ML20062L916
| ML20062L916 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1993 |
| From: | Rehn D DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401050397 | |
| Download: ML20062L916 (17) | |
Text
i,; -
'f
' DukeiswerCompany DLREm Cbtawba Nudear Generanon Departinent Vice President
~
' (803)831-3205 Ollice 4800 Cow >rdRoad
. York,SC29:45 (803)S31-3426Far DUKEPOWER December 20,1993 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C.
20555-l g
Subject:
Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-413 Supplement to Technical Specification Atr.eadment Renewal Of Steam Generator Tube Interim Plugging Criteria for Unit 1 Cycle 8 -
y On October 5,1993, Catawba Nuclear Station submitted a proposed Technical Specification Amendment requesting renewal of the voltage-based steam generator tube interim plugging criteria for Unit I for Cycle 8. This submittal was discussed with the NRC staff during-a teleconference which was held on December 6,1993. During this discussion, the NRC staff requested information on Plant S Tube R28C41. The information requested pertained to the details of the pulled tube examination results and calculated leak rates assuming the uncorroded ligament tore under accident conditions. Please fm' d attached the information e
requested. In addition, the NRC staff requested that model boiler specimens 598-1 and 598-3 be included in the-database for the Catawba Unit 1. evaluation. Supplemental-information on the basis for excluding these tubes from the analysis is also provided -
although the indications have been included in the evaluation.
The attachment does, not include information which is proprietary to EPRI or -
. Westinghouse.
r Purcuant to 10 CFR 50.91 (b)(1), the appropriate South Carolina official is being provided a copy of this letter.
Very truly us, i_
D. L. Rehn RKS/
30001;d Attachment
/
h f 9401050397 931220 5
fDR ADOCK 05000413 I
m PDR b
l s sw wm,w i
a
r
. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 20,1993 Page 2 xc: Mr. S. D. Ebneter Regional Administrator, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA. 30323 i
Mr. Heyward Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health &
Environmental Control 1
2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 i
Mr. R. J. Freudenberger NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station Mr. Robert E. Martin, Project Manager ONRR Mr. Nick Economos, Inspector Region II Mr. William T. Russell, Associate Director Inspection & Technical Assessment ONRR American Nuclear Insurers clo Dottie Sherman, ANI Library The Exchange, Suite 245 -
270 Farmington Avenue Farmington, CT 06032 M & M Nuclev Consultants 1166 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-2774 INPO Records Center j
. Suite 1500 j
1100 Circle 75 Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339 i
A A
4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 D. L. Rehn, being duly sworn, states that he is Site Vice-President, Catawba Nuclear Station; that he is authorized on the part of r. aid company to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this revision to the Catawba Nuclear Station Technical Specifications, Appendix A to License No. NPF-35; and that ali~ statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
D. L. Rehn'
~ '
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /2iN day of de'd
,1993.
k kttwly0a n l
bfotary Public 9 My Commission Expires:
f/ w a l. 2 00 0 i
i
~
ASSESSMENTS OF PLANT S PULLED TUBE R28C41 AND MODEL BOILER SPECIMENS 598-1 AND 598-3 FOR CATAWBA-1 IPC EVALUATIONS
?
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In EPRI Report NP-7480-L, Volume 2, which documents the 3/4 inch diameter database for APC applications, it has been recommended that Plant S pulled tube R28C41 and model boiler specimen 598-1 be excluded from the APC database for leak rate and burst correlations.
It is also recommended that leak rate data for model boiler specimen 598-3 not be used in the leak rate correlation. The bases for these recommendations are documented in the EPRI report and are further discussed in this report.
The NRC has requested that these data points be included in the database for the Catawba,
IPC evaluation. Since no acceptable leak rate measurement was obtained on R28C41, the NRC has requested that a calculated leak rate be included for the Catawba-1 analyses. This report (Section 2) provides an assessment of the potential leak rate range for R28C41 and the calculated leak rate to be inc' ded in the Catawba-1 evaluation. Section 3 summarizes the bases for not utilizing the S98-1 and 598-3 leak rate data, although they are included in the Catawba-1 analyses.
2.0 PLANT S PULLED TUBE R28C41 2.1 Summary of Pulled Tube Results Table 1 provides the field pre-pull and the laboratory post-pull bobbin and RPC inspection results for the Plant S pulled tubes. Prior to pulling the tubes, an axial force of 3000 lbs was applied to the tubes to test for binding at the FDB intersection. It is expected that this load resulted in tearing of ligaments at the crack faces. For R2SC41, the effects of the pull i ces increased the bobbin voltage from 11.6 to 43.6 volts and the RPC voltage from 7.7 to 14.7 volts. It can be noted that the post-pull bobbin volts exceed all pulled tube and model boiler voltages except specimen 598-1. The post-pull RPC amplitude of 14.7 volts exceeds all model boiler specimens including indications having throughwall crack lengths up to 0.59 inch. The RPC amplitude approaches the 20 volts for a 0.50 inch throughwall notch used for i
RPC calibration. Thus, the high post-pull RPC voltage indicates loss ofligaments and minimal contact across the crack faces.
Leak rate and burst test results are given in Table 2 and burst crack fractography results are given in Tables 2 and-3. The burst crack length of 0.670 inch is seen to be less than the total corrosion crack length of 0.80 inch. From Table 4, the region of the crack length ranging from 95% to 100% depth extends from 0.07" to 0.70" or 0.63 inch. Thus, the burst test only_
opened the crack region which exceeded 70% depth (about 0.07 to about 0.75 inch) in length.
It is clear that the burst test did not result in any crack extension and is not an acceptable burst test. Based on calculations of the burst pressure from the crack length and depth of Table 4, the burst pressure should have been about 3250 psi compared to the measured 2724 I
c psi. It is expected the crack opening resulting from the unsuccessful leak testing permitted
- the bladder and foil used in the burst test to extrude through the crack opening prior to reaching the burst capability of the tube. Thus, this indication has not been included in the burst correlation.
Table 2 summarizes the leak test results for R28C41. Following the initiai leak testing (lower i
capacity equipment in Table 2), it was found that the leakage exceeded the capacity of the leak test facility. The secondary side pressure could not be maintained in the ist and it is l
possible that the primary side flow was limited by facility equipment. A pressure differential of at least 2650 psi was reached in these tests. The measured leak rate of 12.3 t/hr at 1500 psid was within the facility capacity and represents a valid test result. For the SLB test conditions, it can only be stated that the leak rate was at least 95.9 t/hr at 2650 psid.. Once the 2650 psid was applied to the indication, valid leak testing cannot be performed at lower pressure differentials due to plastic opening of the crack at 2650 psid. This effect of path dependence on the leak rates is called the hysteresis effect.
Although recognized to be of limited value, leak rate measurements were made after the initial tests to 2650 psid. These test were made after a large capacity (~500 t/hr) facility was installed in the hot cells. The results are given in Table 2. It is apparent that additional crack' deformation occurred in this test sequences as a final test at 1375 psid resulted in a higher leak rate than the prior test at 1615 psid.
2.2 Assessment Of Leak Test Results For R28C41, only the 12.3 t/hr measurement at 1500 psid is a valid measurement. As noted above, the post-pull eddy current data indicate that the 95% deep uncorroded ligament was torn during the tube pull. If torn, this would result in a throughwall crack about 0.63" (length from 0.07" to 0.70" in Table 4) to about 0.67" (burst opening) long. If the ligament did not tear, the longest throughwall length would be about 0.26" (length from 0.44" to 0.70" in Table 4) to 0.35" (Table 3) long. Of 10 pulled tube and model boiler specimens (3/4 inch tube diameter) tested with throughwall lengths of 0.35 inch or less, only 2 specimens (596-2, 0.33" TW,13.3 t/hr and 600-1,0.28" TW,18.4 t/hr) had leak rates exceeding the 12.3 t/hr for R28C41. Thus, the leak rate at 1500 psid is reasonably consistent with the eddy current data in indicating that the 95% deep ligament was likely torn during the tube pull.
2.3 Estimated Leak Rates For R28C41 It is not known whether or not the 95% deep ligament for R28C41 would have torn throughwall under pressure differentials corresponding to SLB conditions (2560 psid).
Analytical efforts to determine the break-through pressure differential for the 95% ligament would result in significant uncertainty on the conclusion. Burst testing using EDM notches to_-
simulate the crack profile would provide more reliable estimates of the break-through pressure differential than analyses. Without burst tests to determine the break-through psid, the NRC has requested that it be assumed that the ligament would break-through and that the leak rate be estir.Wed at SLB conditions for this assumption. Under this assumption, the leak rate must be estimated for a throughwall crack length of 0.63 to 0.67 inch.
2 m
j
L E
Methods for estimating the SLB leakage from R28C41 include leak rates obtained from other
[
pulled tube or model boiler specimens having comparable throughwall crack lengths,
~
calculating the leakage with the Westinghouse computer code CRACKFLO, and attempting to correct the second series ofleak tests for the hysteresis effect. These three methods are assessed below. Table 5 shows measured leak rates at 2560 psid for the largest throughwall I
cracks for which destructive examination data is available. Plant S tube R42C43 is not included in this table, as this indication had two parallel throughwall indications interconnected by a corrosion crack which is not applicable to R28C41. The largest throughwall crack length of 0.59 inch (Specimen 601-2), which had small uncorroded ligaments only near the edges of the crack, had a leak rate of 88.4 t/hr. The largest leak rate was obtained for Plant S tube R33C20, TSP-1. This leak rate was 137 t/hr for a 0.33 inch long corrosion crack. This indication, like R28C41, was leak tested twice with the first leak test reaching 2250 psid. Although, the second leak tests were conducted at > 2250 psid, the larger leak rate may have been influenced by plastic deformation resulting from the first leak test. Specimen 601-6 has an uncorroded ligament (Figure 1) similar to R28C41. Specimen 600-1 also has a similar ligament, although the crack length is shorter and the corrosion depth is only about 75% of the remaining ligament. Based on these leak test results, it would be expected that the R28C41 SLB leak rate would be > 100 t/hr. An estimate of the upper range for the leak rate assuming the 95% deep ligament tears would be in the range of 200 -
300 f/hr. This estimate is based on the expectation that a 0.67" crack would leak at 2 to 3 times the leak rate for the 0.59" crack of specimen 601-2.
The Westinghouse CRACKFLO code can be applied to estimate the potential SLB leak rate for R28C41. This code has been verified against PWSCC and fatigue cracks. However, the data available for verification was limited in throughwall crack lengths. Figure 2 shows the comparison between predicted and measured leak rates at SLB conditions from the _
CRACKLFLO verification effort. The largest leak rates (up to ~2 gpm) are for fatigue ert.cu with <0.5 inch throughwall crack lengths. Fatigue cracks would be expected to leak more than corrosion cracks. Thus, the CRACKFLO model has not been qualified for crack lengths
>0.5" and would be expected to over-estimate leak rates for large corrosion cracks. In addition, the CRACKFLO crack opening model may not have adequate sophistication to l
predict plastic deformation for crack lengths within about 700 psi of the burst pressure such as R28C41. However, per the NRC request, CRACKFLO calculations were performed assuming the 95% ligament tore to form a 0.67" throughwall crack length. The calculated leak rate at 2560 psid is 2496 t/hr. At 2335 and 2650 psid, the calculated leak rates are 1000 and 3194 t/hr, respectively. If the lower estimate of 0.63" is assumed for the throughwall length, the calculated leak rates would be about a factor of 1.5 lower than for a 0.67" crack.' It is expected that the CRACKFLO leak rates are a conservative upper bound estimate for the R28C41 SLB leak rates.
1 i
After R28C41 was initially pressurized to 2650 psi during the initial, unsuccessful leak tests, a
leak rate measurements were made with the larger capacity facility. The latter measurements
)
include hysteresis effects due to prior plastic deformation at 2650 psid and cannot be used as valid leak rate measurements. The resulting leak rates are given in Table 2. The effects of 3
4 4-
~ the prior plastic deformation are readily seen in that the reconc test at 1535 psid yielded 321 t/hr compared to 12.3 t/hr for the initial, valid test at 1500 ps d. In addition, the last leak test at a lower pressure of 1375 psid resulted in a higher leak ate than the prior test at 1615 psid as given in Table 2. These results are indicative of signi0 cant plastic deformation of the crack face from the initial leak test at or about 2650 psid. Sinc: this leak test v is close to the expected burst pressure of about 3250 psid for this indication, it is not surprising that significant plastic deformation occurred at the crack. For indications well below the burst pressure, leak tests have been performed to measure typical hysteresis effects by measuring leak rates as a function of increasing pressure differentials followed by leak testing at decreasing pressure differentials. In some test sequences, repeat tests were performed a second time as a function ofincreasing pressure differentials. These tests performed on fatigue cracks indicate that repeat leak tests yield higher leak rates than the initial test up to the maximum pressure differential tested, and the repeat test yields comparable leak rates with the initial pressurization test at the maximum pressure differential tested in all tests. Figures 3 and 4 are examples of this type of testing on fatigue cracks in 7/8 inch diameter tubing at room temperature performed in 1977.
Based on the typical behavior of Figures 3 and 4 for indications well below the burst pressure, the second series ofleak tests on R28C41 in the larger facility were extrapolated to 2650 psid. Estimates of the leak rate at 2335 psid and 2560 psid were then obtained by adjusting the leak rates based on the initial measurement of 12.4 t/hr at 1500 psid and the extrapolated 2650 psid value. These leak rate adjustments applied the adjustment procedure given in Appendix C of WCAP-13494, Revision 1, which assumes exponential leak rate dependence on ap and a constant fit to the leak rate data. Again, the validity of this approach is questionable since the last data point in the second test series is inconsistent with this approach and the results of Figure 3. Extrapolation of the first three data points of the second test series in Table 2 yielded an estimate of 6220 t/hr at 2650 psid. Using this value and the initial 1500 psid measurement to interpolate to 2335 and 2560 psid yielded 840 and 3540 t/hr, respectively. These estimates, while comparable to the CRACKFLO results, are also highly uncertain due to the large plastic deformation as described above.
2.4 Conclusions Based on the above discussions, it is concluded that a reasonable estimate of the potential R28C41 SLB leak rate would require a determination of whether or not the 95% deep ligament would tear and a verified analysis model for leakage from long (~0.7") throughwall corrosion cracks. Determination of whether or not the ligament would tear is likely to require burst testing of EDMmotch simulations of the R28Cl4 crack profile due to uncertainties in the analysis model for redicting break-through of a ligament of this type, as compared to established models for predicting break-through of more uniform wall thickness ligaments.
An improved analysis model for large cracks would likely require enhancements in the CRACKFLO model for cracks approaching the burst pressure and verification of the revised model against long ODSCC and fatigue cracks.
b 4
'In response to the NRC request, the CRACKFLO calculated leak rate (2496 t/hr at 2560 psid) can be included in the draft NUREG-1477 methodology for calculating leak rates. The model averages the entire 3/4 inch leak rate database independent of voltage. For this model, the average and standard deviation at 2560 psid are increased from 95.8 and 352.5 t/hr to 149.2 and 503.9 t/hr, respectively by including R28C41 in the database along with model boiler specimens 598-1 and 598-3. The inclusion of R28C41 in the database with the CRACKFLO leak rate dominates the factors of 1.7 and 1.4 increases in the mean and standard deviation of the data.
3.0 MODEL BOILER SPECIMENS 598-1 AND 598-3 As documented in EPRI Report NP-7480-1, Volume 2, specimens 598-1 and 598-3 were recommended to be excluded from the APC leak rate database. Specimen 598-1 was also recommended for exclusion from the burst correlation. The specimen 598-3 recommendation is based on destructive examination identifying a 0.27 inch throughwall crack with no uncorroded ligaments remaining in the burst crack (Figure A-27 of the EPRI Report) and a leak rate of only 0.02 t/hr at 2650 psid. The leak rate for this crack would be anticipated to be in the range of 5-15 t/hr (CRACKFLO predicts ~ 15 t/hr) and it is expected that the crack became plugged by deposits or a measurement error was made. This specimen represents a low leak rate " outlier" in the leak rate vs. voltage correlation.
Specimen 598-1 was recommended for exclusion from the leak and burst database, as this specimen had a bobbin voltage of 64.9 volts and is the only datapoint above 23 volts. The large voltage results from bobbin probe integration of three parallel throughwall cracks up to 0.38 inch throughwall (Figure A-23 of EPRI report). There are no other data points having comparable voltages to define the spread of leak rates or burst pressure at this voltage level.
Thus, *.his specimen could have undue influence on the correlations without balancing data. It has been shown that the specimen has no significant influence on the burst correlation while influencing the leak rate correlation as a low leak rate " outlier". It is recommended that this data point be excluded from the correlations unless more data at comparable voltages are obtained to define the spread in data at these voltages.
The NRC has requested that specimens 598-1 and 598-3 be included in the leak rate data for application of the draft NUREG model and in the burst correlation. While Westinghouse disagrees with this approach, these data are being included in the Catawba leak rate analyses.
Specimen 598-3 had been included in the burst correlation and 598-1 has no significant influence on the burst correlation.
1 5
1
)
,i Table 1 PLANT S PULLED TUBE EDDY CURRENT DATA Field Bobbin Coil (550/130 kHz)
Field RPC Post-Pull Laboratorf (550 kHz)
Field Lab. Re-evaluation Re-eval.
Bobbin Coil RPC Tube TSP Volts Volts Volts Volts Depth APC Volts Depth Volts R42C43
- 1. (FDB) 22.3 21.3 91 %
22.9' 10.8 42.4 89 %
15.0 2
.R28C41 1 (FDB) 11.6 11.0 93 %
11.8' 7.7 43.6 94 %
14.7 2
R33C 0 1 (FDB) 9.8 9.15 88 %
9.8' 6.4
-32.8 95%.
13.4 2
2 NOTES:
1.
Includes factor of 1.073 for cross-caEbration of ASME standard to the reference laboratory standard.
2.
Large voltage increase may have resulted from 3000 lb. force applied in tube pulling operations.
l f
6 i-l l
l l
a.
.m
~
Table 2 LEAK TEST AND ROOM TEMPERATURE BURST AND TENSILE TEST RESULTS FOR PLANT S S/G TUBE R28-C41 Location Leak Rate' Burst
. Ductitity Burst Burst Tensile Tensile Tensile
( AP; 1/hr)
Pressure
(% dia.)
Length Width.
YS (psi)
UTS (psi)
Elong.
(psig)
(inch)
(inch)
(%)
R78-C41 lowe'r capacity eauipment 2724 9.4 0.670 -
0.155 FDB.
~1500; 12.3 2
_2335; 43.4 2
_2650; 95.9 hither capacity CQuipment 1200; 79.8' 1535: 321'
.1615; 448' 1375; 478' R28-C41 54,100 105.100 37.3 FS NOTES:
FDB = flow distribution baffle plate location; FS = free span location 1.
Led rate in liters per hour are provided for various differences (primary pressure minus secondary pressure in psi) with the results being presented in the chronological order.
2.
Not considered as valid data due to leak rates exceeding facility capacity.
3.
Not considered as valid data due to hysteresis effect (prior leak testing exceeded differential pressure conditions).
7
~
Table 3 SEM FRACTOGRAPIIY DATA ON CORROSION PRESENT ON PLANT S STEAM GENERATOR TUBE R28-C41 Location Max. Depth
-Avg Depth Macrocrack Length
~ Ductile Ligaments (inch)
(#/ width, inch)
R28-C41 FDB 100% for 0.45" 95 %
0.80 (includes 0.05" 4/ 0.013, 0.008, 0.007 &
(sum of 2 that is located above
'~ 0.004-regions that are the FDB top) 0.10 and 0.35"-
long separated by' 0.24" that is 95% deep)
- - Macrocrack 1 & 2 are interconnected near the centers of the macrocracks by a "V-shaped" 100% throughwall crack that is appwrimately 0.1 inch long on each side of the "V".
i r
8 t
1 5-
-e ws ww.
e%,--e%-w
-wv.-,.wm,,-n:.,e-m,,
+-
e
... -+
- ir-v-
--m*n
,-,# 5 yew.,
e-w.
w
--w-+d-
.'+i-+
..e w,-.-.
-er--
n-.-
e-
=
=
w
Table 4 PLANT S S/G TUBE MACROCRACK PROFILE FOR R28-C41 Tube, Location Length vs. Depth-Ductile Ligament (inches /% throughwall)
Location R28-C41, FDB 0.00/0 0.07/100 0.13/100 0.19/95+-
Ligament 1 0.25/95 0.32/954-Ligament 2 0.38/95 0.44/100 0.52/1004-Ligament 3 0.60/1004-Ligament 4 0.70/100 0.75/70 0.80/0 9
e>w
~
+
-,+-
S e-
Table 5 LEAK RATES FOR 3/4" SPECIMENS WITH LARGEST TIIROUGHWALL CRACKS Specimen' Throughwall Length - Inch SLB Leak Rate f/hr' Comments 2
Plant E-4, R16C31-3 0.46 96.4 No ligaments -
Plant S, R33C20-1 0.33 137.0 Prior leak testing may have opened crack face 596-3 0.44 55.0 No ligaments, Figure A-22 600-2 0.40 53.3 Ligament between TW cracks, Figure A-29 601-2 0.59 88.4 Minor ligaments Figure A-43 601-6 0.53
-49.3 Ligament
~0.07" long,
~98% deep near end of crack, Figure A-34 600-1 0.28 22.9 Ligament
-0.13" long,
~75% deep between 2 TW '
cracks, Figure A-39 Notes:
t' 1.
Leak rates at 2560 psid 2.
Figure numbers from EPRI Report NP-7480-L, Volume 2 10
.w
]
e OD
'I.
.\\-
e-
,- b.'-
_sh t. 'D s
' ' '? D.
'Q..
.q:.
s
. Q
~
Sketch of Burst Crack Macrocrack length = 0.74 Throughwall Length = 0.53 Number. of Hicrocracks = 12 (9 ligaments have intergranular features; 3 with ductile features)
Morphology = IGSCC 0.75 inches -
SP top
[
0.6 inches -
h{
1 b
0.2 inches -
[
i 0.0 inches -
SP bottom 1800 2700 00 900 1800 Sketch of Crack Distribution Figure 1.
Summary of Crack Distribution and Crack Morphology Observed in the Support Plate Crevice Region of Tube 601-6.
11
a 1
iE 2
-DATA - STEAM LINE BREAK
[
/
1E il
- -FATI6UE CRACKS
/
L' {
i m-SCC RT CRACKS
/
9-IE k
- - OPERA. TING, PLANT - PULLED TUBES
^[
W 3
/
F~
e y
iE-ij
=
x a
e e
W 1E-21 m a m*/
Em /
.c a
p
-w t
IE-3y H
a
.O 1
w a
' 1E-y
/m cc
,/
iEd:
..,,.r-,,,,,
.....m--,,...,
......,,-.,,,m
,,.r.- r ~.....-
1E-6 1E-5 iE-4
[E-3
- ili-2 iE-1 iE O iE i 1E 2-MEASURED LEA ( RATE LGPM)
Figure 2. Comparison between Predicted & Measured Leak Rates 12 I
T L
.=s:.--l31 TAM 6ZbwfMd 12/91 =.O(fMn $- nTf=::7% W=.;...= s=.==
--=tm-.
~2
=
t== = =
" sn=
==
E-3.;., n.:J=d:.Hi#h!":-i& -J-jE r:0ti-
- c. :mM.N k5fWM i'.:#ti'..ME". b_
?i=
- 2.i.t r
--?
- d...... _. _: ni
- r! CM..M 86 T4 M // ii ~.:!$i ;i!:
ge p........
..............E: = t:
i i===<=
n
==:._z== =.at=...._- -
- =p
=;n
=:===..r
- tI=.r_:=q:...:r.:.t.21_=:;:-,
- =1
_tu:=-f = u a :. t/:==
-=__u=
=1r= = au.e_t
. = 12.
_"_-N Y-".M".I":E5lMi- ?-M/M,=:M{.H -N_.' _'.~._dN!5 M:ii:
3 E
.-.... r = =..
.1 _r.-t __..n.3 :..
._.:=.._... _r.:....; ::=.::_:.. _ _,.z.. u ::
t.. := r t: :.u_. t.. :
- - - : i: -
__.,_p m
_. _ _. _ = = _
=u
= ~ t.. ? r. : ; -
== =cuengynp s.mqq
- =~=3- - ===--.. _.
-3.=- =- r/:,.:~._
n-.
4.
==
- b=.cc.. r.esRN:.1 rmu ruoMtW.r.:.=+:---
-,: "-I v:ar -- m:_
n
._=..: ; -
-M.
._E-. : :..
-.......m.
L i:
- - - --- : 3 ?: = :. :
=
.= __.egAtg..T M r::a ggq q q cy g._.
_. -- fL.
_.2.
n ru-
=;. f_ - n = l ===m_;;._..._... _.q_. _.
,a_.;.,,._.....,.. _ y. - - _. -.. f...__.;___..._ -..q.,_.
v-- -
- :=..__..
../..t =r --- -
_=__- gn-.: p _; =_ _m _
__. =- - - - -
- + -,__ :-_-._ ___ _.: ty.: :.-- b.:. u : - ---
_.____.5_
w _. --
=
=
_=
- =: t=. =21=_::
- =:==2 =:
= -
J-
- f. :-
_./
p _-_ _ r -
n_
~_. %,
_.,._.y.;_.
.p_
.+
+ _ _ _
[..-
=_a.
.= :.4 t==
!.=_.G_E=.=.==P --- '--
--f.;_ __ _.,;_:-~r
-- = _.pui=== f:: :-
-+--
j._ _
M.r.,.
--y
..=
.__.__ -i t=. =__
g_,g, a r--
_ 4:___,
_f
- h. e:p.
- =.. _. g,._
J
._ -"-... _ _..... =
f _. ;_
E,,,,,,.
--../
3 g
,,,,,_y----l
'h.,t ::
f-
_.a p._
.._-..._,f_.. _
z_n;; -"_
-j..-_..r..
_y-y
--k -f
.- bf*.;
- M--*
_.y g.-.
_y__
T.
w
-fr=*] -
-me
_ _y -
s.
r__
..q...g.. __a._
5k t+-
_u f,_.
._.1.,,.,....
_.y..
.:$1
-*~#
M*'":"_.*._*""" X :. :2t-- ~-
2_. _"'
_i J
f**-~=_
--ile. L:"".*:'4 :......
I
= ___
.. _ =.,,,,.
=== = = _ -
_,;n..
e n _.
__ :;===.--
r...
~ ____.
- ___.. 5: :-
=.
-_.__,_=.
_ _,. = = =
w --
--._ a ----=r
- .fr:- g:= =
- .
- r
- 3. _
=
- -W
~+r--
- - - - ~
_=-* f: ; _ u M;.s g _=
. !., ='.:
t:
- =
_ _ ". - -.--- fi$==
.L c_
_===r 4_
_..,, _ _....r=
g 9 _
_s._
=p..
- 10'
. p)
'/ = 1_-=
. '. = mW
- t :- ::2=-
- " r -. = ='
2,.,7_ ={]:_=
- 2__,
&_ d:h_=m:tr:
_=_.;
~ ~ -
- dW..gn:.:==: j =_.
._..w
...cr.x
=
n
- =f...:. gp=r.
=_..;s=_==: ::r.-
_ _ _.r
--- - -)-,; w -n=/1e....:. =+ := n.= ===
=_ g=-
= :_.
= :
2: 1 = ;
- tn =
=
==-
= M.,. _ =..
, p
- 4
.n
..' 4,~C '
- n.:
r.:: =
. _ =... = _.=_~t
42 N "..' _~.#
C
- '_#1'_.'.
.'E'=-
- = =.
==
7g..
....n- ~:.:: =
wz-l 2.f C y O J :.:..=
+.
J 7
3._.
=. :tG.:0^*
- ~1 p
.. =~ =j= --
6 : -- :Yt:.
.==
==.1.
. f.n AP.
- -*C.
. l..
=
.;..m.. ;;;{--
. =15:: g u.. :. k:.n.t
.J. g:C yb/.s; =;=. : =
- n - -
- =
= :m-:
- r.:,._u - ;
a
- :r
- ====
=9 -
=-
hi N:I"""# EM iisMM 515 5 #E3 ).E!MiM iiDM3M ydrii.L~E
=
S
=I 25- ;I-5 ~_E d.E.T; d[5 ici I. S iiii 5: MNi;! Er 5 Ni M 'M M T." iiin j.;-- =-
= E si:
.ni[:E
- 1 - i=;=ii
=:rn i:I-qip g9 giiip
=
- ".u
.. =
... gn
- .y ran w....
- g rw
- .:.w.-w:..:x;x:r.....u.r.-d.-._ ::+r ;
=: tr :a= nw;-
=.
.a
.; s u_.
e v..
E-WE!= 5 hur;;n. h. var.M_F isiti.d=m!.p
>w..
=== s
=i-u
,v--
.a ue
.v-sv-
.7
...v
..,a i E=F Figure 3.
Steam Generator Tube Leak Rate Test-Run SGTLR-_11 13
T f
n o
-- :.:r e::a 14:}.=
..:.. : W - t=J m2.::=in I:::;- :=.-. * - r _._-1 :
_t
- .^ :
r.=-
r P.rm- : r:
Swr.,GBfMcEifil.C AM&..
n
.t.._....] :....: n :=..4n.:a::=
t
... -. t ::=:)**rt:
.)..=:-
n
., %.. i =.. :....=
.,..r):
rf.... E.
. ~. _
- =
=5= =- =n = _
...... ' 7 m.,.......
=
=E
. :. _. a" 5 %.-*.::.
.f.
J-.... : ' ;:.'
....'*gg ** ;%. M.:* [.'.. ; -':.*. :'*:.*.:. T.
! =... :..*. d...
- !. *. J..: :.::* *;*:
. ! /.:.:4" ;. f. :1;.L...' a* ::*:=
j
- .'..*.:'...,1- -~:
. _.......:.-* '.. J'* 1:; ;
{}',4 > e b.... -.....
C(f,, t/,%Am
.. - *". l * ; : :: : $. _... - _........f.. w T r *:..: " :~:* "-*
- W'*
/
((:.h. k5h ~.'.7, M. N:~-f d-5* *"d - ~~~~ 'f:*ji=* *.*f-..;h_ hh.f.("'.i= 'h [.__ h h*" _*
- :-- -,. :=: :
.2=
- p ===s Y:3.
-y.
- n = = tz.$=. ".. t.1.~- ' -
_ :.;; -..... m
==
':=* =. n " :-
'id J-~~~---'
^'b r :.:.=
5,: -'.
T.:
. :.';' :1*..
- =: _:== = ~ =..
-a.t r- ---t._ _.:-
:.:: :}==_=.:_ :.;. ;;.h.::.'
=
- "=*. -; _1 --. _r = : :.:..
- .: = t:=_.: :::t:...:
a.
2.a=r:::
m.
_..__:.: =:= * :=.
- f_ :.: -,_:
- .,.j;".,_-m..2 _.._;.;*; _;=., _ ya...?. g.-. -- :. _ - - g: =g.: :n.=_q=:.2:.p:..:
t
,_4=. ;; =._=_=._:.::=
=,:= jr==j:n - : :: "g::. :r. :. an== _. -
- =.. : _ =l._=:=:=:.tz:::=;:---
--r---
r-1.4 :--
,y;4 q:e.ng =.11gn.m L.-
- n.
r
.:....p.
....... n m g::.g=2
- :- - L
--._1
-*- menuw.trucws d'.
- = :.2 - --- :;;r - $ - -
.m.a.:.
- 2.
g=-*-=
.= t :.;;.;
+
==1.
l== 3: _WM=M FA
-L.' E S$ EL...
";:a,.;:- :. :::: :..
=2:1_ _
--~ - r:---- - ::q '::_--.. -. -: - :=-
~~NJ'/'
~~'
- ' ::=_ _===
-' - v_ :.=~MTMF
.. r2
.:.: f.:
---w--
~ ~ - - --
~ _
- ~ = - - -
M *N J_
...:::,:.= _ = -
=*--l-
.._._q__...
~~ -
g.
-_y n
._-=gp a._
-Y
- =t =: -:ra.:--
. 4 :-
-l:=-.h, _.. $2:TJ.:
_' '.$. ~4-- _.* T".L-
~ ~ + - -
.. - * * ~
C:':T = g.
7_$~
a,,_.
- - -"=___;_.....-
y_., _
.-_7.
_.a.._
,...s.
_s g._._..,
_ =n. _ = rv
.NCLErr i m
-f -----F" :=t: _.:
=..27,.
= _ - - -. _ __; S q-M ctra:r. UT -----
_ ! =J =;==f:.-- - --
- - -. = :
- 1. :::.2._c - : -- -~ ~--
- 1--
- :n - - -
.=rax
- :=
-" : =:::.- +
+-
r.
seg.,,,,;-___-.._.-=_ _ u t.==::.i =._g.
= =_ T.n --
...., ::=.
- n ' -- ::.p: = =
. : :.- :::=-
=r;s -
n
,..;,3 _
t g,. :.W.4,.,;;.. v. __; ;__ g..
2
=x==::d L._ _,.,.
g
=g..;_;.y,...= _-
.1;1._
-f"'-"-
- -*.:t J*: L$...
".-w.: :*.1-m qw..
.. p
._.y.
.._.,...g..
_~ _
a.
-[4_
.p
[.
-~
[J:::"l }
D:*
Q17,;,
. g-T -.
t - - Ir - - ** - - -- p,__,
m =_
,1 = f._.=_--
- _-~ - - - ~;=
- t. _.,_
i
_.g ;
7.;
g;
- .s _
A *.E.=._
~ -...-
- D.l:-/;.=I.
-- t f2==. :... _._.
M,- -
f_ -Z:.
lG'-"-
=t:.=::
~
+
M c:
@,g. _. :. _ _=.. _=__ =__ p: /r 7 : : ~ 4......__
arr-- - n r.
u.......%......._t---=-/=...:..
- = n:q==
.m:.._-
==
=;
.;;=== = -
= - n:
.. _ =
-en.
_ - - - - -. _ _ --M f:: -f ---
-. - -,- - _ -+---
- -t=.-- ~ --. - / g
- ; _
=:;- 1 t;; : -
= g=. _=t= u=---
==
____--4
~ - * - ; / 4r _. _:J==;... -_ _..
a J,. :=
g: /;...t2 := = : :t..l.--
. = " -
= =.
r x-- j..i
.=:-t =._m n
=1. u.
..=
r
- -t -- - -
- =2
=___- =_.r--.
p-
__.y__.
.. _.._+-.y..~._.;_.,_.
_=
y-
_._m J_,1;.. l=.._,--.
_tu. _..
=
m__,_....
_ i._. =
==
=
m._,;____
=_,___
-.g== =.==.
-l_.n_2dj=._ _.p_ r = p:-
,_a_2 f--
.. _=.
=y:-
.:- u-
d= =_ -.-a =.
- .3.===/==p=. =.:. :--- :--:
a=
.uau- =:=
=f =:.
.--=-
=E-..
g= =,=
.=
=. _ =, _ = _.
= _ _, =.. =.=___:.=_
=-;r -. f- -,22 : =::= = i== t=- -
2:
- = =
=,
- - :=== :.: -
L =_.=--~r----
_a_: =- t ===; = :.:=
." s u--
.:=
=
- r-.
=-l.. -
- n. _ ;==
- - ym... :,,;.**=::t =::- =. :==u.:. :l:==.uq.. =
-nr=
=
=
r- :
=. - -==.
572-MI5M"4EEwl.-@M
- 5
?= ei5i!= i-55 i#:- 4!!5 Ehi:5
=
2:
.t:~u_ :3 m..
=c..
..n i n..
en= n==
e
. i
e:::
i
.t ;
rq: :-
- r r
. =
- r :n r::
-- h -
=;p..
r r
=:N :.
n
- 4..w -,,l,. = a -[, :
..n..
.i..
w f :w. -.. i. a, -. )... w.
s, ~. w.,w :z,
=: = w-w=...y; :v 2.; :
~.,
.a q
=.. t.
.u-
- w. 1-
- u..
- x.. g..
.n u.
. <r m
..'.. w w-
.e
- g$ e
... n
=..
=...m-
.. f.r.
- m.. {m.. w
. =.
t.,
l
==
=
..... d. ;. ;
n==
=
...=-
u-a- -
=
.=v =
=.
=. =.
... =
.nn1sly?76k.&mEf: =
=
a =
u- =: a: =m=
I!=:E:M5 sr5: UE.5 i f:M.:lijdSt. 5jiE #i@" 5=ii '":m
-iW "i Mj5
~
L Figure 4.
Steam Generator Tube Leak Rate Test-Run SGTLR-15 '
4 14 1
9
,-