ML20058J707

Responds to ASLB 811013 Memorandum & Order Re Removal of Explosive or Mechanical Plugs from Tubes Prior to Sleeving. Supporting Documentation & Dk Porter Affidavit Encl

ML20058J707
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	10/16/1981
From:	Churchill B, Ridgway D SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:
References
NUDOCS 8208110180
Download: ML20058J707 (30)

Text

• W

)

f\06- f i$

v

_h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN .l . "g.

00CKETED USNRC

- Bef6re the Atomic Safety and Licensinc Board In the Matter of )

7~ ,'f'Q -p h*

~

WISCCNSIN ELECTRIC POWER CCMPAlff ) Docket Nos.'56 '2ii67  :

) 50-301~ ^ Ac- '" "

(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, ) (OL Amendhent)

Uni.ts 1 and 2) )

LICENSEN'S RESPONSE TO SECOND ROUND OF

- LICENSING BOARD QUESTIONS Following are Licensee's responses to the questions set out in the Licensing Board's October 13, 1981, " Memorandum and Order Concerning Further Board Questions."

l QUESTICN 1 Was plug removal performed at San Onofre or R. E. Ginna?.

RESPONSE

Removal of explosive or mechanical plugs from tubes prior to sleeving was not done at the R. E. Ginna and San Onofre nuclear plants.

g TION 2 Please show in one table (or set of tables) all tests performed i

on tubes from which plugs were removed and the results of those tests. Minimum values and ranges should be indicated.

l Tables should be clearly labeled so that they disclose differences between the testing conditions and the Point Beach project.

1

RESPONSE

Since plugs were not removed from the R. E. Ginna or

- San Onofre nuclear plants, these test data 'do not exist.

t 8208110100 811016 PDR ADOCK 05000266 -

h. h '

O PDR . .

4

~

m QUESTICN 3 What empirical tests will be performed prior to sleeving deplugged tubes :.n order to assure the integrity of the tube-to-tubesheet veld and its resistance to stress? What uncertainty will What laboratory exist after these empirical tes.s are performed?

tests or engineering studies narrow these areas of uncertainty?

What uncertainty will continue to exist?

RESPONSE

The tube-to-tubesheet welds in the deplugged tubes ,

will be visually inspected prior to sleeving. In excess of 100 laboratory tests of specinens of plugged and deplugged tubes have shown no visible signs of weld distress. In addition, in some of the laboratory test speci:aens, the tube-to-tubesheet welds were non-destructively tested prior to plugging and after plug removal. These inspections showed no weld cracking.

j Based upon these results, it is very unlikely that the removal of plugs will affect the integrity of the tube-to-tubesheet weld.

QUESTION 4 l

What radiation exposure is expected for the workers who will i manually insert sleeves? .

I

RESPONSE

The following is an estimate of the radiation exp'osure for manual installation of the 12 sleeves during the demonstration program at Point. Beach Unit 1.

Assuniotions 1.), "hannel head radiation levels are assumed to be 30.

l A/hr. before decontamination.

i

\

1

g a

2) Tho ['. .

.)a,c,o d2 contamination process is

^

used gighgan assumed. decontamination factor of

( ,)

3) Manual installation of up to 12 sleeves.

a ,c,e R/hr. after decontamination and

4) . Assuming ( J 150 mr/hr. on the adj acent steam generator platform.

Calculated Excosures .

1) Radiation exposure per sleeve installed:

a) Dual joint slieve: 2.5 man-rem / sleeve b) Mechanical -

sleeve: 1.5 man-rem / sleeve ,

2) Exposure per plug removed:

a) Explosive plug: 3.4 man-rem / plug b) Mechanical plug: 0.9 man-rem / plug .

3) Exposures for installation / removal of temporary shielding inside the channel head per channel head side:

. a) Installation / removal of loop nozzle cover shield:

l.1 man-rem b) Installdh re*o4I of channel head bowl and 4.f plan-rem divider pl c. SU e.(d -

4) Exposure for decontamination ope __.Iions (hot leg only): 10.0 man-rem Exposure for inspection operations: 2.9 ma'n-rem 5)

(

! 6) Exposure for miscellaneous operations: 5.0 mart-rem

7) Total estimated exposure for decontiamination, plug f

removal, sleeve installation', and inspection for the

• f demonstration program: 4-5. man-rem / sleeve.

Total estimated exposure: 48-60 man-rem.

! 8)

QUESTION 5 Please file the relevant sections of the San Onofre Repair Be Report which you rely on in answer to Board questions.

~

sure to include all related sections.

f .

W s

, e e -- - - . - _

RESPONSE

Enclosure 1 to Responses to the ASL3's Second Round of Questions is a copy of the Steam Generator Recair Recort for Southern California Edison, San Onofre Unit 1, Recort No.

SE-SP-40(80) Revision 1 March 1981 in Docket 50-206 (" San Onofre Report").

Sections 4 and 6 are particularly relevant to the development and verification of the sleeving process for steam generators of the Point Beach design.

QUESTION 6 What is the criterion for " unacceptable expansion" which would cause sleeves to be plugged?

~

RESPONSE

Thecriterionforacceptanceisameasuredinbh.de

/

diameter less than [ .j"'C'* inches. Lower joints with inside diameters greater than this will be plugged. As stated 5_, due to in the response to the ASLB's previous question tooling limitations, diameters-of this magnitude will not result. The primary reason for this is that the [

torque l ,c,e b'eing used cannot provide sufficient a

output to [

]^'C'* desired. ,

QUESTION 7 What qua'lity control measures, if any, will be used to assure accurate measurement and data collection during the demon-stration program?

. _4 .

-~ RESPONSE Site activities involving installation, examination and testing are controlled in accordance with the Quality Assurance requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix 3 which ,

applies to operating nuclear plants. The Westinghouse Nuclear Service Division Quality Assurance Plan applies to,this work.

Sleeving process controls and quality controls are Process imposed as integral steps in Field Service Procedures.

parameters are measured using calibrated devices and calibrated secondary working standards. Qualified personnel record ,

remotely displayed data, compare these values to acceptance criteria, and determine the acceptability of the measurement.

Channel head workers are trained in physical insertion of measurement devices into the tubesheet locations amd for actual measurements, and are directed by qualified Quality Control personnel from the control station. These controls pernit proper insertion of measurement device,s and accurate measurements.

l QUESTION 8 .

Please explain your answer to our previous Question 7 more fully. More particularly, why is there a difference in tor,que indicated? Does this entry merely mean that Point Beach can withstand more torque or does it mean scmething else?

i l

RESPONSE

The higher torque ,

value for the Point Beach sleeve joint is the value which achieves the same degree of as was achieved on the San expansion and wall reduction

- Onofre sleeve design. There are three factors which contribute 9

to the higher valuc'of torque required for the Point Beach sleeve joints: (1) the rollers are operating at a greater distance from the center of the expander and greater torque is required to overcome the larger resistance moment arm , (2) the Point Beach sleeve wall.

thickness is greater than the San Onofre sleeve wall thickness, and (3) the initial tube / sleeve gap. is larger for Point Beach which results in a higher torque required to overcome the greater strain hardening effect. Based on the wall reduction criterion, there is therefore no significant .

difference in the final configuration of the sleeve and tube.

QUESTION 9 Please indicate in a single table or set of tables the extent to which you rely on San Onofre tests rather than on laboratory y

tests of the Point Beach configuration and the extent to which there are no data whatever available concerning the Point Beach configuraliion. Provide explanations where applicable.

RESPONSE .

The corrosion testing program, ,as described in Table 6.1-2 of the Sleeving Report, represents the major testing area which relies substantially on results obtained from'the San Onofre test program. In. addition, further testing is being performed on Items la, lb, 'S and 6 of Table 6.1-2 to f

provide confirmatorf testing or to extend the data base on i

long term effects.

For the mechanical testing pnogram, as described in l

Table 6.1-3, all the tests are being repeated as indicated l

(with the exception of Item 9), even though there is no reason- .

j e

9

- 4 to believo, based on the San Onofro results, that the results for Point Beach would be any less favorable.

The primary reason that the San onofre results are not being directly relied on for mechanical testing is due to the differences in tube and sleeve sizes between San Onofre and Point Beach. Otherwise, the joint configurations are essentially identical and are formed using comparable process steps as described La Table 4.7-1.

In addition, even though Table 6.1-3 states that the majority of the mechanical tests are in progress, .a substantial .

amount of testing has now been completed and confirms that the San Onofre results are representative of the Point Beach results. Since this testing, which is in progress, is primarily of a confirmatory and verification nature using the final process parameters, there are no apparent areas which have .

been untested.

QUESTION 10 Please explain the improvements in the Model 44 steam generators which make the Table 6.1-16 results no longer applicable.

Please provide actual observation data for Table 6.1-15, which has only " averages" rather than actual observations from which a variance or range could be . computed.

RESPONSE -

j As was stated in the response to the ASLB's previous Question 11, the test results in Table 6.1-16 of the Sleeving Report were obtained during the initial stages of development l

l of the sleeving process for Model 44 steam generators and are I

(

For example, the not representative of the present process.

0 n

- roll expansion torque was variod during these scresning l tests to establish a range of conditions for process testing.

The attached revision of Table 6.1-15 provides the observation data for all tests of the hybrid expansion joint (EEJ) .

QUESTICN 11 Why is it What is a safe minimum value for axial translation?

a safe value? Does your reliance on Task M5 meanIsthat you that have not yet done a test comparable to Task M4?

acceptable?

RESPONSE

It is useful to clarify the methodolbgy for testing the sleeve-tube combination under the conditions specified in Table 6.1-8 of the Sleeving Report. .

The sleeve-tube combination is tested under both normal and postulated accident conditions to verify that leak rates during these conditions remain within acceptable limits. The most conservative loading condit' ions during normal operation or postulated' accident conditions occur when a sleeved tube with [ ]C'* tube degradation below the upper joint is assumed to be restrained at the first tube .

support plate due to denting and cannot move axially to accommodate' thermal expansion. To calculate these loads, the length of the sleeved tube between the tubesheet and the first tube support plate is calculated for the restrained and unrestrained condition., The difference between these values is shown in Table 6.1-8 as " Displacement Mismatch". The calculated load '

on the sleeved tube, assuming the sleeved tube is restrained l

l

is shown in Tabic 6.1-8 as "Slesva

.- from moving this distance, Load". During testing, the sleeved tube. specimen is subjected to an axial displacement equal to the " Displacement Mismatch" and the leak rates ar.e determined. The leak rate data in revised Table 6.1-15 of the response to Question 10 show that the average leak rate of the specimens tested under the postulated accident condition loadings was less than

- j"'C'*

[. _, _

with a maximum less than [ _

-~

]a,c,e compared to the leak rate a ,c,e specified for criterion of [ l

" Accident Conditions" in Table 6.1-7 of the Sleeving Report.

Task MS , in Appendix A, deals with San Onofre sleeve lower joint testing. Task M4, in Appendix A, deals with San uceer joint testing. The October Onofre sleeve brazed 9, 1981, response inadvertently stated that Tables 6.1-14 and 6.1-15 should be compared to Table 4.1 of Appendix A, Task M5.

" Task M5" should not have been included La that response.

Testing of the Point Beach sleeve in accordance with comparable parameters in Task M4 is being perforced as described in Table 6.1-3.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POT"'S AND TRCWBRIDGE By:

Bruce W. Churcn111

- Delissa A. Ridgway Counsel for Licensee 1800 M. Street, N.W.

20036 Washington, D. C. ':

(202)822-1000 October 16, 1981 Dated: .g_ -

4

--~t m

8 ee i

l e.e * '

4C ,e 4 *

.ne -o w 1

• .s i 'O o w C- O r=

e.e -s s

• O d O we e.e 2ge N NQ O o e LU CO e -* 9 e O wto =4

• e o e u so y O M O QC e O O wO e-O O 95 CJO 1 es

• e U E to =eet e e.t in.

eU Jiw O O O ce O ,

Cro 4 (aiN C O 4 F. (

M M e C C =ai

• e C we O O ce O

e4 K >* G O O g l

- C U e

- as a

d *aU

• M 4

(b =

W 9C K *e Q

• O e =e K&

fa3

e Z .W *O

t* eu 43 eO IQ e4 (J - s f*4W

• 21 W 'O' e oiCao sn a w Q w

1. M r* N P3 e e e e M 2 O 8, O O O O

" 2 0 Q M oo (* e=

Ci Us e.*

• w 2 C W nn- trl aa O 4 2 .l2 !w' e e

c. O ea N O ini

• Ii O O O O

• • a X U . . ~

t C W e. e ce W 6e Cl e44 C 2 * "3 M d no M C4 en

@ *e =* O a=e 5 O .

> 5C e O.

f W slee E .4 eb e O. O O O O e

C.4 o E 70 N 4i C3 *'  :".;U eG

4) 4 &>

ta l cr. Q- e Cic tr1 d Q O ueem Q O be 3 Q a=* ** ' w o e 4 = us ee O O O O la

• 4 O la U1 e s=e fee

.3 O Oee 3 4 a =* O O e U3 Q eMQM g u m4ee O O O O 5 t i O

(* 4 e :3 en e4 Un e-o

• OO O O O

n3,x e4 =e en' *

• 14 9 O

$46sC e e i O O O O O > in w

s M. O Q M O' e e

• em 4 trl O O O

+ . O O CC se:

De OI O O .

O M e ef1

1. nn e

+ Q O O O

' O O

-e - w s=e I e *

• e be i aus e ,

O O O O O a e NG eO nn w

• K eOO M C

• Cw

• e e g =e e O O O O 4 :r. G. O

• E%

ed e C l

& E O =*

• se Q e e O O e uta'm G. O O O e

.e Q a == 5 C

=4 C C =* '

C* O wa O O O M Gr. o=e G O O I

O .

en w em o at I

e en en ett erl e

• e u MO* . I 4

6 4

e 4 0 ee 4 >

s C. C 4* t* E* to De Qe nas 4 ,

to WB 2. , De e .

l .

d.

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinc Board l

In the Matter of ) .

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-266

) 50-301 (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, ) '(OL Amendment)

Units 1 and 2 )

AFFIDAVIT dF DAVID K. PORTER -

County of Milwaukee )

ss State of Wisconsin )

DAVID K. PORTER, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says:

1. I am Manager of the NucleaEEngineering Sectidri of s.

the Nuclear Power Department of Wisconsin Electric Power

./

.-)

Company. I graduated from the University of Illinois with a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering in 1965.

I then spent four years in the U. S. Navy's Nuclear Power Program which included one year in training and three years of reactor operato'r experience as an engineering officer aboard a nuclear-powered cruiser. I joined the Nuclear Projects Office of Wisconsin Electric in 1969 and have been involved in various engineering assignments relating to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant and preconstruction nuclear projects since that time.

As Manager of the Nuclear Engineering Section, I ac responsible

~

for providing technical, licensing, and engineering support to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant. These responsibilities include the technical review of plant equipment and repair specifications,

, 9

e o and implcmantation of U. S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission ,

.~

("NRC") licensing actions invol'ving Wisconsin Eiectric's operating nuclear facilities. I am personally familiar with Wisconsin Electric's activities concerniiig inspection and repair of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant steam generators and our application before the NRC with respect to these activities.

2. I have prepared or participated in the preparation of " Licensee's Response to Second Round of Licensing Board Questions", dated October 16, 1981; the information contained in those responses is true and correct to the best of my .

knowledge and belief.

.i r l

/

David K. Porter subscribed and sworn to 'before me this 26th day of October, 1981.

Y W S. h _A Notary Publ.ic ,

My Commission E.w..ca. to o ceraaed.

i e

e

o The major tasks are as follows:

?

I i

Mechanical property tests Task Ml: Determine effect of internal pressurization on brazed joints.

Task M2: Determine effect of external pressurization on brazed joints.

Task M3: Determine effects of combined plant heatup and cooldown and load and unload transients on brazed joints.

Task M4: Determine effect of thermal and pressure axial cyclic loads on brazed joints.

Task M5: Demonstrate and verify the ability of a mechanical rolled joint to provide a leak-tight seal.

6.15 AE9-D/8103

s STATUS OF TEST PROGRAMS Mechanical Property Tests All mechanical property tests have been completed.

Corrosion Tests All of the short-term accelerated tests have been completed.

The two model boiler tests have terminated after 20 and 30 days of exposure, respectively, and have been evaluated.

Additional scdel boiler tests for longer term ernnsyre are in preparation, as are several immersion tests in caustic and primary water.

CONCLUSIONS TO DATE

1. The design criteria have been met in all. mechanical property -

tests conducted. There does not appe'ar to be any concern regarding the structural integrity of an acceptably brazed joint. . .

2. There is no evidence of any degradation of the corrosion re-sistance of the brazed assembly due to the thermal brazing cycle. There is a potential problem due to excessive quan-c e, o tities of {~-

))' flux in the joint crevices, which was identified in the initial accelerated 650 F tests. When repeated, using specimens brazed with the reference quantity and application of the flux, the caustic attack was elimjnated, n . .*, . ,

Test data indicate that residual _

________ g in the primary side crevice would dissolve and diffuse out during the plant startup operations.

~

6.16 AE9-D/8103

6.1.3 Mechanical Properly Test Description The verification program is divided into four tasks evaluating the structural integrity and leaktightness under various loading condi-tions. Task Mi evaluates the pressure retaining ability of the joints when subjected to high internal pressurization. Task M2 evaluates the collapse resistance of the joints when subjected to external pressurization. Task M3 evaluates the ability of the brazed assemblies to retain leak-tightness and structural integrity when subjected to the temperature and pressure cycles induced by ths varicus transients, prio;arily tha plant heatup and cooldown and load and unload transients; these transients are judged to be the most severe loads to which the joints will be exposed and are equiv-alent to 30 years of operation. Task M4 subjects the joints to the maximum alternating axial load cycle, equivalent to 30 years of operation. Task M5 subjects the sleeve-to-tube rolled joint to a

~~

fatigue test simulating tubesheet/ support'pTate interactions.

Thermal and pressure cycling associated with heatup and cooldown

. along with the loading and unloading plant transients are simulated.

A summary of the mechanical test status and results is given in the following of tables and diagrams.

• Briefly, all tasks have been successfully completed with no unaccept-able findings.

9 6.41 AE9-0/8103

TASK M1

• • ' TUBE-T0-SLEEVE BRAZED l JOINT PROOF PRESSURE TE5T

/

OBJECTIVE Evaluate effects which a multiple of operating primary-to-secondary

,, differential pressure has on sealing integrity of joint.

TEST SPECIMEN

_ - _ _ _ . _ . - - _ _ . . _ - -. . - - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ ---___+,hl

~

~~

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . - _ . .L - - . _ . . . _ _

FACILITY

~

~

Hydrostatic test pump with pressure gauge - (Figure 6.1.5)

TEST AND CRITERION Proof pressure to be 4,200 psi, i.e. , three times the maximum operating primary-to-secondary differnetial pressure. Specimen at room temperature.

Pressure to be held for 10 minutes with no leaks.

STATUS Tests complete (3 mockups) - no failure d

t t

6.42 AE3-0/8008

I e

~

J1,b sC I

T I

THIS FIGURE IS CONSInEDED PROPRIETARY t

IN ITS ENTIPITY I

t Above-Tubesheet Tube-to-Sleeve Brazed Joint Test Specimen and Test Faci'tity Configuration for Proof ' ressure and P

Hydrostatic Leak Testing.

6.43 4

TASK M2 TUBE-TO-SLEEVE BRAZED JOINT PRESSURE COLLAPSE TEST OBJECTIVE Evaluate effects which a multiple of secondary side design pressure, with no primary side pressure, have on sealing integrity of joint.

Pressure applied to annulus between sleeve and tube.

TEST SPECIMEN g.

~ ' '

FACILITY t

Elevated temperature test: Furnace and protective cannister TEST ANO~ CRITERIA Pressure to be applied to annulus between tube and sleeve to be 1478 (1.5 times secondary side pressure of 985 psi). Joint must be leak-tight for 10 minutes under hydrostatic test at 3728 psi before and i

after test.

STATUS Three mockups tested - no failures 6.44 AE3-0/8008

FIGURE 6.1.6 TEST FACILITY FOR BRAZED TUBE JOINT COLLAPSE-DUE-TO-PRESSURE TEST (TASK M2)

_ _ J ,b,c TEST FACILITY FOR BRAZED TUBE JOINT COLLAPSE-DUE-TO-PRESSURE TEST THIS FIGURE IS CONSinFPEn opnPRIETARY '

IN ITS ENTIPITY 1

S 1

m M 6.45

TASK M3 TUBE-TO-SLEEVE BRAZED JOINT COMPREHENSIVE CYCLIC TEST l l

i 1

OJ8ECTIVE l i

Evaluate effects which the various plant transients, including, normal heatup and cooldown and loading and unloading transients have on sealing integrity of joint. Effects of these transients will be determined in separate tests, but the same test specimen will be used in both tests.

I

i. TEST SPECIMEN i a,h E !,

g .

- . - _ _ m .

l' ,

i

! FACILITY  ; ,

l ~l l l Heatup and Cooldown Test: Specimen placed in protective cannister I ' i j inside furnace (Fig. 6.1.7). l t

Loading and unloading Test: System will impose cyclical pressure j on annular space between tube and sleeve. Sleeve ID will be pres- l l surized. Fatigue force to be applied to joint and synchronized lwithcyclicalpressureinannulus(Fig.6.1.8).  !

l l TEST AND CRITERIA i

!30yearperiodofcycleswillbeimposed: .

li ,

! Heatup and cooldown: 150 cycles (5/yr) l t i

Loading and unloading: 8130 cycles (271/yr) 6.46 AE3-0/8008 i

Criteria: Joint must not leak for 10 minutes at fiydrostatic test

pressure of 3,728 psi.

STATUS All tests are completed. Four specimens were exposed to the ,

equivalent of 30 years of operation with no failures.

m eee e

9 9

6.47 AE9-0/8103

s a

MGCKUP AND TEST FACILITY FOR BRAZED TUBE JOINT PLANT HEAT-UP AND C00LDOWN TEST

- a,b,c THIS FIGURE IS CONSInEDED PPOPRIETARY IN ITS ENTIPITY e

4 9

4 O

6.48

FfGURF 6.1.8 PRESSORE CYCLING TEST SE10P TASK M3 3,b,c 1

THIS FIGURE IS CONSInEDED PPOPRIETARY IN ITS ENTIPITY e

S v

4 n

6.49

TASK M4 TUBE-TO-SLEEVE BRAZED JOINT axial" SHEAR FATIGUE STRENGTH TEST OBJECTIVE Evaluate effects of thermal and pressure cycles on the sealing integrity of the joint.

TEST SPECIMEN g

^

6>

FACILITY -- '-

Consists of furnace which maintains specimen at 600*F + 10*F. Fatigue load applied by testing machine through end plugs. .

, TEST AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA -

l Axial load to be + 2,500 lb. for 8.500 cycles, load controlled. Joint must' be leaktight for 10 minutes under hydrostatic test at 3,728 psi before and ;

after load cycling.

STATUS Three Tests complete - no feilures.

i-6.50 AE3-0/8008

4 P

_1,b,c THIS FIGURE IS CONSInEDED PPnPRIETARY IN ITS ENTIPITY

~

i .

I

+

l l

1 i

1 L

Axial Loading Test Setup l

l l

L m j

TASK M5 i

j SLEEVE-TO-TUBE ROLLED JOINT LEAK-TIGHT TEST I

OBJECTIVE i

Demonstrate that the rolled joint can perform its intended structural i

function and remain leaktight under normal and postulated accident i

conditions.

TEST SPECIMEN a.,bC ,-

N*

• l

=m= + s eme s- *_ e - e l FACILITY -- --

Ambient pressure furnace, axial fatigue testing machine and hydro- '/

static test pump with pressure gauge (schematic shown in Fig. 6.1.10 I

followed by test set-up Fig. 6.1.11).

l TEST AND CRITERIA Four thermal cycles up to 650*F and 8500 axial loading cycles of

+ 2000 psi. Joint must be leaktight for 10 minutes under hydro-static test at 3728 psi.

STAUTS l

Qualification test completed on five specimens-no leak.

o 6.52 AE3-D/8011

_a,b c J

'THIS FIGURE IS CONSInEDED PPOPRIETARY IN ITS ENTIPITY Figure 6.1.10 Test Facility for Pressure Cycling Test for Simulation of Plant Loading and 'Jnloading Transient 6.53

_ 1,b,c THIS FIGURE IS CONSInEDED PPOPRIETARY IN ITS ENTIPITY

~

i l

I _

Figure 6.1.11 Test Facility for Thermal and Axial Load Cycling

- 6.54

,,-_n, _ _ _, , . = - - - . -

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2 0

6.1.5 Acceptance Criteria for Verification and Qualification Tests of SCE Sleeving - The following lists each criterion, the justification for the selection of the criterion and the specific Task which addresses each criterion.

CRITE_R_A JUSTIFICATION TASK

l. Retain structural integrity Maintain factor of safety of M1 (no burst) and leak tightness three over maximum operating of tube / sleeve joint when aP, which is 1400 psi.

internally pressurized at 4200 psi.

2. Retain structural integrity Prevent collapse under 1.5 M2 (no collapse) and leak times maximum secondary to tightness of tube / sleeve primary pressure differential, joint when externally which is 985 psi.

pressurized to 1478 psi.

3. Retain structural integrity Plant loadings M3 and leak tightness of tube /

sleeve joint after exposure --

. to 150 cycles of plant heatup and cooldown transients.

4. Retain structural integrity Plant loadings M3 i and leak tightness of tube /

sleeve joint after exposure to 8130 cycles of simulated '

plant loading and unloading transients. (271 cycles /yr)

5. Retain structural integrity Show that joint can sustain M4 and leak tightness after operating cyclic loads.

exposure at 600 F to 8500 l

cycles at maximum alternating i axial loads anticipated.

6. Retain structural integrity Plant loadings M5

! and leak tigb+ .:ds of sleeve-

! to-tube ro? ad nin.1 after l 8500 lord . 5;. aading cycles j of simu;c'.ea . .ct transients. a,c e,f l

• pe

"" mm i /ftJf@ /N[R-R 6$f0)X X