ML20100K799
| ML20100K799 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1985 |
| From: | Langan D, Rhedrick G, Torborg M GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100K773 | List: |
| References | |
| TDR-652, TDR-652-R01, TDR-652-R1, NUDOCS 8504160085 | |
| Download: ML20100K799 (61) | |
Text
,
\\
652 REVISION NO. 1 TDR NO.
g BUDGET TECHNICAL DATA REPORT ACTIVITY NO. 123125 PAGE 1
OF 60 PROJECT:
DEPARTMENT /SECTION Omlity Assernnce TMI Unit 1 OTSG Eddy Current Program RELEASE DATE k 6
REVISION DATE DOCUMENT ME:
Evaluation of the 1984 Required Technical Snaci fi enti nn Ev,-inntinn fnr tha TAfT 1 OTT ORIGINATOR SIGNATUREr DATE APPROVAL (S) SIGNATURE DATE G. E. Rhedrick M / M b //Alfk J///6 R. O. Barley /s/
3/1/85 M. T. Torbore/s/
3/k/85 N. C. Kazanas d ) b b e +- -
NIs /#
D. Innonn/s/
1/1/M O
i kPPRhAL hR EXTE9NAL DISTRIBUTION DATE v, u m Wr 6
Does this TDRinclude recommendation (s)? Oyes @No if yes,TFWR/TR #
o DISTRIBUTION ABSTRACT: Statement of Problem The results of the 1984 eddy current examination performed on B. E. Ballard the TMI-1 steam generator tubing had identified 328 tubes with R. O. Barley confirmed indications of > 407 through wall penetration. These G. R. Capodanno indications were not identified in previous eddy current examin-J. J. Colitz ations performed prior to mechanical thermal and hydraulic load-B. D. Elam ing evolutions which took place in the steam generators.
I. R. Finfrock Technical Approach F. S. Giacobbe Knowing the locations of the 1984 confirmed indications, a re-M. J. Graham view of the 1983 and 1982 examiaations have confirmed the earli-H. D. Hukill er presence for a majority of these indications. A characteriz-J. J. Janiszewski ation of the 1984 Indications by defect location, si p al ampli-N. C. Kazanas tude, percent through wall and circumferential extent was per-D. Langan formed and compared to the 1932 examinat' ion results. A growth R. L. Long sample study on a random selection of tubes was performed after R. Ostrowski the detectica of the 1984 indications in order to determine if T. J. Patterson evidence of an active mechanism was occurring.
G. E. Rhedrick Findings T. A. Richter It was observed that the 1984 indications were located in the M. T. Torborg same affected axial and radial areas previously identified dur-R. F. Wilson ing 1982 examination. The 1984 indications were predominately
~
,mz shorter in circumferential extent. The review of 1984, 1983 and
[@@
1982 examination results revealed that the percent through wall DRF 029572 gg determination showed no change. 907. c f the new inoications were on of size at or near the threshold of GPUN standard differential mo technique sensitivity of detection. The results of the growth Qf sample study showed no evidence of an active mechanism occurring oo during the period of observation.
Conclusion y
The 1984 examination identified indications that were already om present in the tubes in 1982 but because of their weak srgn.al amp
@@m li::ude were masked by background noise. The mechanical, thermal and hydraulic loads imposed on the OTSG since 1982 examination may have enhanced the eudy current detection of small indication by increasing the signal amplitude but without evidence of in-crease to percent through wall, cCOVER PAGE ONLY A0000030 'e3
l TDR 652 Rev. 1 Page 2 of 60 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
SUMMARY
3 I.
INTRODUCTION 6
II.
METHOD OF EXAMINATION 7
III.
SCOPE OF EXAMINATION 8
IV.
RESULTS OF 1984 EXAMINATIONS 10 A.
INDICATIONS REPORT 10 8.
ISI TESTS 10 C.
CHARACTERIZATION OF INDICATIONS 15 1.
RADIAL DISTRIBUTION 16 2.
AXIAL DISTRIBUTION 17 3.
SIGNAL AMPLITUDE 18 4.
PERCENT THROUGH WALL 18 5.
CIRCUMFERENTIAL EXTENT 20 D.
SUMMARY
OF INDICATION CHARACTERIZATION 21 FIGURES la-b, 2a-b, 3a-b, 4a-b, Sa-b, 6 V.
REVIEW PRE-KINETIC, POST KINETIC AND POST HOT FUNCTIONAL EXAMINATION DATA 25 VI.
GROWTH PROGRAM 44 VII.
CONCLUSION 46 VIII.
REFERENCES 47 APPENDIX A
ABSTRACTION ON THE DUAL INSPECTION DEVELOPMENT AND PERCENT THROUGH HALL CONVERSION CURVE 49 8
1982-1984 EDDY CURRENT STATISTICS 53
TDR 652 Rev. O Page 3 of 60
SUMMARY
DuEing the 1984 Technical Specification required eddy current examination,
-performed on the once through steam generator tubing at TMI Unit 1, a number of new relevant indications were detected in the "A" and "B" steam generator tubes.
These new indications were not detected back in November 1982 when a full length eddy current examination was conducted on all the inservice "A" and "B" steam generator tubes.
During both inspection periods the same eddy current examination technique was employed.
Since the 1982 eddy current examination both steam generators had undergone mechanical loading due to kinetic expansion tube repair and thermal /hydraulle loading due to two hot functional tests.
GPUN first determined that a new corrosion mechanism was not active.
This was j
determined through repeat eddy current examinations on a controlled group of tubes in 1984 after initial detection of the new indications.
This revealed that no growth or change in given eddy current signals occurred for the time period studied.
The 1984 Indications were characterized as to size, location, depth and then compared to the 1982 examination results. GPUN concluded that the 1984 Indi-cations are a smaller additional subset of those detected in 1982 examina-tion.
The percent through wall and circumferential extent for 907. of the 1
TDR 652 Rev. O Page 4 of 60 1984 Indications are of a size that approximates the threshold of detection for the measured sensitivity curve using the GPUN qualified standard differen-i tial eddy current examination process.
4 i
Detailed analysis of the new 1984 indications reveal, that by knowing the specific location of the indication the majority can be found in the 1982 eddy current tapes.
The indications that could be measured in the 1982 tapes in-cluding the in service inspection tubes reveal that:
(1)
No new indications were detected in the ISI subset (one exception explained)
(2)
The percent through wall assignments, as determined by phase angle measurement remain constant from 1982 to 1984 (3)
For indications not previously identified in 1982, the amplitude of the eddy current signal has substantially increased in the 1984 tapes which would result from some increase in the discon-tlnuity volume.
Presumably the latter is a reflection of the mechanical / thermal working of the tubing.
(4)
For indications not previously identified in 1982 the increase in the amplitude of the indications in 1984 contributed to our abil-ity to detect the small indications which now revealed themselves above the surrcunding background noise.
The latter combined with the low amplitudes associated with the signals from the indica-tions prevented eaciler detection.
TDR 652 Rev. O Page 5 of 60 Implicit within this fact, is that the earlier undetected indications were in fact very small.
This is substantiated by the characterization studies for the 1984 Indications which show them to be smaller percent through wall and circumferential extent than the 1982 indications.
Addltionally, the 1984 in-dications are located in areas which identify closely to intergranular stress assisted corrosion cracking revealed earlier in the 1981-1982 examinations.
~
1 TDR 652 Rev. I Page 6 of 60 I.
INTR 000CTION
'In November of 1984, eddy current examination was performed on the TMI -
Unit _l, once through steam. generator (OTSG) tubing in accordance with Technical Specification, 4.19.
The examination ultimately included 14,615 tubes in the "A" OTSG and approximately 6,500 tubes in the "B" OTSG.
This examination was concluded with a total count of 328 tubes with confirmed indications having tube wall degradation measuring 40 percent through wall or greater.
This is a criterion that requires engineering disposition.
There were another 319 tubes that had confirmed-indications with a measured through wall degradation less than 40 per-cent.
Those tubes with 20-40% through wall indication are classified
" degraded" tubes and are required to be monitored for change at future examinations.
In addition, those tubes which contain indications of 40%
through wall or greater but do not meet the approved plugging criteria will also be monitored.
Since the last complete eddy current examination (1982 baseline) per-formed on the OTSG in 1982, the OTSG tubes have been subjected to mechan-ical loading due to kinetic expansion repairs and thermal and hydraulic loadings due to the two hot functional tests.
The eddy current examina-tions performed subsequent to these loadings have resulted in the detec-tion of indications not seen previously.
3 y
-e-
~--
p+y--e
-w9 mm.-
t*w wr9-t
TOR 652 Rev. O i
Page 7 of 60 The analysis performed herein has the folicwing purposes:
1.
To characterize and report the indications identified during the 1984
. examination and compare these characteristics with indications re-ported during the 1982 baseline examination.
The purpose of this comparison is to evaluate the pattern of defect distribution and to determine if the affected areas correspond to the previously affected areas.
2.
Determine the correlation of the kinetic expansion and subsequent hot functional test to the detection of indications not detected prior to these loading events. And, evaluate the impact from a chronological perspective.
3.
Review the data from the 1984 Growth Program and evaluate the results to determine if evidence of continued tube degradation existed.
II.
METHOD OF EXAMINATION The eddy current examinations performed in November of 1984 utilized both standard differential and absolute eddy current examination techniques.
This dual examination method was developed by GPUN to specifically detect
.and confirm small volume but predominately circumferentially oriented inner diameter defects.
(See Appendix AL
r TOR 652 Rev. O Page 8 of 60
~
The. dual examination method involved first examining the tubing with a high gain standard differential technique using a.540" diameter eddy current probe.
If no indications are detected the examination is com-plete and the tube is considered acceptable.
Tubes found to have standard differential indications were examined a second time using the absolute 8xl technique which used a probe having 8 independent coils.
The absolute 8x1 examination determines the circumferential extent of the defect and also determines if the indications are relevant or non-rele-vant. A relevant indication is a flaw that has been confirmed by abso-lute 8x1 examination.
This dual examination method is the same method GPUN qualified and used for the 1982 baseline eddy current examination of the TMI-l OTSG tubing (Ref. 1)
III. SCOPE OF EXAMINATION The initial set of tubes for the 1984 eddy current examinations was a 3%
sample selected in accordance with the requirements of Technical Specif1-cation 4.19.
As required by 4.19, this set included all tubes remaining in service which were classified " degraded tubes." These tubes had prev-lously reported indications of 20-40% through wall and are referred to as the ISI tubes.
Approximately 50% of the 3% sample was from the high de-fect area (outer periphery) with the remaining 50% being located randomly throughout the generators.
r TOR 652 Rev. O Page 9 of 60 i
The exa'mination of the initial sample identified some discontinuities which exceeded the 40% through wall technical specification limit.
As a result of these discontinuities, the examination scope was increased to include 100% of the tubes in the affected area of both OTSGs.
This in-creased scope included 100% of the tubes in OTSG "A" and 100% of the tubes in the outer periphery of OTSG "B".
This outer periphery is de-fined as the area outside the outer tie rod circle and includes approxi-mately 6500 tubes.
The November 1984 examination was not continued into the center of the B" generator because no confirmed indications >40% through wall were-found in this area during the random examination.
The indications re-ported in the "B" generator were at a significantly lower frequency than reported in the "A" generator. And their distribution declined sharply with distance from the outer perimeter and was bounded by the outer tie rod circle.
i As part of the expanded scope, a selected 100 tube sample, designated the "A" Growth Program, was monitored in order to determine if there was an active mechanism initiating the 1984 eddy current indications.
This sample was also comparatively evaluated against the eddy current tapes from the 1982 examination.
l
n-TDR 652 Rev. 1 Page 10 of 60 Examinations discussed within this report included the full length of the unexpanded region of the tubes.
Expanded portions of the tubes cannot be effectively examined and evaluated with the standard differential tech-nique and are therefore not included in the tubing examinations.
IV.
RESULTS OF 1984 EXAMINATIONS ~
A.
INDICATIONS REPORT As a result of expanding the scope of the examinations, 14,615 tubes in OTSG "A" and approximately 6500 tubes in OTSG "B" were examined.
Of these tubes, 298 in OTSG "A" and 30 in OTSG B were identified as having relevant indications 40% through wall or greater.
In addi-tion, 274 tubes in OTSG "A" and 45 tubes in OTSG "B" were identified as having confirmed indications from 20-40% through~ wall and are classified as " degraded tubes".
These tubes and any tubes with con-firmed indications 40% through wall or greater which do not meet the approved plugging criteria will be monitored during future examina-tions as "ISI tubes".
B.
ISI TUBES The subset of ISI tubes included 28 tubes in OTSG A and 56 tubes in OTSG B which had indications of 20-40% through wall penetration iden-tified and recorded during previous examinations.
r TOR 652 Rev. O Page 11 of 60 These ISI tubes were examined as a subset and an in depth evaluation and comparison of the 1984 data to the previous data was performed.
The purpose of this evaluation and comparison was to determine if the previously identified indications had " grown".
The criteria used to establish growth addressed significant changes In percent through wall determinations, changes in signal voltage or changes in arc length of the monitored indication. When performing evaluations of this type, it must be noted that changes of about 10%
through wall can be caused by a change of only 3 degrees in the phase angle measurement of the standard differential reponse signal.
When addressing small voltage signals, measurement _ errors of this type can be expected.
For the absolute 8x1, the orientation of the coils to the defect may change the number of coils an indication appears on by I additional coil during repeat examinations.
The evaluations must therefore factor in these limitations on repeatability.
ISI Tubes in-the "A" Generator From the "A" generator 28 of the 28 ISI tubes showed no evidence of growth for any of the previously identified indications.
Two tubes, A-2-9 and A-88-128, had indications previously identified t
as being <40% through wall which were subsequently reported as >40% -
through wall in 1984.
These indications were compared by the data
a TDR 652 i
Rev. 1 Page 12 of 60 analyst on a one-to-one basis to the previous data and it was deter-mined that the change in the percent through wall determinations were caused by variations in the repeatability of the overall eddy current process and not by the physical changes in the tube.
(See Table 1).
ISI Tubes in the "B" Generator In OTSG "B" there was no indication of " growth" for 56 of the 56 tubes. One tube B-98-5 did have an indication reported as greater than 40% through wall and required further evaluation.
The details for this tube are shown in Table 1.
The 1984 and previous data for this tube was re-evaluated by the data analyst to compare the eddy current signal's shape.
The analyst de-termined the variation in the percent through wall determinations was attributed to distortion of eddy current signals caused by multiple indications and was not a result of physical changes in the tube.
Status of ISI Tubes A number of tubes previously placed in the ISI category during the 1982 baseline examination were determined to have non-relevant indi-cations as a result-of the 1984 absolute 8x1 examination.
l..
i These tubes, 13-in "A" OTSG and 27 in "B" OTSG, had non-relevant indications as determined by absolute 8xl in 1982 but were placed on
n TDR 652 Rev. 1 Page 13 of 60 the ISI list for monitoring purposes in order to verify th,e precision of the_-absolute 8xl confirmation exams during future. dual examination exercises. With the completion of the 1984 examination and the con-sistency of reporting the same standard differential indication.as non-relevant, these. tubes were removed from the ISI' list.
The number of ISI tubes has increased as 264 tubes in OTSG A and 20 tubes in OTSG B had confirmed indication from 20-40% through wall in 1984 which were not previously identified.
This puts the present population of ISI. tubes between 20-40% through wall at 274 tubes in "A" and'45 tubes in "B".
TDR 652 Rev. 1 Page 14 of 60 Table 1 ISI Confirmed Indications Greater Than 40% Through Wall in 1984 April Nov.
Indication 1983 Post KE Data 1984 Post HFT Data Gen Row Tube Elevation Origin
% T.W.
Volts Volts A
2-9 US+06*
ID 40%
1.7 45%
1.6 A
88 - 128 12+05 ID
< 20%
0.9 31%
1.4 13-09 ID
< 20%
0.6
<20%
0.6 05-11 ID 23%
1.9 41%
2.5 B
98 - 5 US+07*
ID 37%
2.3 48%
4.0 US+01 ID
<20%
1.9
<20%
2.0 US+04 ID
<20%
2.3 21%
3.5
- immediately below expanded area l
i
o i
TDR 652 Rev. O Page 15 of 60 C.
CHARACTERIZATION OF INDICATIONS The indications detected during the 1984 examinations were character-ized by the location and extent of degradation based on the eddy cur-
. rent response signal. Details, listing the data in support of this section are included in Appendix B.
The characterization is further defined by comparing the 1984 indica-tions with those reported in 1982.
For this comparison GPUN used the 1984 data described previously and the 1982 standard differential
'high gain data base.
The 1982 data base included all tubes examined using the GPUN dual examination method prior to 1984.
This data base was previously used to disposition the OTSG tubes for the kinetic expansion process and subsequent tube plugging.
This data base con-tains the 1982 baseline results which are summarized in TDR 442.
(See Ref. 2).
Both the standard differential and absolute techniques are used to furnish these characterization as described below.
Standard differential response signal offers the following; a.
Amplitude (this relates to the defects geometry and volume, and is reported as a voltags reading).
b.
Percent through wall (this relates to the response signal's phase angle and is measured in degrees).
r' TDR 652 Rev. 1 Page 16 of 60 c.
Axial locations are reported by distance from the tube support plates that are-spaced at known elevations in the generators.
Absolute 8x1 signal offers the following:
a.
Number of coils (this relates to the defect's circumferential
, extent).
The maximum circumferential extent is 8 coils and represents a' defect circumferential arc length that could be as l
much as_360 degrees.
NOTE:
Amplitude, phase and axial location are also recorded on the absolute 8xl results; however, these results are used only to confirm the standard differential indica-tions.
1.
RADIAL DISTRIBUTION The indications detected during the 1984 examination were located in essentially the same areas of the OTSGs as those discovered in 1982.
The indications were located predominately towards the outer periphery of both OTSG A and B.
In addition to the indica-tions located in the periphery there was also a smaller number of j
indications present in the center of OTSG A.
No indications greater than or equal to 407. through wall were reported in the l
center of OTSG B.
(See Figures la and Ib).
l i.
i TOR 652 Rev. O Page 17 of 60
'2.
AXIAL DISTRIBUTION The axial location of the 1984 Indications can be characterized as being towards the top of the OTSGs.
For OTSG A, 79 percent of the indications during the 1984 examination are located in or above the 15th span with 57 percent of the indications in OTSG B located in this region.
This corresponds with 82 percent in "A" generator and 74 percent in "B" generator for the 1982 examina-tion.
In order to compare the 1982 and 1984 axial distributions, it must be noted that the majority of the indications detected dur-ing 1982 were within the upper tube sheet area and were captured by the kinetic expansion process. As a result of the expansion process and the coining of the tube wall against the tube sheet an examination of the coined area was not possible using the standard differential probe. Only the area of the tube below the expansion zone could be examined using the standard differential technique.
With the exception of the upper tube sheet region, the overall distribution of the indications in 1984 closely resembles the 1982 distribution.
This distribution shows the 'ndications are concentrated towards the uppermost regions of the OTSGs and the frequency of occurrence decreases sharply at the lower regions.
(See Figures 2a and 2b).
l
TDR 652 Rev. O Page 18 of 60 3.
SIGNAL AMPLITUDE The majority of the discontinuities detected in 1984 were small volume as indicated by the amplitude of the standard differential signal.
In OTSG A, 93 percent of the 1984 indications detected were 2 volts or less in amplitude, while in OTSG B 74 percent of-the indications were in this category.
.This voltage distribution corresponds to approximately 93 percent of the 1982 indications in OTSG A and 78 percent of the indica-tions in OTSG B as being 2 volts or less.
(See Figures 3a and 3b).
To establish a reference volume for the discontinuities in this range, a comparison can be made to the responses from the cali-bration standard.
This standard has a 1001 through wall 0.052" diameter drilled hole which produces a 15 volt response signal for calibration purposes.
This indicates that the'discontinu-ities present in the OTSGs are of a significantly smaller volume
~
than the calibration standard.
4.
PERCENT THROUGH HALL The 1984 eddy current examination results have shown that a con-siderable number of the reported indications measured less than 40% through wall penetration.
The 1984 examination reported 572
r:
TDR 652 Rev. 0-Page 19 of 60 tubes in "A" and 75 tubes in "B" with confirmed indications.
In
- the "A" generator the indications in 48% of the 572 tubes were less than 40% through wall and in.the "B" generator the indica-tions in 60% of the 75 tubes were less than 40% through wall.
For the 1982 examination, the results indicated higher percent through wall degradation.
In the "A" generator, 50% of the indi-
~
cations reported were 90% through wall penetration or greater while 3% of the reported indications were less than 40% through wall.
In the "B" generator, 16% of the indications reported were 90% through wall penetration or greater and 40% of the reported-indications were less than 40% through wall.
(See figures 4a and 4b).
The contrast between the 1982 and 1984 examination-results.for percent through wall comparison must consider that most of the tubing within the upper tubesheet region could not be examined in 1984.
This region accounted for 63% in "A" and 61%'in "B" of the reported indications in the 1982 examination.
This comparison serves as an approximation only, since an improved inner diameter conversion curve was used for the November 1984 examinations (Ref. 3).
1 TDR 652 Rev. O Page 20 of 60 5.
CIRCUMFERENTIAL EXTENT To confirm the relevancy of the reported standard differential indication an absolute 8xl examination is performed.
The number of coils that respond to a relevant-indication provides an esti-mate of the indication's circumferential extent.
The 1984 exam-ination results showed that the confirmed indications ranged from 1 to 3 coils.
The circumferential extent for a one coil indica-tion is from the threshold of detection to 0.194".
A two coil indication is from 0.024" to 0.413" whereas a three coil indica-tion is from 0.219" to 0.632".
(Ref. 4).
For the "A" generator approximately 90% of the confirmed indications'were 1 coll, ap-proximately 10% were 2 coils, and only 2 indications were 3 coils of which one was outer diameter.
For the "B" generator 79% of the confirmed indications were I coil, 20% were 2 coils, and only one was 3 coils.
For the 1982 examination the results showed that the confirmed indications ranged from 1 to 8 coils.
For the "A" generator 66%
of the confirmed indications were 1 coil, and for the "B" gener-ator 50% of the confirmed indications were I coll.
A greater number of 2 coil and greater indications were confirmed by abso-lute' 8x1 during the 1982 examination than in the 1984 examina-tion.
(See figures Sa and 5b).
?.
i TDR 652 Rev. O Page 21 of 60 D.
SUMMARY
OF INDICATION CHARACTERIZATION
.The eddy current examinations performed in 1982 and 1984, both util-ized the GPUN quallfled examination program using a combination of standard differential high gain.540" probe and absolute 8x1 probe.
This dual examination method was developed to detect intergranular stress assisted cracking, predominately circumferential1y oriented and initiated on the tube's inner diameter wall.
The 1982 eddy current examinations prior to the kinetic expansion repair were full length examinations performed on all in service tubes in both "A" and "B" generators.
The 1984 examination were also
-full length however the kinetic expanded area could not be examined.
Some tubes could not be examined with the S.D.
540" probe below the center of the lower tubesheet due to ligament distortion from adja-cent explosive plugs.
~The comparison of the 1982 to 1984 data showed both similarities and differences in the characterization of the indications reported.
The characterization of the axial and radial distribution showed the in-dications occurred in the same regions of the OTSGs in both 1982 and-
~
1984.
The amplitudes of the indications also appears to be similar t
in 1982 and 1984..The differences between the two sets of data ap-pear in the percent through walls, which are significantly lower in 1984 than in 1982 and in the circumferential extent which is also smaller in 1984 than in 1982.
l l
l
r
.TDR 652 Rev. O Page 22 of 60 This characterization and comparison would suggest the 1984 indica-tions are a smaller additional subset of those detected during the 1982 examination.
To determine how the size of the new 1984 Indications reflect on the given sensitivity curve established in TDR 401 and 423, the maximum size of the new indications detected was established and compared to the above.
It was determined that approximately 90% of the indica-tions are a maximum of one coll.
(Note: a one coil indication if not preferentially oriented could give a two coil response).
Addi-tionally, approximately 90% of the new indications were determined to be between 20-60% through wall. Using this data against the-sensi-tivity curve shown in TDR 423, the new indications appear to predom-inately reveal themselves at or near the threshold of detection of the given sensitivity curves.
It was determined that approximately 10% was from a population that has->60% through wall determination.
For indications >60% through wall all were 1 or 2 coils with-the exception of one indication in
. tube 8-97-5.
The indication (76% through wall, 3 coils) was located at the upper tube sheet lower face region.
It is expected that the sensitivity for detection-is suppressed during the eddy current probe passage into and out of (0.5" distance) this region. (Ref. 1).
e TOR 652 Rev. O.
Page 23 of 60 The two other 3 coil indications in tubes A-84-131 and A-79-1 had
<20% and 52% through wall determinations respectively.
The three, 3 coil circumferential extent indications, and the >60%
through wall indications are of dimension below those analyzed to-withstand the main steam line break loadings (See Figure 6).
The following is the breakdown of the 1982 and 1984 characterization:
1982 1984-1.
Radial Distribution Predominately in the outer Predominately in the periphery of both "A" outer periphery of both "B" (significantly fewer "A"
& "B" (significantly in "B")
fewer in "B")
2.
Axial Distribution Predominately in the UTS Most in UTS Region :50%.
Region 263%, and Some in 16th span 219%
16th span 214%
3.
Amplitude 76% less than 2 volts in 75% less than 2 volts in (Voltage)
"A" and 51% less than "A" and 47% less than 2 volts in "B" 2 volts in "B" 4.
Percent 50% greater than 90% T.W.
2% greater than 90% T.W.
Through Wall and 96% greater than 40%
and 40% greater than 40%
T.W. in "A".
16% greater T.H. in "A".
1% greater than 90% T.H. and 60%
than 90% T.W. and 27%
greater than 40% T.W. In greater than 40% T.W. In "B"
"B"
I TOR 652 Rev. O Page 24 of 60 1982 1984 5.
Circumferential The indications ranged The indications ranged Extent from 1 to 8 coils in both from 1 to 3 coils in both "A" and "B".
For "A" "A" and "B".
For "A" 90%
more than 90% of the in-of the indications were i dications were 1 and 2 coll.
For "B" more than coils (66% - I coil and 90% of the indicaticas 30% - 2 coils).
For "B" were I and 2 coils (79% -
more than 90% of the in-I coil and 20% - 2 coils).
dictations were 1, 2, 3 There was a total of 3 coils (50% -1, 34% -2 indications with 3 coils coils and 8% - 3 coils) 2 were inner diameter and I was outer diameter i
l l
i
peped.ug goN 8' eqni peoonld o 99-93 M 3 m,w.,y a. n,.m,) y,,
UO pDJOdJOg JD3 pnN nd9 isnm 2 n > a
.. - r t.w. v,. s!,........,,.
a 4 T. F..s.ro,w y g/..;r:." 4. r.r,..
,t, iio y, g c' ' n
,i,.,95../, w.. I,$. y.E $,'t. E A=t.**.0.,Y,,1,7,t..?,M:
s e
,,.i.4i.g,..,q$$I,d$$.....$f$si$$fC$:
o e%**)Rf dG Po.a.
...Y. b.,.i.X.v.ik...s......C............, ;,,,, va,,,M <We/,+7M:W o
n.
.. s t..;?.X4'<N, "
ON33;MS'M;E S
.t'ik.***h.EFi"f EX$'8, <'h,,,,N,h"t.... o.......... c.,, o, N<.,
.w
.9E'Y??f%[ffffhlUM
,9N ObSYM00'4
..p:0,rm'v,G;GDXyhljpw N.K :;wAdwhc,0Xf4f0$'Y-[e/ MNPi9,093&Z7+.0,,
r ipf b Y
r f
- A',.MN.wu.v,w,w,v. ',W,
.SN, wuN,we,w
..f,c," (,f.v.v.'sw,WN,p/N,;)A,,w/,y/N,,/P.hWiWP,(/g' W,y e.',
'/Nd 7
fr/*i,ys?,,y,,W ' v, t
,Y by,v '
P
,gc,y,y, ;,f w,,g,,
.. o,, M /d/N N N. y '4,',0,,p,y,,y,y,,,, j 4 u,W W,'g',WNig'd.s,"[,@
,ppp w ay/Ni,Y. N/N,PJa uitag
..Y..
. /N)4.,r.f e,@,a c Naja J.vA a
t s N N v.
- c.,, )' D.h. g y/% py/yMye S".4,yN,=4,;)v 'n, v.wA","',w4.w.yp
", w'<4y'i $'y*A'QMyySZ$' 'l i,v,ye+f/py,s N,v,,, c, c,,wN,g, N t w.w /
M d
A
...A,4
/ hve/A,/A 6jXy$M' lt'd$yp'Q QvQly'i.,(/.t,'5, o,M,'f,MQS7,,Q;QZQ'.,g,
/
S',
ag (p'{py/,nl'#2;g,,4't. o,, no. A,,,,,,,,N,p$, Ny 'm, e#
e 9
, s ' ',,f't h,,yf.,h,'
,,,4 o
i y
,y o
av{,.kN,jfh,,k:$$fjh/h ) dic,y.h,$$,,fj'T f,fhk$[lp,'d,lNh.,'jf,o '
tw '
'N'k N$
t A,n.t,,
',M ' X.?XD'y //; RN;,;;/P6 Q'W,4'E, 'IEf '/ @h@,,.'Ni' y k'" $"yS,,t t/,*,h$$,47=
. vn /.s N /
O [,E!y,yny s.,, c 5,0"f Uy/v/
y N XhN//d'N' [ ", lpt,.'dpyg,g,p,,,,,,.g;9,.h..,,,g6,p. T,3', f,,,3,y,'lw.,,,'X,,l@l
[MhNi' N,,'4 9, / y,k,,'X, Q4
' y.@. 8/ %@g. h
...,..,,,i
,,,,,, m'Y 0,/,$h 0"$, 0 N,h D h 7
'74,
,J s
a n
,,AyAc;,w,,y,y!y
,/
w o
g
[
j,@j ;.,,;('.A
'h ly g
y.]Q a "w,rN 'f",h,',g8.w.wN/c', 'ky^'{;yt.%4 A m.v'4We;.p,33,, N;,
S, h
,ay q y, J,.pw f
/4,,0.8 N t,p'q w y,/,w u q N;yg m,2";7;&"a N,
v w,w,M
,jlfy wf.
en ip
.%..;g.gA;j:
9;,f47@f.3.J s
y, i
- ,Wl@+dq,6, hy,sy,y, o Ny i. g?XMX Mp+;w;%lT,q, gd,,,,;wG q@,t;,;gr9 qt
.f, / g' n,k,y p;v 3
v4 l, gy
.2,vN;/;y.
s h, N, NA, 4
N, h, 4,t,f b SM.
iglQf
< v,4 >7
,w'gt/Q)vyi p;es! ', M,why 0lp;v"i, yN
- M p* V.3,G'e?,s F;;'@(g g,g '
y;%ygg$, 'jpAy2.:,;$wN,w?v't ',[lHM'gd"$'<;y,p?lMXy i
+3'tMXw; n$ fM;/
v, 2X8h d
4 ls
'.v:
N 4 k A
N N dW. '
vP',N/,d,.,t.,h',N.Yi'A, 7f'Wfd ' d.y4 y k, l,j [b'W8f' WAM" E 4'y$v,Wy N
p j k fN /4,7NhY
',g@E'l'Xb0NlOly,
'"fN
'g' j J Nh)f,b /h;{,h,NMN3vP^{}/# 'q $@MSU?h7,[Nv!
W/ h 4
.I,
7AMM'NIy X
}Y"
b '
' W'a A
.i
, py/,h, /h,fe,) NEE,ff j ' , 'N,Yh,W?,wADN, M /, N,, M iO*ll7'*98,%'Ao,h,[N4Ay,li#0'"'jNNNj dI )f,yyd, d
'M h,sj gy,$XktY@wg hh Y 'hf,,
/
p i
/q
},
p/- }, X s4 {Ngby,}p$WF I,M
' hMEf "hef
/
,y
' !k<' ' N ' f)@h'$9,M',, s Ag,d3yj,yk{l f
Tf$U J
R fi t y +fj a,W npx4
- w x+s a a
- @ M h, hv a/,q$
e
$80!h%si:iihs@
ypsj@tN'M[%hdV $g+h r h
UhMp;O)de%h' lO',6,Ql hl Nfd
[3l h lik d/?y%
}f h 5hs)h v
j i. j ly@p,)YhkYY, hhgO{P)h;h'A9d?N@'AW
- ESW8FR, i /6
$vic t
$(i%[OyS.' M/U jNh,hdY j'jhME0'hhXh,w/hd g/
Mh, Ny k '/ d.
f}
- O W,;$hf;hjjh$'hf'j,'lf$jh,yiyNj%,4/,!.h.fip'[,
0{f tj0ifhf,'f?^
[
/f U*h@'
k fst' QYhWf ' 'h' 'dx, htay/,w//$.yNm%p #m kP ' '
W0' p,,$a'A V jl, /p'AWAP ffh./.
p/vJ$w@uult,b it f
h-t,j( d,,%.'),I NiW YNiw vad cN
,jv f6 e.
Ry"SqyNM MMpMcM'r3@ $'1y M*
b.t./ gM h's B '0f
%c s
- /',ill y*" /d,['l/4fjf 'h??h((h'$},%w;h h p,.h ' jNNy, $h'gW9h,ly) p,W 3
o l
' f,f Q'ph
.i.D/
$?f
'hi Pl ttu oYo,n 7 NNg h,@n
,wW eo'#oW,p$,,]d 2{. p N Al hINp,'Q(j,A,;nlOgd},y,b
.. @ t,'Dji) 7PF/IP?
l@N$N f
h MUNNhfNQ itiwNhhMh07el@Mq',XMI% 4
- Y.' f.
YN j h'$<i!a,p,y4pN,v,m,9. g,;,yA,qg4p 6 F
y.2,3.g,fl)4.,o;$82I$lI$?$h?j54$hn,r$dC'$'f"2R'jng'^,p'<N4 a, y4 u,y ry A qmN, gs.
co mN oy.
v.
Q '{ 4 WMj$4O'f' 3
'v p
'tYI,$0 i w,,[4'k../$l'p%Y%@Sl?M/lhM9/p[/4y h
0 c W/ro i MfuPA ;,Ti
,b -
h4 v4Y6
- #Nd'io'EiU.L
, X OcN
'v %,p?MMx+aXMaxu'A]g eawq$
t s
'.v33../.3/4ypto, y,gg,.yQ,;.,4, A, v4wm t.,
- w nN 9,wuNN/mcigy
, yggg gAj!av
&,.. &. J/ Mfj,j'w o m. ;3,A r;ut..y gj g i'f j 's
- Y 801YD OS W31S 1 11Nfl NOI1VIS ONI1YB3N30 BY3730N ONVlSI 37IW 338H1 259-HaL VI DII l
l
~
FIG. 1B TDR-652 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION t
UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATOR B
.. nmm, o o,w. c:. awe v,,,....t vn..
.W.v,v/,Wc/NvM.'.'*Q /
J,w.w. ca -//a
..v/J.j.%v. er,y,v,ume,w.w. cs, m,
pc c,1.vw:.p:.w : w.w Mmwe....
t e m,v,,
' T /m/c,* Wiv W/.?c cd wc.W/
l
,v W ',.'"JC u.w. o, o..t.m...s..t..wq.vn.:..m. m,'s.e</,W+W,w t.h..e.e.,..
.. :r.v.w m.... +;, c"?s.wam.wmm.wsc wM",y/ v.v.wa.v.wa, w
w c.y#weswm.,3 a
u,,
..o..
..v
.o
..o mo.
e,...wm mm
.wm. tam,,w.y.weq,wc<,wc
.J 9. w.w.v. w m. </c
- p/c.v,g' ' 'yy/,wv.W.'.9 Aj4WJ/.! A ?.vNJ.v 'l v
.W(9'/it.N..//.9 W Jf.v v /c ' '"
.v i
W v,W/c/,W.wl.w.Wca.hWh
, /v'w, /.'? Wi' p/,v,y i is,., i eyyiv$v,vy,e'.4,W,W
' 4. /tS t
.wa.r'.f,Wv,.jv,vf.*. //cm" b..
/tW//p
,W WJ 8
. ?,[m 4.w.WJJ/.
i m
/q, cg,o.t.v w>m<2,w.ws, n iv,w.w. lwm w v4y.v,v m,v4,y,v40v.w,.v.y<4,:e w, vs
. en. e,
e,v.v"w w.w v y,v4w,v w.u
. v My e'4w"o "
l
.y.mc.wd.
,y 4
w
.re p dh.r. nk< y v, v.9m,m.,w/!v.m, 0/v,v,,w,W,wo,4w "ky+lt.k,w+w.0y,wc+v
,WJ ".v.
/
,v,
.v.. NvM
.W/,,wep' ' w//.v.4 e
.w.v w.
c cNJ'yvi(Pivi
,;bm w,wy.w,w w,W?',w.wc,w.w< mow...wm.m. 's v,vyWm&, vec.wp
,wv.
i
,w,.,o,m9 >e>.ycf, se.v. m 43 i
y/.U8c%q, ac/p.4..re,o,,e,, u n o/,"c.ov,v..m..w,,v,, w
.".s,yA,,e wee we..,,y.,ec
- Ma' ? c/4 v 'm,f"s+y. Sp v,.$w.wJ.w ' ' *
- f. g
,,w,"
....+ 4. A,,+.w, m. o..
- d.. em.. a ee v
o
..o.4o.
q so a e. o o
mo o o.
NJ,Wv WJ M W/m.w.ym v,wygg $w,c.. 'Aw w.v eov
.,y.
"., pyv sm,
,y vw
,w.w y4 ewc. c..
4,.
- 9. i WJ.'m
,.,, w,. ws,, e,we.w.w,v,w.m.4 '4'.w,$'4W.% y.v.v.viv. :. J. J
.v.w :,w.w JJ
,u,j.wvgh v w.,v u4,.u/e, e.s,,v, o.
h.w.w.v.v.w sc.w.
wem e k v
v 4
w w,,ho
,m
.wm mce: w,",wc.v,v.v.wm.m.m.v,v w.myyy,w..w.w.v.4.,v,v.v.v.w.v,yc,e
..n k ym.pst< s,w, c,.,"c,,,..v.
mcc.,., c,w, c,w,w.v,w,.,.v.4 c.ws.
, p x.f.. fc e,
,wm,w c.v,yc v,s..w,w.
w
- k. e.q.#: n,w:,v.w.w.v.w:.w:.v.v. w..v.w.v.v.w.w.w. c vp
.w.ww.v, 1
...y v,w.
t"".wce.
yv
. v,v::c:::
c.sw.w.w.w.wcm.vy4,w4:4,:.+w.O. c.4ce.m.sw.w. c.w.v w w.wce.sw c
..s
% w ts h ::. w ::c.v,w.,v. w.w.v&o rg un ygy< :+u, Mc.s+v+m+v+wuw. c Aw.wJ/.v.w.' wJJ/m.w.v.v.v wv.w.%++w w.
,v.wce,wes:.ws w.'.w:.w.v.v,w.w,w:c.w et, w
/y/N, 2w *.,y ~.w.'J,wc cc.w.vivyw:
v
,...".e w v v wm,w v.v.w.we.v.v.w.w.m.w.v.w.ws.w.w.v.we.w.g.we o.w, l
,, e..,5m,w.m.v,w::ce;; ww.we,w;m:,vm;m.wm..v,wmyy4,,.s m c.w:.y E
m.. wcc,w,v,v3wg.w.w,v,w w.w m.w,y.w.w.wccc,c.v.v,sw.w.w,v...v. s.w.w.w.v.v.,
.w.v,w,v m w.w.v.w.wm.v.w v v. <. <.
..wc.w sy4..:,,pa"l>'....,.
a cm,w.v,w.ws.w wn y.
,.yl 0
<c.v.v,v,wgw'l,w..vmel6'lv, :m:,w,.v,W,w.Wll,Wlll.'.' WN a g.r tltv !cl:,Wlll, l.W:l N
ll.%w,
.v mmam
..w.w g,.e.m., m3;p w w.w,.w,wmm.v v.w.w.v,w.v,wo-j+" v,vm.,w, ",",sc,w, c..m y,w,,y, 4,4 #4,,344Sj, c
- e..y gg y, s
.mr.r/.m. ; - o. m..,.... m c
,w.v.www
- w.,
4y u, w.y m,,c.,,,c,.,.c.w,w eco w w.v.w m y e j,sgr.,v.c, w,.w,w,,yc,was j, o,-.
m,w.wu, c
m c,- m...
%/~.0,3 M g. v,4",,k. v,?>w.v,y,yc,..,.v,y,y,y,y
,K.+v+e, :" mms,v,v A".+.S"g,f"yny,,+,
.o..
y gc.v,yg yy c,,c,ycc, c,w,w ggccccecc,y,w,,c.,..c,,m,w..,,c.,w,
%y m,q,.,.m,y
.w.v,uy,u..,..w,.,w.,y,w, wg 3 Q ;ps,s+t.c.w, c v.w
.+.+es.+y,.w,w.v.m,w.m. m mcen4wyy4,,gu4.sm m v" i
",A$<ma."mm ",v. m
.=,v. ',
." " t,
,w'.v,w.wsum".w w,vc.w. ma,w,v4m+Sm.v.wm,v.w,,,s.v,w vsm.w.w.w.wm,w "yt
,i
,wmuvwe4y, u,w,,wma.wm,v.s mmm.w.s c.wa.v.g e#,
o mav
/r e.sp,s,w, co e,ym,,
s 4, 7e W
ss,w.wssu,wmnum:ms.w,. c w.v.w.swmm yc.w,,&s
.<w 9W wn n.w
, :,ws,ww.w v.vs +wm.m. vow,, m.v,v.w.vmmsm,
, m, mc m J
t
- w. m/9.'nyJ,WNN N J.W,,wN N,w.w.=,w,W.W,WN N/NJ
.w.ws.w:.we.w m es.vs v
p,%., Air,.t..w.g...w: w,:lw,s,.e..,w,,w:.wm;:sa,m.m.w l
cm "mm.t s mme:.w.wm,ws.wmm ussmy u. y4.:yy4wsmm:s:m,wwem v v, pj.'
v e
vs smnm us es.
s..
mmms,nu, mu, sx,.ym,ws,w, u,.wmum,wmm.w,w :,'
g,,,m. w, n mcv. sc n s s n x w m c:,v.y m :,, w
- vM'.
tg.;t y/yrg,+v.v.w,w.w.m s,.
msm m wmmann,wwmqvmnm:
v mummsmsms. mmass,+wmmssm,vmsmska s,w,hwm n y/
w s.,5,A*,?.
wss,w+n s y,Mvv} cwn.w wa.wm m.c w4ya w wh
,ye, y,
.e V.
n.ymp W
w4v. 's;^tv +( KH.VVWy.ws w.wmas,ww.wmslvs vy,' y..,.
n,+wssms,wN,,*,.
.. ws m:mnma.wssww. yms s
v h.6
/n Yvvvvvwmmssunm,wmn.wm mkvmumsunm:wn :
e.
vmv we, s
wm
. e it s ty; c, wsmmmamsmsms.wss,wms,wnwssyyyy : theek,, he,egs:
%'/s%93v,+,,w.w e 4, /A'..w " y., rh * 'nsqwssm,wa,n.ws,;n.w.w,wymus,ws. u,,nNd. w dyjt uU, gN.
v\\a @s [e w y rs 'u.M.+1,,.k.. ;&> weg w, m,W.WNN'yJ.W.W')4v. v vN s
.wa ap.wse,yy4 y4y4 w
c r
p
,t
. c. e u w m'we cM wj~a,+v,y/y camp?t,,'w", j.m pu, lw, u, c, an;w,5'lyvl:
0 ".t."k.x..
ivu /
w "<o,. m s 4 n.w.w.
v o'm':gyy w, yu4w'h,3+yvg, ',y,L. m/m# a,; < <y;.+
- a. we,s y
w.
a t: 4, f
wye ' ?+
N, o.w ' %' ' w'v',W, ' '
- r w 4t -
n ojt s.w.s 'i W',' v.
"g a
uNg/j,v#. y;n.d. 9g:
/ v. w/4v> m.".'9 uu.spanpyn, sv c..'. a.w e tWn, hw w #:Mpn v'3, /:
% cQ' Y Y.
Nii W
p a.
n v,H,"h,;gy,gg mu.m+t y. n:py"en.;;%s M, /s mu.S.N. / 4, e
.pmc.c vy, rm.,
v
" m4 w.0 fc
. v y/v...
w.s.4y,vnm.ut;;v.m<!v<s,3v9,;/v.;fv.n.
v i
c,,,qu#t m,y;f<w;g:w, XyF.f,.4.m.Jan s,am w
oe.
e y
.m:.
",mc w
g.,.na s
.w.,
,y,..
.a
+ w. x...j,u n, u. 4 m. y gg m p,, by,vj;.y3 ",se y
v w
y vammm "w
" " " ',a.m...e.n.. ter ".
u > e : w.uuair r
i o
.mm.
n < w : w ii GPU Nuclear Corporation n th Datetel. Dimntinalty 29-FEB-85 o Pluge.d Tub.
x Not in.p.ct.d I
l l
.mm,_.__.__
7 FIGURE 2A TDR 652 Rev. 0 lill OO i
f y)p I
l I
i it l
. h h i
1 4 t
z 3 @
k i
i i
@> g t
s$
i i
I h
I i
(
g i
f l
I
' b I
h l
b t
i i
i i.
j t w,h i
i l
1 i
i s) i t
?
1 4
I i
..k g
TDR 652 Rev. O FIGURE 2B 1
I E OD I
'% E _
t j
3 i
I i
e>
A'
)
\\1
&p i
i it 1
m I
i l6 Ig 1
t.
m; We l-
-i s
.i et r
t e>
i
~
8 1
d ',
i re I
i i
h I
I i
^
i i
I i
I l
t
=******4
u FIGURE 3A TDR 652 Rev. O Illi OO
,it
^
lie
?
i l le I
Q:
i i ld gg i
I *e 3lg
/
a hcc-i i
w D.
n
,Y Y, <t i
i 5
i
~
\\
i i
i i
i.
a 4
I I
TMI STEAM GENERATOR B PERCENT VS VOLTS 1982 VS 1984 m
3
/
\\
/
\\
s
..\\,4 5..-.............
m i
u CD
\\
is.
l l
4 i
p..._.
6' e
O asse e
^-~
<l 1
s s
4 s
a y
e o
to at volts ma CD 0
<W I
ou N
i 1
7 y1GURE O DR 652 gev. O OO S
yn
\\
\\
., ~..., _.I
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
8
\\
d j
b
/
S k'
T
'k g i
\\
b'-
\\j h
t
~
\\)'
\\
i k
1
(/1
\\
\\
i h 6 i
-l - -.-
\\
i S
S S
S
- o
\\
\\ _ _ __ _ h*
t 1
\\
5 S
S
t TMI STEAM GENERATOR B PERCENT VS PERCENT THRU-WALL i
1982 VS 1984 M
go.
/ \\
I
~-
.. l.
O gg.
C I
N
..I........i g.
m I
\\
f 33 I..t......\\..............................
an.
I j
t dM 1g.
..?......
v 0 seen E'+' A_ _
D IEff.
a.
OL.
i 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-69 60-09 70-79 80-89 90-100 PERGNT TERU-WALL xs (D C
< N O vi ta
TDR 652 FIGURE 5A Rev, o
,1 mm OO in
+
i I
l lb i
i I
f I,
l ie 4
d i
ga f
I n.
i gi e
l O
~
2 i
i l iv i
l i
w'l~
.-f In
/
I I
t
?
!/
ew P
i i
2-W 8
8 i
j
.8 l
l
!E on
~*
i i
i i
i i
ild I
i i
i i
i l ie i
i i
I i
i i
i i
I
~
yle e
~;
i i
i 1
i i
i i
i e'
I j
ylig 3
i ah I
~
I i
n i
i i
i i
i i
~
!/
i i
/
'/!
I
'N f
f l
f f
?
f f
i
-r Y#
i i
3 2
3 3
S 2
2 9
TDR 652 Rev. O FIGURE 6 ESTABLISHED MINIMUM SENSITIVITY FOR THE HIGH G AIN.540 S.D. EX AMINATIONS
)
BELOW UPPER TUBESHEET (300 MV) WITHIN UPPER TUBESHEET (1 VOLT) AND TUBESHEET ENTRY (3.3 VOLTS) 2.00 iiiiiii l
!!!I!!!
- x:::
i MSLB line
- [iii
- i:
s
!!(!!!
lll lllll!!!
1.50
-!:i :!:l!!
- .: Kl:i:
/h:::!!!j!!
' jj!!!
j jj 1.25 E
Calculated O
' Boundaries u.
If !!!
.00
{ [i Projected c
!.ou,n,d,ay,ies I
1-
.75 "i
a II:
Y
.50
.25
- Tow L.194 i
approx.
{on slW90% of the 1984 u
in u 8 detect on EDM reported indications
.060 -standards g
O 20 40 60 80 100 DEFECT DEPTH IN % WALL THICKNESS 2.-
TDR 652 Rev. O Page 25 of 60 4
V.
REVIEW OF PRE KINETIC, POST KINETIC & POST HOT FUNCTIONAL EXAbiINATION DATA-A.
OVERVIEW' GPUN-performed a 100% Examination of the OTSG tubes in 1982.
This examination is referred to as the 1982 baseline.
Since performing this examination GPUN has reexamined a select number of the OTSG tubes to monitor the effects of the kinetic expansion repair (KE) and the subsequent hot functional testing (HFT).
_.These examinations revealed the presence of indications which were not previously identified during the 1982 baseline examinations.
To more fully understand the appearance of these indications.GPUN per-formed detailed evaluations of the available eddy current data to.
determine if the indications had been present but could not be de-tected on previous examinations or if the indications were in previ-ously unaffected areas of-tubing.
Included in these evaluations were data sets of:
1982 In Process Examinations for Kinetic Expansion-(October,1982)
Purpose:
Determine the effects of kinetically expanding the OTSG tubes.
1 J
F:
TDR 652 Rev. 1 Page 26 of 60 This data set consisted of examining 437 tubes in OTSG A and B after the tubes were expanded.
The data was then compared to the 1982 baseline.
1983 Post KE Examinations (April, 1983)
Purpose:
Determine the effects of the complete kinetic expansion process on the OTSG tubes.
This data set consisted of examining 477 tubes in OTSG A & B after the kinetic expansion repair was completed.
The data was then com-pared to the 1982 baseline.
This data set includes the ISI tubes.
1984 Post HFT Examinations (November, 1984) t
Purpose:
Determine the cumulative effects of the kinetic expan-slon repair and subsequent HFT on the condition of the OTSG tubes.
A data set of.375 tubes was identified from the November 1984 popula-tion which remained in service for whi.5 GPUN had 1983 post kinetic expansion data.
This data set includes the ISI tubes.
This data was then compared to the 1983 post kinetic expansion and the 1982 base-line data.
TDR 652 Rev. O Page 27 of 60 Also included in the review were 45 tubes with indications identified as >40% through wall, during the 1984 examinations.
These tubes were selected from tubes included in the 1984 flaw growth program.
Since no 1983 post KE data was available, the evaluation results were com-pared to the 1982 baseline.
B.
METHOD OF EVALUATION During the evaluations, the data analyst reviewed the magnetic tapes of the previous eddy current data for tubes with newly detected indi-cations.
This review was accomplished by isolating the specific area of interest and performing a detailed review of the eddy. current sig-nals.
By isolating the known area of interest, the data analyst was able to perform an intense analysis of the eddy current signals at a higher level of sensitivity than allowed by production analysis tech-niques.
This intense focus permitted the data analyst to identify the possible presence of low level eddy current signals which may be masked by background noise during production analysis.
Once the signal was identified and isolated, the analyst then measured and recorded the signals amplitude, which indicates the vol-ume of the discontinuity, and the. phase angle, which indicates the depth of the discontinuity, r
_ _ _ ~ _. _ _ _ _ _
,z.
TDR 652 Rev. O
~Page 28 of 60 The amplitudes and phase angles of the signals were then character-ized to determine the relative size of the discontinuities.
The evaluations from the successive' examinations were then compared to
. establish when the signals were first detectable by eddy current.
This also characterized any changes which made the signal detectable by production eddy current techniques.
C.
RESULTS OF EVALUATIONS As a result of the evaluations performed on these data sets GPUN con-cluded that:
1.
Knowing the exact location of a reported indication, most of the indications could be identified in previous examination data.
This indicated the discontinuities were previously present but not detectable due to their low amplitude.
2.
As a result of the kinetic expansion and'the hot functional' test-ing the amplitude of previously unidentified signals increased making the signal response more detectable.
This was typically a 100-200% increase in amplitude which brought the signals above the threshold of detection.
This can be attributed to an in-crease in the volume of the discontinuity.
Example:
1984 data shows 1.5 volt signal in 0.5 volt noise, re-review of 1982 data shows 0.5 volt signal in 0.5 volt noise at the same location.
v TOR 652 Rev. O Page 29 of 60 3.
Although the amplitude of the signals increased, the phase angle of the' signals did not show a corresponding increase for the in-dications first detected in 1984.
This would indicate'that, al-though the volume of'the discontinuity changed, the percent-through wall penetration remained constant.
4.
The new (1984) indications which were reviewed are located at the upper elevations of the OTSGs.
This corresponds to the previous-ly affected areas'of the OTSGs identified during the 1982 examin-ations.
D.
DETAILS OF EVALUATIONS PERFORMED The following is a brief description of. the evaluations performed and the details of the data sets utilized.
The data sets are presented in chronological order to demonstrate the cumulative effects of the various OTSG activities upon the tubes since the 1982 baseline.
This chronology is also contained In Table 2.
i 1982 In Process Examinations for Kinetic Expansion (October, 1982)
Purpose:
Determine the effects of kinetically expanding the OTSG tubes.
p TDR 652 Rev. O Page 30 of 60 In order to monitor the effects of the kinetic expansions GPUN ex-amined 437 tubes.
The tubes selected for these examinations were the first tubes to be expanded, located in rows 1-8, in both OTSGs.
This examination identified discontinuities which were not previously recorded in 15 of the 437 tubes examined (3.5%). An evaluation was performed at that time to determine why the indications were not identified previously.
This evaluation is documented in TDR 401 (Ref. 4) and TR-008 (p. 44-45) (Ref. 5) and concluded that:
1.
The indications were not initiated by'the kinetic expansion pro-cess nor was there any evidence of detectable propagation of existing indications.
2.
The defects were small (threshold) type indications that had either been masked by the high background noise levels in the upper tube sheet regions or were sufficiently tight that signifi-cant metal removal was not present to permit detection.
Kinetic expansion may have altered these areas to make them more detect-able.
TDR 652 Rev. O Page 31 of 60.
.1983 Post Kinetic Expansion Examinations (April, 1983)
~
Purpose:
Determine the effects of the Kinetic Expansion Repair and associated Tube Plugging Activities GPUN examined a sample of 477 tubes in OTSGs A and B using the dual examination method.
This sample was selected to determine if the kinetic expansion process had significantly altered the condition of the OTSG tubes.
The sample.was based on the requirements of GPUN specification SP-Il01-22-014 which is summarized in TR-008 Appendix A (p. 109-113).
The sample requirements are summarized below:
(a) All tubes with (40% through wall indications which remained in-service.
(ISI Tubes) l (b) All tubes adjacent to 10. selected simply plugged tubes with defects in the 15th, 10th'and 1st spans.
(10 tubes each OTSG).
I (c) All tubes adjacent to 10 selected simply plugged tubes, in t
the periphery of each OTSG.
(d) 50 tubes in high plugging density-areas in each OTSG.
e- -
TDR 652 Rev. O Page 32 of 60 (e) All tubes adjacent to 5 plugged tubes in each OTSG with >3 volt signals in the lower part of the OTSGs.
(f) In addition to (a) through (e) above, all tubes identified as leaking during the post repair drip and or bubble tests were included.
The examination of the above sample of tubes provided an evaluation of the " worst case" areas of the OTSGs.
The examination resulted in the identification of indications 1 0% through wall which were not 4
previously recorded in 35 tubes (7.5%).
In addition, 1 of the Indi-cations previously identified as being <40% through wall in OTSG A appeared as 140% and required further dispositioning.
The comparison of the tube status prior to and after the kinetic expansion process is. summarized in Table 3 and in TR-008, Appendix A (p. 109-113).
In its 1983 evaluation GPUN reviewed the 1982 baseline to establish the cause of the newly detected indications.
This review concluded that:
l.
The majority of the indications could be detected during detailed reviews of specific areas of the 1982 baseline data.
These re-views showed the indications had typically been present at low amplitudes and signal to noise ratios of 1 to 1 or less.
m TOR 652 Rev. O Page 33 of 60 2.
The kinetic expansion process apparently caused the amplitude and corresponding signal to noise ratio of the indications to in-crease thereby making them more detectable.
3.
The indications were located near the top of the OTSG.
Twenty eight (28) of the 35 (80%) of the indications'>40% through wall which had not previously been detected were located within the upper tube sheet.
This would be the' area most affected by the kinetic expansion process.
4.
The phase angles of the indications reported in 1983 did not show a relevant increase in the percent through wall when compared to the 1982 baseline data.
GPUN also reviewed the 1982 baseline and 1983 post KE data to de-termine if the indication (ISI tube in 1982) previously identified as being <40% through wall in 1982, and then reported as greater than 40% through wall in 1983, indicated a change in the status of the tube. -A detailed review of this tube and prior associated indica-tions revealed that they were outside diameter originated and are therefore not part of this evaluation for primary side attack.
Its disposition was covered by the TMI Unit I technical specifications requ'rements and the tube was removed from service.
TOR 652 Rev. 1 Page 34 of 60 1984 Post Hot Functional Testing Examinations (November, 1984)
Purpose:
Determine the cumulative effects of the kinetic expan-sion repair and subsequent hot functional testing on the condition of the OTSG tubes.
Following the hot functional testing (HFT) performed after the kin-etic expansion repairs (KE) GPUN performed the 1984 examinations of the TMI OTSGs.
These examinations provided a basis for determining-the cumulative effects of the kinetic expansion repair and subsequent hot functional testing of the OTSG tubes.
These examinations identi-fled indications not recorded in previous examinations.
To charac-terize the newly recorded indications and determine when they could first be detected, GPUN performed extensive reviews of the historical data for 2 data sets.
These data sets are discussed in (A) and (B) below.
(A) The first data set selected for evaluation from the November, 1984 data set was 375 tubes for which post kinetic expansion data l
was available.
This data set included:
(1) All tubes remaining in service in OTSG A which were previous-ly examined during the 1983 post KE examination.
This con-sisted of 163 tubes with no previously recorded indications and 28 tubes previously identified as having 20-<40% through wall indications (ISI Tubes).
n TDR 652 Rev. I Page 35 of 60 (2) All tubes in the outer periphery of OTSG B which remained in service following the 1983 post KE examinations.
This con-sisted of 128 tubes with no previous indications and 56 tubes previously identified as having 20-<40% through wall indications (ISI Tubes).
As a result of these examinations, 14 of the 291 (5%) tubes with l
no previous indications were identified as having indications 2 0% through wall. Of the 84 previous ISI tubes, 3 tubes had 4
indications reported in 1984 which had not been previously iden-tified in 1983.
These 14 tubes with no previous indications and
'the 3 ISI tubes are discussed separately below.
The results of the examinations cr* summarized in Tables 4 and 5.
Tubes With No Previous Indications For the 14 tubes with indications 2 0% through wall which were 4
not previously recorded, a complete evaluation of the historical
~ data was performed.
The review characterized the indications and determined if they had been present during the previous examina-1 tions.
This evaluaticn concluded that:
1.
During the review of the 1983 post KE data, 14 of the 14 in-l dications were detectable but were low amplitude signals within the noise.
During the review of the 1982 baseline L
e
TDR 652 Rev. O Page 36 of 60 data. 9 of the 14 indications could be-identified.
This would suggest that both the kinetic expansion and hot func-tional testing increased the detectability of the indications.
2.
The amplitude of the indications increased from the 1983 post KE examination to the 1984 post HFT examinations making them more detectable from the surrounding noise.
3.
The indications recorded during the 1984 Post HFT examina-tions have a small circumferential extent as shown by the 8xl absolute probe. Of the 14 Indications having >40% through wall penetrations, 13 appear as I coil ~and I appears as a 2 coil indication. A 360* Indication would appear as an 8 coil indication.
ISI Tubes For the three previous ISI tubes which have indications >40%
through wall, which were not previously identified and reported in 1983, the evaluations are as follows:
One tube A-120-106 showed an additional indication which was identified as being 95% through wall and 4.0 volts and was lo-cated at the edge of the 15th support plate.
T TDR 652 Rev. O Page 37 of 60 Upon a re-review of the 1983 Post Kinetic Expansion Data it was determined that the indication was present at approximately 551 through wall and 2.1 volts but the signal was masked by the sig-nal from the tube support plate.
The effects of the support plate signal also distorts the phase angle of the eddy current signal making an accurate percent through wall determination im-practical.
This particular tube support is a drilled support and cannot be
" mixed out" using the multifrequency eddy current techniques used to examine the broached supports located throughout the remainder lof the OTSGs.
This creates a zone of reduced sensitivity (approximately.5" above and below the edges of the support plate) at the drilled support locations.
The 1983 signal at 2.1 volts is below the 3.3 volt threshold of detection for the drilled suoport plate as established in TDR 423.
This zone of reduced sensitivity applies to the edges of both the upper and lower tubesheets and the drilled hole in the 15th sup-port plate.
The drilled holes are located only in the extreme outer periphery of the 15th support plate.
The remainder of the 15th support plate and the other 14 support plates are the
" broach" design and do not have this zone of reduced sensitivity.
f 4
TOR'652 Rev. O Page 38 of 60 The other two. tubes, A-3-31 and A-149-14, had indications greater t,han 40% through' wall reported in 1984 which had not been previ-ously identified.
In the re-review of the 1983 data at the spec-ified location, the indications were identified and compared to the 1984 data.
This comparison showed the indications were low amplitude signals masked by noise in the 1983 data.
(See Table 5).
(B) The second data set selected'for evaluation from the November 1984 data set was 46 tubes with indications first identified dur-ing the 1984 examinations.
This data set included:
(1) 12 tubes with indications less than 40% through wall and 34 tubes with Indications greater than 40% through wall.
The tubes selected for this evaluation were previously included in the.1984 Growth Program.
The tubes were located in the outer periphery of the OTSG A.
The indications were characterized and compared to the 1982 baseline data.
The results of the evaluation conclude that:
1.
Knowing the exact location of the 1984 Indications, the corres-ponding indications could be identified during a review of the 1982 baseline data for 32 (70%) of the tubes.
This would indi-cate the areas had been affected prior to the 1982 baseline evam-inations.
TDR 652 Rev. O Page 39 of 60 2.
A comparison of the 1982 to 1984 data shows the average amplitude increased from 0.6 volts in 1982 to 1.5 volts in 1984.
This demonstrates the amplitude of the indications increased during this time period making them more detectable.
3.
The comparison of the 1982 to 1984 percent through wall determin-attons showed a slight downward trend of approximately 11 percent through wall (equivalent to a 3' phase angle change).
Based on this phase angle evaluation, no significant trend of through wall growth can be established.
TDR 652 Rev. 1 Page 40 of 60 Table 2 Chronology of Steam Generator Evolutions and Corresponding Eddy Current Examination Steam Generator Eddy Current Examination Event Duration Data Sets Results > 40% T.H.
.A B
Start-up & Test 131 tubes leak.
Oct-Nov 1981 July-Sept 1982 885 273 (1982 baseline)
Kinetic Expansion Repair Oct-Dec 1982 Oct-Nov 1982 9
6 (in process)
April-May 1983 22 14 (Post)
Hot Functional Aug-Oct 1983
- Test May 1984 Leak Test June 1984 July 1984 0
1 Dry Lay up June-Nov 1984 Tech Spec 4.19 Nov-Dec'1984 Nov-Jan 1984 298 30 4
l i
T TOR 652 Rev. 1 Page 41 of 60 Table 3 i
Results of 1983 Post Kinetic Expansion Examinations i
Status Prior to Kinetic Expansion (1982 Baseline)
ISI Tubes Tubes Tubes Tubes Tubes Preventivel 0TSG Examined NRI
<40% (ISI Tubes) 140%
Plugged A
215 200 14 0
1 8
263 212 51 0
0 TOTALS 478 412 65 0
1 Status After Kinetic Expansion (1983 Examinations)
ISI Tubes Tubes Tubes Tubes Tubes Preventival,
- 0TSG Examined NRI
<40%(ISITubes)
>40%
Plugged A
_214 163 28 (12 previous ISI) 22 (l*previousISI) 1 (16 previous NRI)
(21 previous NRI)
B 263 193 56 (51 Previous ISI) 14 (0 previous ISI) 0
~
~
( 5 Previous NRI)
(14 Previous NRI)
~
TOTALS 477 356 84 36 1
NRI - No Relevant Indications NOTES:
- In I tubes, indications reported as <40% through wall in 1982 were reported as >40% through wall in 1983. These indications are outside diameter initiated and are not considered relevant to the present evaluations.
i
).
- These ISI tubes were preventively plugged in accordance with i
engineering dispositioning based on location (axial and/or j
radial) of '40% thru wall indications.
TOR 652 Rev. 1 Page 42 of 60 Table 4 Results of Post Hot Functional Testing Examinations Status of Tubes Prior to H.F.T.
Tubes Tubes Tubes Tubes OTSG Examined NRI
<40% (ISI Tubes) 1 0%
4 l
A 191 163 28 0
B 184 128 56 0
Total H$
2T si 0
l Status of Tubes After H.F.T.
Tubes Tubes Tubes Tubes OTSG Examined NRI
<40% (ISI Tubes) 140%
A 191 133 39 (23 previous ISI) 19 ( 5 previous ISI)
(16 previous NRI)
(14 previous NRI)
B 184 127 56 (55 previous ISI)
_1( l previous ISI)
( 1 previous NRI)
( 0 previous NRI)
Total 375 260 95 20 NRI - No Relevant Indications e
TDR 652 Rev. 1 Page 43 of 60 Table 5 ISI Confirmed Indications Greater Than 40% Through Wall in 1984 April Nov.
Indication 1983 Post KE Data 1984 Post HFT Data Gen Row Tube Elevation Origin
% T.W.
Volts Volts A
3 - 31 13+0 ID 33%*
1.1 33%
1.5 13+04 ID 27%**
0.8
<20%
1.3 13+05 ID 33%**
1.3 36%
3.3 13+08 ID 40%**
0.6 45%
1.5 13+15 ID 30%**
0.3 2831%
0.8 A
149 - 14 14-06 10 86%**
0.4 76%
0.6 15-16 10 80%**
0.5 69%
0.7 US+04 10 20%
1.0 Not Detected A
120 - 106 12+09 10 40%**
0.5 41%
1.4 13-08/15-08 10 50%**
0.4 48%
0.7 15+0 10 55%**
2.1 95%
4.0 US+02 ID 20%
1.1 20%
1.2 Represents re-evaluation of 1983 data.
- Indications not previously identified during production examinations, indi-cations first identified during 1984 review of 1983 data.
i l
l L.
TDR 652 Rev. 0 Page 44 of 60 VI. GRONTH PROGRAM GPUN initiated a growth program during the examinations in November 1984 to determine if a growth mechanism was active during the current (July-Nov 1984) period of extended dry layup of the TMI-l OTSGs. -This sample included a population of 100 tubes in 'A' and 50 tubes in
'B'.
The tubes for both generators were selected from high defect areas of the 3anerators and were examined full length using the GPUN dual examination method.
OTSG A GRONTH PROGRAM' The growth program in the 'A' OTSG consisted of examining a population of 100 tubes 3 times at approximately 2 week intervals.
Initially, these tubes were examined as part of the production eddy current program in Mid-November 1984.
The tubes were subsequently examined a.second time in late November 1984 and a third time in Mid-December 1984.
Results of the 3 examinations of each tube were then compared for changes in the number of indications and for changes in signal response voltage or percent through wall determinations.
The 100 tubes in the 'A' Growth Program included 55 tubes with confirmed Indications and 45 with no relevant Indications.
The comparisons of the repeat examinations were performed by evaluating the signal amplitudes and percent through wall determinations.
These evaluations revealed es-sentially no change in the voltage or percent through wall determina-tions.
These results Indicate that there was no continued degradation during the three examinations from November to December, 1984
TOR 652 Rev. O Page 45 of 60 OTSG B GROWTH PROGRAM The Growth Program in 'B' consisted of a Mid-November 1984 examination of 50 tubes which were previously examined in July 1984.
These 50 tubes were selected from the high defect area for full length examination-in July 1984 during a limited scope examination performed when primary to secondary leakage was detected.
The July and November 1984 Eddy Current results were then compared and no previously undetected Indications were found to exist in the November 1984 results.
There was no evidence of continued degradation in these tubes between July and November 1984.
GROWTH PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS The Growth Program evaluations indicate there was no significant change in the condition of the tubes from July to November 1984 in the 'B' OTSG or from Mid-November to Mid-December in 1984 for the 'A' OTSG.
This in-formation does not indicate any correlation between extended dry lay-up and identification of previously undetected indications.
.~.
TDR 652 Rev. 0 Page 46 of 60 VII. CONCLUSIONS Based on the characterization of the 1984 Indications, a review of the 1982, 1983 and the growth program data, GPUN was able to draw the follow-ing conclusions for the 1984 examination results.
1.
The characterization of the 1984 Indications by axial and radial.lo-cations, and their correlation to the indications reported in the 1982 baseline, suggest that the 1984 Indications are an additional' subset of the 1982 indications.
2.
The re-evaluation of previous data suggests that the indications identified in 1984 were already present during the 1982 examination but were within the background noise.
The kinetic expansion repair and hot functional testing may have in-creased the amplitude of these previously existing indications and made them detectable during production examinations.
There was no trend of through wall growth associated with this amplitude increase.
3.
Based on the evaluation of the Growth Program, there is no evidence
~ f continuing tube degradation since the OTSGs were placed in dry o
layup in July 1984.
TDR 652 Rev. 1 Page 47 of 60
- 4. 'The characterization of the-1984 Indications shows that approximately 90% of the indications are 20-60 percent through wall and I coil.
These indications are at or near the threshold of detection for the previously established sensitivity curve.
5.
Approximately 10% of the indications are higher percent through wall l
(>60%) with a circumferential extent of I or 2 coils.
There is a total of three (3) coil circumferential extent Indications. All of these indications are between the threshold for detection and the most conservative curve for critical crack size.
(Main Steam Line Break).
I
r TDR 652 Rev. O Page 48 of 60 VIII.
REFERENCES 1.
GPUN TDR 423, Rev. 1, R. Barley, J. Janiszewski, G. Rhedrick, M. Torborg, "Three Mile Island - Unit 1 OTSG Tubing Eddy Current Program Qualification," 3/15/84.
2.
GPUN TDR 442, Rev. O, G. Rhedrick, " Eddy Current Examination Results of Three Mlle Island Unit 1 OTSG," 8/29/83.
3.
GPUN TDR 642, Rev. O, M. Torborg, G. Rhedrick, " Qualification of Conversion Curve for Inner Diameter Discontinuities," 1/29/85.
4.
GPUN TDR 401, Rev. O, G. Rhedrick, " Report on Eddy Current Indica-tions Found Subsequent to Kinetic Expansion of TMI-1 Steam Generator Tubes," April 1983.
5.
GPUN Topical Report 008, Rev. 3, T.H. Moran, " Assessment of TMI-1 Plant Safety for Return to Service After Steam Generator Repair",
August 19, 1983.
l i
F
TOR 652 Rev. O Page 49 of 60 APPENDIX A ABSTRACT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DUAL INSPECTION TECHNIQUE AND PERCENT THROUGH WALL CALIBRATION CURVE I
i TOR 652 Rev. O Page 50 of 60 i
Prior to the 1982 OTSG tubing inspection, GPU Nuclear had always performed its OTSG tubing examinations with the standard differential eddy current technique for detecting indications that normally originated on the outer diameter of the tube. wall.
The eddy current inspection system was operated at normal gain and the probes used for these inspections measured 0.510" diameter.
These parameters traditionally were considered acceptable for inspecting the OTSG tubing which has a nominal inner diameter of 0.557".
After 131 tubes leaked upon start-up and test in November 1981, eddy current examinations were immediately performed with the standard differential (S.D.)
.510" technique and some of the leaking indications were not detected.
A sub-sequent examination was performed with a multi-coli absolute eddy current technique and indications were identified in the roll transition of the leak-ing tubes.
In addition, other indications which had not been detected by the previous S.D..510" examination were identified.
The defects discovered in the OTSG tubing were metallurgically evaluated as inner diameter initiated.
very tight, and orientated around the circumference of the tubes.
It was then recognized that the S.D..510" technique was not sensitive enough for detect-ing all of the new inner diamster discontinuities.
GPU Nuclear modified and improved the sensitivity of its' standard differential technique by increasing the probe's diameter to 0.540", and increasing the operating gain.
This modification improved the standard differential's sensi-l
'tivity for detection of predominately circumferential, I.D. initiated indica-tions-by approximately 175% over the older technique.
The disadvantage of using the nigh gain and improvea fill factor is that the standard differential examination Deccmes overly sensitive to surface anomalies.
I
TOR 652 Rev. O Page 51 of 60 The absolute technique used to confirm the standard differential inspection results was also modified and improved.
The development of the 8XI Absolute probe with eight pancake shape coils placed around the probe body provided 360 degrees coverage on the circumference of the tube wall.
This design permitted a single _ pass of the probe in the tube during an examination as compared to multiple passes when fewer coils are used.
The eight coils also provided a fair estimate of the arc length of an indication because the response signal from each coil represents its proximity to the indication.
Using the improved S.D.
540" high gain and absolute 8xl techniques, GPU Nuclear developed a dual method eddy current inspection technique.
The ini-tial examination was performed by the S.D.
540" high gain technique.
If the examination by S.O.
540" showed no evidence of a defect, its examination be-came the final. inspection of record.
If-the S.D.
540" examination reported an indication, a second examination was performed using the, absolute 8x1 technique.
The absolute 8xl examination de-termined if the reported indication was relevant or non-relevant.
For those indications determined to be relevant, the absolute 8xl result was used to estimate the arc length and also confirm the origin (I.D./0.0.) and axial -lo-cation of the indication.
During a standard differential eddy current examination the percent through wall penetration of a flaw is determined by measuring the response signal's phase angle and converting that measurement to the percent through wall.
A
7
~
TOR 652 Rev. O Page 52 of 60 calibration for this conversion is established by setting up the standard dif-ferential equipment and testing a known standard.
The phase angle for the eddy current response signal is adjusted to a specified measurement which gen-erally is 40 degrees for a 100 percent through wall by.052" diameter hole standard.
This calibration is done in accordance with the ASME Section XI code.
The traditional conversion curve for phase angle measurement to inner diameter initiated percent through wall is determined by the values that are extrapolated from the 40 degree phase angle-100 percent through wall (given by the.052" diameter hole standard) to zero degree phase angle--zero percent through wall.
The estimated percent through wall that is extrapolated from the conversion curve tends to overcall the actual percent through wall of a small volume flaw.
This over calling is considered conservative eddy current evaluation and was instituted in the 1982 dual inspection technique.
It had always been acknowledged that this traditional curve overcalled small volume inner diameter discontinuities.
The presence of smaller inner diameter initi_ated cracks in the THI-l OTSG's had required GPUN to develop a more ac-curate means of assigning the percent through wall penetration.
Therefore, the traditional inner diameter conversion curve was enhanced by using supple-mental data from EDM with various known depths.
This data was used to develop a conversion curve which more accurately represented small volume, inner di-ameter initiated discontinuities and this accuracy was verified through metal-lurgical correlaticns using actual intergranular stress assisted crack samoles.
J 9
I
TOR 652 Rev. O Page 53 of 60 APPENDIX B 1982, 1984 EDDY CURRENT STATISTICS i
i l
i
__._,._.m.,-
.y,
TDR 652-Rev. O Page 54 of 60 TMI STEAM GENERATOR A' AXIAL LOCATIONS OF CONFIRMED-INDICATIONS 0-100% THROUGH WALL PERCENT VS SPAN 1982 VS 1984 1982 1984
'. Support-Frequency 7.
Frequency LP-1 6
.19 1
.090 1 -.2 23
.717 2
.181 2-3 8
.249 8
.726 3-4 8
.249 19 1.725 4-5 17
.53 7'
.635 5-6 58 1.808 19 1.725 6-7 34 1.714 26 2.361 7 55 1.060 5
.458 8-9 34 1.714 12 1.1 9-10 11
.343 4
.367 10-11.
24
.748-8
.726 11 54 1.683 13 1.181 12-13 63 1.964 54 4.900 13-14 146 4.551 57 5.177 14 97 3.024 78 7.084 15-US 530 16.521 217 19.70 US-UP 2040 63.591 571 51.861 TOTAL 3208 1101 Note:
(1) 1984 data includes the-length of tubing below the kinetically ex-panded zone.
(Approximately US+7 and below).
(2) 1982' data includes the length of tubing from US+15 and below.
(3) Data taken from 1982 and 1984 data bases as of 2/15/85.
y TOR 65'2 Rev. O Page 55 of 60 THI STEAM GENERATOR B AXIAL LOCATION OF CONFIRMED INDICATIONS 0-1007. THROUGH WALL-PERCENT VS SPAN 1982 VS 1984 1982 1984-Support Frequency 7.
Frequency 7.
LS 6
.468 6
3.109 1-2 3
.234 2
1.036 2-3 4
.312 1
.518 3-4 20 1.561 3
1.554 4-5 9
.703 6
3.109 5-6 9
.703 4
2.072 6-7 24 1.874 8
4.145 7-8 12
.937 7
3.627 8-9 19 1.483 4
2.072 9-'10
-20 1.561 9
4.663-10-11 15 1.171 2
1.036
.11-12 34 2.654 12 6;218 12-13 34 2.654 12 6.218 13-14 106 8.275
-7 3.627
~14 81 6.323 7
3.627
- 15-US 98-7.650 25 12.953 US-787 61.144
_78 40.414 TOTAL 1281 193 Note:
(1) 1984. data includes the length of tubing below the kinetically ex-panded zone.
(Approximately US+7 and below).
(2) 1982 data includes the length of tubing from US+15 and below.
l
"(3) Data taken from 1982 and 1984 data bases as of 2/15/85.
c
-...s...
___._...,._,._,.__..,_,_,-,,...,_,__.__..__._..,.,,-_,a_._,_,
I-TDR 652 Rev. O Page 56 of 60 TMI STEAM GENERATOR A VOLTAGE DISTRIBUTION FOR CONFIRMED INDICATIONS 0-1007. THROUGH HALL PERCENT VS V0LTS 1982 VS 1984 1982 1984 Volts Percent Volts Percent 0
31.807 0
34.968 1
44.653 1
35.1.5 2
16.595 2
23.615 3
4.702 3
4.814 4=
1.537 4
.636 5
.338 5
.363 6
.184 6
.091 7
.061 7
.182 8
.092 8
.182 9
0 9
0 10
.031 10 0
Note:
(1) 1984 data includes the length of tubing ~below the kinetically ex-
-panded zone.
(Approximately US+7 and below).
-(2) 1982 data includes the length of tubing from US+15 and below.
(3) Data taken from 1982 and 1984 data bases as of.2/15/85.
T-TDR 652 Rev. O Page 57 of 60 TMI STEAM GENERATOR 8 VOLTAGE DISTRIBUTION FOR CONFIRMED INDICATIONS 0-100% THROUGH WALL PERCENT VS VOLTS 1982 VS 1984 1982 1984 Volts Percent Volts Percent 0
23.878 0
26.425 1
28.897 1
20.207 2-25.019 2
27.979 3
9.810 3
11.917 4
6.844 4
5.699 5
1.901 5
3.109 6
1.597 6
1.036
-7
.608 7
1.554 8
1.217 8
1.554 9
0 9
0 10
.076 10
.518 11
.152 11 0
Note:
(1)L1984 data includes the length of. tubing below the kinetically ex-panded::one.
(Approximately US+7 and below).
(2) 1982 data includes the length of tubing from US+15 and below.
-(3) Data taken from 1982 and 1984 data bases as of 2/15/85.
l-
p TDR 652
.Rev. O Page 58 of 60 TMI STEAM GENERATOR A CONFIRMED PERCENT THROUGH HALL
-DISTRIBUTION FOR CONFIRMED INDICATIONS 0-1001 THROUGH WALL PERCENT VS PERCENT THROUGH HALL 1982 VS 1984 1982 1984
% Thru-Wall 10
% Thru-Hall 0-19
.281 0-19 0'
20-29 1.434 20-29 39.055 30-39 1.309 30-39 21.163 40-49 6.827 40-49 17.802 50-59 13.685 50-59 7.629 60-69 9.757 60-69 5.904 70-79 7.512 70-79 2.186
.. 89 8.635 80-89 1.907 90-100 50.561 90-100 3.724 f-
~ Note:
(1) 1984 data includes the length of tubing below'the kineti.cally ex-panded zone.
(Approximately US+7 and below).
(2) 1982 data includes the. length of tubing from US+15 and below.
(3) Data taken from 1982 and 1984 data bases as of 2/15/85.
i.
i o
i-I l
y TOR 652 Rev. O Page 59 of 60 TMI STEAM GENERATOR 8 CONFIRMED PERCENT THROUGH-WALL DISTRIBUTION FOR CONFIRMED INDICATIONS 0-100% THROUGH WALL PERCENT VS. PERCENT THROUGH WALL 1982 VS 1984 1982 1984
% Thru-Wall
% Thru-Wall 0-19 11.788 0-19 0-20-29 11.866-20-29.
63.212 30-39 16.472 30-39 13.99 40-49 10.617 40-49 11.917 50-59 13.349 50-59 4.663 60-69 8.041 60-69 3.109 70-79 6.401 70-79 2.073 80-89 5.699 80-89 0-90-100 15.769 90-100 1.036
_ Note:
(1) 1984 data includes the length of tubing below the kinetically ex-panded zone.
(Approximately US+7 and below).
(2) 1982 data includes the length of tubing from US+15 and below.
(3) Data taken from 1982 and 1984 data bases as of 2/15/85.
Z
g TOR 652 Rev. O Page 60 of 60 CIRCUMFERENTIAL EXTENT FOR CONFIRMED INDICATIONS i
GENERATOR A-1982 1984 Coils Frequency
'Colls Frequency 0
270 (N/A) 0 321 (N/A) 1 655 66.973
.1 1111 89.959 2:
301 30.777-2 122 9.878 i
3 18 1.840 3'
2 0.162
~4 1
0.102 4
0 0
5 1
0.102 5
0 0
6 0
0 6
0 0
7-1
'0.102 7
0 0
8-1 0.102 8
0 0
. TOTAL-978 1235 GENERATOR B 1982 1984 Colls Frequency Colls Frequency
%~
0 361-(N/A) 0-321-(N/A) 1 147 50.000 1
102-79.069 2
102 34.694 2
26 20.155 3
26 8.843 3
1
.775 4
7 2.381 4
0 0
5 4
1.360 5
0 0
6 0
0 7
0 0
t 7
-0 0
8 0
0 8
8 2.721 9
0
-0 4-l-
TOTAL 294 129-i L-Note: '(1) 1984 dataLincludes the length of tubing below the kinetically ex-panded zone.
(Approximately US+7 and below).
i (2) 1982 data includes the length of tubing from US+15 and below.
i' (3) Data taken from 1982 and 1984 data bases as of 2/15/85.
i
,__._,.u.-,.---.,_.,._,,-__.-....-,._..,~._,_-_....,-,_...,__.____.~..--_-.m_.__
L MNuclear DOCUMENT NO.
r=-es2 TITLE Evaluat. ion of the 1984 Required Technical Specification Examination for the TMI-1 OTSG R8v
SUMMARY
OF CHANGE APMICVAL DATE 1
The number of confirmed indications 240% thru
~
wall in "A" Once Through Steam Generator has changed tn P98 tilhet frnm ?q7 tuhet The tntal 7
nurwur vt tuuua witn incicationsE9Un lof Doth g [
nAH 1 UDn has ineiacoscJ by cat tv 3CO.
I l
Pg.12 add subtitle " Status of ISI Tubes."
$C,( 3 b7!W Revised Table 1, % T.W. & Yolts 1983 & 1984 Revised Table 2, quantity of tubes in "A" OTSG I
i with indications,it 40% to 22 from 20' and tol298 I
i I
from 297.
Revised Table 3 edd coluliin to report I
i i
ISItubesthatwereprevenlivelyplugged.
i i
Revised Table 4, revised quantity of tubes <
examined and tubes NR I to be in agreement with revision made to Table 3.
Revised Table 5, % T.W. & Volts - 1983 & 1984.
l l
l e
l 1
5 1
2 b
l s ww, w