SG12 23 12 DOS 1H 3.64 SG12 13 56 DOS 1H 3.08 SG12 19 85 DOS 2H 2.59 SG12 24 30 DOS 2H 2.58 SG12 24 46 DOS 1H 2.44 SG12 17 47 DOS 1H 2.35 SG12 20 44 DOS 1H 2.35 SG12 31 51 DOS 1H 2.04 SG13 9

62 DOS 1H 2.88 SG13 9

59 DOS 1H 2.34 SG13 25 87 DOS 1H 2.32 SG13 10 71 DOS 1H 2.31 SG13 9

l 60 DOS 1H 2.2 SG13 9

56 DOS 6H 2.01 SG14 25 31 DOS 1H 3.64 SG14 25 26 DOS 2H 3.55 SG14 6

12 DOS 2H 2.59 SG14 3

36 DOS 1H 2.56 SG14 14 34 DOS 1H 2.13 SG14 34 53 DOS 1H 2.06

86-5049264-00 Page 20 of 96 Table 3-2: 1R12 AONDB Indications SG Row Col Elev Dent l Plus Pt Inferred Bobbin Voltage Voltage Voltage Indication Intersection SG11 3

62 1H 0.56 0.14 0.444 0.444 SG11 4

20 1H 1.91 0.17 0.474 0.474 SG11 5

34 1H 1.18 0.19 0.494 0.494 SG11 8

32 3H 0.51 0.15 0.454 0.454 SG11 9

3 2H 2.19 0.18 0.484 0.484 SG11 11 15 3H 2

0.23 0.534 0.534 SG11 13 41 2H 1.25 0.15 0.454 0.454 SG11 17 27 3H 1.99 0.28 0.584 0.584 SG11 18 31 2H 2.59 0.25 0.554 0.554 SG11 18 76 1H 0.82 0.13 0.434 0.434 SG11 21 49 1H 1.49 0.18 0.484 0.484 SG11 26 25 1H 1.95 0.22 0.524 0.524 SG11 26 28 1H 4.32 0.29 0.595 0.595 SG11 26 33 1H 1.05 0.14 0.444 0.444 SG1 1 27 44 2H 4.65 0.26 0.564 0.564 SG11 28 27 1H 2.29 0.30 0.605 0.781 SG11 28 27 1H 2.29 0.19 0.494 SG11 28 36 1H 0.88 0.14 0.444 0.444 SG11 33-34 1H 1.76 0.31 0.615 0.615 SG11 36 48 2H 1.25 0.17 0.474 SG11 36 48 2H 1.25 0.17 0.474 0.805 SG11 36 48 2H 1.25 0.14 0.444 SG11 37 56 2H 1.87 0.22 0.524 0.524 SG1 1 38 54 2H 3.07 0.27 0.574 0.574 SG11 42 46 1H 1.02 0.15 0.454 0.454 SG11 42 51 1H 0.89 0.19 0.494 0.494 SG12 1

56 2H 0.29 0.15 0.454 0.454 SG12 4

85 3H 0.79 0.15 0.454 0.454 SG12 5

20 6H 2.2 0.18 0.484 0.484 SG12 6

49 1H 2.79 0.22 0.524 0.524 SG12 6

81 1H 3.67 0.20 0.504 0.504 SG12 7

65 2H 1.14 0.26 0.564 0.564 SG12 8

17 1H 3.53 0.16 0.464 0.464 SG12 9

33 1H 2.12 0.15 0.454 0.454 SG12 10 43 1H 1.2 0.32 0.625 0.625 SG12 10 45 2H 1.47 0.17 0.474 0.474 SG12 11 18 2H 3.19 0.23 0.534 0.534 SG12 11 40 1H 4

0.28 0.584 0.584 SG12 11 75 2H 4.78 0.22 0.524 0.524 SG12 12 76 1H 2.98 0.10 0.404 0.404 SG12 12 77 1H 1.5 0.20 0.504 SG12 12 77 1H 1.5 0.15 0.454 0.67 SG12 13 66 2H 2.95 0.22 0.524 0.524 SG12 14 7

2H 3.61 0.18 0.484 0.484 SG12 14 84 2H 2.5 0.21 0.514 0.514 SG12 15 42 2H 1A 0.27 0.574 0.574

86-5049264-00 Page 21 of 96 Table 3-2: 1 R12 AONDB Indications SG lRow l Col I Elev Dent l Plus Pt Inferred Bobbin Voltage Voltage Voltage Indication Intersection SG12 17 45 1H 4.33 0.24 0.544 0.544 SG12 18 22 1H 3.01 0.16 0.464 0.464 SG12 19 57 2H 1.99 0.29 0.595 0.76 SG12 19 57 2H 1.99 0.21 0.514 SG12 20 83 1H 3.23 0.26 0.564 SG12 20 83 1H 3.23 0.17 0.474 0.737 SG12 22 54 2H 2.14 0.24 0.544 0.544 SG12 22 54 6H 2.95 0.14 0.444 0.444 SG12 22 54 7H 2.28 0.28 0.584 0.584 SG12 22 79 2H 1.67 0.14 0.444 0.444 SG12 23 71 2H 2.18 0.17 0.474 0.664 SG12 23 71 2H 2.18 0.16 0.464 SG12 27 19 1H 4.53 0.22 0.524 0.524 SG12 27 44 1H 1.7 0.20 0.504 0.504 SG12 27 66 2H 2.08 0.16 0.464 0.643 SG12 27 66 2H 2.08 0.14 0.444 SG12 27 83 2H 1.28 0.19 0.494 0.494 SG12 28 36 2H 1.75 0.22 0.524 0.524 SG12 29 49 3H 2.44 0.13 0.434 0.434 SG12 29 69 1H 4.11 0.14 0.444 0.444 SG12 30 72 2H 0.96 0.18 0.484 0.484 SG12 31 44 4H 2.04 0.18 OA84 0.484 SG12 31 62 1H 2.09 0.26 0.564 0.564 SG12 31 63 1H 2.49 0.30 0.605 0.605 SG12 31 80 4H 4.57 0.17 0.474 0.474 SG12 33 40 1H 0.84 0.26 0.564 0.564 SG12 34 49 1H 0.7 0.41 0.716 0.716 SG12 34 57 4H 3.02 0.22 0.524 0.524 SG12 36 53 1H 3.1 0.27 0.574 0.574 SG12 39 49 2H 1.44 0.22 0.524 0.524 SG12 39 70 1H 2.35 0.26 0.564 0.564 SG12 41 54 3H 2.59 0.11 0.414 0.414 SG13 4

81 1H 5.12 0.13 0.434 0.434 SG13 5

84 1H 7.37 0.14 0.444 0.444 SG13 6

36 1H 2.62 0.22 0.524 0.524 SG13 6

79 1H 2.73 0.31 0.615 0.615 SG13 13 10 1H 2.11 0.14 0.444 0.444 SG13 19 80 1H 2.75 0.32 0.625 0.625 SG13 21 34 1H 1.86 0.29 0.595 0.595 SG13 22 55 1H 2.36 0.31 0.615 0.615 SG13 25 82 1H 3.88 0.11 0.414 0.414 SG13 26 41 1H 1.92 0.12 0.424 0.424 SG13 27 49 1H 1.82 0.16 0.464 0.464 SG13 30 23 1H 2.36 0.20 0.504 0.504 SG14 5

72 2H 3.54 0.16 l

0.464 l

0.464 SG14 l15 79 1H 2.11 0.19 0.494 0.494

86-5049264-00 Page 22 of 96 Table 3-2:

1R12 AONDB Indications SG Row l Col Elev Dent l Plus Pt Inferred Bobbin Voltage

=

Voltage Voltage Indication J Intersection SG14 9

37 1H 2.32 0.31 0.615 SG14 9

37 1H 2.32 0.14 0.444 0.864 SG14 9

37 1H 2.32 0.11 0.414 SG14 10 35 1H 3.14 0.11 0.414 0.414 SG14 10 93 1H 2.26 0.20 0.504 0.504 SG14 11 46 1H 2.05 0.41 0.716 0.963 SG14 11 46 1H 2.05 0.34 0.645 0.963 SG14 11 87 2H 2.19 0.24 0.544 0.544 SG14 12 32 1H 2.95 0.22 0.524 0.727 SG14 12 32 1H 2.95 0.20 0.504 0.727 SG14 12 43 1H 2.27 0.12 0.424 0.424 SG14 13 10 2H 1.7 0.12 0.424 0.424 SG14 13 31 1H 2.02 0.18 0.484 0.484 SG14 13 51 1H 2.22 0.15 0.454 SG14 13 51 1H 2.22 0.14 0.444 0.635 SG14 14 7

2H 2.18 0.34 0.645 0.778 SG14 14 7

2H 2.18 0.13 0.434 SG14 14 19 3H 2.84 0.14 0.444 0.444 SG14 15 7

1H 4.75 0.15 0.454 0.454 SG14 15 29 1H 2.3 0.38 0.685 0.685 SG14 15 36 1H 3.97 0.20 0.504 0.504 SG14 15 47 4H 2.09 0.31 0.615 0.615 SG14 16 65 2H 3.58 0.12 0.424 0.424 SG14 16 69 2H 3.66 0.10 0.404 0.404 SG14 17 32 1H 2.02 0.42 0.726 0.726 SG14 17 75 1H 9.21 0.19 0.494 0.494 SG14 18 27 1H 7.31 0.18 0.484 0.484 SG14 19 32 1H 3.33 0.57 0.879 0.879 SG14 19 40 1H 3.51 0.16 0.464 0.464 SG14 19 45 2H 2.39 0.22 0.524 0.524 SG14 21 51 1H 3.22 0.13 0.434 0.434 SG14 22 43 1H 2.65 0.18 0.484 0.484 SG14 23 73 1H 8.53 0.36 0.665 0.665 SG14 24 62 1H 2.5 0.24 0.544 0.544 SG14 25 36 1H 3.16 0.18 0.484 0.484 SG14 30 59 1H 2.35 0.26 0.564 0.564 SG14 30 61 3H 7.88 0.13 0.434 0.434 SG14 33 58 1H 3.39 0.57 0.879 0.879 SG14 34 41 2H 8.53 0.14 0.444 0.444 SG14 34 54 1H 8.18 0.26 0.564 0.564 SG14 36 47 1H 3.3 0.28 0.584 0.584 SG14 42 54 1H 3.64 0.11 0.414 0.414

86-5049264-00 Page 23 of 96 Table 3-3: Summary of Inspection and Repair for Tubes Affected by ODSCC at TSPs

'II I,

SG 1-1 SG 1-2 SG 1-3 DOSs DOSs DOSs As-Returned to Service As-Returned to Service As-Returned to Service Voltage Fud Repaired Found Repaired Fud Rpie Bine EFOC-12 Tubes CE Conf. ODSCC EOC2 FoTubes Conf. ODSCC or Not Insp Total or Not Insp Total EOO-12or Not Insp Total wI+Pt WI +Pt WI +Pt 0.1 2

0 2

2 0

0 0

0 0.2 16 0

15 16 10 0

10 10 3

0 3

3 0.3 73 2

70 71 30 3

27 27 23 3

19 20 0.4 115 4

111 111 54 3

50 51 30 4

25 26 0.5 78 2

75 76 71 3

68 68 36 6

29 30 0.6 74 1

73 73 73 6

1 66 67 24 4

19 20 0.7 64 4

58 60 45 1

43 44 24 0

22 24 0.8 35 2

33 33 48 1

45 47 12 1

11 11 0.9 36 1

34 35 26 0

26 26 10 1

9 9

1 39 1

38 38 12 0

10 12 12 3

9 9

1.1 23 0

23 23 21 0

20 21 11 0

11 11 1.2 18 0

18 18 12 1

11 11 4

1 3

3 1.3 16 0

16 16 8

0 8

8 6

0 6

6 1.4 7

0 7

7 9

0 9

9 4

1 3

3 1.5 16 1

15 15 3

0 3

3 4

0 4

4 1.6 2

0 2

2 2

0 2

2 3

1 2

2 1.7 4

0 4

4 1

0 1

1 3

0 3

3 1.8 3

0 3

3 2

1 1

1 6

1 5

5 1.9 3

0 3

3 3

0 2

3 2

0 2

2 2

2 0

2 2

0 0

2.1 9

9 0

0 1

1 0

0 1

1 0

0 2.2 0

0 0

0 1

1 0

0 2.3 5

5 0

0 0

0 2.4 1

1 0

0 2

2 0

0 3

3 0

0 2.5 0

0 0

0 1

1 0

0 0

0 2.6 0

0 0

0 2

2 0

0 0

0 2.7 1

1 0

0 0

0 2.8 1

1 0

0 0

0 2.9 0

0 0

0 1

1 0

0 3

0 0

3.1 3

3 0

0 1

1 0

0 0

0 3.2 0

0 0

0 3.3 0

0 0

0 3.4 1

1 0

0 0

0 3.5 0

0 0

0 3.6 0

0 0

O 0

0 3.7 0

0 0

0 1

1 0

0 0

0 3.8 0

0 0

0 3.9 0

0 0

0 4

0 0

5 2

2 0

0 1

1 0

0 0

0 6

3 3

0 0

7 1

1 0

0 0

0

>7 0

0 0

0 4

0 0

0 Tol 650 45 602 608 439 28 402 411 223 32 185 191

>1V 121 28 93 93 70 11 57 59 49 10 39 39

>2V 27 27 0

0 9

9 0

J0JI 6

6 j

0 0

4V 6

6 0

0l 1

[

1 l

0 l0 00 0

0

86-5049264-00 Page 24 of 96 Table 3-3 (cont): Summary of Inspection and Repair for Tubes Affected by ODSCC at TSPs SG 14 Composite of All SGs DOSs DOSs Voltage As-Reard Returned to Service As-Repaired Returned to Service Bin Found TRbed Conf. ODSCC Found Tubes Conf. ODSCC EOC12 or Not Insp Total EOC-12 or Not Insp Total w/ +Pt wI +Pt 0.1 0

0 0

0 2

0

2.

2 0.2 5

0 5

5 34 0

33 34 0.3 15 0

14 15 141 8

130 133 0.4 23 1

20 22 222 12 206 210 0.5 43 5

38 38 228 16 210 212 0.6 19 2

17 17 190 13 175 177 0.7 15 3

12 12 148 8

135 140 0.8 9

0 9

9 104 4

98 100 0.9 11 0

11 11 83 2

80 81 1

6 0

6 6

69 4

63 65 1.1 6

0 6

6 61 0

60 61 1.2 3

0 3

3 37 2

35 35 1.3 8

0 8

8 38 0

38 38 1.4 2

0 2

2 22 1

21 21 1.5 0

0 0

0 23 1

22 22 1.6 1

0 1

1 8

1 7

7 1.7 0

0 0

0 8

8 1.8 0

0 0

0 11 2

9 9

1.9 0

0 0

0 8

0 7

8 2

0 0

2 0

2 2

2.1 1

1 0

0 12 12 0

0 2.2 1

1 0

0 2

2 0

0 2.3 0

0 0

0 5

5 0

0 2.4 0

0 0

0 6

6 0

0 2.5 0

0 0

0 1

1 0

0 2.6 2

2 0

0 4

4 0

0 2.7 0

0 0

0 1

1 0

0 2.8 0

0 0

0 1

1 0

0 2.9 0

0 0

0 1

1 0

0 3

0 0

3.1 0

0 0

0 4

4 0

0 3.2 0

0 0

0 3.3 0

0 0

0 3.4 0

0 0

0 1

1 0

0 3.5 0

0 0

0 3.6 1

1 0

0 1

1 0

0 3.7 1

1 0

0 2

2 0

0 3.8 0

0 0

0 3.9 0

0 0

0 4

0 0

5 0

0 0

0 3

3 0

0 6

0 0

3 3

0 0

7 0

0 0

0 1

1 0

0

>7 0

0 0

0 Total 172 17 152 155 1487 122 l

1341 1365

>1V 26 6

20 20 266 55 209 211

>2V 6

6 0

-0 48 48 0

0

>4V 0

0 0

0 7

0 0

86-5049264-00 Page 25 of 96 Table 3-4: Summary of Largest Voltage Growth Rates per EFPY SG ow ol Ele Vots Prev Growth!

Plus Pt Nw SG

_ Row_

Co)

Elv VoRt Volts EFPY Results New?

SG11 5

60 1H 6.15 1.31 3.006 MAI Repeat SGI1 8

72 1H 5.06 1.10 2.460 MAI Repeat SG11 6

61 1H 5.60 1.67 2.441 MAI Repeat SG1 1 20 54 1 H 5.60 1.80 2.360 MAI Repeat SG11 24 31 1H 4.45 1.51 1.826 MAI Repeat SG1 8

69 1H 3.40 0.823(')

1.601 MAI New SG12 37 23 3H 4.08 1.59 1.547 SAI Repeat SG1 1 6

78 2H 3.04 0.78 1.404 MAI Repeat SG11 17 73 1H 4.01 1.96 1.273 MAIt Repeat SG12 23 12 1H 3.64 1.60 1.267 MAI Repeat SG14 25 31 1H 3.64 1.75 1.174 SAI Repeat SG12 19 85 2H 2.59 0.772(1) 1.129 MAI New SG1 12 71 1H 3.05 1.33 1.068 MAI Repeat SG11 36 45 1H 3.08 1.38 1.056 MAI Repeat SG14 25 26 2H 3.55 1.91 1.019 SAI Repeat SG12 13 56 1H 3.08 1.48 0.994 SAI Repeat SG14 14 34 1H 2.13 0.615(')

0.941 SAI New SG1 1 29 33 1 H 2.73 1.23 0.932 MAI Repeat SG11 19 39 1H 2.24 0.76 0.919 SAI Repeat SG1 1 4

64 1 H 2.09 0.71 0.857 MAI Repeat SG1 13 67 1H 2.61 1.25 0.845 MAI Repeat SG11 17 77 1H 2.27 0.93 0.832 MAI Repeat SG1I 26 61 1H 2.03 0.75 0.795 MAI Repeat SG11 5

66 1H 1.88 0.60 0.795 SAI Repeat SGI2 24 30 2H 2.58 1.31 0.789 SAI Repeat

1) The previous voltages for these three indications are inferred voltages from the I RI I Plus Point results.

86-5049264-00 Page 26 of 96 Table 3-5: DOS Voltage and Growth Distribution by TSP SG 1-1 SG 1-2 Tube Tube Support N.o a

vrg Max Average Support Noof M

Avag Max Average Plte No f ax AergeGrwh/Grwh/

Plt Nof Mx AeaeGrowth/

Growth/

Plate Indications Voltage Voltage Grwh GErh Indications Voltage Voltage EFPY EFPY 1H 439 6.15 0.83 3.01 0.23 1H 208 3.64 0.74 1.27 0.10 2H 144 3.04 0.55 1A0 0.07 2H 132 2.59 0.67 1.13 0.08 3H 43 1.78 0.55 0.63 0.12 3H 52 4.08 0.65 1.55 0.10 4H 17 0.83 0.41 0.17 0.02 4H 21 1.27 0.64 0.19 0.06 5H 1

0.51 0.51

-0.18

-0.18 5H 10 1.39 0.59 0.32 0.04 6H 2

0.61 0.49 0.02 0.02 6H 7

0.59 0.43 0.11 0.03 7H 1

0.30 0.30 0.01 0.01 7H 1

0.58 0.58 CL 6

0.67 0.46 0.04 0.00 CL 8

0.76 0.50 0.11 0.02 All Inds 653 6.15 0.73 3.01 0.18 All Inds 439 4.08 0.69 1.55 0.09 SG 1-3 SG 1-4 Tube Tube Support No. of Max Averg Max Average Support No. of Max Average Max Average Plate Growth/

Growth!

Plate Growth/

Growth/

Pae Indications Voltage Voltage EFPY EFPYIniaosVltg Vlae EFY FP 1H 108 2.88 0.78 0.57 0.08 1H 101 3.64 0.71 1.17 0.16 2H 47 1.75 0.71 0.25 0.05 2H 42 3.55 0.63 1.02 0.13 3H 21 1.75 0.92 0.59 0.13 3H 14 1.35 0.60 0.19 0.08 4H 16 1.71 0.55 0.14 0.03 4H 10 1.26 0.58 0.29 0.07 5H 14 1.71 0.67 0.30 0.07 5H 4

0.51 0.37 0.09 0.03 6H 7

2.01 0.63 0.08 0.03 6H 7H 1

0.28 0.28

-0.05

-0.05 7H ll CL 9

0.64 0.43 0.08 0.01 CL 1

0.34 0.34 0.04 0.04 All Inds l 223 l

2.88 l

0.74 1 0.59 j

0.07 All Inds 172 l

3.64 l

0.67 l

1.17 l

0.13 Composite of All Four SGs Tube Support Plate No. of Indications Max Voltage Average Max AVertage Growth!

Votg EFPY Average Growth/

EFPY 1H 856 6.15 0.79 3.01 0.17 2H 365 3.55 0.62 1.40 0.08 3H 130 4.08 0.65 1.55 0.11 4H 64 1.71 0.55 0.29 0.04 5H 29 1.71 0.60 0.32 0.05 6H 16 2.01 0.52 0.11 0.03 7H 3

0.58 0.39 0.01

-0.02 CL 24 0.76 0.46 0.11 0.01 All Inds ll 1487 l

6.15 l

0.71 l

3.01 l

0.13

86-5049264-00 Page 27 of 96 Table 3-6: Voltage Growth for Cycles 9 through 12 SGI-1 I SG1-2 l SG1-3 l SG1-4 All Avg BOC Volts 0.281 0.307 0.457 0.327 0.343 Cycle 9 Average Growth Per EFPY 0.113 0.072 0.127 0.151 0.102 Average Percent Growth Per EFPY 40.2%

23.3%

27.8%

46.0%

29.6%

Cycle Avg BOC Volts 0.350 0.405 0.602 0.546 0.437 10 Avg Growth Per EFPY 0.171 0.135 0.123 0.108 0.143 Average Percent Growth Per EFPY 49.0%

33.3%

20.4%

19.8%

32.8%

j Avg BOC Volts 0.440 0.548 0.653 0.500 l 0.515 Cycle Avg Growth Per EFPY 0.127 0.091 0.066 0.085 0.102 Average Percent Growth Per EFPY 28.8%

16.6%

10.1%

17.0%

19.8%

Avg BOC Volts 0.488 0.565 0.664 0.484 0.535 Cye Avg Growth Per EFPY 0.178 0.091 0.068 0.132 0.130 Average Percent Growth Per EFPY 36.4%

16.0%

10.6%

27.2%

24.3%

86-5049264-00 Page 28 of 96 Table 3-7: Summary of Independent Cycle 12 Voltage Growth per EFPY SG 1-1 SG 1-2 SG 1-3 SG 1-4 Total Delta Volts Per EFPY No. of CPDF No. of CPDF No. of CPDF No.of CPDF No. of CPDF Obs.

j Obs. j Obs.

Obs.J jObs.

<=0.0 94 0.164 96 0.259 48 0.230 23 0.177 261 0.203 0.1 180 0.477 156 0.679 100 0.708 54 0.592 490 0.585 0.2 128 0.700 72 0.873 42 0.909 31 0.831 273 0.798 0.3 69 0.821 21 0.930 11 0.962 8

0.892 109 0.882 0.4 45 0.899 14 0.968 4

0.981 5

0.931 68 0.935 0.5 19 0.932 4

0.978 1

0.986 4

0.962 28 0.957 0.6 16 0.960 2

0.984 3

1.000 1

0.969 22 0.974 0.7 5

0.969 1

0.987 0

1.000 1

0.977 7

0.980 0.8 3

0.974 1

0.989 0

1.000 0

0.977 4

0.983 0.9 3

0.979 0

0.989 0

1.000 0

0.977 3

0.985 1

2 0.983 1

0.992 0

1.000 1

0.985 4

0.988 1.1 2

0.986 0

0.992 0

1.000 1

0.992 3

0.991 1.2 0

0.986 1

0.995 0

1.000 1

1.000 2

0.992 1.3 1

0.988 1

0.997 0

1.000 0

1.000 2

0.994 1.4 0

0.988 0

0.997 0

1.000 0

0.994 1.5 1

0.990 0

0.997 0

1.000 0

1.000 1

0.995 1.6 0

0.990 1

1.000 0

1.000 1

0.995 1.7 1

0.991 0

1.000 0

1.000 1

0.996 1.8 0

0.991 0

1.000 0

0.996 1.9 1

0.993 0

1.000 0

1.000 1

0.997 2

0 0.993 0

1.000 0

0.997 2.1 0

0.993 0

1.000 0

0.997 2.2 0

0.993 0

1.000 0

0.997 2.3 0

0.993 0

1.000 0

0.997 2.4 1

0.995 0

1.000 0

1.000 1

0.998 2.5 2

0.998 0

1.000 0

1.000 2

0.999 2.6 0

0.998 0

1.000 0

0.999 2.7 0

0.998 0

1.000 0

0.999 2.8 0

0.998 0

1.000 0

0.999 2.9 0

0.998 0

1.000 0

0.999 3

0 0.998 0

1.000 0

0.999 3.1 1

1.000 0

1.000 1

1.000 3.2 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.3 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.4 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.5 0

1.000 0

1.000

>3.5 0

1.000 0

1.000 Total 574 l

NA 371 NA ll209 NA l130 l NA 1284 NA Upper 95%

0.55 l

0.35 0.27 l

0.47 l

0.47 G row th

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I. _ _ _ _ _ _

86-5049264-00 Page 29 of 96 Table 3-8: Cycle 12 Voltage Dependent Growth Using Composite Breakpoints (BOC-12 Voltage < 0.50 Volts)

Delta SG 1-1 1 SG 1-2 1 SG 1-3 SG 1-4 Total Volts per~ No. of 1 PF No. of I PF No. of I PF No. of CPF No. of ICD EFPY Obs.

OCPDF bs.

CPDF Obs.

Obs.

CPDF 0

57 0.155 35 0.192 24 0.226 17 0.193 133 0.179 0.1 139 0.534 91 0.692 66 0.849 44 0.693 340 0.637 0.2 92 0.785 40 0.912 1 1 0.953 20 0.920 163 0.856 0.3 44 0.905 9

0.962 4

0.991 3

0.955 60 0.937 0.4 24 0.970 5

0.989 1

1.000 2

0.977 32 0.980 0.5 6

0.986 2

1.000 0

1.000 2

1.000 10 0.993 0.6 5

1.000 0

1.000 5

1.000 0.7 0

1.000 0

1.000 0.8 0

1.000 0

1.000 0.9 0

1.000 0

1.000 1

0 1.000 0

1.000 0

1.000 1.1 0

1.000 0

1.000 1.2 0

1.000 0

1.000 1.3 0

1.000 0

1.000 1.4 0

1.000 0

1.000 1.5 0

-1.000 0

1.000 0

1.000 1.6 0

1.000 0

1.000 1.7 0

1.000 0

1.000 1.8 0

1.000 0

1.000 1.9 0

1.000 0

1.000 2

0 1.000 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.1 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.2 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.3 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.4 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.5 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.6 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.7 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.8 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.9 0

1.000 0

1.000 3

0 1.000 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.1 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.2 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.3 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.4 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.5 0

1.000 0

1.000

>3.5 0

1.000 0

1.000 Total 367 NA l 182 NA 106 NA 11 88

[NA

]

743 NA

86-5049264-00 Page 30 of 96 Table 3-9: Cycle 12 Voltage Dependent Growth Using Composite Voltage from 0.51 to 1.02 Volts)

Breakpoints (BOC-12 Delta 1 SG 1-1 SG 1-2 1

SG 1-3 SG 1-4 Total Volts per No. of CPDF No. of CPDF of No. of No.

CPDF EFPY Obs. jP jObs.

.DObs.

j D

Obs.

jObs.

0 28 0.168 52 0.338 16 0.246 3

0.094 99 0.237 0.1 40 0.407 55 0.695 28 0.677 9

0.375 132 0.553 0.2 31 0.593 27 0.870 16 0.923 10 0.688 84 0.754 0.3 23 0.731 10 0.935 1

0.938 5

0.844 39 0.847 0.4 20 0.850 7

0.981 1

0.954 3

0.938 31 0.921 0.5 8

0.898 2

0.994 1

0.969 0

0.938 11 0.947 0.6 7

0.940 0

0.994 2

1.000 0

0.938 9

0.969 0.7 3

0.958 0

0.994 0

1.000 1

0.969 4

0.978 0.8 2

0.970 0

0.994 0

1.000 0

0.969 2

0.983 0.9 2

0.982 0

0.994 0

1.000 0

0.969 2

0.988 1

1 0.988 0

0.994 0

1.000 1

1.000 2

0.993 1.1 0

0.988 0

0.994 0

1.000 0

0.993 1.2 0

0.988 1

1.000 0

1.000 1

0.995 1.3 0

0.988 0

1.000 0

0.995 1.4 0

0.988 0

1.000 0

0.995 1.5 1

.0.994

.0 1.000 0

1.000 0

1.000 1

0.998 1.6 0

0.994 0

1.000 0

0.998 1.7 1

1.000 0

1.000 1

1.000 1.8 0

1.000 0

1.000 1.9 0

1.000 0

1.000 2

0 1.000 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.1 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.2 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.3 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.4 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.5 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.6 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.7 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.8 0

1.000 0

1.000 2.9 0

1.000 0

1.000 3

0 1.000 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.1 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.2 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.3 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.4 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.5 0

1.000 0

1.000

>3.5 0

1.000 0

1.000 Total 167 NA 1541 NA 65 lNA l

32 NA

[418 lNA

86-5049264-00 Page 31 of 96 Table 3-10: Cycle 12 Voltage Dependent Growth Using Composite Breakpoints (BOC-12 Voltage >1.02 Volts)

Delta SG 1-1 SG 1-2 SG 1-3 SG 1-4 Total Volts per~ No. of I PF No. of CPF No. of I PF No. of I PF No. of ICD EFPY Obs.

CPDF Obs.

CPDF 0

9 0.225 9

0.257 8

0.211 3

0.300 29 0.236 0.1 1

0.250 10 0.543 6

0.368 1

0.400 18 0.382 0.2 5

0.375 5

0.686 15 0.763 1

0.500 26 0.593 0.3 2

0.425 2

0.743 6

0.921 0

0.500 10 0.675 0.4 1

0.450 2

0.800 2

0.974 0

0.500 5

0.715 0.5 5

0.575 0

0.800 0

0.974 2

0.700 7

0.772 0.6 4

0.675 2

0.857 1

1.000 1

0.800 8

0.837 0.7 2

0.725 1

0.886 0

1.000 0

0.800 3

0.862 0.8 1

0.750 1

0.914 0

1.000 0

0.800 2

0.878 0.9 1

0.775 0

0.914 0

1.000 0

0.800 1

0.886 1

1 0.800 1

0.943 0

1.000 0

0.800 2

0.902 1.1 2

0.850 0

0.943 0

1.000 1

0.900 3

0.927 1.2 0

0.850 0

0.943 0

1.000 1

0.935 1.3 1

0.875 1

0.971 0

1.000 0

1.000 2

0.951 1.4 0

0.875 0

0.971 0

1.000 0

0.951 1.5 0

0.875 0

0.971 0

1.000 0

0.951 1.6 0

0.875 1

1.000 0

1.000 1

0.959 1.7 0

0.875 0

1.000 0

0.959 1.8 0

0.875 0

1.000 0

0.959 1.9 1

0.900 0

1.000 0

1.000 1

0.967 2

0 0.900 0

1.000 0

0.967 2.1 0

0.900 0

1.000 0

0.967 2.2 0

0.900 0

1.000 0

0.967 2.3 0

0.900 0

1.000 0

0.967 2.4 1

0.925 0

1.000 0

1.000 1

0.976 2.5 2

0.975 0

1.000 0

1.000 2

.0.992 2.6 0

0.975 0

1.000 0

0.992 2.7 0

0.975 0

1.000 0

0.992 2.8 0

0.975 0

1.000 0

0.992 2.9 0

0.975 0

1.000 0

0.992 3

0 0.975 0

1.000 0

0.992 3.1 1

1.000 0

1.000 1

1.000 3.2 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.3 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.4 0

1.000 0

1.000 3.5 0

1.000 0

1.000

>3.5 0

1.000 0

1.000 Total 140 NA l

I35 NA 381 NA 10

[NA 1231 NA

86-5049264-00 Page 32 of 96 Table 3-11: Delta Volts Adjustments SG Cycle Breakpoint(s)

Average Growth (Volts per EFPY)

SGCce Bekon~)

Binl Bin2 Bin3 Cycle 11 0.099 0.170 0.359 SG 1-1 Cycle 12 0.50 /0.99 0.119 0.202 0.578 Delta 0.020 0.032 0.219 Cycle 11 0.082 0.241 NA SG 1-2 Cycle 12 1.16 0.076 0.309 NA Delta

<0 0.068 NA Cycle 11 0.060 0.091 NA SG 1-3 Cycle 12 1.05 0.056 0.133 NA Delta

<0 0.042 NA Cycle 11 0.082 0.102 NA SG 1-4 Cycle 12 0.82 0.110 0.297 NA Delta 0.028 0.195 NA Cycle 11 0.088 0.113 0.164 Composite Cycle 12 0.50 / 1.02 0.095 0.133 0.331 Delta 0.007 0.020 0.167

86-5049264-00 86-5049264-00 Page 33 of 96 Table 3-12: VDG Distributions Used for Monte Carlo Simulations Growth Distributions Used for SGs 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 (All SGs Combined; Cycle 12)

Growth In BOC Voltage VoltsIEFPY

<=O..V 0.5V to

>1.02V

<=O.5V 1.02V 0

93 65 5

0.1 329 127 8

0.2 207 112 22 0.3 64 40 20 0.4 35 36 20 0.5 10 15 13 0.6 5

8 0

0.7 0

6 7

0.8 0

0 9

0.9 0

4 2

1 0

2 2

1.1 0

0 2_

1.2 0

1 2

1.3 0

0 2

1.4 0

0 1

1.5 0

1 2

1.6 0

0 0

1.7 0

1 0

1.8 0

0 1

1.9 0

0 0

2 0

0 1

2.1 0

0 0

2.2 0

0 0

2.3 0

0 0

2.4 0

0 0

2.5 0

0 0

2.6 0

0 1

2.7 0

0 2

2.8 0

0 0

2.9 0

0 0

3 0

0 0

3.1 0

0 0

3.2 0

0 1

3.3 0

0 0

3.4 0

0 0

3.5 0

0 0

Total l

743 l

418 l

123 Growth Distributions Used for SG 1-1 (SG 1-1; Cycle 12)

Growth in BOC Voltage Volts/EFPY l<=05V 0.5v to

>0.99V l.99V 0

29 20 1

0.1 132 32 3

0.2 110 39 5

0.3 54 21 2

0.4 29 23 4

0.5 8

8 5

0.6 5

9 2

0.7 0

3 3

0.8 0

1 5

0.9 0

4 3

1 0

1 1

1.1 0

0

.I.1

'1.2 0

l 0

1 1.3 0

0 2

1.4 0

0 0

1.5 0

1 1

1.6 0

0 0

1.7 0

1 0

1.8 0

0 0

1.9 0

0 0

2 0

0 0

2.1 0

0 1

2.2 0

0 0

2.3 0

0 0

2.4 0

0 0

2.5 0

0 0

2.6 0

0 1

2.7 0

0 2

2.8 0

0 0

2.9 0

0 0

3 0

0 0

3.1 0

0 0

3.2 0

0 0

3.3 0

0 1

3.4 0

0 0

3.5 0

0 0

Total l

367 l

163

__44

86-5049264-00 Page 34 of 96 Table 3-13: Re-tested DOSs M1.5 Volts that Failed the Probe Wear Check I

~ARC~

SG Row Cal Ind Elev Volts Probe Cal No.

Out

% Diff I R 12 RSS I 1H 4.68 1 720RF CL-24 Yes 6

61 DOSI 1H 5.6 1 720RF CL-41 19.7%

SG 1-1 8

69 RSS 1H 3.17 720RF CL-24 Yes DOS 1H 3.4 720RF CL-41 7.3%

RSS 1H 2.34 720RF CL-24 Yes 8

71 RSS 1H 2.02 720RF CL-42 Yes RSS 1H 2.08 720RF CL-49 Yes DOS 1H 2.07 720RF CL-51

-11.5%/2.5%1-0.5%

RSS 1H 5.64 720RF CL-26 Yes 8

7 2 DOS 1H 5.06 720RF CL-41

-10.3%

RSS 1H 2.12 720RF CL-24 Yes 10 71 RSS 1H 2.28 720RF CL-42 Yes RSS 1H 2.28 720RF CL-49 Yes DOS 1H 2.28 720RF CL-51 7.5% /0.0% /0.0%

RSS 1H 1.53 720RF CL-24 Yes 12 70 RSS 1H 1.56 720RF CL-42 Yes RSS 1H 1.54 720RF CL-49 Yes DOS 1H 1.5 720RF CL-51

-2.0%/-3.8%/-2.6%

RSS 1H 3.31 720RF CL-24 Yes 12 71 RSS 1H 3.27 720RF CL-42 Yes RSS 1H 3.1 720RF CL-49 Yes DOS 1H 3.05 720RF CL-51

-7.9%/-6.7%/-1.6%

14 80 RSS 1H 1.63 720RF HL-18 Yes DOS 1H 1.7 720RF CL-31 4.3%

RSS 1H 3.41 720RF HL-17 Yes 17 73 DOS 1H 4.01 720RF CL-31 17.6%

RSS 1H 1.77 720RF HL-17 Yes 17 74 DOS 1H 1.9 720RF CL-31 7.3%

RSS 1H 2.28 720RF HL-17 Yes 1 7 7 7 DOS 1H 2.27 720RF CL-31

-0.4%

RSS 1H 5.66 720RF CL-30 Yes 20 54 DOS 1H 5.6 720RF CL-41

-1.1%

22 69 RSS 1H 1.53 720RF HL-18 Yes DOS 1H 1.63 720RF CL-31 6.5%

RSS 1H 4.97 720RF HL-14 Yes 24 31 DOS I1H l 4.45 1720RF CL-39

-10.5%

DOS I IH I 4.4S I 720RF CL-39

-10.5%

86-5049264-00 Page 35 of 96 Table 3-13: Re-tested DOSs 21.5 Volts that Failed the Probe Wear Check SG Row Col Ind Elev Volts Probe Cal No.

Out

% Diff

_ B L i L I RSS I 1H 1.64 l 720RF HL-10 Yes 26 32

4.

+

4-t DOS I 1H 1.55 l 720RF CL-39

-5.5%

SG 1-1 26 63 RSS 1H 1.65 720RF CL-20 Yes DOS 1H 1.92 720RF CL-31 16.4%

26 77 RSS 1H 1.93 720RF CL-21 Yes DOS 1H 2.01 720RF CL-41 4.1%

27 42 RSS 1H 1.94 720RF HL-12 Yes DOS 1H 1.79 720RF CL-39

-7.7%

RSS 1H 1.63 720RF CL-42 Yes 28 41 RSS 1H 1.57 720RF HL-12 Yes DOS 1H 1.37 720RF CL-49

-16.0% /-12.7%

29 41 RSS 1H 1.59 720RF HL-11 Yes DOS 1H 1.65 720RF CL-41 3.8%

RSS 1H 1.73 720RF HL-12

.Yes 29 43 DOS 1H 1.72 720RF CL-39

-0.6%

29 46 RSS 1H 1.57 720RF HL-11 Yes DOS 1H 1.44 720RF CL-39

-8.3%

30 37 RSS IH 1.73 720RF HL-11 Yes DOS IH 2.03 720RF CL-41 17.3%

30 44 RSS IH 1.84 720RF HL-11 Yes DOS 1 H 1.84 720RF CL-39 l 0.0%

31 38 RSS 1H 2.14 720RF HL-12 Yes DOS 1H 2.01 720RF CL-41

-6.1%

35 43 RSS 2H 2.21 720RF HL-12 Yes DOS 2H 2.07 720RF CL-39

-6.3%

36 45 RSS 1H 3.16 720RF HL-12 Yes DOS 1H 3.08 720RF CL-41

-2.5%

36 55 RSS IH 2.12 720RF CL-20 Yes DOS 1H 2.07 720RF CL-31

-2.4%

RSS I 3H 2.02 1 720RF HL-12 Yes 42 1 45

+

4-4-

t DOS I 3H 1.78 I 720RF CL-41

-11.9%

13 56 RSS 1H 3.08 720RF CL-30 Yes DOS 1H 3.08 720RF CL-41 0.0%

SGI1-2 RSS 1H 2.08 720RF HL-26 Yes l

19 31 1

IDOS I1H 11.86 720RF IHL-56 I 1-10.6%

86-5049264-00 Page 36 of 96 Table 3-13: Re-tested DOSs 21.5 Volts that Failed the Probe Wear Check ARC SG Row Col Ind Elev Volts Probe Cal No.

Out

% Diff R 12 RSS 2H 2.25 720RF CL-24 Yes 19 85 RSS 2H 2.36 720RF CL-39 Yes SG 1-2 DOS 2H 2.59 720RF HL-56 15.1%/9.7%

RSS 2H 2.89 720RF HL-26 Yes 24 30 DOS 2H 2.58 720RF CL-33

-10.7%

6 12 RSS 2H 2.24 720RF HL-26 Yes DOS 2H 2.59 720RF CL-49 15.6%

RSS 1H 2.01 720RF HL-15 Yes 14 34 SG1-4 DOS 1H 2.13 720RF CL-49 6.0%

RSS 2H 3.38 720RF HL-12 Yes 25 26 DOS 2H 3.55 720RF CL-49 5.0%

RSS 1H 3.27 720RF HL-12 Yes DOS I1H 3.64 720RF CL-49 11.3%

86-5049264-00 Page 37 of 96 Table 3-14: New 1R12 DOSs 20.5 Volts in Tubes Inspected With a Worn Probe in IR1I SG Row Col Ind Elev Volts Cal N?

ARC1Out AR11ut Ca

e.

1R1 RI I SG 1-1 8

41 35 36 19 12 18 27 7

28 22 31 30

-44 22.

28_

11 32

_7 7

19 42 13 43 29, 6

28 42 19 21 29 13 22 40 8

27 6

16 31 18 69 41 61 64 59 86 74 36

_77 48

_46 37 39 54 61 64 52 68 28 62 31 56 62 56 41 34 62 26 50 55 29 19 61 69 _

68 DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS D OS DOS DOS DOS D6OS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS lDOSl lDOSl lIH 3H 2H 2H 1H 1H 1H 2H 1H lIH_

1H 1H 1H 1H l1H l1-H --

l H 1 H IH l2H l 1H 3H 1H l1H l1H 4H I H 2H l 1H___

1H 1H I H 1H 2H 2H 1H I H 3.4 1.34 1.18 1.06 1.02 I

I _

0.99 0.98 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.8 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.71 0.7 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.6 0.6 0.59 CL-41l HL-11 CL-20 CL-20 CL-29 CL-30 HL-18 HL-9 CL-28 l HL-11 HL-15 HL-12 HL-12 CL-19 CL-31 CL-31 CL-20 CL-23 HL-8 CL-23 CL-37 CL-29 CL-19 CL-23 HL-1 l

HL-9 CL-24 HL-6 CL-21_

lCL-29_

HL-13 l HL-8 CL-23 CL-31 New New New New New New New New_

New New New New

-New--

New l New New New New New lNew lNew lNew_

lNew lNew lNew lNew lNew_

lNew_

lNew lNew_

lNew New New New New New lNew lNew_

l_New lNew New

_e_

lNew lNew lNew_

lNew lNew New lNew lNew Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes_____

l Yes Yes Yes Yes.

Yes Yes Yes Yes lYes_l l Yes l Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes_

Yes-Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes-Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

--Yes-,

Yes Yes Yes

.Ye...

.....s.

lYes CL-21 90 32 86 79 63 77 CL-30 HL-9 CL-30 HL-18 CL-19 HL-18

86-5049264-00 Page 38 of 96 Table 3-14: New 1R12 DOSs ?-O.5 Volts in Tubes Inspected With a Worn Probe in 11RII SG Row Cal Ind fElev Volts Cal New?

ARC OutI ARC Out J

_ J R 12 J 1I RI1 21___7__I.DOS 1_HIOj1_.~591

_II w1 Yes 71 Yes 13 23IDOS IIHIO.58 CL-351 New II Yes 13 1 77 I DOSI 2H I.0.58 Ij CL-28__

New I

I Yes.

29151_

~

A I I---~ Newj

... _Yes 1i JL] I ppJ !L O.

CL-28 I m

Yes 13151 P~i AL K.57_ g~I

~~~LYes 17 IAI DOSI iHI 057 HL-17 INewi Yes 9~Yes

-1 6 80D0OS12_H 056

_IHI-1 INew-__I.....

____Yes 241j171_ DS 1q

~ H__

!A._

New-es Yes 6 1_

P____

I ____ -S!-......

-___e__Yes 12 73 I DOS 1 H I0.55 ICL-26 INw Yes Ye SG 1..1 JJ

~

PSL2LL

~~kI..New_ j.Ye.. I3_5.

DOS~

11HIO-.55IjCL-37 VNew

~

Yes 6___I__1.. I P I D

__I iHI__O.5 CL-36 Yes 7 j81_

_DOS I2H 1 _0.53_

N.~*~lew I1 Yes

..211j

_DOS _I

_I531HL-171 Nw Yes Yes 17153___ DOSl

_.iI__.521C...0I New.I-e Yes_

2 2 1 6---

2 J____I ---------

... Yes...

29 139 I DOS I IH 10.521 HL-Il 1 New I Yes I

Yes 30OI22I1DOS I4HI0.521 HL-6 INew I I

Yes 8-164~.. I _DOS__. 1H.. L __0.5 CL-24+/- j

s. Il k ~Yes

....... q~...

8 18 1__ D I..2H.. I__0.1.1_S L-6 I _.._Ne............

Yee s_ _

LA24 I 2J jDOS-I1. IH..I... 0. -

A-j

~ dI

.. 1__New ij.... Yes..... I __Yes 41 168 [ DOS 3H 1 0.5 1 CL-22JNej Yes I

e

-31.. I_ 6LJ~ _DOSq 12_H..

1H-2 Ne

___Yes

-32 IDOS I2H

_10.9-I._ HL-1 New -I..____

-Ke Yes 29 140 IDS HI -0.88 IHL-14 New-Ye KYes 28__ _84 _IDOSI

~I_ _l..08 9

J-CL-20 j e __ I I

Yes

-30..L 53..I DSI LI99 L:

j Yes 231_

_34 -1DOS _ H I

j 0.76_1 _HL-26 __

ew _I____Yes I-Yes

--2~6-

.. IDOSI 0.6j_ LŽ2__I___.N j

Yes 35 1-18 1 DOSI _lCjO_.76jI HL Ne _.I____

___Yes SG 1-2 21 1 19 DO P

k2H 075 L-23 Yesi*

Yes 141S52 D1 0.74.

CL-27 Ne....Yes 21....7.. IDOIS_1 I9Z

-23 New Yes 25 169 I DOS I 3H I10.711 CL-22 INew I

Yes I

Yes 28153 I DOS I 1H I 0.71-1 CL-19 1New II Yes 29OS I 1H I-

__I __LŽ 18.._

Ye I

_Yes 39..

2. I-P 9jDO 1

_06 Hi2LL_2_New__........

_Yes

____33 J16 [DOSj I C 1 0.66 jHL-21 [ Newj______

Ye

86-5049264-00 Page 39 of 96 Table 3-14: New 1R12 DOSs 20.5 Volts In Tubes Inspected With a Worn Probe in IR11 SG Row Col Ind Elev Volts Cal New? 1 ARC Out l ARC Out C l R 12 j

IR II 22 62 IDOSI2H 0.6 IlCL-27 New Yes 22 83 IDOSI 1H 0 0.61 l CL-25 l New Yes 21 l32 IDOSI 1H l 0.6 l HL-26 New.

Yes Yes 31 J 41 DOS 3Hl_0q.56_jn l

lNYes 3

Yes 321l50

l.

lC1 lYes SG 1-2 101l321 DOS!

H l 0.53lCL-38lNew l

Yes l

Yes 27 l178l

'DOS_

1H lJ*_C-20 Newi l Yes 1

DOSlYes l_ Yes 45 l 56 DOSl 1HlI0.5_CL-19 lNew l

Yes 21 44 lDOSl 1H 1 0.5 l HL-27 l New l

l Yes

_8

_76 JDO L

1.38 CL-43 New.

Yes_

Yes 31!

60l DOS!

2H l 0.93l CL-24 l New Yes Yes 30 _l 32 l DS 2H 0.83 lHL10 l New.,

Yes 22 l 87 DOSl 1H l 0.8 CL-41 New.

l Yes 32 31-10 N

Yes SG 1-3 38_l 47.I _DOSI 1H __ 079 J HL....

Yes l

Yes 7

lDOSl 5H l 067 CL42 lNewIl Yes l

Yes 29 72 IDOS!

1H l0.64l CL-30 I New I

Yes l

Yes 5

l 74 lDOSI 1H l 0.61 l HL-3 I

New I

l Yes 40 I _DOSl _I.H l0.59. CL-22 Il.

New l

l Yes

_ 34 140 l DOSl IH l 0.53 HL-8 l New l

Yes l

Yes 4

481 DOS 4H 1 0.5 HL-4 l New Yes 14 l 34 DOSl IH 1 2.13 CL-49I New 1

l Yes 3 ll44lDOSl HI l 095 L-1 l New l

l Y'es 3 -I42 I DOS_lI H 1 0.85 l-HL-1 New l

Yes 9~ l14~ lPA DOSl 2H l.8l_L-18

_New_ lIl Yes SG1-4 5

1 47 l DOSl 1H l 0.62 I HL-1 l New l

Yes 4

l41 lI DOSJ 2H l 0.61-l H-1

_l l

____Yes 5 1

.8 l_DOSl 3Hj 0.56_ lHL-1 New l

Yes 14 l47 I DOSl1H l0.56 HL-13 New Yes 266 36 DOSl 1H l 0.51_

HL-7. l N Yes 13 l6 DOS 2H l 0.5 l HL-17 I

New I

Yes Yes

86-5049264-00 86-5049264-00 Page 40 of 96 Table 3-15: Summary of New DOS Indications for Probe Wear Comparison I1R12 DOSs New 1R12 New 1R12 nd.

New IR12 New 1R12 Ind.

In Active Not In Tubes lnsp.

Ind. In Tubes New 1R`I2

Ž-0.5 Volts in SG Insp. wI Good Ind. Ž0.5 Tubes lnsp. wI I

Tubes Detected w/ Worn Probe Probe in Volts Worn Probe In j (Total)

In IRII In IRII 11RII R

SG 1-1 630 253 172 81 93 65 SG 1-2 392 124 67 57 56 28 SG 1-3 211 66 22 44 30 12 SG 1-4 134 59 28 31 22 10 Total 1367 502 289 213 201 115 Table 3-16: Summary of ARC Out Tube Inspections in IRII Out

ARC In Total # of SG Tubes Tubes Ipe s

SG 1-1 2239 1564 3803 SG 1-2 2548 1158 3706 SG 1-3 1450 2397 3847 SG 1-4 1941 1953 3894 Total 8178 7072 [

15250

86-5049264-00 Page 41 of 96 Table 3-17: NDE Uncertainty Distributions Analyst Uncertainty Acquisition Uncertainty Percent Cumulative Variation Probability

-40.0%

0.00005

-38.0%

0.00011

-36.0%

0.00024

-34.0%

0.00048

-32.0%

0.00095

-30.0%

0.00179

-28.0%

0.00328

-26.0%

0.00580

-24.0%

0.00990

-22.0%

0.01634

-20.0%

0.02608

-18.0%

0.04027

-16.0%

0.06016

-14.0%

0.08704

-12.0%

0.12200

-10.0%

0.16581

-8.0%

0.21867

-6.0%

0.28011

-4.0%

0.34888

-2.0%

0.42302 0.0%

0.50000 2.0%

0.57698 4.0%

0.65112 6.0%

0.71989 8.0%

0.78133 10.0%

0.83419 12.0%

0.87800 14.0%

0.91296 16.0%

0.93984 18.0%

0.95973 20.0%

0.97392 22.0%

0.98366 24.0%

0.99010 26.0%

0.99420 28.0%

0.99672 30.0%

0.99821 32.0%

0.99905 34.0%

0.99952 36.0%

0.99976 38.0%

0.99989 40.0%

0.99995 Percent Cumulative Variation Probability

<-15.0%

0.00000

-15.0%

0.01606

-14.0%

0.02275

-13.0%

0.03165

-12.0%

0.04324

-11.0%

0.05804

-10.0%

0.07656

-9.0%

0.09927

-8.0%

0.12655

-7.0%

0.15866

-6.0%

0.19568

-5.0%

0.23753

-4.0%

0.28385

-3.0%

0.33412

-2.0%

0.38755

-1.0%

0.44320 0.0%

0.50000 1.0%

0.55680 2.0%

0.61245 3.0%

0.66588 4.0%

0.71615 5.0%

0.76247 6.0%

0.80432 7.0%

0.84134 8.0%

0.87345 9.0%

0.90073 10.0%

0.92344 11.0%

0.94196 12.0%

0.95676 13.0%

0.96835 14.0%

0.97725 15.0%

0.98394

>15.0%

1.00000 Std Deviation = 7.0%

Mean = 0.0%

Cutoff = +/- 15.0%

Std Deviation = 10.3%

Mean = 0.0%

No Cutoff 0

86-5049264-00 Page 42 of 96 Figure 3-1: As-Found Voltage Distributions SGs 1-1 and 1-2 Voltage Distributions of As-Found DOS/AONDB Indications SG 141 and SG 1-2 lZU -

100- __

OSG1 An -

1

-OU

.02 60 0

1 E

=

40-20 -

0 -

1l 1111 I.

h*1 1

U-111im

-alWn I.

I In n.-

L U-doo I -

I

h.

O) i#

-r 7 -

_ : I I

r I

I I

s I

O a

O N

AS N

N N

C X

C.)

C X

Bobbin Volts Figure 3-2: As-Found Voltage Distributions SGs 1-3 and 1-4 Voltage Distributions of As-Found DOSIAONDB Indications SG 1-3 and SG 1-4 120 100 e

80

.2 U

o0

.040 E

zQ4 20 0

C.

If I-U) u Cb C.

U-I-

C)

~

r-C )

O a

O C)

O N

N N

riBobi V o Bobbin Volts

86-5049264-00 Page 43 of 96 Figure 3-3: 1R12 Repaired Voltage Distributions SGs 1-1 and 1-2 Repaired Tube Voltage Distributions SG 1-1 and SG 1-2 lISG 1-1 OSG 1-2 20 c0 0

0

.0 E

z 11 10 n

n n

1l1n"u 1

E n

1 CO 0

a,

-O O

)

N n

N..

N M

Un o

-A.

Bobbin Volts Figure 3-4: 1R12 Repaired Voltage Distributions SGs 1-3 and 1-4 Repaired Tube Voltage Distributions SG 1-3 and SG 1-4 EU c0

.0S la

)

Li r,.

0w C

Fn 1 O>

q 1n -

0c qq 1

0

_1 0 >

o 0

0 0N N

N N

M A

M t

A Bobbin Volts

86-5049264-00 Page 44 of 96 Figure 3-5: Indications RTS Voltage Distributions SGs 1-1 and 1-2 Voltage Distributions of ARl DOSIAONDB Indications Returned to Service SG 1-1 and SG 1-2

.1u 100 80 u.2 UU 60 0

.04 E

z 40 20-0 M SG 1-1l I

I Imb 111a in C!

o CD 0

O C-N N

N N

N MBobi V o l sobbin volts Figure 3-6: Indications RTS Voltage Distributions SGs 1-3 and 1-4 Voltage Distributions of All DOSIAONDB Indications Returned to Service SG 1-3 and SG 1-4 120 100 C0 0

C 0

.0 z

I~

1

C)

U)

I-t

0)

C)

IQ P-0 C)

Ui VI~-

0)C

)

Ui r":

0 ) >

o O

0 0

O N

N N

C C )

)

A Bobbin Volts

86-5049264-00 Page 45 of 96 Figure 3-7: 1 R12 DOS vs. TSP Elevation Distribution of Indications by TSP Location 500 40n

.I 1111I 1 4LU. - I,

1 C:

350 - -

.I X

300

0 C

J

E

-5AUn 0

10

.0 Ez 200--

150 -

500 50 IH 2H 3H 4H 5H 6H 7H CL 0SG 1-1 439 144 43 17 1

2 1

6 E9SG 1-2 208 132 52 21 10 7

1 8

ClSG 1-3 108 47 21 16 14 7

1 9

SG1-4 101 42 14 10 4

l 1

Tube Support Plate

86-5049264-00 Page 46 of 96 Figure 3-8: Cycle 12 Growth Distributions SGs 1-1 and 1-2 Delta Volts per EFPY SG I-1 and SG 1-2 200 -

180[

160 Om Crr-1-4 140 0

s 120 -

U

~100 20 EZ 60 40-20

.° A

° rE>OO0 p0 9@X1

'~b b

Dlta oX V.o1l per 0F 4

No N Delta Volts per EFPY Figure 3-9: Cycle 12 Growth Distributions SGs 1-3 and 1-4 Delta Volts per EFPY SQ 1-3 and SG 1-4 200-180 160 -I 10 140 0

120-U 100 0

80 EZ 60 40-Delta Volts per EFPY

86-5049264-00 Page 47 of 96 Figure 3-10: SG 1-1 and SG 1-2 Cycle 12 Growth vs. BOC Voltage Growth Rate vs. BOC Voltage SG 1-1 and SG 1-2 3.5 - -

3.0 -

2.5 --

0.

ILl n 2.0- -

1.5 -_

4) 10.0 -_

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 BOC-12 Voltage Figure 3-11: SG 1-3 and SG 1-4 Cycle 12 Growth vs. BOC Voltage Growth Rate vs. BOC Voltage SG 1-3 and SG 1-4 3.5 3.0 2.5 L.

U-O 2.0

> 1.5 4) a N

1.0 40 4@ 0.5 0.0

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 BOC-12 Voltage

86-5049264-00 Page 48 of 96 Figure 3-12: SG 1-1 Cycle 12 VDG Breakpoint Analysis Results Trilinear Growth Determination for SG 1-1 Cycle 12 4.00 3.00 0

i 2.00 2

C 1.00 0.00 - _

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 BOC Volts I

Data -

Piece I -

-Piece 2 -

Piece 3 Figure 3-13: SG 1-2 Cycle 12 VDG Breakpoint Analysis Results Bilinear Growth Deterrnination for SG 1-2 Cycle 12 4.00 3.00 2

c, 2.00 E

1.00 0.00p

=

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 BOC Bobbin Ampltude (Volts)

I a

Data -

Piece I -

-Piece2 2.00

86-5049264-00 Page 49 of 96 Figure 3-14: SG 1-3 Cycle 12 VDG Breakpoint Analysis Determination Bilinear Growth Determination for SG 1-3 Cycle 12 4.00 3.00 2

0 2.00 0

E 1.00 0.00.?

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 BOC Bobbin Amplitude (Volts) l a

Data -Piece 1 -

-Piece 2 2.00 Figure 3-15: SG 1-4 Cycle 12 VDG Breakpoint Analysis Determination Bilinear Growth Determination for SG 1-4 Cycle 12 4.00 3.00 W

3:

2 0

aE 2.00 R-e ression Break Point= 0.82 Volts SG 1-4 Cycle 12 BoLzd 1 = 0.82 V Min. Bin = 15 Act Bin = 15 SSE = 2.845 1-~~~~~

~

d o05$

n° 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 BOC Bobbin Amplibtde (Volts) a Data -

Piece 1 -

-Piece 2 1.50 2.00

86-5049264-00 Page 50 of 96 Figure 3-16: Cycle 12 VDG Breakpoint Analysis Determination - All SGs 4.00 3.00 U) 0 L.r (9

Trilinear Growth Determination for Unit 1 Cycle 12 - All SGs Unit I Cycle 12 Bound 1 = 0.50 V Bound2=1.02V Min. Bin = 15 Act. Bin = 123 Std. Error 0.2121 A

a A

A A

AAA AL 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 BOC Volts 1.50 2.00 A

a Data -

Piece 1 -

-Piece 2 -

Piece 3 I

86-5049264-00 Page 51 of 96 Figure 3-17: SG 1-1 Cycle 12 VDG Curves Voltage Dependent Growth Curves DCPP-1 SG 1-1 Cycle 12 1.00 0.80 0.60 II.

0 U

0.40 0.20 II i1

/1111

I I

'II

/LI

<=0.5v

°l 0.51-0.99v

_ -- O>.99v_

0.00 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

3.2 3.4 Delta Volts per EFPY Figure 3-18: SG 1-2 Cycle 12 VDG Curves Voltage Dependent Growth Curves DCPP-1 SG 1-2 Cycle 12 U-0a.

U 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

3.2 3.4 Delta Volts per EFPY

86-5049264-00 Page 52 of 96 Figure 3-19: SG 1-3 Cycle 12 VDG Curves Voltage Dependent Growth Curves DCPP-1 SG 1-3 Cycle 12 A-a 0~

0.

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

3.2 3.4 Delta Volts per EFPY Figure 3-20: SG 1-4 Cycle 12 VDG Curves Voltage Dependent Growth Curves DCPP-1 SG 1-4 Cycle 12 U.

0a.

U 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

3.2 3.4 Delta Volts per EFPY

86-5049264-00 Page 53 of 96 Figure 3-21: Cycle 12 VDG Curves for All SGs Combined Voltage Dependent Growth Curves DCPP-1 All SGs Cycle 12 1.00 3

0.80 0.60 0 40

<=0.50v E

0.51-1.02v 0.20

-l>1.02v 0.00 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

3.2 3.4 Delta Volts per EFPY

86-5049264-00 Page 54 of 96 Figure 3-22: Historical Change in Growth and BOC Voltage All SGs Change in Average Growth DCPP-1 All SGs 0.3 -

0.6 0.25 0.5 a.i

-C 0.2

-0.4 0.15 -/

0_ _

0.0

+

Growth/EFPY 0.05 0.1 Any BOC Volts 0

Cycle 9 Cycle 10 Cycle 1 1 Cycle 12

86-5049264-00 Page 55 of 96 Figure 3-23: Cycle 12 vs. Cycle 11 SG Composite Growth Comparison Cycle 12 vs. Cycle 11 Growth Comparison 1.00 0.80 i

0.60--

0~

0.40 -

..- Cycle 1 0.20

-- *-Cycle 12 l

0.00i 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

3.2 3.4 Delta Volts per EFPY

86-5049264-00 Page 56 of 96 Figure 3-24: Cycle 12 Independent Growth Curves - All SGs Cycle 12 Independent Growth Distributions 1.00 0.80 0.60 d

p I',,-,

I, II"#1 ha 1-L a

0~ if" 0.40 -

0.20 0.00 I

I-.--SG 1-1 4-SG 1-2

.- *-SG 1-3

- -x SG 1-4

-E-AII SGs 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

3.2 3.4 Delta Volts per EFPY

86-5049264-00 Page 57 of 96 Figure 3-25: Cycle 11 vs Cycle 12 Growth Comparison SG 1-1 Cycle I1 vs. Cycle 12 Growth Comparison SG 11 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 CL 0.

0.403

-l-Cye 11 Growlh/EFPY (SG 1-1) 0.2 Cyde 11 Growth/EFPY(AJI1) 6-Cyde 12 Growth1EFPY (SG 1.1) 0.1 Cyde 12 Growth/EFPY (AJI) 0.0 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

3.2 Growth per EFPY Figure 3-26: Cycle 11 vs Cycle 12 Growth Comparison SG 1-2 Cycle 11 vs. Cycle 12 Growth Comparison SG 1-2 1.0 X~

0.9 0'-

.0.5 06 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

3.2 Growth per EFPY

86-5049264-00 Page 58 of 96 Figure 3-27: Cycle 11 vs Cycle 12 Growth Comparison SG 1-3 Cycle 11 vs. Cycle 12 Growth Comparison SG 1-3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 3--f-CycleI11Growth1EFPY(SGI1-3) 0.2 Cycle 11 GrowthEFPY (All)

Cyde 12 Grow/EFPY(SG 1-3) 0.1 Cycle 12 GrowthiEFPY (All) 0.0 0

02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

3.2 Growth per EFPY Figure 3-28: Cycle 11 vs Cycle 12 Growth Comparison SG 1-4 Cycle 11 vs. Cycle 12 Growth Comparison SG 14 1.0 0.8 0.7 a 0.5 O.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

3.2 Growth per EFPY

86-5049264-00 Page 59 of 96 Figure 3-29: 1R12 Probe WearVoltage Comparison Probe Wear Voltage Comparison 6

5 c 4 E

33 0

0 2

.0 0

0 2

3 4

5 Bobbin Volts (New Probe) 6 Figure 3-30: Bobbin Voltage Uncertainty Distributions NDE Uncertainty Distributions

.0

.0 E

0

-40.0%

-30.0%

-20.0%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

Percent Variation In Voltage 20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

86-5049264-00 Page 60 of 96 4.0 Chemical Cleaning During 1 R1 2, chemical cleaning (CC) was performed on all four steam generators. GL 95-05 requires that, if the SGs are chemically cleaned, the impact of CC on the BOC voltage distribution and on voltage growth rates shall be evaluated. The TSP crevice cleaning step was not performed, so PG&E's judgment was that the TSP ODSCC signals would not be affected by CC. This judgment was determined to be correct based on the following assessment.

The 1-3 and 1-4 SGs were ECT inspected prior to CC and the 1-1 and 1-2 SGs were ECT inspected after CC. However, 192 tubes in SG 1-2, containing the 100 largest known DOS voltages left in service in Cycle 12, were inspected with a bobbin coil both prior to the CC and after the CC to facilitate a comparison for the GL 95-05 voltage-based ARC. Additionally, 9 tubes in SG 1-2 were inspected with Plus-point at the top of tubesheet and selected TSP elevations where known flaws existed, both prior to CC and after CC. The bobbin coil results were compared for these 192 tubes in order to assess the impact of the chemical cleaning on the SGs that were inspected prior to cleaning and to assess any impact on growth rates.

Figure 4-1 contains the results of the comparison for DOSs detected before and after CC.

The results indicate a relatively small change between the voltages, with as many above the "no change" line as below. No indications had bobbin voltages increase from below the 2.0 volt repair limit to greater than 2.0 volts as a result of chemical cleaning. A regression line was fit to the data, and it lies on top of the no change line, again indicating no change.

between the voltages. Additionally, there were no DOS that were detected during the pre-CC inspection that were not detected in the post-CC data, or vice versa, again indicating no affect of the CC on the DOS population. There were no differences between the Plus point inspections as well. These conclusions of this study are consistent with the fact that the TSP crevices were not targeted for cleaning during the process, with only the edges of the plate area being cleaned. In summary, there is no need for adjustments in the populations or in the voltages of any of the DOS indications detected during 1 R1 2 due to the fact that CC was performed.

86-5049264-00 Page 61 of 96 Figure 4-1: Chemical Cleaning Effect on DOS Voltage Pre-Post Chemical Cleaning DOS Voltage Comparison SG 12-1R12 5

4.5 4

3.5

.0

.0o 2.5 M

0Z 2

0.

15 0.5 0 -;-

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Pre CC Bobbin WoUts 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

86-5049264-00 Page 62 of 96 5.0 Database Applied for Leak and Burst Correlations Per GL 95-05, the databases used to perform the tube integrity evaluations should be the latest NRC approved industry database. The databases used for the evaluations in this report use the data from Reference 8 plus the results from the tubes pulled during the 2R1 1 outage at Diablo Canyon. During 2R1 1, a 21.5 volt indication was detected at a 2H intersection in SG 2-4. Due to the potential impact of this large indication on the databases, new correlation parameters were calculated in 2003 using the latest EPRI database plus the 2R1 1 pulled tube results. The 2R1 1 pulled tube results plus the updated ARC correlation parameters were included in the 2R1 1 90-Day Report (Ref. 27). Since the updated correlation parameters have already been provided to the NRC, these parameters were used again for the tube integrity evaluations provided in this report.

The correlation parameters presented in this section do not include the results from the tube that was removed during the I R1 2 outage. A summary of the results from the 1 R1 2 pulled tube are presented in Section 5.3. These results will be incorporated into the next addendum of the EPRI database and are expected to have a negligible impact on the ARC burst and leak rate correlations.

86-5049264-00 Page 63 of 96 5.1 Conditional Probability of Burst For the case of the burst pressure versus voltage correlation, the Addendum 5 database contained in Ref. 8, as modified by the addition of the DCPP pulled tubes meets all GL 95-05 requirements and was used in both the as-found calculations and the EOC-13 projections.

The correlation parameters were taken from Reference 20 and are shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Burst Pressure vs. Bobbin Amplitude Correlation PB = a, + a, log(Volts)

Parameter lAddendum 5 + DCPP 2R1 1 P t Database Intercept, a.

7.48475 Slope, a,

-2.39502 r

79.6 %

Std. Dev., aErmr 0.88248 Mean Log(V) 0.306657 SS of Log(V) 51.4665 N (data pairs) 99 Structural Limit (2560 psi) (1) 7.54 V Structural Limit (2405 psi) 9.45 V p Value for a, (2) 1.4-1035 Reference aYf 68.78 ksi (3)

Notes:

The number of significant figures reported simply corresponds to the output from the calculation code and does not represent true engineering significance.

(1) Values reported correspond applying a safety factor of 1.4 on the differential pressure associated with a postulated SLB event.

(2) Numerical values are reported only to compare the calculated result to a criterion value of 0.05. For such small values the relative change is statistically meaningless.

(3) This is the flow stress value to which all data was normalized prior to performing the regression analysis.

86-5049264-00 Page 64 of 96 5.2 Probability of Leak and Conditional Leak Rate Reference 8 presents the results of the regression analysis for the voltage-dependent leak rate correlation using the Addendum 5 leak rate database for 7/8" tubes. It should be noted that, for the 2405 psi delta pressure, the one-sided p-value for the slope parameter in the Addendum 5 voltage dependent leak rate correlation is 2.3% which meets the 5% threshold for an acceptable correlation specified in Generic Letter 95-05. Additionally, when adding the DCPP-2 data to the database, the Addendum 5+ correlation is improved with the new p-value at 1.0%. FANP computer simulations included the slope sampling method for the leak rate correlation that is presented in Reference 8.

The methodology used in the calculation of these parameters is consistent with NRC criteria in Reference 2. The probability of leak and leak rate correlation parameters used in the CM and OA were taken from Reference 20 and are shown in Tables 5-2 and 5-3.

Table 5-2: Probability of Leak Correlation Pr(Leak) = 1+e-[bi+b2 log(Volts)]

Addendum 5 + DCPP 2R1 1 Parameter Database Intercept, b1

-5.0503 Slope, b2 7.4342 V11 (l) 1.3299 V12

-1.7253 V22 2.6861 DoF V) 115 Deviance 31.47 Pearson SD 0.594 MSE 0.274 Notes:

1) Parameters V4 are elements of the covariance matrix of the coefficients, bi of the regression equation.

2) Degrees of freedom.

86-5049264-00 Page 65 of 96 Table 5-3: Leak Rate vs. Bobbin Amplitude Correlation (2405 psi)

Q = 1 0[b3+b4 log(Volts)]

Parameter lAddendum 5 + DCPP 2R1 1 Paramter jDatabase Intercept, b3

-0.664317 Slope, b4 1.106101 Index of Deter., r2 17.5%

Std. Error 0.772757 Mean of Log(Q) 0.55024 Std. Dev. of Log(Q) 0.83625 p Value for b4 1.0%

Data Pairs, N 31 Mean of Log(V) 1.09805 SS of Log(V) 2.99300 Note: The number of significant figures reported simply corresponds to the output from the calculation code and does not represent true engineering significance.

5.3 Summary of Destructive Examination Results 1R12 Pulled Tube During 1 R1 2, sections of one tube were removed from SG 1 -1 (R20C54). This tube contained confirmed ODSCC indications at I H that was selected to be leak and burst tested in order to be added to the Ref. 8 databases. Another section of this tube had a dent signal only (DNT) in the region of 2H (no degradation was detected with either bobbin or rotating coils during the in-generator eddy current testing). This section was also leak and burst tested.

The tube removed from DCPP-1 was sent to Lynchburg for destructive examination and laboratory testing. Room temperature leak rate tests were performed on the 1 H region and 2H region of the tube with FANP in-situ pressure testing equipment. Room temperature testing was performed in accordance with EPRI Guidelines. The 1 H region leaked slightly at SLB conditions. In order to evaluate ligament tearing at SLB conditions, the 1 H leak test was terminated at SLB differential pressure, the crack faces were then oxidized, and then the test was resumed for room temperature burst testing. A freespan section was tensile tested to obtain material properties for the tube. Ref. 21 contains the detailed results of all tests performed on the samples.

86-5049264-00 Page 66 of 96 Table 5-4 summarizes the results of the NDE performed on the area of interest in the pulled tube specimen.

Table 5-4: Bobbin and Plus Point Eddy Current Inspection Results Summary Bobbin Data Initial Exam Post Tube Pull In Lab Tube Location in -

(P latform]

Sample No.

SG Call Voltsl Phase Call Volts Phase Call Volts Phase R20C54 01H + 0.13" DOS 5.60 69 DOS 6.71 69 DOS 6.83 68 R20C54 02H + 0.11 DNT 3.27 175 DNT 1.11 168 DNT 1.29 170 Plus Point Data (re-review following destructive exam - Reference 14) 1H + 0.04 SAI#1 3.99 61 SAI#1 4.61 53 SAI/90%

4.48 54 R20C54 1 H + 0.04" SAI #2 0.27 94 SAI#2 0.23 102 SAI/73%

0.20 79 1H + 0.11' SAI #3 0.11 87 SAI#3 0.10 125 SAI/68%

0.13 85 R20C54 02H NDD N/A N/A SVI 0.18 112 SVI 0.15 110 The results of the room temperature leak and burst testing are listed in Table 5-5 below.

Based on the evaluation of the leak and burst results, the pulled tube from 1 R12 (R20C54 at 01 H) was prototypical.of those contained in the database and justify the continued use of the voltage-based ARC for DCPP Unit 1.

Table 5-5: Pulled Tube Burst and Leak Test Results Approximate Leak Rate at Bobbin Yield +

Burst SLB l

Tube Amplitude Ultimate Pressure (2405 psi)

Section (Volts)

(ksi)

(gpm)

R20C54 NDD 158.67 11.695 0

(freespan)

DD R20C54-1 H 5.6 158.67 5.819 0.002 R20C54-2H 3.27 DNT 158.67 10.428 0

86-5049264-00 Page 67 of 96 6.0 Benchmarking of EOC-12 Conditions This section provides comparisons of the as-found EOC-12 voltages, POBs, and leak rates to the projected results using 0.6 POD and DCPP POPCD from 5 inspections.

Table 6-1 provides a comparison of the projected EOC-12 conditions using the constant POD of 0.6 to the as-found conditions. This table shows the voltage distributions as well as the POB and leak rate results. The projected EOC-12 results were not taken from the 1 R1 1 90-Day Report (Ref. 7); rather, the SG 1-1 projections were based on results calculated in Case 4 of Table 3-5 of FANP Document 86-5039942-00 (Ref. 19) submitted to NRC in DCL-04-019 dated March 16, 2004. The SG 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 projections were also recalculated based on enhanced growth distribution development guidelines described in Reference 25. The projection for SG 1-1 utilized a voltage dependent growth distribution that was supplemented with data from SG 2-4 Cycle 10. SGs 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 used a composite Cycle 11 voltage dependent growth distribution. The results of these calculations are provided in Table 6-1.

Figures 6-1 through 6-4 show the projected and as-found voltage distributions graphically. As expected, the 0.6 POD overestimates the number of indications greater than 1 volt. The POB and leak rate results were overpredicted in SGs 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3. In SG 1-4, the POB and leak rate were slightly underpredicted resulting from the very small underprediction in the number of >2 volt flaws (5.87 predicted versus 6 found).

For comparison purposes, the EOC-12 projections were recalculated using the POPCD methodology, including use of extreme growth, and were submitted in Table 4 of Reference

25. The results are also captured in Table 6-2 of this report. The POPCD included all DCPP Units 1 and 2 data through 2R1 1. The growth distributions used for the POPCD methodology were the same as that used for the 0.6 POD method, with the exception that the extreme growth method was added. As shown in Table 6-2, the POBs for SG 1-1 and SG 1-4 were slightly underestimated by 6.0 x 10-5 and 4.4 x 10'5, respectively. However, these underpredictions don't meet the definition for a significant underprediction using POPCD as defined in Reference 26. The leak rate for SG 1-4 was also slightly underpredicted by 0.04 gpm. Again, this negligible underprediction does not meet the level of significance as defined in Reference 26. (Reference 26 defines a significant underprediction of the POB as 10% of the reporting threshold or an order of magnitude, and a significant underprediction of the leak rate is defined as 0.5 gpm or an order of magnitude.) Table 6-2 also shows that the total number of indications was overpredicted in all cases using the site-specific POPCD.

In conclusion, the projections using both the 0.6 POD and the DCPP POPCD correlation provided reasonable results relative to the as-found conditions. As discussed above, the cases that were underpredicted were only slightly underpredicted. Therefore, no adjustments to either of the methodologies are warranted at this time.

86-5049264-00 Page 68 of 96 Table 6-1: As-found EOC-12 vs. Projected EOC-12 Conditions Using 0.6 POD Voltage SG 1-1 SG 1-2 SG 1-3 SG 1-4 Bin As-Found Projected As-Found Projected As-Found Projected As-Found Projected 0.1 2

0.13 0

0.26 0

0.05 0

0.11 0.2 16 3.83 10 3.29 3

1.15 5

2.17 0.3 73 16.62 30 9.49 23 4.45 15 5.27 0.4 115 35.46 54 22.28 30 10.62 23 11.35 0.5 78 60.93 71 45.33 36 19.6 43 18.21 0.6 74 83.6 73 71.07 24 28.09 19 23.4 0.7 64 82.22 45 76.37 24 28.76 15 22.92 0.8 35 72.72 48 68.37 12 25.08 9

18.56 0.9 36 56.69 26 56.73 10 20.77 11 14.54 1

42 44.78 16 45.19 12 17.3 7

10.68 1.1 20 36.54 17 34.86 11 14.56 5

7.82 1.2 18 33.31 12 29.05 4

13.21 3

6.26 1.3 16 28.69 8

24.09 6

11.91 8

5.04 1.4 7

22.29 9

19.64 4

10.31 2

4 1.5 16 17.81 3

15.88 4

8.64 0

3.14 1.6 2

14.49 2

12.73 3

7.19 1

2.53 1.7 4

11.44 1

10.09 3

6.04 0

2.12 1.8 3

8.72 2

7.8 6

5.14 0

1.82 1.9 3

6.58 3

5.98 2

4.4 0

1.57 2

2 4.84 0

4.39 0

3.73 0

1.31 2.1 9

3.78 1

3.26 1

3.11 1

1.09 2.2 0

3.34 0

2.56 1

2.6 1

0.92 2.3 5

2.71 0

2.05 0

2.13 0

0.78 2.4 1

2.2 2

1.68 3

1.72 0

0.66 2.5 0

2.18 1

1.42 0

1.37 0

0.55 2.6 0

1.9 2

1.13 0

1.06 2

OA4 2.7 1

1.45 0

0.84 0

0.79 0

0.33 2.8 1

1.12 0

0.63 0

0.59 0

0.24 2.9 0

0.96 0

0.47 1

0.44 0

0.18 3

0 0.89 0

0.36 0

0.32 0

0.13 3.5 4

5.10 1

1.43 0

0.81 0

0.40 4

0 3.33 1

OA9 0

0.29 2

0.12 4.5 2

2.77 1

0.11 0

0.07 0

0.02 5

0 1.19 0

0.02 0

0.03 0

0.01 5.5 1

1.10 0

0.01 0

0.00 0

0.00 6

2 1.87 0

0.00 0

0.00 6.5 1

1.40 0

0.00 0

0.00 7

0 0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00

>7 0

0.00 0

0.00 Total 653 679.00 439 579.33 223 256.33 172 168.66

<=1 535 456.98 373 398.38 174 155.87 147 127.21

>1 118 222.01 66 180.96 49 100.47 25 41.48

>2 27 37.30 9

16.45 6

15.34 6

5.87

>5 4

4.38 0

0.01 0

0.00 0

0.00 POB 1.43E-03 1.88E-03 2.14E-04 2.23E-04 7.45E-05 1.44E-04 1.41E-04 8.37E-05 Leak Rate 0.96 1.47 0.31 0.54 0.16 l

0.34 0.15 0.14

86-5049264-00 Page 69 of 96 Table 6-2: As-found EOC-12 vs. Projected EOC-12 Conditions Using DCPP POPCD and Extreme Growth Method Voltage SG 1-1 SG 1-2 SG 1-3 SG 1-4 Bin As-Found Projected As-Found Projected As-Found Projected As-Found Projected 0.1 2

0.81 0

16.05 0

0.28 0

0.64 0.2 16 17.99 10 32.63 3

5.72 5

12.07 0.3 73 48.02 30 55.64 23 13.65 15 20.02 0.4 115 82.49 54 75.51 30 25.30 23 33.70 0.5 78 119.51 71 89.89 36 36.22 43 39.91 0.6 74 135.33 73 105.90 24 41.24 19 37.80 0.7 64 116.40 45 97.37 24 37.66 15 33.65 0.8 35 91.58 48 77.87 12 29.41 9

23.04 0.9 36 63.54 26 58.79 10 21.76 11 16.28 1

42 45.79 16 43.22 12 16.32 7

10.82 1.1 20 34.61 17 31.11 11 12.53 5

7.27 1.2 18 30.19 12 24.78 4

10.76 3

5.59 1.3 16 24.99 8

19.78 6

9.34 8

4.27 1.4 7

18.36 9

15.60 4

7.82 2

3.28 1.5 16 14.16 3

12.27 4

6.40 0

2A7 1.6 2

11.25 2

9.60 3

5.21 1

1.94 1.7 4

8.69 1

7.46 3

4.31 0

1.57 1.8 3

6.50 2

5.66 6

3.59 0

1.31 1.9 3

4.83 3

4.23 2

3.02 0

1.10 2

2 3.43 0

2.98 0

2.51 0

0.89 2.1 9

2.64 1

2.11 1

2.06 1

0.71 2.2 0

2.38 0

1.62 1

1.70 1

0.60 2.3 5

1.89 0

1.26 0

1.38 0

0.50 2.4 1

1.50 2

1.01 3

1.10 0

0.41 2.5 0

1.55 1

0.84 0

0.87 0

0.34 2.6 0

1.35 2

0.63 0

0.66 2

0.26 2.7 1

0.97 0

0.42 0

0.49 0

0.18 2.8 1

0.70 0

0.27 0

0.35 0

0.13 2.9 0

0.57 0

0.18 1

0.26 0

0.09 3

0 0.52 0

0.12 0

0.18 0

0.06 3.5 4

3.42 1

0.77 0

0.51 0

0.23 4

0 2.02 1

0.26 0

0.19 2

0.07 4.5 2

1.63 1

0.05 0

0.01 5

0 0.66 0

0.01 0

0.02 0

0.01 5.5 1

0.60 0

0.00 0

0.00 6

2 1.15 0

0.00 0

0.00 6.5 1

0.60 0

0.00 0

0.00 7

0 0.10 0

0.00 0

0.00

>7 0

0.03 0

0.02 0

0.01 0

0.01 Total 653 902.73 439 795.91 223 302.85 172 261.19

<=1 535 721.45 373 652.87 174 227.56 147 227.92

>1 118 181.28 66 143.05 49 75.29 25 33.27

>2 27 24.28 9

9.57 6

9.82 6

3.59

>5 4

2.48 0

0.02 0

0.01 0

0.01 POB 1A3E-03 1.37E-03 2.14E-04 2.96E-04 7.45E-05 2.04E-04 1.41 E-04 9.73E-05 Leak Rate 0.96 1.03 0.31 0.41 0.16 0.25 0.15 0.11

86-5049264-00 Page 70 of 96 Figure 6-1: As-found SG 1-1 vs Projected Voltage Distributions from I RI1 revised OA (0.6 POD)

EOC-12 As-Found vs. Projected Voltage Distributions DCPP-1 SG 1-1 150 125 C 100 0

1U U

75-0

.0E z

50 25 -

0 n

As-Found O Projected (0.6 POD)-

1 I ClllD.fllxti t,-. -

-irn ---

o o o o o o o o o

" r

.4.

.. o

^

0 a 00a0 00000 Volts M.

Bobbin Volts Figure 6-2: As-found SG 1-2 vs Projected Voltage Distributions from 1 RII revised OA (0.6 POD)

EOC-12 As-Found vs. Projected Voltage Distributions DCPP-1 SG 1-2

150, 125 e 100 C

2 75 U

0

.0 E

z 50 25 0

_~ n n o r o.

r n e~.

o 0 N _ n.

.W.

n n Z n..

e o

oU o o

o o

oU ol N

C N

C C

C UB Ub Volts Bobbin Volts

86-5049264-00 Page 71 of 96 Figure 6-3: As-found SG 1-3 vs Projected Voltage Distributions from I RI I revised OA (0.6 POD)

EOC-12 As-Found vs. Projected Voltage Distributions DCPP-l SGI1.3 50 40 C1 0

a=30 0

0020 z

IFs ioun 10+-

I I

Pin hL wan, &--n L I 0

Nfl.

a..-

a.

Nnt Cot...

NNNWVCt.

COfi C

fi a

nasa...-

Bobbin Volts Figure 6-4: As-found SG 1-4 vs Projected Voltage Distributions from I RI I revised OA (0.6 POD)

EOC-12 As-Found vs. Projected Voltage Distributions DCPP-1 SG 1-4 so y 1

40 a1 C

0=30 aU 0

20 z

10 0

I IIII f l a -

-t-..

N N..

m.

N b f l

m f a

t o Bobbin Volts

86-5049264-00 Page 72 of 96 7.0 EOC-13 Projections for Probability of Burst and Leak Rate This section provides the results of the EOC-13 POB and leak rate projections. FANP uses Monte Carlo codes, as described in Refs. 4 and 5, to provide the burst and leak rate analysis simulations. These evaluations are based on the methods in Ref. 6 (for burst) and the new slope sampling method for calculating the leak rate as defined in Section 9 of Ref. 8.

7.1 Inputs for Calculations Most of the inputs required for the POB and leak rate calculations have been described in other sections of this document. Table 7-1 provides a summary of the inputs required and the corresponding section(s) or table(s) that provide these data. The inputs that have not been previously discussed are provided in this section.

Table 7-1: Jnputs for EOC-13 POB and Leak Rate Projections Input Description Section or Table Reference Comments BOC Voltage Distribution Table 3-3 Repaired Voltage Distribution Table 3-3 NDE Uncertainties Section 3.5; Table 3-17 POD Section 7.1 0.6 POD from GL 95-05 Growth Section 3.2; Table 3-12 Cycle Length Section 7.1 1.36 EFPY Tube Integrity Correlations Tables 5-1 through 57 3 Addendum 5 plus 2R1 1 tube T u b e I n t g ri y

_ _ _p u ll Material Properties Section 7.1

86-5049264-00 Page 73 of 96 POD As discussed previously, PG&E currently has a submittal under NRC review to allow the use of a voltage dependent probability of prior cycle detection (POPCD). Since this review has not been completed, the results in this section will use the constant POD of 0.6 as specified in GL 95-05. The probability of detection is used to account for the detection capability of the bobbin coil. The Monte Carlo codes calculate an assumed number of indications being returned to service at BOC-13 based on the following formula.

NsocI3 = NEoCI2 N80CI-

=

-rejpaired POD where:

Number of bobbin indications being returned to service NBOCl3, "

for the next operating cycle Number of bobbin indications reported in the current NEocl2 winspection POD Probability of Detection Number of bobbin indications repaired after the last Nrepaired

=

cycle Material Properties Since the burst pressure for a given flaw varies with the material properties of the tube, the material properties of the tubes must be included as an input into the POB program. This data is obtained from Reference 6. The values used for the EOC-1 3 projections were taken directly from Reference 6 and were a mean flow stress of 68.78 ksi and a standard deviation of the flow stress of 3.1725 ksi.

Cycle Length The estimated cycle length for Unit 1 Cycle 13 is 1.36 EFPY. This value was used in all projections for EOC-13 conditions.

7.2 Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distributions The EOC-13 voltage distributions are obtained by applying a Monte Carlo sampling process to the BOC-13 voltages. This process randomly assigns NDE uncertainty values and a growth value to each of the BOC-13 indications. The EOC-13 voltage distributions are then used to calculate a leak rate and probability of tube burst. Section 3.2 provides information on the growth distributions that were used in the analyses. Table 7-2 and Figures 7-1 through 7-4 provide the projected EOC-13 voltage distributions.

86-5049264-00 Page 74 of 96 Table 7-2: Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distributions (0.6 POD)

Voltage EOC -13 Projected Distributions with 0.6 POD VDG Bin SGI I SG12 l

SG13 l

SG14

-=.11 0.35 0.10 0.03 0.05 0.2 3.50 2.35 0.96 1.19 0.3 16.48 11.01 5.71 5.54 0.4 47.65 28.54 17.04 14.32 0.5 86.44 54.34 29.03 25.68 0.6 112.58 78.15 38.46 36.44 0.7 112.72 83.28 37.34 35.08 0.8 98.47 78.05 32.64 28.97 0.9 82.97 68.75 27.48 22.61 1

68.33 56.96 22.43 18.10 1.1 58.68 45.51 17.94 14.54 1.2 49.90 34.68 14.24 11.27 1.3 39.95 26.23 11.22 8.62 tA 31.88 20.40 9.11 6.81

.5 25.45 16.87 7.99 5.83 1.6 19.82 14.38 7.33 5.12 1.7 15.85 12.13 6.66 4.42 1.8 14.36 10.28 6.08 3.76 1.9 12.89 8.47 5.54 3.01 2

11.05 7.03 5.11 2.33 2.1 9.78 6.03 4.76 1.89 2.2 9.41 5.31 4.38 1.65 2.3 9.46 4.48 3.84 1A3

2.

9.33 3.67 3.23 1.18 2.5 8.85 3.00 2.70 0.96 2.6 8.31 2.61 2.33 0.83 2.7 7.50 2.31 2.04 0.74 2.8 6.70 2.08 1.79 0.68 2.9 6.43 1.97 1.59 0.66 3

5.94 1.77 1.39 0.61 3.1 5.16 1.54 1.19 0.54 3.2 4.45 1.27 0.99 0.47 3.3 3.78 1.00 0.81 0.38 3.4 3.06 0.80 0.67 0.30 3.5 2.39 0.67 0.57 0.26 3.6 1.85 0.58 0.48 0.23 3.7 1.44 0.53 0.42 0.23 3.8 1.13 0.50 0.37 0.22 3.9 0.98 0.45 0.31 0.21 4

1.03 0.38 0.25 0.19 4.1 1.12 0.31 0.20 0.17 4.2 1.09 0.26 0.16 0.14 4.3 0.96 0.21 0.13 0.12 4.4 0.80 0.19 0.11 0.11 4.5 0.65 0.21 0.11 0.11 4.6 0.64 0.30 0.16 0.13 4.7 0.90 0.42 0.21 0.17 4.8 1.43 0.48 0.24 0.20 4.9 1.90 0.44 0.22 0.20 5

2.00 0.36 0.20 0.16 5.1 1.80 0.27 0.17 0.12 5.2 1.50 0.21 0.15 0.08 5.3 1.18 0.19 0.16 0.06 5.4 0.92 0.21 0.17 0.07 5.5 0.77 0.22 0.16 0.08 5.6 0.81 0.20 0.14 0.08 5.7 0.97 0.16 0.11 0.06 5.8 1.02 0.12 0.09 0.05 5.9 0.94 0.09 0.07 0.03 6

0.81 0.07 0.06 0.02 7

3.32 0.23 0.19 0.09 8

0.91 0.05 0.01 0.03 9

0.35 0.01 0.00 0.01 10 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00

>10 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1043.33 T

703.67 J

339.66 J

269.67

86-5049264-00 Page 75 of 96 Figure 7-1: SG 1-1 EOC-13 Projected Voltage Distributions Using 0.6 POD Voltage Distribution Projected at EOC-13 for SG 1-1 Using 0.6 POD 12U.

C1 C

01 E

2 80-

~

60

~

40 20

--- - -- - - -fln i11 0.Il I

I

__~H nn n~,

0 00 0

00 e e M _

N q

1 e

1 a o o o o o e o o "b N b

V l t Bobbin Volts S

l eCC P.CC 0

e A

eo Figure 7-2: SG 1-2 EOC-13 Projected Voltage Distributions Using 0.6 POD Voltage Distribution Projected at EOC-13 for SG 1-2 Using 0.6 POD 0

2 0I

.0 E

2 80-60

~

40

~

20

0.

~

.~

~~ PH 0n nn a

n ln in rC r

.CCO 0 V 0

0 0

b V

e e

o o b i n V t s e Pt e G n e

e e e r a 0 o o

_ N N

N

> N Bobbin Volts

86-5049264-00 Page 76 of 96 Figure 7-3: SG 1-3 EOC-13 Projected Voltage Distributions Using 0.6 POD Voltage Distribution Projected at EOC413 for SG 1.3 Using 0.6 POD 120 100 8o 0

-60 0z 40 20 o

0l l. lr n n n n n n n r, n Bobbin Volts Figure 7-4: SG 1-4 EOC-13 Projected Voltage Distributions Using 0.6 POD Voltage Distribution Projected at EOC-13 for SG 1-4 Using 0.6 POD 120 100 so 0C C

60 E

O O

N N

N t

B i

N N V o Bobbin Volts

86-5049264-00 Page 77 of 96 7.3 Projected Tube Burst Probability and Leak Rate for EOC-13 Calculations to predict SLB leak rate and tube burst probability for each steam generator in DCPP Unit 1 at the projected EOC-13 conditions were performed using the NRC-required constant POD of 0.6. As described in Section 3.2, voltage dependent growth was used for all steam generators. SG 1-1 used a SG-specific growth distribution based on the Cycle 12 growth results. The other steam generators used a composite Cycle 12 growth distribution.

Both of the growth distributions used for these calculations conservatively utilized a "delta volts adjustment" as discussed in Section 3.2, even though this adjustment is committed to be used by DCPP only in conjunction with POPCD. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 7-3. As shown in Table 7-3, even with the use of the conservative constant POD of 0.6, all of the results are below the acceptance criteria.

Table 7-3: Projected Leak Rate and Burst Probability at EOC-13 POD 0.6 VDG SLB Leak Projected Probability of Burst Rate Steam Number of 95% UCL Generator Indication.

at EOC-13 Best Estimate (1 or More (gpm) at__EOC_13_

Failures)

SG 1-1 1043 6.46 x 10 3 6.65 x 10 3 4.32 SG 1-2 704 1.14 x 10 3 1.22 x 10 3 1.33 SG 1-3 340 7.68 x 10 4 8.36 x 10 4 0.89 SG 1-4 270 4.52 x 10 4 5.05 x 10 4 0.51 Reporting Threshold 1.0 x 10 2 10.5

86-5049264-00 Page 78 of 96 8.0 Probability of Prior Cycle Detection and EOC-13 Projections Using DCPP POPCD As mentioned earlier, DCPP currently has a submittal under NRC review that would allow the use of a voltage dependent Probability of Prior Cycle Detection (POPCD) in their operational assessment calculations. This submittal has not yet been approved. However, an update of the DCPP POPCD correlation that includes the 1 RI 1 POPCD results, based on 1 RI 2 inspections, is being provided in this document. In addition, POB and leak rate calculations which use the updated POPCD correlation and methods are also being provided in this section. The POB and leak rate results using POPCD are provided for information only and will be used to benchmark the new methodology when the 1 RI 3 inspection results become available.

8.1 Updated DCPP POPCD Correlation The POPCD method, which is based on results from actual field inspections, allows the POD to approach 1.0 at bobbin voltages above 1.6 volts (i.e., without applying uncertainties or confidence levels). This larger POD realistically drops the detection uncertainty that is added for the larger volt flaws, thereby lowering the number of these larger indications in the voltage distribution. Reference 10 provided the DCPP-specific correlation through 2R11 (five inspections). The data from Reference 10 has since been updated to include the 1R12 results, also referred to as the 1 RI 1 POPCD data. Tables 8-1 and 8-2 provide the 1 RI1 and composite POPCD data, respectively. The composite POPCD includes results from six inspections (2R8, 1 R9, 2R9, 1 RI0, 2R1 0, and 1 RI 1). Tables 8-3 and 8-4 provide the POPCD results in a matrix format requested by the NRC. Table 8-3 contains the 1 RI 1 POPCD data and Table 8-4 contains the updated composite POPCD data. Table 8-5 provides the correlation parameters for the composite data set.

Figure 8-1 provides a comparison of the new correlation to the previous correlation, along with the Unit 1 Cycle 12 specific correlation. The POPCD has improved over the entire range of potential voltages. Table 8-6 provides a direct comparison of the best estimates of the previous and current POPCD values up through 10 volts.

LAR 04-01 (Reference 16) indicated that the largest undetected voltage in the DCPP POPCD database (through 5 inspections) is less than 1.5 volts. With the addition of the 61h inspection, the largest undetected prior cycle indication is 1.56 volts (SG 12 R22C54 1 H). This intersection had a 1.77 volt DOS in 1 Ri 2 and was NDD in the prior cycle based on 1 RI 1 lookback analysis. 1.56 volts is calculated as 1.77 volts less the average voltage growth rate over Cycle 12. The subtraction of the average growth is expected to yield a more conservative voltage estimate for the prior cycle undetected indication.

86-5049264-00 Page 79 of 96 8.2 Input to Industry POPCD Database Tables 8-7 and 8-8 provide the 1 R11 and the composite POPCD results in the EPRI format.

The EPRI recommended format differs slightly from the DCPP format in that DCPP treats EOCn RPC NDD indications as no detection as requested by the NRC.(listed in Column G of Table 8-1 and Table 8-2), whereas EPRI treats these as detection. The data in Tables 8-7 and 8-8 will be incorporated into the next addendum of the EPRI ODSCC Database Report.

8.3 NRC Requested Information for POPCD in 90-Day Report LAR 04-01, as supplemented by Reference 25, provides a summary of the 90 day reporting requirements if POPCD is implemented. Even though POPCD was not implemented for Unit 1 Cycle 13, PG&E is providing this reporting information in support of NRC approval of LAR 04-01.

Upon implementation of POPCD, if the EOC conditional MSLB burst probability, the projected MSLB leak rate, or the number of indications are underpredicted by the previous cycle operational assessment, the following guidelines will be applied to assess the need for methods adjustments:

The probable causes for the underpredictions will be assessed and documented in the 90-day report. If the underpredictions are significant relative to the burst probability reporting threshold or site specific allowable leak rate, an assessment must be made of the potential need to revise the ARC analysis methods, and this assessment must be documented in the ARC 90-day report. A significant underprediction of burst probability is defined as 10 percent of the reporting threshold, i.e., 0.001. A significant underprediction of MSLB leak rate is defined as 0.5gpm. A method assessment will also be made forsmallerburst

probabilities (e.g., underpredicted byless than 0.001) orleakrates (e.g., underpredicted by less than 0.5 gpm) if the condition monitoring results are underpredicted by an order of magnitude.

An assessment will also be made for significant underestimates of the number of indications based on the following criterion. If the total number of as-found indications is underestimated by greater than 15 percent, a methods assessment will be performed to determine the cause and corrective actions will be proposed in the 90-day report. The evaluation will include an assessment of the need to increase the number of predicted low voltage indications at the BOC to determine the effect on EOC projections. An underestimate of the less than 1 volt population when accompanied by an increase in the population above I volt may be partially attributable to conservative growth rates which would increase the population above about 1 volt.

Note: Growth rates will typically be the first potential cause examined for ARC underpredictions. Potential POD effects as the cause for underpredictions will also be assessed if the probable cause for the low predictions is a larger than anticipated undetected indication or due to cumulative numbers of indications above about I volt. The

86-5049264-00 Page 80 of 96 90-day report will document any recommended changes to POD or growth methodology indicated by the assessments.

PG&E Reporting and Assessment of Potential Underpredictions: As discussed in Section 6, new EOC-12 projections were performed in order to benchmark the POPCD and extreme growth methods. As shown in Table 6-2, the POBs for SG 1-1 and SG 1-4 were slightly underestimated. However, these underpredictions don't meet the definition for a significant underprediction using POPCD as defined above. The leak rate for SG 1-4 was also slightly underpredicted. Again, this underprediction does not meet the level of significance as defined above. Table 6-2 also shows that the total number of indications was overpredicted in all cases using the site-specific POPCD.

The composite multi-cycle POPCD data will be updated in the 90-day report, along with the associated POPCD distribution curve and the POPCD method regression parameters, to include data from the just completed cycle. A separate POPCD data table and POPCD distribution curve will also be provided to include only data from the just completed cycle.

PG&E Reporting: Tables 8-1 and 8-2 provide the DCPP POPCD data tables from the just completed cycle and composite multi cycles, respectively. Figure 8-1 provides the POPCD distribution curves for just completed cycle and composite multi cycles. Table 8-4 provides the POPCD log logistic regression parameters for the updated composite multi cycles.

The composite multi-cycle POPCD matrix data will be updated ir the 90-day report to include data from the just completed cycle. Separate POPCD matrix data tables will also be provided to include only data from the just completed cycle.

PG&E Reporting: Table 8-3 provides the POPCD matrix table including data from only the just completed cycle, and Table 8-4 provides the composite multi-cycle POPCD matrix table.

To assess the POPCD method for potential changes over time, the 90-day report will compare the multi-cycle POPCD distribution applied for the last operational assessment with the POPCD distribution obtained for only the last operating cycle. Differences in the two POPCD distributions will be assessed relative to the potential for significant changes in detection capability.

PG&E Reporting: Figure 8-1 shows the previous POPCD curve that was used for the benchmarking calculations performed for Section 6 of this document. This figure also shows the POPCD curves for the just completed cycle and for the updated composite dataset. The 1 R11 POPCD correlation (based on the 1 R12 inspection results) is higher than the previous composite POPCD over the entire range of expected voltages. Therefore, the updated composite POPCD curve is also improved over the entire range of expected voltages.

For RPC confirmed indications at EOCn that are RPC NDD at EOCn+1, an assessment is required for the cause of the "disappearing flaws" if the Plus Point voltage is greater than 0.5 volt. If there are a significant number of occurrences of these "disappearing flaws", the cause will be evaluated independent of the Plus Point voltage. (Note: In support of this evaluation, an RPC inspection is required at EOCn+1 for RPC confirmed indications at EOCn(either bobbin detected or bobbin NDD) that are bobbin NDD at EOCn+1. This

86-5049264-00 Page 81 of 96 inspection is necessary to ensure that all known ODSCC indications are included in the condition monitoring and operational assessments as well as properly categorized for the POPCD method evaluation.)

PG&E Reporting: During the 1R12 inspection, there was only one previously reported RPC confirmed ODSCC indication that was not detected with Plus Point in 1R12 (SG 1-2 R7C20 2H). The previous Plus Point voltage for this flaw was only 0.09v and the previous bobbin voltage was 0.35v. Because the Plus Point voltage was less than 0.5 volt, and there was only one occurrence, no assessment is required in the 90 day report.

During the 1R12 inspection, there were also four previously confirmed DOS indications that were reported as bobbin INRs (Indication Not Reportable) during 1R12. All four of these locations were Plus Point inspected in 1 R12 as committed to the NRC and confirmed as axial ODSCC. These four locations were, therefore, treated as AONDBs in the analyses for this report.

8.4 EOC-13 Projections Using Updated POPCD Correlation This section provides the EOC-13 projections using the updated POPCD correlation. These projections include the EOC-13 voltage distributions as well as the POB and leak rate results.

These calculations also include the application of a new method of accounting for the potential for an extreme growth rate, submitted in NEI letter to NRC, "Revision to ODSCC ARC Task -

-Extreme Values of ODSCC Growth," July 9, 2004 (Ref. 22; note - the July 9 report replaced the earlier Ref. 24 June 2 report). These results are provided for information only and will be used to benchmark the new methodologies when the EOC-13 results become available. The "calculations of record' use the constant POD of 0.6 and are provided in Section 7 of this report.

The BOC voltage distributions and the normal growth distributions used in these calculations are the same as those used for the calculations using the constant 0.6 POD. See Section 7 for information on these inputs. For the calculations using the POPCD and extreme growth methods, however, an additional input is required that defines the extreme growth distribution.

The inputs for the extreme growth distribution include the number of extreme growths recorded across the industry for 7/8" plants, the total number of growth values recorded across the industry, and the growth rates for the extremes.

Table 3 in Enclosure 1 of Reference 22 contains a list of industry extreme growths for both %" and 7/" plants. This table shows the industry growth values normalized to temperatures of 600F, 603F, 610F, and 620F.

The table includes data through Spring 2004 outages, including 1R12. Since Diablo Canyon Unit 1 operates at 604F, the growth values used for these calculations were adjusted for a temperature of 604F. This adjustment was done by linearly interpolating between the 603F and 610F values as permitted in Enclosure 1 of Reference 22. These extreme growth values are shown in Table 8-9.

Table 8-10 provides the projected EOC-13 voltage distributions for all four steam generators using the POPCD and extreme growth methods. The projected EOC-13 voltages are also provided graphically in Figures 8-2 through 8-5. The projected EOC-13 POB and leak rate results are provided in Table 8-11, and are within the acceptance criteria.

86-5049264-00 Page 82 of 96 Table 8-1: 1RII POPCD Results Coun I

A I

B l

C I

D I

E I

F a

I H

l I

J I

K DCPP Specific POPCD Data Table De-tlon at EDC.

I No Ddotn dt EOCn (Ne Indleotnes)

EOC. Bobbin Ind RPCC EOC. Bobbin Ind Not d EDC N

EOC_ Bobbin RPC I

Now EOC_ Bobbin Not RPC Ind Found On y by RPC at EOC.

EOC. RPC NDD Bobbin ExCkwd rn Toteit for POPCD R1 / RDD _fll BDD I RDD B l

BDDbfn CI nDD R1 d at EOCn BND wh4. R C D l RDD BhDl w4lo.

RCO _ BDD C n RCO BND.4 RFC C

E i RDD B

ID Otf RN.DDwo C

Evaluation ow rw---unw DW u

-rw cuwn D--

nr wnuDU_

r

_u nr I" -

I nw volt"g Bin BDD I RDD _ BND I RDD BO wh RPC BODD I RDD ODD wAo RPC _

BND I RW BODD I RDD _ BDD wh RA C BI win RPE _

Fd rt EOcn BND I RDD -*w^D RDD BND I RDD -BOw w/o RPC BND I RND -w00 I ROD NDI RND BO wdo RPC BND IRDD -

BNDIRDD BND IRND BNDIRDO BND I RODD Pggd d EOCn BDD I RND -* BW0IRDD BDDI RND -

BNODI RM Al BND wh RPC d ECCn-t 00DlNDgled

I MO.n Dedecte dt EOCn No PIPCO for Detoetton VoitgS. Bin at EOCn Note "

Notz I) POPCD for e rvoege bin cai.d

" (Detection EOCnfY(Detadion of EOCmn No Ddecion of EOCn By horn. POPCD o (A.BoC)Y(AoBoC.D.E-F.

2) EDCn RPC NOD bobbin licatinno or treted s new,dlmtinno per NRC reet

3) Incidn caktbtions ad EOCn pngged at EOCn end new hWdWcaton.

d EOCnt, not repted in tt bobbin h pecibon. end found only by RPC hbopedlion o dedtt, erixed rolduaa or other rmeont for Iw RPC inspection.

4) B

OOBobndetctdicbin:

BND*BobbinNODhtneron: RO-eRPCdtected indaton: RND*RPCNOD i etion

86-5049264-00 Page 83 of 96 Table 8-2: DCPP Composite POPCD Results Cobrnn I A

B I

C i

D I

E I

F I

0 l

H I I J

I K

DCPP Specific POPCD Data Table D.tectlon aI EWC.

No Detection aI EOCn (NM Indications)

EOC. Bobbin In. RPC EOC. Bobbin h(J Not RPC C I N. Ec R

BonUie In Nd N

0RPC hd FounJ t byPRFCgd elE.

RPC NOD Bobbin Exk dd beon TotEvlfor FDFCO ConfInned tI EtC...

I Ipct c t C_,

EDC. Bobbin l epaled rn d N

Cobinnd Ew Inspc I

od B o En B Fotd d OOC I

bec NO B F DFCD ose Bt I, RDDi -

BW, OIn RDD n

BW h RPC _BDD RF C

BDD, / RWA -.

Pt..t d d wnn BND CRFC -

BrD I RDD CND.o RFC -

WR D

R do RPC Bi d RPC -

eND I RW BOD I RND -

BW Wo RPC Al IRND AT EOC.,

I Vole Bln BODCIROD

-BNDI ROD BDD A* RPC -C BDODIROD BODD oRPC -IC ONO IROD BODD I RDO -_ BOO who RPC BO wb RPC -*

d ed Cn BND/RDD _BIRODO BDRD i RD -*

BOO wo RFC BNDIRND _ BODIRDD BNDOIRND BDDwdoRPC BNOIRDO -

BNDiRDD BNDIRND -

BNOIRWD BND/I ROO _ PkWd at ECOn BDO IRND -

BDO RODD BDD I RNO -C BNO I ROD Al OM Wi. RPC IIIEOCn.1 BOOJRNOIPNkggd at ECOM Dedtedon at Ewcn No POPCOD for Doettn Volae Bin t EOCn Noh M t) POPCD for *ehvnnag bin calcod as (Detection et EOnCl(Oelecbon et ECnO* No Detectiond.EOCn). By col., POPCO - (A.B.Cy(A.B'C-D.E.F.0G

2) EOCn RPC NOD bobbin Wricatons aeIr eaWden new ilndiatioons e NC request

3) IndWies licelinn ad EOCn p tg d tEDCn en new dlaoent at EOCt. no no.d In ge bobbin hpoetidn. nd bund oly by RPC Inspectionf dood, mined M u bli f olhrer ranl O trhe RPC Inepeciln.

4) BDO - Bobbin d.tatd ioealin: ONO

Bobbin NOD ildonmelion; RODO RPC detectd b dilcarn:

RNO

RPC NOD bdweetin

86-5049264-00 Page 84 of 96 Table 8-3: 1RII POPCD Summary from 1R12 Inspection Results POPCD Matrix for All Indications Regardless of Voltage

.l BDD at EOCn+1-BND at EOCn+1^

c BDD w/o RPC BDD wlRDD BDD w/RND 8ND w/o RPC BND wlRDD BND w/RND EOCn t

NotNot Not Not Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged 8

BDD BDD who RPC Not Plugged 19 549 43 55 1

12 at BDD w/ RDD Plugged 35

.43 1

I145 EO nNot Plugged I3 1 145 4

E B~wn N

Plugged NotPlugged 1

6 1

2 10 6

3...

3.

Plugged BND BNDwoRPC Notu ed 0

7 399 17 39 12 NoCoun NoCoun 12 41 No Count No Count at, ND wRDD Pluged 21 w

Not Plumed 1

6 No Count No Count 5

50 No Count No Coun EOCn NlRND Pluged w

Not Plugqed No Count No Count 5

3 No Count No Count Table 8-4: DCPP Composite POPCD Summary POPCD Matrix for Al Indications R91ard3ess of 0

2tag BDD at EOCn+*

l BND at EOCn+1 BDD w o RPC BDD DD BDD w/RND

-ND wlo RPC l

ND wlRDD l

ND w/RND EOn Not Not Not Not Not Not Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged Plugged 28 BDD BDD w/o RPC Not Plugged I_

59 134569 305 4217 1 36 1

N 36 No1o1n a

l D

tR lNot Pl9uggedl 2

l 310 43 l

337 l

l 1

l l

8 l

l 2

at END P

R lugged 3

. Bw Not Mluggedl 4

l73 8

l36 l60 l

l36 I

3 l3 BND IB lRPC Not Pluanedl 50 l2134 109 l470 l5 l103 lNo Count No Countl 36 l132 lNo Count No Count at Not Plugged l

l 2

1 17 NoCount NoCount 8

71 NoCount NoCoun EOCn Plugged I

I l

I.

I-w Not Plugged I I

1 3

5 5

No Count No Count 16 10 No Count NoCoun

86-5049264-00 Page 85 of 96 Table 8-5: DCPP POPCD LogLogistic Parameters Previous Updated POPCD LOgPgitC LogLogistic Parameter LogLogsc Parameters Parameters through 6 DCPP through 5 DCPP inspections inspections inspections Number of Data Points 4688 6219 a.0 (intercept) 1.644 1.844 a.1 (slope) 4.659 4.781 VII 0.00522 0.00407 V12 0.01043 0.00806 V22 0.02654 0.02022

86-5049264-00 Page 86 of 96 Table 8-6: Updated DCPP POPCD Correlation Comparison to Previous POPCD Correlation (Best Estimate)

Previous POPCD Updated POPCD Volts Correlation (Five Correlation (Six Inspections)

Inspections) 0.1 0.047 0.050 0.2 0.166 0.183 0.3 0.312 0.342 0.4 0.448 0.485 0.5 0.560 0.600 0.6 0.648 0.686 0.7 0.716 0.751 0.8 0.767 0.799 0.9 0.807 0.836 1

0.838 0.863 1.1 0.863 0.885 1.2 0.882 0.902 1.3 0.898 0.916 1.4 0.911 0.927 1.5 0.922 0.936 1.6 0.931 0.944 1.7 0.938 0.950 1.8 0.944 0.955 1.9 1

0.950 0.960 2

0.955 0.964 2.5 0.971 0.977 3

0.980 0.984 3.5 0.985 0.988 4

0.988 0.991 4.5 0.991 0.993 5

0.993 0.994 5.5 0.994 0.995 6

0.995 0.996 6.5 0.996 0.997 7

0.996 0.997 7.5 0.997 0.998 8

0.997 0.998 8.5 0.997 0.998 9

0.998 0.998 9.5 0.998 0.999 10 0.998 0.999

86-5049264-00 Page 87 of 96 Table 8-7: 1RII POPCD Results In Industry Format Coiwn I A

I a

I C

I D

I E

I F

I G

I H

I I

I J

DCPP I R11 Input to Generic POPCD Data Table Oat-ction at EOC.

I No Detection at EoCn (Now "dItlons)

EDCBb

.PC OC. Bobbin oln RPC ECBobbin W ot. ooanhd at i0C.

Now EOC_. Bobbin RPC NEw C-Bobbin Not NeC Foud Onty by RPC at EOC.

od tE

.. dToutF, fo POPCD aI t

Iind pied EOC. & Pluggod at EOCnrn Evaluation I MIRMfll-AMnItfA AA..

P

An..

a ffIfff

~.-

c.

nr

-nn or-,

In--

-a n

oar In

-a

-an,...--

Vottage Bin B/OIRDD _- BNDIRDD B/OIRND HO BWDIRW BDOIRND _ BNOIRDO BWO w/o RPC -

BWO I RDD BDD wlo RPC -_

ND I RW BOW O ido RPC I RwND

_p BW Pl lRPC BDO IRNO -. EDO O RPCI BND IRD

_wDOI RDD BND I RDD -

wWOOlo RPC END I RNO -0 BDD I ROD BND I RND _ BDO Wo RPC BND0 I RDD _- ND IRDD BNOIRNO _ SNOIRDO BND I RDO -* Piuged ml EOCn AtNDwi RPC m EOC_., I e

BDDIRNDf d ml EOCn I atOin No

'OPCO3 l

Delon I Vol Bin at EOCn (WNe 1)

1) POPCD tor eacd vo o bin cakboted as (Dtecdion at EOCn)JOelection t EDOCn

No Detection al EOCn). By clomn, POPCD. (A8*BCy(A.B.C.D.E-F).

2) Piparpsefc POPCD to be bed upon v~o bins cf 0.10 ant hIdury POPCD database may ute 0.20 vt Wne duo to ddlltoeOf dnbng oabi database to esmalor bins.

3) Icides btndtiO at EOCn pugged at EOCn and new nd e at EOCn. root repul Inthebobbn bpectin. rdundondybyRPCh pecro ofdno mixedreduet r oterma fotRPC pction.

IA 0M. ft*". uuA h finato BND.BobbinN

.hbr-A eden,.4 k.,tb,..

0pr040 n.

p 0

n.

86-5049264-00 Page 88 of 96 Table 8-8: DCPP Composite POPCD Results In Industry Format CouNpn A

l B

l C

I D

I E

I F

I a

I H

I I

I J

DCPP Total Input to Generic POPCD Data Table Detection at EOC.

I No Detecton at EOCn INe ndations)

EOC. Bobbin Wmd.RPC EOC. Bobbin tE NOtC IEC Bo nd R ddEOC.

N CCwE

. BobblnRPC NI fC.E0CBobbinNotRC Fond Only by RPC at CC at at E

Totals tor POPCD Conti___________IInspectedat______

o ffiffwd_

kapedted EOC. & Piuged at E0C.M Evaluation 4

Voltage Bin O U S I iJ

. 1 I) U I t )

BSWIRDD.

ONO IRDO BOOIRNDO BDOIRDO BODOIRNO

-+ BNO IRDO BOO Wft RPC -~ BOO I RDO BOO w~mRPC BNO I RD U L~ W MO KN fl OLJU :00 I;,S:

RA l Q O t tZ

~ U S 0 N C i ) I M B O O0 I R D O1 I.

O d P

O edo APC -. P lu ged at E

-CO I B-N-D 1 AD OD BOD I ARD O

BMOIANO -_BO nioA C

NO IRNO -+ BOM I DO SU tU 010 WU i)

VVUt M~ F*

N oe t t SZ i

BND I RDOD BDO OdRP BNX IADO -. atNOIAOO=D SNOIRND _-b BO~O doRP BNOIRNO -*

BNOIRDO I

"B NOI ROD -* Plugge at EOCn A4 RNU AT EOCt, Al BNO w/o RPC at ECc, BODDRNDIPlged at EDOC Detection No tf Eocn Detection I at EOCn POPCo hr Voltage Bin (oi i)

Note.

1) POPCD for each voilts bin caicutated as (Detectin at EOCaY(Oectiof aOCn

No Dection at EOCn). B9ytWon. FOPCD. (A*SBC)y(A.B-C-DOE.Fl,

2) Pbrd spao POPCOtobbad uponolta bin dO0.10otL bidustryPOPCDdatab mayu 020volbitadue to ddatyda4usti ii databaeo smotrbise

3) Inclde, indtslaone at EOCn plugged at EOCn and newhdica e at EOCi., nod retd In te bobbin bIspei, and lod oinly by RPC bspection d derts. miaed rbeiuia ostlher ao 1toe ti RPC bispection.

4) BODD

Bobbh, deteded datbo, BNO. Bobbin NOD Inteen RDD. RPC dtectd dication: RND. RPC NDD htndion

86-5049264-00 Page 89 of 96 Table 8-9: Extreme Growth Distribution for 7/8" Plants at 604F Number of Extreme Growths (>5v/EFPY) 3 Growth Population 56874 Extreme Voltage Growth 1 (per EFPY) 12.18 Extreme Voltage Growth 2 (per EFPY) 7.97 Extreme Voltage Growth 3 (per EFPY) 5.87

86-5049264-00 Page 90 of 96 Table 8-10: Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distributions Using POPCD EOC-13 Projected Distributions with DCPP POPCD Voltage Bin SGII SG12 SG13 SGI4

=0.1 12.77 0.55 0.17 028 0.2 50.02 11.14 3.96 5.58 0.3 89.31 39.92 17.47 19.94 0.4 149.40 69.08 38.94 34'.34 0.5 186.98 96.74 52.23 46.28 0.6 189.82 107.97 56.19 51.25 0.7 161.27 97.81 46.27 42.98 0.8 123.40 81.31 35.59 32.02 0.9 93.84 65.12 27.01 22.63 I_

_69A6 50.32 20.16 16.62 1.1 54A1 38.20 15.05 12A4 1.2 43.06 28.02 11.26 9.11 1.3 32.68 20.42 8.45 6.67 IA 25.80 15.33 6.58 5.06 1.5 20.32 12.33 5.61 4.20 1.6 15.61 10.22 5.00 3.61 1.7 12.57 8.41 4.43 3.05 1.8 11.A5 7.10 3.99 2.58 1.9 10.08 5.82 3.60 2.06 2

8.58 4.77 3.27 1.58 2.1 7.64 4.02 2.99 1.25 2.2 7.09 3.50 2.71 1.08 2.3 6.41 2.90 2.34 0.90 2.4 5.52 2.30 1.91 0.71 2.5 4.68 1.83 1.55 0.55 2.6 4.25 1.57 1.31 0.46 2.7 3.85 1.36 1.13 0.39 2.8 3.49 1.20 0.97 0.35 2.9 3.39 1.13 0.85 0.34 3

2.97 0.99 0.74 0.30 3.1 2.41 0.84 0.62 0.26 3.2 1.91 0.66 0.50 0.21 3.3 1.44 0.49 0.39 0.16 3.4 1.02 0.37 0.32 0.11 3.5 0.71 0.29 0.27 0.09 3.6 0.48 0.25 0.23 0.07 3.7 0.34 0.23 0.20 0.07 3.8 0.32 0.21 0.18 0.07 3.9 0.39 0.19 0.15 0.06 4

0.45 0.15 0.12 0.05 4.1 OA2 0.11 0.09 0.03 4.2 0.35 0.07 0.07 0.02 4.3 0.27 0.05 0.06 0.01 4.4 0.23 0.04 0.05 0.01 4.5 0.28 0.06 0.06 0.02 4.6 0.53 0.13 0.09 0.04 4.7 0.87 0.22 0.13 0.08 4.8 1.09 0.26 0.15 0.10 4.9 1.07 0.25 0.14 0.10 5

0.91 0.19 0.12 0.08 5.1 0.71 0.14 0.10 0.05 5.2 0.54 0.10 0.09 0.03 5.3 0.40 0.09 0.09 0.02 5.4 0.34 0.11 0.10 0.03 5.5 0.40 0.12 0.10 0.04 5.6 0.47 0.11 0.08 0.04 5.7 0.46 0.08 0.06 0.03 5.8 0.39 0.06 0.05 0.02 5.9 0.31 0.04 0.04 0.01 6

0.23 0.03 0.03 0.01 7

0.55 0.06 0.08 0.01 8

0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 9

0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

>10 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Totals 1430.49 797A3 l

386.48 330.55

86-5049264-00 Page 91 of 96 Table 8-11: Projected Leak Rate and Burst Probability at EOC-13 Using POPCD and Extreme Growth Model Projected Probability of Burst SRB Leak Steam Number of Rate Generator Indications 95% UCL at EOC-13 Best Estimate (i or More (gpm)

Failures)

SG 1-1 1430 2.25 x 10 3 2.37 x 10 3 2.50 SG 1-2 797 6.66 x 10 4 7.29 x 104 0.82 SG 1-3 386 4.50 x 10 4 5.03 x 104 0.54 SG 1-4 331 2.20 x 10 4 2.58 x 10o4 0.27 Reporting Threshold 1.0 x 10 2 10.5

86-5049264-00 Page 92 of 96 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 C

) 0.6 af-o 0.5

, 0.4

.0 0

IL 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Figure 8-1: 1RII POPCD Comparison to Composite POPCD DCPP POPCD Comparison x X,-

-- Previous Composite POPCD (Five Inspections)

,: 4 _

--- --- 1 RI 1 POPCD (from 1 R1 2 Results)__

-pate Composited POPCD (Six Inspections)__

111 11 1

1111 0

0 EOCn Bobbin Volts

86-5049264-00 Page 93 of 96 Figure 8-2: SG 1-1 Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distribution Using POPCD and Extreme Growth Voltage Distribution ProJected at EOC413 for SG 1-1 Using POPCD ZW,

_w t60 160 140 o 120 00 00 z

20

n.

n.n.n-n n

n m-nn c enn

_ N o

V e

o eo o

_ _ N r t

A

-P P_ e C!

N _ N "

t :

W 0s n V v W M e r e G e O

oi o o o ei o Cs o a N N N N NN N NA N e

Bobbin Volts Figure 8-3: SG 1-2 Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distribution Using POPCD and Extreme Growth Voltage Distribution Projected at EOC-13 for SG 1-2 Using POPCD 0uu i

180 160 140 1nu 1ZO 100 80 40

_ N r 0 I 0 a e 0 N N N

N N B

N N

N ebVA Bobbin Volts

86-5049264-00 Page 94 of 96 Figure 8-4: SG 1-3 Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distribution Using POPCD and Extreme Growth Voltage Distribution Projected at EOC-13 for SG 1-3 Using POPCD 200 180 160 140 120 100 so 5'80 b0 40 20 0

flHHnn flflflfrinrir

_ "* n eD r A

e> _ a

- Ce n -t -X o. " -q w "

e r " n Bbr Wb n V r e a ot o

Bobbin Volts Figure 8-5: SG 1-4 Projected EOC-13 Voltage Distribution Using POPCD and Extreme Growth Voltage Distribution Projected at EOC-13 for SG 1-4 Using POPCD 200 180 160 140

120 I0

§ 80 z

60 40 20 0 n iflD -'

DD~ n01 n nn

" V~ 1 o e" r

e -

_ _ n et e, "

e C

_ r e e r

e.

CY!ob ebin Vol o Bobbin Volts

86-5049264-00 Page 95 of 96 9.0 References

1. FANP Document 86-5043826-00, "DCPP Unit 1R12 Voltage-Based ARC and W-star Startup Report", March 2003.

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

3. NRC SER for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 for Voltage-Based Repair Criteria, letter to PG&E dated March 12, 1998.

4. FANP Document 51-5001160-02, "Steam Generator POB Simulation Code - POB97vbR20.F90",

December 2003.

5. FANP Document 51-5001151-02, "Steam Generator Leak Rate Simulation Code LKR97VB2_r30.F90", December 2003.

6. WCAP 14277, Revision 1, SLB Leak Rate and Tube Burst Probability Analysis Methods for ODSCC at TSP Intersections, December 1996.

7. FANP Document 86-5019218-00, "DCPP Unit 1 R11 90 Day Bobbin Coil ARC Report", August 2002.

8. EPRI Report NP 7480-L, Addendum 5, 2002 Database Update, "Steam Generator Tubing Outside Diameter Stress Corrosion Cracking at Tube Support Plates Database for Alternate. Repair Limits", Electric Power Research Institute, January 2003.

9. Pacific Gas and Electric, Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Refueling Outage 1R12, "Steam Generator Tubing Degradation Assessment", Revision 1, April 15, 2004.

10.FANP Document 51-5040539-00, "Diablo Canyon POPCD Using Updated Reporting Format",

February 2004.

11. Diablo Canyon Power Plant Procedure, NDE ET-7, "Eddy Current Examination of Steam Generator Tubing", Revision 4, 3/19/04.

12.Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Surveillance Test Procedure, STP M-SGTI, Revision 8, "Steam Generator Tube Inspection", 2/18/04.

13.FANP Document 51-5043667-00, "Bobbin Coil Probe Wear Monitoring for DCPP 1R12", April 2004.

14.FANP Document 51-5044913-00, "Eddy Current Tube Pull Examination for PG&E Diablo Canyon Unit 1 April 2004", June 2004.

15.NRC Letter to NEI, dated February 9, 1996, "Probe Wear Criteria."

86-5049264-00 Page 96 of 96 16.PG&E Letter DCL-04-028, License Amendment Request 04-01, "Revised Steam Generator Voltage-based Repair Criteria Probability of Detection Method for DCPP Units 1 and 2", March 18, 2004.

17.FANP Document 51-5039454-00, "Bobbin/+Point Correlation for AONDB Indications at DCPP",

February 2004.

18.PG&E Letter, Patrick Nugent to Jeff Fleck, "EFPY Data for Cycle 12 and Cycle 13", March 26, 2004.

19.FANP Document 86-5039942-00, "DCPP Unit 1 Voltage-Based ARC Benchmarking Results and Revised EOC-12 Projections", submitted to NRC in PG&E letter DCL-04-019 dated March 16, 2004.

20.Westinghouse Letter to Diablo Canyon (Rice to Arhar), Revised ARC Database Parameters Including Tubes Removed During 2R1 1, June 23, 2003.

21.FANP Document 51-5046570-00, 'Examination of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Steam Generator Tube No. R20C54", August 2004.

.22.NEI Letter to NRC, "Revision to ODSCC ARC Task - 'Extreme Values of ODSCC ARC Growth'",

July 9, 2004.

23.FANP Document 32-5049263-00, "DCPP Unit 1 R12 Voltage-Based ARC 90-Day Report".

24.NEI Letter to NRC, "Generic Letter 95-05 Alternate Repair Criteria Methodology Updates", June 2, 2004.

25.PG&E Letter DCL-04-104, "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request 04-01", August 18, 2004.

26.PG&E Letter DCL-04-028, "License Amendment Request 04-01, Revised Steam Generator Voltage-Based Repair Criteria Probability of Detection Method for DCPP Units 1 and 2", March 18, 2004.

27.FANP Document 86-5029429-00, "DCPP 2R11 Bobbin Voltage ARC 90-Day Summary Report",

June 2003.

22410 3 (5/10/2004) Page 1 of 2 AVDESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKLIST Document Identifier 86 - 5049264 - 00 Title DCPP Unit 1 R12 Voltage-Based ARC 90-Day Report

1.

Were the inputs correctly selected and incorporated into design or analysis?

El Y l.OI N El N/A

2.

Are assumptions necessary to perform the design or analysis activity ED Y al N 0D N/A adequately described and reasonable? Where necessary, are the assumptions identified for subsequent re-verifications when the detailed design activities are completed?

v

3.

Are the appropriate quality and quality assurance requirements specified? Or, 0 Y E N

° N/A for documents prepared per FANP procedures, have the procedural requirements been met?

4.

If the design or analysis cites or is required to cite requirements or criteria Y

E N 0 N/A based upon applicable codes, standards, specific regulatory requirements, including issue and addenda, are these properly identified, and are the requirements/criteria for design or analysis met?

5.

Have applicable construction and operating experience been considered?

E Y E N 0 N/A

6.

Have the design interface requirements been satisfied?

El Y El N 0D N/A

7.

Was an appropriate design or analytical method used?

0 Y

El N El N/A

8.

Is the output reasonable compared to inputs?

0 Y

El N El N/A

9.

Are the specified parts, equipment and processes suitable for the required E Y El N 0D N/A application?

10.

Are the specified materials compatible with each other and the design E

Y El N 0D N/A environmental conditions to which the material will be exposed?

11.

Have adequate maintenance features and requirements been specified?

E Y El N 0D N/A

12.

Are accessibility and other design provisions adequate for performance of Y El N ED N/A needed maintenance and repair?

13.

Has adequate accessibility been provided to perform the in-service inspection El Y El N 2 N/A expected to be required during the plant life?

l

14.

Has the design properly considered radiation exposure to the public and plant El Y El N 0 N/A personnel?

15.

Are the acceptance criteria incorporated in the design documents sufficient to E Y E N 0 N/A allow verification that design requirements have been satisfactorily accomplished?

16.

Have adequate pre-operational and subsequent periodic test requirements El Y El N 0 N/A been appropriately specified?

17.

Are adequate handling, storage, cleaning and shipping requirements El Y El N 0 N/A specified?

18.

Are adequate identification requirements specified?

E Y El N 0 N/A

19.

Is the document prepared and being released under the FANP Quality 0

Y El N El N/A Assurance Program? If not, are requirements for record preparation review, approval, retention, etc., adequately specified?

Framatome ANP, Inc., an AREVA and Siemens company 86-5049264-00 Page A-1 of A-2

22410-3 (5/10/2004) Page 2 of 2 A

DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKLIST AR EVA Document Identifier 86 - 5049264 - 00 Comments:

Verified By:

Jeffrey M Fleck 6)

(First, MI, Last)

Printed/ Typed Name ignature Date Framatome ANP, Inc., an AREVA and Siemens company 86-5049264-00 Page A-2 of A-2

ML042580462

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

9.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

ML042580462

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

9.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

Search