ML20133M942
| ML20133M942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1997 |
| From: | Terry C TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| References | |
| TXX-96515, NUDOCS 9701230096 | |
| Download: ML20133M942 (19) | |
Text
.
1.
Log TXX 96515 P9 File 10010.1 916 Ref.
.r Z
1UELECTRIC' January 16, 1997 C. Lance Terry Gmup Mce Presulent Mr. L. J. Callan, Regional Administrator l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive. Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES) - UNIT I DOCKET NO. 50 445 SPECIAL REPORT ON THE UNIT 1. FIFTH REFUELING OUTAGE, STEAM GENERATOR INSERVICE INSPECTION TUBE PLUGGING SPECIAL REPORT NO. 1 SR 96 003 00 Attached is a 12 month special report submitted pursuant to CPSES Unit 1 Technical Specifications 4.0.6.5b and 6.9.2.
Additionally, as requested by your staff, results of the condition monitoring evaluation is also enclosed for your l
information. If there are any questions, please contact Obaid Bhatty at (817) 8975839 or Steve Swilley at (817) 897 6069.
Sincerely, C. L. Terry By:
@M Md Roger'D. Walker Regulatory Affairs Manager Attachment Enclosure cc:
NRC Document Control Desk
[
,h )7 Mr. J. I. Tapia, Region IV Mr. T. J. Polich, NRR Mr. G. Bynog, TDLR Resident Inspectors. CPSES l
9701230096 970116 l
PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
l PDR P. O. Box 1002 Glen Rose Texas 76043
Attachment to TXX %515 Page 1 of 5 TU ELECTRIC l
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 1 l
i SPECIAL REPORT NO. 1-SR 96 003 00 l
UNIT 1 FIFTH REFUELING OUTAGE l
STEAM GENERATOR INSERVICE INSPECTION TUBE PLUGGING l
Pursuant to CPSES Technical Specifications 4.0.6.5b and 6.9.2, this Special.
- Report is to provide the results of the Unit I steam generator eddy current j
inservice inspection during Unit i fifth refueling outage (1RF05).
i l
The initial scope of the inspection included 100 percent full length multi-l frequency bobbin coil and 100 percent hot leg top of tubesheet Rotating Pancake l
Coil (RPC) (+ Point /0.115/0.080HF) on steam generators 1 and 4.
On steam generators 2 and 3 the scope was 20 percent full length multi frequency bobbin coil and 20 percent hot leg top of tubesheet RPC (+ point /0.115/0.080HF).
Additional scope for all four steam generators included 20 percent of row 1 and l
2 U bends using RPC (+ point), 20 percent of the expanded baffle plate B and D intersections in the cold leg preheater using RPC (+ Point /0,115/0.080HF), dents greater than or equal to 3 volts at H3 using RPC (+ Point /0.115/0.080HF), a sampling of dents greater than or equal to 3 volts up to H11 using RPC l
(+ Point /0.115/0,080HF), and all previous indications, manufacturing buff marks (ems), and dents using bobbin coil. Additionally, RPC (+ Point / 0.115/0.080HF) was utilized to assist in characterizing ambiguous bobbin coil signals.
The scope was expanded to 100 percent hot leg top of tubesheet RPC (+ Point /
0.115/0.080HF) on all four steam generators due to the detection of a circumferential indication in steam generator 4.
Due to availability of the steam generators, the full length bobbin coil scope was expanded to incl:sde 100 percent of all four steam generators.
The most severe degradation detected was row 23 col 44, row 1 col 89, and row 1 col 91 in steam generator 2 and row 26 col 104 in steam gerwrator 4. These circumferential indications were on the hot leg top of tubesheet. These indications were sized, evaluated, and deemed structurally sound. These tubes were stabilized and plugged. The rest of the circumferential indications were bounded by these evaluations.
1 i
l
Attachment to TXX 96515 Page 2 of 5 NUMBER OF TUBES EXAMINED S/G Bobbin TTS/RPC U-Expanded Row Col
- Thru-Bena/RPC Baffle Wall Plate /RPC 1
4566 4566 46 25 45 29 21 48 73 20 48 74 5
I 48 75 9
2 4574 4574 46 25 48 38 7
49 38 3
48 39 4
48 40 24 46 45 6
47 45 7
l 49 45 4
49 46 6
1 1
47 49 8
45 60 4
46 67 6
47 67 18 48 74 5
3 4572 4572 46 25 48 34 8
l
~
47 49 21 47 50 26 45 54 7
21 59 5
36 59 8
4 1
(
Attachment to TXX 96515 Page 3 of 5 l
(
S/G Bobbin TTS/RPC U-Expanded Row Col i Thru-Bend /RPC Baffle Wall l
Plate /RPC 41 59 20 43 59 30 45 62 4
48 75 8
48 81 3
4 4567 4567 46 25 44 23 3
45 24 17 12 26 9
48 36 5
48 42 6
l 47 43 5
l l
47 48 16 45 53 16 21 55' 4
45 55 6
35 56 3
30 59 3
31 59 8
33 59 6
33 60 4
45 64 13 47 66 31 48 74 19 48 75 17 4
3 NOTE: All percent calls were wear at either an anti vibration bar or at a cold leg preheater intersection. All measurements were done using a wear scar standard.
I i
Attachment to TXX 96515 Page 4 of 5 The following tubes were plugged due to the indication as listed:
TBX RCPCSG 02 l
l
\\
R0W COLUMN OD/ID INDICATION LOCATION STABILIZED PLUGGED 12 2
DENT RST C11 NO YES 43 37 00 SAI HTS -0.91 NO YES 1
23 44 00 SCI HTS 0.34 YES YES 1
80 00 SCI HTS 0.27 YES YES l
1 84 OD SCI HTS 0.15 YES YES 1
85 00 SCI HTS 0.21 YES YES 1
88 00 SCI HTS 0.20 YES YES 3
88 OD SCI HTS 0.00 YES YES i
1 89 OD SCI HTS 0.85 YES YES 1
91 OD SCI HTS 0.31 YES YES l
l 1
98 00 SCI HTS +0.18 YES YES j
TBX RCPCSG 03 l
R0W COLUMN OD/ID INDICATION LOCATION STABILIZED PLUGGED l
38 16 DENT RST AV1 24.25 NO YES l
l 48 67 OD VOL C11 0.66 NO YES 1
l
-_=.
Attachment to TXX 96515 Page 5 of 5 TBX RCPCSG 04 R0W COLUMN OD/ID INDICATION LOCATION STABILIZED PLUGGED 15 3
OD VOL H7+36.90 N0 YES 32 34 OD SAI H3 N0 YES 31 54 OD SCI HTS 0.23 YES YES 34 98 00 MAI HTS 0.10 NO YES 26 104 OD SCI HTS 0.40 YES YES 26 105 OD SCI HTS 0.47 YES YES DEFINITIONS:
RST
" Restricted Tube" SAI
" Single Axial Indication" SCI
" Single Circumferential1y 0riented Indication" VOL
" Volumetric" MAI
" Multiple Axial Indications" l
1 l
l A
I
\\
)
l l
l i
1 I
ENCLOSURE TO TXX-96515 l'
STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF COMANCHE PEAK 1 l
SG TUBE INDICATIONS i
l l
l t
i l
l
{
i ll m-
WPT-15783 Westinghause Energy Systems ac, n3 Electric Corporation
- mswo ennsmania 33m:n3 SG-96-11-001, Rev. 1 NSD-RFK-96-034, Rev. 1 January 10, 1997 Mr. C. L. Terry, Group Vice President Ref. 1: WPT-15776 Nuclear Production 2: Contract C-0179618-6C1 TU Electric Company P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Attention:
J. Hoss NO RESPONSE REQUIRED TV ELECTRIC COMPANY COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATORS
Dear Mr. Terry:
Attached is Revision 1 of the " Structural Evaluation of Comanche Peak 1 Steam Generator Tube Indications" which has been revised by Westinghouse to expand the original evaluation (Ref.1) to address additional indications and comments from TU Electric personnel.
If you have any questions, please contact Robert Keating at (412) 722-5086 or me.
Very truly yours, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION W. P.
irie, Manager Comanche Peak Project
/slf Attachment cc:
C. L. Terry ll, IA J. Kelley ll, 1A
~
l K. Kirby IL, IA M. R. Blevins IL, 1A i
J. Shapelow IL, 1A R. G. Cockrel IL, IA R. Flores IL, 1A VETIP Coordinator IL, 1A CCS IL, IA M. R. Killgore IL, lA J. Hoss IL, 1A B. Mays IL, 1A S. Swilley ll, IA J. Barker IL, IA B. Fellers IL, 1A l
%7T457E3/0110,7/t
)
t Comanche Peak 1 Circumferential Tube Indications i
Structural Evaluation of Comanche Peak 1 SG Tube Indications 4
1.0 Introduction l
On October 25,1996, Steam Generator Design & Analysis (SGDA) was advised of I
the detection of circumferentialindications at the elevation of the top of the l
tubesheet in steam generator (SG) tubes at the Texas Utilities' Comanche Peak 1 nuclear power plant. An additional indication was reported by Dele Obazenu (Westinghouse at the plant site) to Gary Pierini (Westinghouse at Waltz Mill) on 4
November 1,1996. Information on another six (6) indications was provided to SGDA engineering about November 4,1996. Finally, information on the final five l
(5) plugged tube indications was provided on November 25,1996. It is noted that i
the final plugging list identifies multiple types of tube degradation and that not all l
of the plugged tube indications were circumferential in nature.
j.
The eddy current testing (ECT) outputs for all of the indications were examined in l
detail by a qualified Level III ECT analyst to obtain indication depths as a function oflength. The resulting profile information was then analyzed to estimate the
-l structural integrity of the tubes relative to the requirements of draft Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121. This is in essence a condition monitoring evaluation in the sense of the forthcoming regulatory guide associated with the establishment of the regulatory SG Rule currently being developed by the US Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission's staff. In summary, each of the indications is estimated to have a l
burst resistance in excess of the normal operation and accident condition guideline l
limits of the draft RG.
2.0 Description of the Indications A description of each of the tube indications is provided in Table 1, which corre-sponds to the final plugging list from the outage. It was apparent from an exami-nation of the data of Table 1, as supplemented by the detailed ECT information for each of the indications, that the structural integrity results for all of the circumfer-ential indications could be bounded by the results from analyses of the longest and
)
i deepest indications, i.e., the indications in the SG2-R23C44, SG4-R26C104, SG2-R01C89 and C90 tubes. Each of the circumferential indication evaluations is dis-cussed in paragraph 3.5. Certain assumptions are inherent for performing the l
analysis, i.e., the indications are considered to be cracks and the indication at any one elevation is a single crack characterized by depth and percent degraded area l
(PDA). It is noted that the actual indication likely consists of multiple cracks
)
. hich are separated by axial and/or circumferential ligaments which result in a j
w j-local strengthening of the tube. The other types of degradation evaluated were DdPLANTS\\TBX96 \\CIRCEVALRV1 1
12/23/96
i Comanche Peak 1 Circumferential Tube Indications l
i i
volumetric indications ODSCC, axial indications, and dents. Each type is dis-cussed in a separate subsection of Section 3.0 of this report.
3.0 Structural Evaluations l
3.1 Volumetric Type Indications l
Volumetric (or pit-like) indications were reported in the R48C67, SG3 tube at the th cold leg li TSP elevation and in the R15C003, SG 4 tube at the hot leg 7'h tube support plate plus ~36.9 inches. In general, pitting degradation does not result in a reduction in the burst strength of a tube that is sufficient to challenge the margin guidelines of draft RG 1.121. The Level III analyst review of the ECT information indicated that conservative planar dimensions for the R15C003 indication would be on the order of up to 0.2" by 0.2" with a depth ofless than 40%. For such an 1
indication, the burst pressure wruld be expected to be governed by the shear strength of the thinned region. Considering the flow strength in shear to be 70% of the flow strength in tension leads to an estimate that the indication could be on the order of >90% deep in a tube with lower tolerance limit material properties without violating the structural guidelines of draft RG 1.121.
The R48C67 indication was also small, likely less than the R15C003 indiction, with a maximum depth of about 40 to 45%. Therefore, the burst strength would be expected to significantly exceed the guidelines of RG 1.121. It is also noted that this indication exhibited a signal history dating to 1982, indicating very slow growth.
3.2 TSP ODSCC Indications An ODSCC indication (axial) was reported in tube R32C034, SG 4, at the elevation of tube support plate (TSP) 3 on the hot leg. The bobbin amplitude of the indica-l tion is 1.12 Volts. This is well below the structural limit of almost 5 Volts, for indications in 3/4" diameter tubes in Westinghouse Model D SGs, for postulated steam line break (SLB) event conditions. Since the indication is at a TSP elevation, the guideline margin during normal operation conditions is inherently met, i.e.,
rupture is precluded by the presence of the TSP.
1 The structural limit is that voltage for which burst would be predicted to occur at a pressure of 1.43 times the postulated steam line break accident differential pressure in a tube with lower tolerance limit material properties i
using a lower one-sided 95% prediction bound on the regression curve of burst pressure on bobbin amplitude.
l D:\\ PLANTS \\TBX96 \\CIRCEVAL.RV1 2
12/23/96
l Comanche Peak 1 Circumferential Tube Indications 3.3 Axial Indications Two small axial indications were reported in the tube at R34C098 in SG 4 and one small axial indication was reported in the tube at R43C037 in SG 2. The dimen-l l
sions are listed in Table 1. None of the indications is of significant length (0.36" l
maximum) when compared to the critical length (near % inch) for uniform through-l wall axial indications in Westinghouse Model D'SG tubes with lower tolerance limit l
material properties. In addition, the indications are not uniform in depth, and l
have an average depth of only about 50%. Therefore, the requirements of draft RG 1.121 are considered to be met.
3.4 Dent Indications Tube dent indications were reported in the SG 3, R38C16 and the SG 2, R12C002 tube. Both tubes were also reported to have no detectable degradation (NDD) by the bobbin coil examination, and thus would not be expected to have a diminished resistance to burst.
l 3.5 CircumferentialIndications Several tubes were reported as having indications of circumferential cracking as listed in Table 1. Four of the severest, based on maximum length and depth l
considerations, were selected for detailed analysis. The profile plots for the most severe of these, R23C44 in SG 2, and one of the other three, R26C104 in SG 4, are provided on Figures 1 and 2, respectively. A summary of the structural analysis results for each of these indications is provided in Tables 2 and 3. The indications in tubes R01C089 and R01C091 in SG 2 were also selected for detailed evaluation, with the results being provided in Tables 4 and 5. There are three different burst modes that may occur for tubes with circumferential indications. If the circumfer-ential extent of the indication is less than about 75', an axially oriented rupture opening will occur because the hoop stress is twice the axial stress. For larger indications, the burst mode can be characterized as being either a bending or a tensile instability. For 100% through wall indications up to about 280* or so, bending instability due to either limit load capability or crack tip plastic zone instability may occur at a pressure below that associated with a net section stress tensile overload. The analysis of the tubes is performed for both potential failure l
modes. For the four tubes analyzed, the profiles definitely indicate that the failure mode would be akin.to a net section stress tensile overload. For this estimate, the flow stress is used as the critical net section stress. In addition, the dimensions of the tube are based on the as rolled geometry, however, no strain induced increase in the flow stress is considered. Finally, it is noted that two values of effective area are listed in the evaluation tables. The second area results from adjusting the profile information to eliminate thin ligaments which might not contribute to the strength of the tube. If the values are equal, it simply means that there were no ligaments judged to be too small to not have an effect the burst pressure.
D3 PLANTS \\TBX96\\CIRCEVALRV1 3
inv95 1
Comanche Peak 1 Circumferential Tube Indications The normal operating differential pressure at Comanche Peak 1 is 1285 psi. The margin to burst is estimated to be >6 for the R23C44 tube, and >7 for the R26C104 tube. Both of these significantly exceed the drait RG guideline of a margin of three. Since, three times the normal operating differential pressure (3855 psi) is greater than 1.43 times the postulated SLB differential pressure of 2560 psi, the guidelines for accident condition are also met.
The estimated percent degraded areas (PDAs) for the four tubes ranges from 45.4 to 56.2%. The critical PDA for all of these tubes is expected to be on the order of 79%, hence the conclusion that the requirements of the draft RG were met at the end of the operating cycle would be valid if the measurement error was as large as 20% of the tube wall thickness or 40% of the indication depths. It is more likely l
that the absolute error would be limited to about 15% of the tube thickness, and l
would be positive at some circumferential locations and negative at others, thus reducing the error relative to estimating the PDA. In conclusion, it is unlikely that the error could be significant enough to alter the conclusions of the evaluation.
The burst pressures for the remaining circumferential indications listed in Table 1 are bounded by the results of the evaluations of the four largest indications. The probability of burst of any of the indications would be expected to be very low, say l
significantly less than 10-3, because of the high expwted burst pressures.
Based on examination of the profile of the R26C104 tube in SG 4, see Figure 2, it is not unlikely that a leak could develop during a postulated SLB event. Such a leak would be expected to be quite small. If the leak length were as large as 45*, the leak rate would be expected to be on the order of 0.01 gpm.2 An order of magni-tude increase in the leak rate would be expected for a 90' throughwall crack, i.e.,
l the leak rate would be expected to be about 0.1 gpm.
i 4.0 Summary / Conclusions All of the indications evaluated for this report met the structural margin guidelines l
of draft RG 1.121 at the end of the operating cycle at Comanche Peak 1. In addition, the potential leak rate from those indications during a postulated steam line break event would be expected to be small to nonsignificant relative to the makeup capacity of the water charging system.
i 2 This is based on information presented to the US NRC on November 21,1996, on behalf of the Electric Power Research Institute and Entergy Operations.
)
D:\\ PLANTS \\TBX96\\CIRCEVALRV1 4
12/23/96
.. ~
Comanche Peak 1 Circumferential Tube Indications l
Table 1: Summary of the Indications Evaluated SG, Tube, Location Indication Length Maximum Average Type Depth Depth
(%)
(%)
SG 4, R15C003, H7+36.9" Volumetric (pit-like), -0.2" diameter, ~40% deep SG 4, R26C104, 'ITS-0.40" SCI
- 360*
92%
46.5 %
1 SG 4, R26C105, TTS-0.47" SCI 110' 40%
24.1 %
SG 4, R31C054, TTS-0.23" SCI 40/225 2 42%
28.1%
SG 4, R32C034, H3+0.00" ODSCC Bobbin amplitude of 1.12 Volts, not of structural significance.
SG 4, R34C098, 'ITS-0.10" MAI 0.31" 98 %
51.9 %
0.36" 100 %
53.3 %
SG 3, R38C016, AV1-24.25" Dent NDD by bobbin examination.
SG 3, R48C067, C11-0.66" Volumetric (pit-like) indication with signal history dating to 1982. Smaller than R15C003 in SG 4.
SG 2, R01C080, 'ITS-0.27" SCI 180*
40%
<40%
SG 2, R01C084, 'ITS-0.15" SCI 130' 64%
-50%
SG 2, R01C085, TTS-0.21" SCI
- 300*
- 50%
< 40%
SG 2, R01C088, TTS-0.20" SCI
< 100*
52%
< 40%
SG 2, R01C089, TTS-0.85" SCI
- 360' 76 %
45.4 %
SG 2, R01C091, TTS-0.31" SCI
- 360*
85%
50.3 %
SG 2, R01C098, TTS+0.18" SCI / MCI
~210'
<50%
<40%
SG 2, R03C088, 'ITS*0.00" i MCI
< 100*
58 %
< 50%
SG 2, R12C002, C11 Dent NDD by bobbin examination.
1 SG 2, R23C044, 'ITS-0.34" SCI 315' 83 %
56.2 %
l SG 2, R43C037, T*S-0.91" SAI 0.27" 45%
NA Notes:
1.
Based on an equivalent 360* crack.
l 2.
Approximately 40* of the degradation exhibited signals strong enough to permit sizing while 135' was definitely NDD.
i D:\\ PLANTS \\TBX96)CIRCEVAL RV1 5
imse
i l
1 Table 2: Integrity analysis of Comanche Peak 1, l
SG 2. R23C44 HL Tube l
i j
Tube Dimensions OD t
Rm Ri A.i l
A.t l
Free Span 0.750 0.0430 0.3535 0.3320 0.3463 0.0955 Rolled 0.765 0.0404 0.3623 0.3421 0.3677 0.0920 i
i i
l Tube Material Proos. - HT 8155 Plant Conditions Flow Stress Temp.Adj Flow Stress Actual T. hot dP.nop P. sib (RT ksi)
Factor (650*F)
PDA
('F)
(ksi)
(ksi) 79.0 92.7 %
j 73.3 56.2 %
< 650*F 1.285 1
2.560 Expected Burst Mode (Tensile or Bending): iTensile l
Structural Analysis at 650*F - CMTR Material Effective Equivalent Tensile,
Plastic Exp Burst Minimum Minimum l
Area TW Arc Limit Instability Pressure Ratio to Ratio to l
(in )
(degrees)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi) dP.noo P. sib 4.04E-02 202.0*
8.042 4.995 8.042 6.3 3.1 4.03E-02 202.4*
8.023 4.988 8.023 6.2 3.1 I
i i
I i
I Structural Analysis at 650*F - LTL Material Effective Equivalent Tensile Plastic Exp Burst Minimum Minimum Area TW Arc Limit Instability Pressure Ratio to Ratio to (in )
(degrees)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi) dP.nop P. sib 4.04E-02 202.0*
7.171 4.454 7.171 5.6 2.8 4.03E-02 202.4*
7.153 4.448 7.153 5.6 2.8 l
l 1-1 I
Structural Limit at 650*F - CMTR Material Equivalent Tensile Plastic Exp Burst Minimum Minimum TW Arc Limit Instability Pressure Ratio to Ratio to p
(decrees)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi) dP.noo P. sib 79.0 %
284.3*
3.855 3.855 3.855 3.0 1.5 l
79.0 %
284.3*
3.855 3.855 3.855 3.0 1.5 l
l I
[TTs-ClRC. mis] R23C44. Calc 6
AFK: 11/22/96. 8:59 AM
l s
l i
i i
l Table 5: Integrity analysis of Comanche Peak 1, SG 2, R01C091 HL 1
i Tube Dimensions OD t
Rm Ri A.i A.t Free Span 0.750 0.0430 0.3535 0.3320 0.3463 0.0955 i
Rolled 0.765 0.0404 0.3623 0.3421 0.3677 0.0920 I
Tube Material Proos. - HT 8155 Plant Conditions Flow Stress Temp.Adj Flow Stress Actual T. hot dP.nop P. sib (RT ksi)
Factor (650*F)
PDA
( F1 (ksi)
(ksi) 79.0 92.7 %
l 73.3 50.3 %
< 650*F 1.285 2.560 Expected Burst Mode (Tensile or Bending): ITensile Structural Analysis at 650*F-CMTR Material Effective Equivalent Tensile Plastic Exp Burst Minimum Minimum Area TW Arc Limit Instability Pressure Ratio to Ratio to 2
(in )
(degrees)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi) dP.nop P. stb 4.60E-02 180.0*
9.161 5.416 9.161 7.1 3.6 4.57E 02 180.9" 9.115 5.398 9.115 7.1 3.6 I
I I
I I
I Structural Analysis at 650 F-LTL Material Effective Equivalent Tensile Plastic Exp Burst Minimum Minimum Area TW Arc Limit Instability Pressure Ratio to Ratio to i
2 (in )
(degrees)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi) dP.nop P. sib 4.60E-02 180.0*
8.169 4.830 8.169 6.4 3.2 4.57E-02 180.9*
8.127 4.813 8.127 6.3 3.2 l
l l
l l
l Structural Limit at 650 F - CMTR Material Equivalent Tensile Plastic Exp Burst Minimum Minimum Lim g
TW Arc Limit Instability Pressure Ratio to Ratio to (decrees)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi) dP.nop P. sib i
79.0 %
284.4*
3.848 3.848 3.848 3.0 1.5 l
79.0 %
284.4 3.848 3.848 3.848 3.0
/
1.5 l
l
[TTs-c!RC.xis) others 9
RFK;11/22/96,9:00 AM
i Figure 1: OD Corrosion Cracking Depth Profile Comanche Peak 1, SG 2, R23C44 HL i I S Elevation i
0.40 l
l l
i OD ' 7 7'I,~
- J
__I'K
~--
~
. _ - _.. r I
0.30 (Profilef
! /
l N
7__
_ _4_
___p ID of l
g e
E
_. /.-
5
//
i\\
C 0.10
/
f l
.\\.
N I
2 i
o c*
0.00 2
i 8
s t
R
\\
j 8
-0.10
\\
i\\
/
l!l'
\\
-0.20 f
\\
/
\\N
/
,/
-0.30
-s
,e M
,/
s'~~L__-
-0.40
~
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 l
l Distance Along O' to 180* Axis i
(TTS-CtRC.xis] R23C44 Plot 10 APC 11/22/96. 9:04 AM
Figure 2: OD Corrosion Cracking Depth Profile Comanche Peak 1, SG 4, R26C104 HL i i S Elevation 0.40 l
l,
J- -
_ l l
l r
t 0.30 frolef N
(([y
,x l
!'ib ?
l l
\\L 0.20 s
b
\\
e
.g s- -
//
I s
0.10
/
=
f a
N
//
i 3
-7 j
l\\
8 0.00 l
i l
e g
5
- -0'10
(-
i
\\\\
/.
.E
--~~\\- (
/
i O
\\ (\\
l i
! /
-0.20 g
f
\\.
\\ x N
/
/'
g~~u
/,7 x
_7 -
,).
-0.40 l
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 Distance Along 0* to 180* Axis i
[TTS-CIRC.xis] R26C104. Plot 11 RFK: 11/22/96. 9:05 AM
~.
d l
Table 3: Integrity analysis of Comanche Peak 1, SG 4, R26C104 HL Tube Tube Dimensions OD l
t Rm Ri A.i A.t j
l Free Scan 0.750 0.0430 0.3535 0.3320 0.3463 0.0955 Rolled O.765 0.0404 0.3623 0.3421 0.3677 0.0920 i
s j
i Tube Material Proos. - HT 8203 Plant Conditions Flow Stress Temp.Adj Flow Stress Actual T. hot dP.nop P. stb (RT ksi)
Factor (650'F)
PDA
(*F)
(ksi)
(ksi) 79.5 92.7 %
73.7 46.5 %
< 650*F 1.285 2.560 Expected Burst Mode (Tensile or Bending): : Tensile i
Structural Analysis at 650*F - CMTR Material Effective Equivalent Tensile Plastic Exp Burst Minimum Minimum Area TW Arc Limit instability Pressure Ratio to Ratio to 2
(in )
(degrees)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi) dP.noo P. sib j
4.95E-02 166.4*
9.917 5.753 9.917 7.7 3.9 4.92E-02 167.3*
9.873 5.733 9.873 7.7 3.9 4
}-
1 I
I I
I I
Structural Anal!rsis at 650*F - LTL Material Effective Equivalent Tensile Plastic Exp Burst Minimum Minimum Area TW Arc Limit Instability Pressure Ratio to Ratio to 2
(in)
(degrees)
(ksi)
(ksi)'
(ksi) dP.nop P. sib 4.95E-02 166.4*
8.78'.'
5.097 8.787 6.8 3.4 4.92E-02 167 3*
8.748 5.079 8.748 6.8 3.4 I
I l'
I I
Structural Limit at 650*F - CMTR Material Equivalent Tensile Plastic Exp Burst Minimum Minimum i
9 TW Arc Limit instability Pressure Ratio to Ratio to p
(decrees)
(ksi)
(ksi) -
(ksi) dP.noo P. sib 79.1 %
284.7*
3.855 3.855 3.855 3.0 1.5 79.1 %
284.7*
3.855 3.855 3.855 3.0 1.5 (TTs-CIRC.xis] R26C104 Cat 7
RFK: 11/22/96. 9:59 AM
l i.
Table 4: Integrity analysis of Comanche Peak 1, j
SG 2, R01C089 HL Tube i
i l
Tube Dimensions i
OD t
Rm Ri A.i I
A.t Free Span 0.750 0.0430 0.3535 0.3320 0.3463 0.0955 Rolled 0.765 0.0404 0.3623 0.3421 0.3677 0.0920 l
i Tube Material Props. - HT 8155 Plant Conditions
]
Flow Stress Temp.Adj Flow Stress Actual T. hot dP.nop P. sib (RT ksi)
Factor (650 F)
PDA
(* F)
(ksi)
(ksi) 79.0 92.7 %
73.3 45.4 %
l
< 650*F 1.285 1
2.560 Expected Burst Mode (Tensile or Bending): ! Tensile i
Structural Analysis at 650*F - CMTR Material i
Effective Equivalent Tensile Plastic Exp Burst Minimum Minimum l
Area TW Arc Limit Instability Pressure Ratio to Ratio to 2
(in )
(degrees)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi) dP.noo P. sib i
5.02E-02 163.6 9.999 5.783 9.999 7.8 3.9 5.02E-02 163.6 9.999 5.783 9.999 7.8 3.9 i
i l
I I
I l
Structural Anal!rsis at 650*F - LTL Material l
Effective Equivalent Tensile Plastic Exp Burst Minimum Minimum j
Area TW Arc Limit Instability Pressure Ratio to Ratio to 2
l (in )
(degrees)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi) dP.nop P.slb 5.02E-02 163.6*
8.915 5.156 8.915 6.9 3.5 5.02E-02 163.6*
8.915 5.156 8.915 6.9 3.5 j
l l
l I
l I
1 Structural Limit at 650*F - CMTR Material i
Equivalent Tensile Plastic Exp Burst Minimum Minimum I
Limiting TW Arc Limit instability Pressure Ratio to Ratio to PDA (dearees)
(ksi)
(ksi)
(ksi) dP.nop P. sib 1-79.0 %
284.4*
3.848 3.848 3.848 3.0 1.5 79.0 %
284.4*
3.848 3.848 3.848 3.0 1.5 4
1 i
[TTs. CIRC.xts] Others 8
RFK: 11/22/96,9:00 AM
. _ _ _