ML20215A103

Intervenor Exhibit I-NCNP-2,consisting of NUREG/CR-3538, Effect of LOCA Simulation Procedures on Ethylene Propylene Rubber Mechanical & Electrical Properties, Dtd Oct 1983

ML20215A103
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/30/1986
From:	Bustard L SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES
To:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
References
CON-FIN-A-1051, RTR-NUREG-CR-3538 OL-1-I-NCNP-002, OL-1-I-NCNP-2, SAND83-1258, NUDOCS 8612110160
Download: ML20215A103 (171)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:-

• g NUREG/CR-3538 hk SANDB3-1258 P

. Pnnted October 1983 D, p F

w<c l.

'86 DEC -8 P 7 :28 .f um t coe i The Effect of LOCA Simulation Proce,'dures" l on Ethylene Propylene Rubber's Mechanical and Electrical Properties I I Larry D. Bustard bec.a ec tr, Sanaa Put.v W Lawaiges i AJbucxecxie. % uea<o 87185 and Lrvermue Catforrma 94550 l for t'he ureteo States Deoartmert of Erie <gy troev Coreact DE ACG4-700P00789 NUCtEAR REGULATORY COMMlWOM i }" naaet no?'N # lllo.f?b in the matter d _ IDENTIFIED _RECIIVED _ ~ V - RUECitD Cont's Off'r __ ,J0 kb Co*\\'*'- l AI i A wAL g Reporter _ 8612110160 860930 PDR ADOCK 05000443 t G PDR Prepared for U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '7fiObi TECS-NIC AL N INFORM ATION SERVICE " U$' c's57E Y '*E." 2

7 ir O BATCH 3 00613C / -- }h /) PAGE 4-1. Bl=. CONTROL NUMBER: 0003006 ~ 1 OPEHA10HS: 01 ) ACCESSION NUMBER: .....................................NUREG/CR-3538 02C) COMMERCE CATEGORY: 035)AD01T10NAL SRC CLIENTS: i ce / / / 8 03L) LANGUAGE: 03C) COMP. ENikY CODE: -j/ 34 ) SERIAL: 35 ) CORPORATE.AUTHUR CJDE: 068123000 US-AUTHOR: =05 )* Nuclear Reoulatory Commission, edW hashinoton, DC. Office of Nuclear Reo&se ulatory Researen.aDeoartment of Enerow&d y, nashinoton, DC.( Jde sdd Jdd 906 )Effect of LOCA Simulation Procedadd ures on Ethylene Prooylene Rubber's Hudd echanical ano Electrical Properties,(ddW U10G)L. D. /dustardt dds all 20ct 83, t ase' al4 1A-)dSAND-83-1258i dde d15 A) Contract WDE-ACoc-7eOP007891 ded was dde U' l /

pggy a q 3506 FULL DOCUMENT PROCESSING = u g ,YLER.5S NuA ECt /C& 8 5' 87 l -.,_,_._.._..._..c= y Hynsa.dE Ma? ~ <-..- rm < m. m / ,s.m m .1 m a >!.l i iH L...: =,< a o ;A v. t u->- x 8 c i .m

m..

1. sm.. m.m

o. ~

.r =

=

.;g7

== : =

=

-tm o. 1 m~~ m-- -~1

o. o.m.

R U,! p ?

= -

m - =. m,C + hj i e 2 1 61 & #8 i is . n.. l C3. Pe151 l 5:E. l I l l i o' P M : .._._,_._ _. ___. _,_i i l Im! Ii i I i l a l I 2 l @ [!'4 ld" res ao men no UL.cuau s:t Ccutcat .m acort.nat novect CurrT1 i a4 uitz me. j i 4 l l 96 l l ,1 u3 auta uGT. Cn. 35s CW, avTModi CD. OC) Cour tWTTY Coct H1 it taAt CAI kiv attjvl0 l l l l 1 l i 41.inLat3 (D0 act atYn i i l saa se 575.-4-t

~Y: /c.C c n6 .a.c.. .o o, t\\ d H

2. C. [V (b yqAh a/cs. 3c37

'00$006} ~ .- - a un-l l 4ir ' / / J, 74 94, ItI, i 7/ 996 TT3,99F tr. w rg Ab +cs+dMa4erialQ a 4 OCbni C^0 ~ o, on.w7.~. j

• Elee+rienG.oro.w *-,,

i i

cabi, ins.is ; -

,_E a3+o urs ! 6-6Av /e ne coco /v, mers. fn D ! Ch L O_D EMlYb i A be mmpian+-g , L nsm asicm LA ~ tbvle_ ne-nrooxs le ne-roDn]u merS ' anunne i i ii ~/ / 5 j I iI i i' i i aos now .(Loe vai asstaAct Pacu ,j i i ~ 6 l 1 i l

r~ { NUREG/CR-3538 j SAND 83-1258 Rv . l-I THE EFFECT OF LOCA SIMULATION PROCEDURES ON ETHYLENE PROPYLENE RUBBER'S MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES L. D. Bustard Printed: October 1933 Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 Operated by g Sandia Corporation for the U.S. Department of Energy Prepared for Electrical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 40-550-75 Under Interagency Agreement N RC FI N No. A-10 51 1 h 8

Abstract Electrical and mechanical properties of several commercial ethylene-propylene rubber (EPR) materials, typically used as electrical cable insulation, have been monitored during three simulations of nuclear power plant aging and accident stresses. tensile specimens we did a For one set of cables and separate sequential test. We first performed a'ccelerated thermal aging, the combined aging and LOCA total then irradiated the samples to For a second and dose. Fina'lly we applied a steam exposure. tensile specimens we used third set of cables and separate simultaneous applications of elevated temperature and radiation We followed these stresses to preaccident age our specimens. i aging exposures by simultaneous radiation and steam exposures to simulate a LOCA environment. included: Our measurement parameters during these tests de insulation resistance, ac leakage current, ultimate tensile strength, ultimate tensile elongation, percentage dimensional changes, and percentage moisture absorption. We present test results for nine EPR materials. The implications of our research results for future cable qualification testing efforts is discussed. l i -iii-l

ww-. ---,. -..... 7 .r 4 1 Contents i. Page 5 iii ? Abstract xiii f Acknowledgments xiv I I Key Nords El Executive Summary 1 ) 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Experimental 3 6 2.1 Materials 8 2.2 Facilities 2.3 Procedures 8 10 Overview 2.3.1 LICA Aging of Tensile Specimens 12 2.3.2 2.3.3 HIACA Sequential Test 12 2.3.3.1 Test Setup 14 2.3.3.2 Thermal Aging 20 s 2.3.3.3 Radiation Exposures 22 2.3.3.4 Steam Exposure 28 il HIACA Simultaneous Test 28 2.3.4 Setup 30 Test 2.3.4.1 Simultaneous Thermal and 2.3.4.2 Radiation Aging 35 Simultaneous Steam and 2.3.4.3 Radiation Exposure 40

1. 2 HIACA Simultaneous Test 40 2.3.5 Setup 42 Test 2.3.5.1 Simultaneous Thermal and 2.3.5.2 Radiation Aging 47 Simultaneous Steam and 2.3.5.3 Radiation Exposure 53 3.0 Results 53 53 3.1 'EPR A and EPR A' 3.1.1 Electrical Results 58 3.1.2 Insulation Specimens 61 61 3.2 EPR B 3.2.1 Electrical Results 61 3.2.2 Insulation Specimens 67 67 3.3 EPR C 3.3.1 Electrical Results 72 3.3.2 Insulation Specimens A

Precedag page blank

I i Contents Page 3.4 EPR D 72 3.4.1 Multiconductor F.esults 77 3.4.2 Single Conductor Results 85 Insulation Specimens 91 3.4.3 Jacket and Insulation Chemical Analysis 3.4.4 3.5 EPR E 94 3.5.1.-Multiconductor Results 96 3.5.2 Single Conductor Results 96 3.5.3 Insulation Specimens 100 3.6 EPR F 100 I 3.6.1 Electrical Results 100 3.6.2 Insulation Specimens 100 3.7 EPR G 108 3.8 EPR-1483 108 3.9 Japanese EPR-5 119 4.0 Discussion 134 f References 137 Appendix A: Summary of Unanticipated Events During Testing 140 Appendix B: Chemical Analysis 144 Appendix C: Jacket Behavior l k. l l t P 9t 7 $.$0 5 w, .3 -via El,

5-g l 7 h List of Figures t - g-i ? Page [ 2.1 HIACA Test Facility 7

• i 2.2 Experimental Sequence Used to Test EPR Cables and 9

Tensile Specimens f. [ 2.3 . Sequential Test Setup Prior to the Start of Thermal 13 Aging 2.4 Thermal Aging Air Flow System During Sequential

• 16 t

Aging 2.5 Sequential Steam Accident Exposure Profile (as 23 proposed by test plan) 2.6 Simultaneous Test #1 Setup Prior to the Start of 29 Thermal Aging 2.7 Simultaneous Test #1 Accident Exposure Profile 37 (as proposed by test plan) 2.8 Simultaneous Test f2 Setup at the Completion of Aging 41 2.9 Simultaneous Test #2 Profile 48 (as proposed by test plan) 3.1 Insulation Resistance for EPR A: Single Conductor 54 With Primary Insulation 3.2 Insulation Resistance for EPR A: Single Conductor 55 With Trimary Insulation and Jacket 3.3 Insulation Resistance for EPR A Multiconductor 56 3.4 Insulation Resistance for EPR A' Cables During 57 Simultaneous Test #1 3.5 Insulation Resistance for EPR B Single Conductors 64 With Primary Insulation 3.6 Ins,ulation Resistance for EPR B Single Conductors 65 With Primary Insulation and Jacket 3.7 Insulation Resistance for.9PR C Single Conductors 69 With Primary Insulation 3.8 Insulation Resistance for EPR C Multiconductor 70 3.9a Cables at Completion of Simultaneous Test #1 75 1.9b Cables at Completion of Simultaneous Test #2 76 -vii-

f O ~F. List of Figures 1 f Page 3.10 Insulation Resistance Measurements for an EPR D 79 Multiconductor During Simultaneous Test #1 3.11 Insulation Resistance Measurements for EPR D 80 ~ Multiconductor #1 During Simultaneous Tes? #2 3.12 Insulation Resistance Measurements for EPR D 81 Mult'iconductor #2 During Simultaneous Test #2 3.13 Cables at Completion of the Sequential Test 82 3.14 Insulation Resistance for EPR D Multiconductors 84 During the Sequential Test 3.15 Insulation Resistance for EPR D Single Conductors 87 During Simultaneous Tests 3.16 Insulation Resistance for EPR D Single Conductor 89 During the Seouential Test 3.17 EPR D Weight Changes After Removal From Steam 92 Exposures 3.18 Insulation Resistance for EPR E Multiconductors 95 3.19 Insulation Resictance for EPR E Composite 98 Primary Insulation and Jacket 3.20 Insulation Resistance for EPR F Single Conductor 102 Cables During Simultaneous Test #2 i 3.21 Insulation Resistance for EPR G Single Conductor 105 Cables (composition insulation and jacket) During Simultaneous Test #2 3.22 Relationship Between Weight and Volume Changes fo,r 115 EPR-1483 r 3.23 Relationship Between Weight Changes for EPR-1483 116 and the Normalized Ultimate Tensile Strength 4.1 Chlorinated Polyethylene Jacket Ultimate Tensile 121 Strength Behavior C.1 Jacket Visual. Appearance at the Completion of the 146 Sequential Test i C.2 Jacket Visual Appearance at the Completion of 147 Simultaneous Test #1 I l I -viii-i

k 4 Ulst of Figures Page C.3 CSPE Jacket-Visual Appearance at the Completion of 148 i Simultaneous Test #1 for Two Different Manufacturers' Froducts ~ i I \\ i j o O l -1X- ' ~ ' ~ " " ~

List of Tables 'Page 2.1 Ethylene Propylene Rubber Formulation (1483 EPR) 5 35 Cable Positions on Mandrel During the Sequential 2.2 Test i 18 Thermocouple Readings 84 Hours After Start of 168 2.3 Hour Sequential Thermal Exposure 19 Temperature Versus Time Profile During Sequential 2.4 Thermal Exposure i.- Radiation Dose Rates During Sequential Radiation 21 [ 2.5 Exposures e I 24 Steam Profiles Achieved During the Sequential and I 2.6 ~ l Simultaneous il Steam Exposures 31 Cable Positions on Mandrel During Simultaneous 2.7 Test #1 . i 32 - 4 2.8 Thermocouple Readings 85 Hours After the Start t I of the 171-1/3 Hour Thermal Aging Exposure i (Part of Simu$caneous #1 Radiation and Thermal Exposure) jn 33 g Temperature Versus Time Profile During Simultaneous 2.9 .s

1. 1 Thermal and Radiation Aging Exposure I

2.10 Radiation Dose Rates (air-equiv) Used During 36 Simultaneous Test il .) I j 2.11 Simultaneous Test il Accident Irradiation History 39 i 43 'li 2.12 Cable Positions on Mandrel During Simultaneous

f Test #2 44 2.13 Thermocouple Readings 85 Hours After the Start of

$l 'M a 169 Hour Thermal Aging Exposure sous 45 Temperature Versus Time Profile During Simults 2.14 Test #2 Thermal and Radiation Aging Exposure (: 2.15 Radiation Dose Rates (air-equiv) Used During 46 e i Simultaneous Test #2

1. 2 49

S

'[

2.16 Steam Profile Achieved During Simultaneous Test 2.17 Simultaneous Test #2 Accident Irradiation History 52 3.1 Post-Test Leakage Current Values for EPR A and 59 g., di A' Cables .[

42

-x- .n

List of Tables Page 3.2 EPR A Vis'ual Appearance After 4-day LOCA Steam 60 Exposure 3.3 Tensile Properties for EPR A Samples 62 l 3.4 Leakage Current values for EPR B Single Conductor 66 i Cables at the Completion of Test Exposures T 3.5 Percentage Increase for EPR B Insulation Specimen 66 l Properties 3.6 Ultimate Tensile Properties for EPR B 68 3.7 Leakage Current for EPR C Single Conductor and 71 Multiconductor Cables After Simultaneous Test i l 3.F, Percentage Increase for EPR C Insulation Specimen 73 j Properties

3. 9' Ultimate Tensile Propertion for EPR C 74 3.10 Leakage Current Values for EPR D Multiconductor 78 3.11 Leakage current values for EPR D Multiconductor at 83 the Completion of the Sequential Test Exposure 3.12 Leakage Current for EPR,D Single Conductors Durin9 86 Simultaneous Tests 3.13 Leakage Current for EPR D Single Conductor at 88

~ Completion of Sequential Steam Exposure 3.14 Percentage Increase for EPR D Insulation Specimen 90 Properties ' 15 Ultimate Tensile Properties for EPR D 93 3.16 Leakage Current Values for EPR E Multiconducter 97 After the Sequential and Simultaneous #1 Exposures 3.17 Leakage Current Values for EPR E Single Conductor 99 Cables After the Sequentiel and Simultaneous.f1 Exposures ~ 3.18 Ultimate Tensile Prope-ties for EPR E 101 3.19 Leakage Currents for EPR F Single Conductors During 103 Simultaneous Test #2 3.20 Percentage Increase for EPR F Insulation Specimen 104 ' Properties During Simultaneous Test 42 -xi-

i ^ List of Tables Page 3.21 Ultimate Tensile Properties for EPR F During 106 Simultaneous Test

1. 2 L

3.22 Leakage Current for EPR G Single Conductors During 107 Simultaneous Test #2 3.23 EPR-1483 Properties After the Simultaneous Radiation 109 and Steam Accident Simulation 3.24 EPR-1483 Properties After a Steam Only Accident 110 Simulation) 3.25 EPR-1483 Properties After the Sequential Radiation 111 Followed by Steam Accident Simulation 3.26 EPR-1483 Ultimate Tensile Properties for the Steam 112 Only LOCA Simulation 3.27 EPR-1483 Ultimate Tensile Properties for the 113 Sequential Radiation Followed by Steam LOCA Simulation 3.28 EPR-1483 Ultimate Tensile Properties for the 114 Simultaneous Radiation and Steam LOCA Simulation 3.29 Percentage Increase for Japanese EPR-5 Insulation 117 Specimen Properties 3.30 Ultimate Tensile Properties for Japanese EPR-5 During Simultaneous Test $2 118 i 4.1 Insulation Specimens: Percentage Weight Increases 124 4.2 Insulation Specimens: Percentage Increase in Length 125 4.3 Insulation Specimens: Percentage Increase in Outer 126 Diameter 4.4 Ultimate Tensile Properties at the Completion of 127 Accelerated Aging 4.5 Ultimate Tensile Properties at the Completion of 127 the Accident Exposures 4.6 Ultimate Tensile Properties for Unaged, Unexposed 129 EPR Tensile Specimens -xii-

Acknowledgments My appreciation is extended to all those who contributed to and Jack John Lewin, Tim Gilmore, this research effort. the experimental program. I Bartberger ably assisted throughout t 42. Mike Luker and Jerry Seitz helped perform simultane f the help with thermal aging techniques and Bill Buckalew for hisand Ken Gillen's N Ed Salazar, Roger Clough, radiation mapping. I thank the many polymer expertise was extremely valuable. 7 1983 attendees of the IEEE-ICC meeting in Memphis, April 25-2, for their comments and suggestions concerning my res results. typing this report. l t ~Xiii-

i .6 KEYWORDS Chlcrinated polyethylene; a jacket material employed i CPE in one of the multiconductor constructions Chlorosulfonated polyethylene; a jacket material CSPE employed in several of the single conductor and multiconductor constructions To lose moisture content Desorbed Ultimate tensile elongation e Ethylene-propylene-diene terpolymer elastomer; EPDM - commonly referred to by the more generic description ethylene-propylene rubber, EPR Ethylene-propylene rubber. Includes EPR ethylene-propylene copolymer, EPM, and ethylene-propylene-diene terpolymer, EPDM, as subsets. FR-EPDM - Ethylene-propylene-diene terpolymer elastomer which includes fire-retardant ingredients. Commonly referred to by the more generic description ethylene-propylene rubber, EPR. HIACA - High Intensity Adjustable Cobalt Array. A Sandia National Laboratories' irradiation facility capable of producing a simultaneous radiation, steam, and chemical spray exposure or a simultaneous radiation and elevated temperature exposure. HYPALON l - Trade name of DuPont for chlorosulfonated polyethylene, CSPE. i IEEE - The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Insulation - Insulation samples used to monitor dimensional and Specimens weight changes as well as to measure the ultimate tensile elongation and the ultimate tensil strength. I.R. - Insulation resistance. During our measurements the bulk resistivity is monitored; surface currents are shunted past the ammeter using a guardinc circuit. LICA - Low Intensity Cobalt Array. A Sandia National Laboratories' irradiation facility capable of producing a simultaneous radiation and elevated temperature exposure. -xiv-

- Loss of Coolant Accident; a hypothesized d; sign LOCA for nuclear power plants. basis event A sequential exposure to elevated temperature followed by irradiction followed by a steam Sequential Our sequential test did not include Test Oxygen exposure. chemical spray during the steam exposure.the start of the was swept f rom the chamber at steam exposure. Simultaneous - A simultaneous exposure to radiation a ? Test il Our test did not include radiation and steam. Oxygen was swept from the chamber chemical spray. at the start of the steam exposure. fl. Simultaneous - An exposure similar to simultaneous test Test 12 - Ultimate tensile strength. T - Water used for immersing cables during some insulation resistance and all voltage withstand Tap Water Water obtained from Sandia Area V water tests. supply. For simultaneous test #2, post-test the water conductivity was measurements, 360 mmhos/cm. ~ for a copolymer of ethylene - Trade name of DuPont TEFZEL and tetrafluoroethylene. Insulation samples used to monitor dimensional and weight, changes as well as to measure the ultimate Tensile tensile elongation and the ultimate tensile Specimens strength. the acceptance criteria specified by IEEE Voltage - Part of Withstand Std. 383-1974, Sections 2.3.3.4 and 2.4.4. Test - The strain at which a tensile specimen fails. Ultimate Tensile Elongation - The stress at which a tensile specimen fails. Ultimate Tensile Strength - Cross-linked polyethylene. XLPE - Cross-linked polyolefin. XLPO -XV-

Executivo Summary Electrical and mechanical properties of seven commercial ethylene-propylene rubber (EPR) materials, typically used as electrical cable insulation, have been monitored during three simulations of nuclear power plant aging and accident stresses. Mechanical properties for two additional EPR materials were also investigated. For one set of cables and separate tensile specimens we first performed accelerated thermal aging, then irradiated the samples to the combined aging and LOCA total dose. Finally we appJied a steam exposure. For a second and third set of cables and separate tensile specimens we used simultaneous applications of elevated temperature and radiation stresses to preaccident age our specimens. We followed these aging exposures by simultaneous radiation and steam exposures to simulate a LOCA environment. For EPR A multiconductor cables we did not observe electrical performance variations caused by differences between our simultanecus and sequential test procedures. Insulation resistance, I.R., was monitored periodically during the test exposures. A voltage withstand test was performed upon completion of the accident simulations. During this latter test the leakage current was measured. An' observable electrical performance difference was noted for the EPR E multiconductor cable. For the sequentially exposed EPR E cables we were unable at the start of the LOCA simulation to make I.R. measurements at 500 Vdc. The I.R. values were less than the lowest ins tr umen t reading, namely 1 Mu. After reducing the applied voltage to 50 Vdc we did measure normalized I.R. values af % 2 MH-m. In contrast, the simultaneously exposed multiconductor EPR E cabla had a normalized I.R. value of 37 MD-m at 500 Vdc. The post-te s t leakage current values were similar for both the simultaneous and sequentially exposed EPR E cables. l An EPR C multiconductor cable was exposed to the first simultaneous test environmental conditions only. The normalized i I.R. values were greater than 3000 MD-m throughout the test. The post-test leakage current was less than 5 mA during a voltage withstand test of 80 Vac per mil of insulation thickness. Electrical performance of our EPR D multiconductors depended strongly on LOCA simulation techniques. Both electrically and visually the simultaneously exposed EPR D multiconductor cables were worse than the sequentially exposed multiconductor cables. An example is provided by the post-LOCA leakage current data. At 600 Vac, the sequentially exposed multiconductor had leakage currents of % 1 mA. In contrast, the simultaneously exposed multiconductors had leakage currents of several hundred milliamps. We postulate that a jacket-insulation interaction effect contributed to the degradation of EPR D during our simultaneous tests. The EPR D insulation dimensionally swelled producing -El-

L f f l' ' splitting of the jacket. Ws hypothesize that the jccket splitting resulted in a sudden release of constrictive force on the insulators allowing cracking or breakup of the insulation. Ultimate tensile elongation measurements performed on EPR D tensile specimens suggest that by the completion of the LOCA simulation the insulation ultimate elongation was comparable to the calculated strain caused by the multiconductor geometry. Hence insulation cracking might be expected. Alternatively, sections of the insulation which adhered to the jacket during the splitting were pulled away from the conductor. Both variations of this jacket-insulation interaction hypothesis are consistent with the observed bare copper conductors evident at the completion of our second simultaneous test on EPR D multigonductors. We present two additional hypotheses for completeness but consider them less acceptable as explanations for EPR D's behavior: (1) A jacket-insulation chemical interaction effect such as evolution of HCL from the jacket and resultant interaction with the EPR D insulation. (2) Dimensional swelling of the EPR D single conductors spirally wound around each other in a multiconductor geometry resulted in stress buildup. We note that the copper conductors would not expand sufficiently to accommodate the observed swelling of the insulation. For insulated single conductors we do not observe large electrical performance variations caused by differences between cur simultaneous and sequential test procedures. EPR A, B, D, and E are examples. EPR C, F, and G insulated single conductors were only exposed to simultaneous testing environmental conditions. For each of these single conductors the I.R. and leakage current behavior was similar to that observed for the EPR A, B, D, and E single conductors. I The simultaneously exposed EPR D single conductors performed s.ubstantially better than did their multiconductor counterparts. We hypothesize that the excellent single conductor behavior resulted from (1) the absence of jacket-insulation interaction effects and/or (2) the less severe bending of the single conductor specimens compared to the multiconductor test specimens. The single conductor specimens, unlike the multiconductor insulated conductors, did not have a "hel'ical" bend component associated with the multiconductor geometry. Hence the insulation strain was less. During our tests we extensively monitored mechanical properties for several of the EPR insulations. Tensile properties, moisture absorption, and dimensional changes were measured. Our results clearly indicate that EPR cannot be considered to have generic behavior with respect to these parameters. -E2-

ly e We conclude that: Future'EPR cable qualification tests should not employ 'l.- single conductor ~ test. specimens to establish Both qualification for multiconductors.a effects-and helicity of jacket-insulation interact 2 multiconductor. geometries i.eed to be considered in a qualification program. EPR cable qualification tests should. correlate test 2. conditions to'use conditions. An example is the test bend radius used for a qualification test and the-minimum. bend radius used during cable installatio.a. EPR qualification tests or analysis should not rely on -3. referenced. behavior of other different EPR products. We observed.a large variation in EPR behavior; generic EPR response does not occur. l Some EPR qualification tests need not employ 4. simultaneous thermal, radiation, and steam test conditions. EPR C provides an example of a cable product for which simultaneous testing procedures ar e currently not warranted. In contrast, EPR D multiconductor cable is a product for which our simultaneous testing techniques. produced _more cable damage than our sequential procedures. We recommend that research tests need to establish why some Without EPR materials experienced more degradation than others. this information we can only report _which aging and accident test procedures most severely degrade various EPR_ products but cannot realistically begin to understand which test procedures most simulate aging and accident environments. This last research goal may be impossible because proprietary issues associated _with cable production and EPR formulations will make progress in this research area difficult. ) k -E3-i

i ~

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Ethylene-propyle'ne-diene herpolymer (EPDM) and ethylene-propylene copolymer (EPM) are elastomer materials used to formulate certain cable Attyldefons. Insulations based on EPDM and EPM are typically calf ek either ethylene-propylene (EP) or ethylene-propylene-rubber (EPR) and are used in some electrical cabling in nuclear power plants. When used as part of a safety-related system the EPR electrical cable must be qualified.1-4 Type testing is the preferred qualification method.2 NUREG-0588, Rev. 1,2 a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) report entitled " Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment' indicates that when "significant radiation and temperature environments may be present... the synergistic effects to these parameters should be considered during the simulated aging portion of the oterall test sequence. The testing sequence used to age the equipment (or material) should be justified and the basis documented in the qualification report. 2 IEEE Standards 323-1974 3 and 383-19744 do not require cable qualification tests to employ simultaneous exposures to simulate accident and age stress environments. sequential exposure to stresses is allowed, Rathet, a As part of an NRC sponsored research program, we are investigating whether qualification test results are sensitive to the order of aging and accident stress applica tion. We are also investigating the importance of simultaneous versus sequential stress exposures. Previous research has started to address these issues. Thome5 compares for one EPR multiconductor and one EPR single conductor electrical behavior for both simultaneous and sequential aging and acciaent test procedures. He reports that no significant synergisms exist. Yoshida, et al.,6 compared for EPR tensile properties simultaneous and sequential LOCA testing methods. They concluded that the ultimate tensile elongation van sensitive to total dose, but not to the testing technique. Tne ultimate tensile strength was sensitive to the LOCA simulation technique with the radiation followed by steam Ling and Morrison7 exposed EPR exposure most severe. multiconductor and single conductor cables to a simultaneous LOCA exposure. They report satisfactory cable performance during and after the exp'osures. Prior to performing these accident exposure, both Yoshida et al., and Ling and Morrison aged their specimens using a seven day 121*C thermal exposure followed by a 50 Mrd irradiation dose. Thome employed a 5 day 130*C,.2 Mrd/h simultaneous aging expo,sure. Concurrent with this research was the developmer.t of newer EPDM compounds with reduced wall thicknesses for insulated conductors.8 These newer compounds (commonly referred to as

'F e. l-I FR-EPDM compounds) eliminated the netd for a composite construction utilizing a separoto Jack'et over each insulated i Flame retardancy was achieved by incorporating fire-retardants into the insulation formulation rather than the, conductor. jacket formulation. Several manufacturers currently market Neither Thome nor Ling and Morrison FR-EPDM's for nuclear use. . included FR-EPDM cables in their simultaneous tests. (Yoshida, et al., does not identify whethet FR-EPDM's were tested.) In a recent publication 9 we re' ported EPR's cable tensile We concluded properties at the completion of accelerated iging. that def~ining a single test procedure for nuclear safety-related qualification of EPR elastomers is difficult and that a common be identified. We worst-case sequential aging sequence could not include electrical and have recently extended this work to tensile property behavior of EPR materials during LOCA research tests. This report documents the test results for three LOCA simulations. The first LOCA simulation included sequential elevated the followed by radiation aging exposures, temperature accelerated aging portion of the test was followed by a sequential accident irradiation and then a 21 day LOCA steam exposure. The second and third LOCA simu2ations both employed simultaneens exposures for both the accelerated aging and accident simulations. Two cimultaneous tests were performed so that an unexpecte.d result of the first simultaneous test could be verified. Also, additional EPR materials not available for the first simultaneous test were included in the second test. During all tests several commercial EPR products were exposed to aging and LOCA environments. This practice insures that test conclusions for one particular EPR cable product are not indiscriminate 1y applied to all EPR products. By testing several products we hoped to dif f erenttiate between generic EPR conclusions and specific product co ncil u s io n s. Our LOCA research the difficulty associated with defining a test results illustrate single generic qualification test procedure for all EPR cables. For several of tne EPR cables we tested, the electrical p.roperties were the same for both sequential and simultaneous LOCA research simulations. For one EPR cable product, EPR D, the electrical performance depended on whether sequential or simultaneous exposure procedures were employed. For t h i-s multiconductor cable, the simultaneous exposure technique the sequential produced worse electrical performance'than did exposure technique. Surprisingly, electrical properties for the same insulation configured as a single conductor did not depend on exposure technique.

Y 2.0 EXPERIMENTAL N ~ { 2.1 Materialso We tested seven commerc.ial EPR products obtained from three different manufacturers: EPR A: A three conductor control cable with an EPR insulation. Each conductor was individually jacketed with CSPE. The cable satisfied IEEE Std 383-1974.4 The cable was purchased from the manufacturer by Sandia National Laboratories in 1977. EPR A': The same product name and manufacturer as EPR A. The cable satisfied IEEE Std 383-1974.4 The cable was purchased from the manufacturer by Sandia National Laboratories in 1981. EPR B: A single conductor low voltage power cable with an EPR insulation covered with a CSPE jacket. The cable met the requirements of IEEE Std 383-1974.3 The cable was purchased from the manufacturer by Sandia National Laboratories in 1981. EPR C: A two conductor instrumentation cable with a flame-retardant EPR insulation. Each conductor was not individually jacketed. This cable was nuclear qualified for LOCA conditions according to suggec-tions of IEEE Std 323-1974 3 (qualification test ~ report on file). The cable was purchased from the manuf acturer by Sandia National Laboratories in 1981. EPR D: A three conductor control cable with a flame-retardant EPR insulation formulation. Each conductor was not individually jacketed. The cable met the requirements of IEEE Std 383-1974.4 This cable has purchased from the manufacturer by Sandia National Laboratories in 1981. EPR E: A two conductor instrumentation cable with an EPR insulation. Each conductor was individually jacketed with CSPE. Recommended practices of IEEE Std 323-19743 were used to develop a qual,ification I test (qualification tect report on file). This cable was purchased from the manufacturer by Sandia National Laboratories in 1981. EPR F: A single conductor 600V power and control ceble with a flame-retardant EPR insulation. The cable met the requirements of IEEE Std 383-1974 4 This cable was purchased from the manufacturer by Sandia Na t ion'a l Laboratories in 1982.

• Additional TEFZEL and cross-linked polyolefin cables were also tested.

Results will be published in separate reports. . t

i i EPR G: A single conductor 600V powar and control csble ~ employing an EPR insulation covered with a CSPE jacket. The cable insulation met the requiremen.ts of IEEE Std 383.3 This cable was purchased from the manuf acturer by Sandia National Laboratories in 1982. J Our research program performed LOCA research tests on: i 1. Cables as received from the factory. j 2. Single conductors with primary EPR insulation and CSPE jacket (EPR A, E). These conductors were obtained by carefully removing the multiconductor outer jacket and sheaths and then separating the individual conductors from each other. 3. Single conductors with primary insulation only (EPR A, B, C, and D). These conductors were obtained by carefully removing the multiconductor outer jacket and sheaths and then separating the individual conductors from each other. For EPR A the primary jacket was then also carefully stripped from the insulators and conductor. 4. Tensile specimens (EPR A, B, C, D, E, F). For EPR A, B, D, and F prior to aging we removed jack'ets and sheaths from EPR insulated conductors and then carefully stripped the insulation from stranded copper conductors. For EPR C and E we obtained shaets of the EPR insulation from the c ble manufacturers and cut the sheets into strips. r i In addition to the commercial cable materials, we tested an EPR formulation used in Sandia National Laboratories fire-retardant aging studies 10,11 and a fire-retardant EPDM formulation used in Japanese research tests. The first formulation has been coded by Burke Industries

• as 1483 EPR l

l (Table 2.1). I

• 2250 South 10th Street, San Jose, CA 95112 l

Y b [ ?

I 1 Amount d (Parts /Hundred) Rubber Constituents ~ Components 90 Base Compound Nordel 2722 EPDM 20 l } DYNH 81 LDPE 5 5 i ZnO (zinc oxide) (ZMB) 2 Parafin wax Zn salt of mercaptobenzimidazole Low-temperature reaction product of 1 (Aminox) acetone and diphenz1t.mine 60 Treated, calcined clay 1 2 Vinyl-silane coagent black (soft reinforcing furnace) SRF 5 5 Curing Package Litharge (Di-Cup R) Dicumyl peroxide 33 Fire-Retardant Dechlorane plus 25 12 Package Antimony trioxide Sb 023 (1483 EPR) Ethylene Propylene Rubber Formulation Table 2-1. Curing and The base compound was prepared by Burke Industries. A two-roll the Plastics Shop at Sandia National Laboratories. ingredients flame-retardant mill was used to add the curing and flame-retardantThe rubber was t (350*F). The to the EPR base compound. flashing mold and cured for 10 minutes at 177'Cinto predetermin (2.8 mm x sheets of EPR were cutusing a stainless steel die. 1 6.4 mm x 152 mm) EPR-1483 is similar to compositions A and B given byto A and B have Candidate formulations "very similar d been qualified for reduced wall nuclear control cable an Vaidya.8 in testing, and are i IEEE-383 type commercialuse."followng instrument wire i insulation material was supplied to us by itute. Seguchi of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Ins The Japanese EPDM d Dr. T. it We cut Coded as EPR-5, fire-retardant EPDM insulation material. molded sheets into strip tensile specimens. 9, s - =

Y ? i 5 2.2 Facilities i We used three Sandia National Laboratories facilities to expose our samples to aging and accident environments. We used the Low Intensity Cobalt Array (LICA) facility 12,13 for EPR A and EPR-1483 tensile specimen radia tion aging exposures at both ambient and elevated temperatures. During these exposures we provided fresh air to the test chambers at a rate of 60 -+ 20 cc/ min. The volume of each LICA chamber is approximately 1.8 liters. We performed single stress elevated temperature exposures on EPR A and EPR-1483 tensile specimens using the thermal aging facilities developed by K. T.

Gillen, R.

L. Clough, and L. H. Jones.12,13 This facility uses self-contained cging cells inside air circulating ovens. Fresh air flow to each aging cell is independently controlled and was set to 60 + 20 cc/ min for the 0.9 liter aging cell. Intensity Adjustable Cobalt Array facility aging of EPR cables and some of the,(HIACA) The High EPR tensile was used for specimens. All accident simulations for both cables and tensile specimens were performed using the HIACA facility. Figure 2.1 schematically illustrates one aspect of this facility. For our simultaneous aging and accident environmental exposures a stainless steel steam chamber was positioned inside the gamma irradiation facility. After either steam or heaped air was introduced into the chamber, cobalt pencils were raised to a position around the chamber to provide the desfred simultaneous radiation and steam or elevated temperature environments. The radiation capabilities of the HI ACA f acility have been previously documented.14 Thermal aging was performed using the stainless steel steam chambers as ovens. A Chromalox Series 4231 SCR Power and Temperature Controller was used to regulate a 20 kw heater. Air circulation between the heater and chamber was maintained by four Dayton 100W Model 4C005 fans. For the second simultaneous aging exposure the Dayton fans were replaced by a single 1.5 kw (2 HP) Paxton model RM87 blower. Valves in the recirculation line provided fresh air input to insure oxygen supply througho.ut the thermal aging exposure. A Kurz Air Velocity Meter, Model 441 was used to monitor recirculating and fresh air flow rates to the chamber. This allowed us to calculate the amount of fresh air supplied to'the chamber. The steam system utilizes a 4.5 kw (6 HP) electric boiler which is too small to achieve the rise time requirements of LOCA testing. We store energy from the boiler in two 0.6 m3 accumulators from whidh the steam is valved either to the steam chamber inside the gamma irradiation cell or to a chamber outside the irradiation cell. Alternatively, the steam can be valved to both chambers simultaneously, j

k C g.< h. (. ~ i N 4 4: ?. 4 = CHAMBER POSITIONING h.hM- ).4. W (-)' f. APPARATUS h J. - } g.f-;..- W ,4 INI.*..Ghbf - h I l [#: !.*..hl.f!h, y ff I..- ! ) i I).. ' .r 1 I ,.L

e.., ;y.m

,u y'?.,h ie g- - ;;r- ?l 7.( * '.jk{ y ~; COBALT PENCILS f.., .4,: .., 4, f (k i, i- .?*. ~,. f 'g - cp _..t f[, ~ - s,::+..,;. '[-- 3 [g.M '.. r s TEST CHAMBER . i t 44,-r,"... ..- Q ,.*n,a.ru ...t ..A HIGH-tNTENSITY ADJUSTABLE ,y .- I

• IL.;{.'

5.. ~4 O, 4.f COBALT ARRAY (HIACA) ,,'.,5,...o. 0.T '- t.'. ::: .7.: gcm,./.i *g -i...% c..c:

c c

:

T ..? '. h,j., h'.b), $N~' ; ~" l I., h ,Q* ' M Nt:-l 7". :k ~~O~ E , \\.r

i.*

ir.f.dt *f. '..h*R.u \\ -. . ;1.. - ELEVATOR a, '.1 g -e ~ '"4i C. n' T ' % "A t w. R v Q1;M. T - ~ f. t p .e..z. ex.y.- ,y y .g g s c.w. ,n - ; v__ w.,u,. ,a r. ...s.-

• 's'

,.')- g'L 4.,.m kI d'$. Jy.h ' - t,a x.y; 9 . M. a-g- ^. E p%i..b h $ sea bqurseen

• ,.: gi t s :1.M

1,,. r: g'- , y--

p. -

w O Figure 2.1. HIACA Test Facility 1 ~1 ... -..... ~.. \\

An Instromt3 tc= ting nachine with pneunatic jaws wnc used E to measure sample ultimate tensile strength and ultimate tansile f elongation. Initial jaw separation was 50.8 mm (2 in); the tm samples were strained at 127 mm/ min (5 in/ min). An Instrom f. electrical tape extensometer clamped to the sample monitored the strain. N l A Hipotronics HM3A Megohmmeter was used for insulation resistance measurements. A Hipotronics HD100 Hipot Tester and a ~ Hipotronics 715-10 Type CS14-1630 AC cielectric Test Set were used to monitor leakage current versus applied AC voltage. The first tester was used whenever leakage currents were between 0 and 5 mA; the latter tester was used to determine leakage currents between 10 and 750 mA. Emission spectroscopy, and chlorine and bromine content analysis were performed by Huffman Laboratories *. Details are given in Appendix B. 2.3 Procedures 2.3.1 Overview Figure 2.2 illustrates the experimental sequence used to test EPR cables and tensile specimens. Our experimental strategy was based on the use of two steam chambers. Cables and tensile specimens in one chamber were exposed sequentially to elevated 2emperature, radiation aging, and accident stresses. Cables and tensile specimens in the second chamber were exposed to a simultaneous radiation and elevated temperature accelerated aging environment. The two chambers were then connected in parallel to the steam supply system and were exposed to a 21-day accident steam profile. One of the chambers was simultaneously irradiated during the steam exposure, I EPR A and EPR 1483 tensile specimens which had been aged in ithe LICA facility using seven dif f erent aging methods were inserted into the stainless steel chambers at appropriate test points. Hence for each of the seven aging populations, one-third of the tensile specimens were exposed to one of three accident simulations: 1. sequential accident irradiation followed by a steam exposure 2. simultaneous accident radiation and steam exposure 3. steam exposure only

• 3830 High Court, P.O.

Box 777, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, 80034.

... ~ - - -a m e m v n**r u v u u r UNAGED EPR A AND EPR-1483 C500ENTIAL SIMULTANEOUS TENSILE SPECIMENS TESTS TESTS I L'CA AGING OF EPR A AND EF81-1483 HlACA TEN 81LE SPECIMENS TilERMAL AQiNG ir u'~ HIACA RADIATION AQlNG g I HIACA RADIATION ACCIDENT EXPOSURE t i HIACA SIMULTANEOUS y w l 2_ AGINO *1 s [ ' r 1r 1r HIACA SEQUENTIAL HIACA SIMULTANEOUS ACCIDENT EXPOSURE STEAM EXPOSURE

• 1 HlACA SIMULTANEOUS AGING +2

,r HIACA SIMULTANEOUS ACCIDENT EXPOSURE +2 Figure 2.2. Experimental Sequence Used to Test EPR Cables and Tensile Specimens I

p f [ A second simultaneous test was performed to verify some results of the first simultaneous test. This test included both simultaneous aging and accident exposures, i 1i Each aspect of this test program will be discussed in more detail in Sections 2.3.2-2.3.5. l i 2.3.2 LICA Aging of Tensile Specimens i During this experiment strips of EPR-1483 and strips of EPR A were exposed to seven different aging simulations.* For each elevated temperature and radiation exposure, forty strips of EPR A and EPR-1483 were placed in the same exposure chamber. Air flow during both irradiation (chamber volume = 1.8 liters) and single stress elevated temperature exposures (chamber volume = 0.9 liters) was maintained at 60 + 20 cc/ min. Doses and dose rates are reported in rads (EPR) which is equivalent to 0.88 rads (air). The seven aging simulations were: 1. Ninety-four hour simultaneous exposure to 120 1 1*C i (248 + 2*F) and 60 + 4 krd/h, measured in rads (EPR) at l the center of the chamber. Measured dose-rate gradients across the sample population were +30/-22 i i percent of the chamber center dose-rate. The chamber was rotated 180* midway through the exposure to minimize the effect of these gradients. t 2. Thirty day simultaneous exposure to 120 + 1*C (248 + 2*F).and 60 + 4 krd/hr, measured in rads (EPR) at the center of the chamber. Measured dose-rate gradients across the sample population were +30/-22 percent of the chamber center dose'-rate. The chamber was rotated 180* midway through the exposure to minimize the effect of these gradients. 3. Twenty-eight day single stress exposure to 120 1 1*C ( 2 4 8 1 2

• F) followed by a 28 day irradiation at 65 1 5 krd/hr, measured in rads (EPR) at the center of the chamber.

Ambient temperature during irradiation was 28 + 1*C (82 1 2*F). The chamber was rotated 180* midway through the exposure to minimize the effect of the +25/-21 percent dose-rate gradients.

• Note:

Six of the seven aging simulations have been previously described cs Experiment I in Reference 9. For completeness, this description is repeated in this report.

SC N g , Twenty-eight day irradiation at 65 + 5 krd/hr, measured ~.I* 4. (l in rads (EPR) at the center of the chamber, followed by h a 28 day, 120 + 1*C (248 + 2*F) elevated temperature b exposure. limbient temper ture during irradiation was ~ 28 + 1*C (82 + 2*F). The sample chamber was rotated midway tErough the irradiation to minimize the 3 7 180 influctice of the +25/-21 percent dose-rate gradients. 5. Fifty-five hour irradiation at 850 1 60 krd/hr, measured in rads (EPR) at the center of the chamber, followed by a 28 day, 120 1 1*C (24 8 1 2* F) elevated Ambient temperature during temperature exposure. irradiation was 46 + 1*C (115 + 2*F). Measured radiation dose-rate gradients were less than +3 ~ percent. (Lowest dose-rate was at the center of the chamber.) 6. Twenty-eight day, 120 1 1*C (248 1 2*F) elevated temperature exposure followed by a 55 hour irradiation at 850 1 60 krd/hr, measured in rads (EPR) at the center of the chamber. Ambient temperature during irradiation was 46 1 1*.C (115 1 2*F). Measuged dose-rate gradients were less than +3 percent. (Lowest dose-rate was at the center of the chamber.) 7. Seven day simultaneous exposure to 139 1 1C (282 1 2*F) and 290 + 20 krd/hr, measured in rads (EPR) at the center of the chamber. Dose-rate gradients across the ~ sample population were +65/-28 percent of the chamber center dose-rate. The chamber was rotated 180* midway through the exposure to minimize the influence of these gradients. i Arrhenius techniques were used to choose the elevated temperature pxposures for thermal aging. Our thermal aging calculations are based on a postulated nuclear plant containment ambient environment of approximately 55*C (131"F), a life of approximately 5 years (for the first aging metnod) or 40 years (for the remaining six aging methods), and an EPR activation energy of 24 kcal/ mole (1.04eV). We chose the activation energy values as a representative of single stress thermal degradation data found in the literature for EPR.15 Our choice of thermal aging parameters to achieve a 40 year " life" is consistent with the guidance of IEEE Std 383-1974,4 Section 1.3.5.2. It does not, however, account for possible synergisms between radiation and elevsted temperature stresses, f . i

N V L 2.3.3 HIACA Sequential Test 2.3.3.1 Test Setup The HIACA sequential test was performed using a stainless steel steam chamber with ~ 0.4 m3 of internal volume: the height is 200 cm and the diameter 52 cm. The top portion of the chamber (43 cm in length) contained all'the penetration flanges through which cables, thermocouples, and other instrumentation entered and exited the chamber. The mandrels on which the cables were wrapped were suspended from the top portion of the chamber but were physically located inside the bottom portion of the chamber. This latter section of the chamber is 157 cm long. During radiation exposures the chamber was supported as shown in Figure 2.1. During thermal aging and the accident steam exposures, the chamber rested upright on the floor outside the Sandia Gamma Irradiation Facility; a collar around the chamber supported it. Cables were wrapped on a 30 cm diameter around three mandrels connected together end to end. The total length of the three mandrels is 114 cm. The top of the mandrels was located 31 cm below the flange which connects the top and bottom portion of the steam chamber. After wrapping the cables on the mandrels, the cable leads were spiraled up the inside of the mandrels to the exit ports. A rubber stopper was fed from each end of the cable and inserted into a modified Swageloktm fitting. The modified Swageloktm fitting, when tightened, compressed the rubber stopper and provided a steam seal. Figure 2.3 illustrates the sequential test setup. We positioned the cables on the mandrels and prepared the h cable flange penetrations prior to all aging and accident i environmental exposures. Except for additional tightening of the modified Swagelok fittings, the cable lengths inside the chamber were not disturbed throughout the test. We used the stainless steel chamber as an oven, placed it in our radiation field, and used it as a steam pressure vessel. Insulation resistance and leakage current measurements were performed by filling the. chamber bottom with water. We did visual examinations by using a crane to raise the top part of the chamber from the bottom part. Since the cables and mandrels were completely supported by the chamber top,'no damage to the cables occurred during this operation. Each cable lead outside the steam chamber was ~ 7. 6 m (25 f t) long. This length' was chosen to match the lengths used in the simultaneous accidsnt environment tests. These long segments were necessary to pass during the simultaneous tests each cable from the steam chamber to the outside of the gamma irradiation cell. Insulation resis oce and leakage current measurements were performed at this catside location.

U t fQff %'t ?- ,..Q ~ M ~ M'ans. . b;t s ff$5w. ./ _y., 3. ~, w. - r ..s ~

• i ?'<+lq1 ;

j V._, 4,y.,,- M w.- . n ~g- ~ . '. 3fep.'.., g e.;,, ~ p ^5 g ~ f' ;,' ~ ) oc10..-) ' M6 h. hr - V 4 s -;e. ' y w 1f, k-Ff&j.5 ,4 :,e I hh '.?f'. , j}f T $& 'I g I ' )1 n{#{ h, m'nt.1-n[g'~. M [m} g_ Q

• ^%%-

t b.; c3 ! rqu, m p~ I ',' [i. I' J 5 TH. ' t-; r %n J i p- %.):,: si.. i b. c -i.T 3 ', ! l i, w.n. J. t .. y %, n

• A Q: s - W;/..j' f

s..., Q:t-g yl & ), L p$.gg.,.: f W. e7 %s;g$ h]$ l. h $.gj;

• nk l1 k?

$$$, %O ( - r/(3 pp " ^p pgdOt Ilk. ze,. f ~ ( r w-4s+ M DYM % ' ]$m%N ir;Qw%'w; c $5ha,5b' h5W L h I* ** N cP b ^ ^ y egs d. 3 g q. ~

; t'-

,,I ' sg ^y;>q h gst ^#- :,...n pW ~ r-u n- ,s' v-w ~ - .g. t, _gg~ w,.--i l @-c..- -mn-m__ SYirh -- w-Figure 2.3. Sequential Test Setup Prior to the Start of Thermal Aging -..

W 'e Table 2.2 lists each cable placed in the chamber for sequential testing. The total length of each cable inside the steam chamber is given as well as each cable's location on the mandrel. A_ perforated stainless steel cylinder was positioned along the centerline of-the mandrels. A maximum of five 23 cm (9 in) long perforated stainless steel baskets containing insulation strips were placed inside this cylinder, During thermal aging and radiation exposures only two baskets were used. This insured that the tensile specimen insulation strips were located in relatively uniform radiation and temperature fields. 2.3.3.2 Thermal Aging During thermal aging hot air was circulated from a heater to a port in the top of the stainless steel chamber. A rectangular aluminum duct along the inside wall of the chamber extended from the hot air entrance port to the bottom of chamber. Air flow exited the duct along its entire length and was directed parallel to the walls of the chamber (see Figure 2.4). An auxiliary duct and blower were used to remove cooler air from the top of the chamber and recirculate it to the bottom of the chamber to insure mixing. A valve on this latter recirculation line was adjusted during the first 22 hours of the 168 hour thermal exposure until the best temperature uniformity was obtained. ~ o I t i i 9 14-erea y-m y Av--+-+-e-r ++

• Mt TP7-*

" v 31Te -+-Mw-erur--- ?.---= m -n- - - - + - -g--- -*y-T = - - + + + ~*5 9?-*-W'

Pasition belcw ^ To tal Length in top surface of Length Chamber mandrel-Cable 8 Cable Description * (m) (m) (cm) 1 EPR B: primary 20 5.8 7.1 to 8.9 insulation only 2 EPR A: primary 22 7.0 8.9 to 13.2 j i insulation only 3 EPR A: primary 22 6.4 13.2 to 17.0 insulation and primary jacket 4 EPR B: intact 21 5.2 17.0 to 19.1 single conductor 5 EPR A: intact 23 7.9 19.3 to 26.4 multiconductor 6 EPR D: intact 23 7.9 27.2 to 34.3 multiconductor 7 EPR E: intact 21 6.4 38.6 to 41.2 multiconductor 8 EPR E: intact 24 9.2 41.9 to 50.8 multiconductor 9 EPR B: intact 24 8.5 51.3 to 56.1 single conductor 10 EPR D: primary 23 7.3 56.0 to 59.4 insulation only 11 EPR E: primary 23 7.3 59.9 to 63.5 composite insulation and jacket only 12 EPR B: primary 23 7.6 63.5 to 67.3 insulation only 13 EPR E: intact 33 18 67.3 to 96.5 i multiconductor 14 EPR B: intact 33 16 96.5 to 114.3 conductor 1 {

• XLPO cables were also wr~pped on the mandrel during this test.

a Table 2.2: Cable Positions on Mandrel During the Sequential Test 4.

, t.; a. u u m iines,w. w w - - - a w - t ,,7-e.- 0 1 \\ } I ~10% AIR ~10% FRESH ) LOSS AIR INPUT E i A N. VALVE y ~ V O X y m m m i BLOWER r X l h BLOWER c-l_ l i 4 RECIRCULATION DUCT i y CHAMBER WALL l MANDREL i k i i CHAMBER j a HOT AIR DUCT l ILLUSTRATING AIR FLOW l Figure 2.4. Thermal Aging Air Flow System During _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Spquential Aging

During recirculation of air from the chamber to the heater We used air and back to the chamber, fresh air was added. velocity measurements along the heater recirculation line totil I Of this, approximately 0.2 u / min was fresh air. eg/mia. T,his insured that oxygen was not depleted during thermal aging. m Twenty-four thermocouples were positioned in the chamber to We monitor temperature uniformity during thermal aging. positioned four of the thermocouples along the outer rim of the stainless -steel perforated cylinder used to support tensile The remaining twenty thermocouples were positioned at various locations within 2.5 cm of the cablesOne of the th specimen baskets. wrapped on the mandrels. control purposes; another was used to pro record of the thermal exposure. were connected to a datalogger; periodic temperature measurements Table 2.3 were recorded throughout the thermal exposure. presents the temperature distribution midway through the thermal Table 2.4 summarizes the temperature readings versus exposure. time for several of the thermocouple positions. O i i a 1 I i 5, I t r

Tablo 2.3: Thermocouple Readings 84 Hours After Start of 168 Hour Sequentiql Thermcl Exposure (a) Distance below top Temperature (*C) of mandrel (cm) O' 90* 180* 270* 5.8 140 129(7) 137 136 20.0 142(6) 141 139 54.9 143 142(4) 144(5) 92.4 138 145(3) 138 133 109.5 135(1) 141(2) 132 131 (b) Distance below top Temperature (*C) of mandrel (cm) 16.2 136 53.3 138 65.7 142 96.0 139 ~ (a) Thermocouples were positioned around the circumference of the mandrel, spaced 90* apart and within 2.5 cm of the ,~ cables. The hot air duct was located at the 0* position; the recirculation duct was between the 90* and 180* position. (b) Thermocouples were positioned alongl the outer rim of the perforated cylinder used to suppord tensile specimen baskets. (c) (1)-(7) indicate thermocouple positions monitored by Table 2.4. W

P, k l a Table 2.4: Temperature Versus Time Profile During Sequential e Thermal Exposure. Thermocouple positions (1)-(7) are identified in Table 2.3. 4 Temperature ('C) at Thermocouple Position Elapsed Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 hrs 23 2'3 24 23 23 23 23 0 hrs, 10 min 51 70 78 70 84 64 65 0 hrs, 20 min 75 101-115 ~ 96 116 98 91 0 hrs, 30 min 97 123 139 116 139 123 113 0 hrs, 45 min 118 143 158 135 158 150 133 1 hr 122 142 150 138 149 151 133 1 hr, 30 min 125 141 145 140 147 149 134 2 hr 127 141 143 139 145 148 134 3 hrs 131 136 140 137 135 137 128 5 hrs 133 137 140 137 135 136 128 7 hrs 129 142 143 139 145 146 134 10 hrs 137 141 145 142 138 141 134 l 15 hrs 138 142 146 142 139 141 134 20 hrs 138 142 146 143 139 141 135 l 25 hrs 136 141 145 142 144 142 131 30 hrs 135 141 145 142 144 142 130 35 hrs 135 141 145 142 144 142 129 40 hrs 136 142 146 143 145 143 132 45 hrs 135 140 145 141 144 142 129 50 hrs 135 140 145 142 143 142 129 55 hrs 135 141 145 142 144 142 130 60 hrs 135 141 145 142 144 142 130 65 hrs 135 141 145 142 144 143 131 70 hrs 135 140 145 141 144 142 131 75 hrs 135 140 145 142 144 142 130 80 hrs 136 140 145 142 144 142 130 85 hrs 135 141 145 142 145 142 130 90 hrs 135 141 145 142 145 142 130 95 hrs 135 141 145 142 144 142 130 100 hrs 135 140 145 142 143 142 129 105 hrs 135 141 146 142 144 142 131 110 hrs 135 141 146 142 145 142 130 115 hrs 135 140 145 142 144 142 130 120 hrs 135 141 145 142 145 l'42 130 125 hrs 135 141 145 142 144 142 130 130 hrs 135 140 144 142 144 142 130 135 hrs 135 140 145 142 145 142 130 140 hrs 135 140 145 141 144 142 130 145 hrs 135 140 145 142 144 142 130 150 hrs 135 141 145 142 145 142 131 155 hrs 135 140 145 142 144 142 130 O I '

o Table 2.4 (cont.) Temperature (*C) at Thermocouple Position Elapsed Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 160 hrs 135 141 145 142 145 142 130 165 hrs 135 140 145 142 144 142 130 168 hrs 135 141 -145 142 145 142 130 169 hrs 92 89 90 91 91 91 95 171 hrs 57 58 56 58 58 56 59 173 hrs 41 42 40 - 41 41 41 42 175 hrs 33 33 32 33 33 32 33 Table 2.4 demonstrates the excellent temperature stability achieved once valve adjustments were completed at 22 hours. Table 2.3 illustrates that the temperature distribution within the chamber was.large producing a large variation in accelerated age. The desired thermal exposure was seven days at 139*C. This elevated temperature exposure was based on Arrhenius techniques. Our thermal aging calculations were based on a postulated nuclear plant containment environment of approximately 55*C, a life of approximately 40 years and an EPR activation energy of 24 kcal/ mole (1.04 ev). We chose the activetion energy values as representative of single stress thermal degradation data found in the literature for EPR15 For these parameters a +3*C temperature gradient yields at +25% variability in~the accelerated age. A +5*C gradient produces a +40% vatlability in the accelerated age. Our 7 day, 139*C thermal a'ging exposure was generally less severe than that used by the EPR cable manufacturers during qualification tests. For example EPR A, B, D, F, and G were exposed to 150*C for at least seven days. EPR C, as a single conductor, was aged for seven days at 150*C and then used to produce a multioonductor which was aged for 7 days at 121*C, EPR E was aged at 136*C for 7 days. 2.3.3.3 Radiation Exposures At completion of thermal aging, we removed the heater duc s from the stainless steel chamber. Accomplishm,ent of this task was performed'without disturbing the cables since the ducts were i on the outside. We then performed insulation resistance measurements after filling the chamber.with tap wa ter. After draining the water and allowing the cables to dry, we performed the aging radiation exposure. We performed this exposure using three irradiation time intervals to give a totallirradiation time of 60 hrs, 15 mins: \\ 1 i j m

mi - l l v4- - a five minute exposure to allow for radiation mapping l of the chamber- - a 21 hour, 52 minute exposure - a 38 hour, 18 minute exposure A 6 hour, 34 minute interruption separated the second and third exposures. Ambient temperature during the latter two irradiations varied between 39'c and 45'C. We did not supply fresh air makeup to the chamber during the irradiations, but we did open ports of the stainless steel chamber to allow for' natural air exchange between the cables and the gamma irradiation cell. The gamma irradiation cell was ventilated during the irradiation. We used a Victoreen Radicon Model 550 Integrating / Rate Electrometer with a Model 550 air ionization probe to measure the dose l rate at one position along the centerline of the chamber. 106 Harshaw TLD-400's (calcium j fluoride manganese activated thermoluminescent detectors) were { placed at 53 positions to map the relative dose rates with ? respect to the single Victoreen measurement. The dose rate along the chamber centerline (40 cm below the top of the mandrel) was .65 i.03 Mrd/h (air equivalent). The dose rate at the cable windings was 11% higher. Table 2.5 summarizes the dose rate profile with respect to distance below the top of the mandrel. For all but a few of"the cables, the average dose rate is . 74 +.06 Mrd,'hr (a ir-equiv. ). Thus the aging radiation dose was ~ 45 + 4 Mrd. The absorbed dose in EPR is 14% higher than the air ~ equivalent dose. This gives an aging dose of 51 1 4 Mrd (in EPR). Table 2.5: Radiation Doso Rates During Sequential Radiation Exposures Distance below top Radiation dose rate (air equiv.) of mandrel at cable windings 0 .59 +.05 Mrd/h 15 .76 I.06 Mrd/h I 41 .72 I.06 Mrd/h 69, .72 I.06 Mrd/h 95 .76 I.06 Mrd/h i 114 .63 .05 Mrd/h ~ 2 i f

~ t At completion of radiation aging we did both a visual inspection and insulation resistance measurements. We then performed the accident irradiation exposure for 171 hrs at .74 +.04 Mrd/h (air equiv.). The total accident dose was 127 + 10 Mrd (air equiv.) or 144 + 12 Mrd (EPR equiv.). During the accident irradiation we monitored the air temperature at the cables. It varied between 40 and 44'C. We also placed a short section of EPR A multiconductor into the chamber. A thermocouple I was inserted inside this multiconductor five centimeters from the end. This, temperature during the accident irradiation was { 47-50*C. After the accident irradiation we once again did a visual examination and performed insulation resistance measurements. The entire chamber with cables was then stored at ambient conditions until the start of the LOCA steam simulation (51 days t j after the completion of the accident irradiation). i 2.3.3.4 Steam Exposure Figure 2.5 summarizes our intended steam temperature test profile) It is similar to the IEEE 323-1974, Appendix B profile but also different in several respects, most notably: i 1. After four days of steam exposure we interrupted the steam exposure to remove taskets containing tensile specimens. l 2. We used a 104*C saturated steam exposure after four days I until the end of the tcst. l 3. We did not apply chemical spray during the exposure. 4. We did not start our transient ramps at 60'C. r i I Two nonconformances kept us from achieving this steam profile. 1. During the initial ramp a penetration fitting for one of three EPR E cables leaked excessively. It was immediately retorqued and the steam ramp restarted. The elapsed time to achieve the first ramp was thirteen minutes. We added 15 minutes to the duration of the first 171*C peak of the profile. 2. On day 9 of the steam exposure our steam supply system f ailed and the steam chamber cooled down to ambier.t temperatures and pressures. On day 11 we opened the chamber t and performed ambient insulation resistance measurements. We resumed the steam exposure on day 12 and continued tne steam exposure until day 24. Our total steam exposure lasted 21 days. 1

p gp. Ji C,JK.miss>e<Aw,NMau *N *****""'- p l j i i I I I I I i 171 AFTER 4 DAYS SOME SAMPLES WILL BE 160 l REMOVED FROM TEST 149 CHAMBER. 138 .O l' W M 121 F< ccw Q. 4 3 105 4' 60 1 a a O 3h Sh 8h 11h 15h 4 days 21 days 10 sec S h 10 s TIME ---- Figure 2.5. Sequential Steam Accident Exposure Profile (as proposed by test plan); pressures correspond to saturated steam conditions in Albuquerque, NM (171 C corresponds to 106 psig). i

Y t' Tcblo 2.6 cunnerizco cur tact conditieno during tho otoco 4 k exposure. The steam conditions for simultaneous tect #1 cro clco d summarized to illustrate the similarities between the sequential i and simultaneous il test. Note: both steam chambers were j connected in parallel to the steam supply system. Throughout the steam exposure the cables were loaded at .I 480 Vac and 0.6 A. This exposure was interrupted to allow for insulation resistance measurements. At the completion of the steam exposure we immediately cg, removed the tensile insulation specimens and then weighed them g and measured their dimensions within six hours. After the [ chamber had cooled we performed a visual examination and then ~ filled the chamber with tap water. Insulation resistance and leakage current measurements were then performed. These

(

measurements were made without disturbing the cables that were s - i wrapped on the mandrels. We did not follow the procedures of H IEEE Std 383-1974,4 Section 2.4.4 which states that the cables "should be straightened and recoiled around a mandrel with a i diameter of approximately 40 times the overall cable diameter" prior to performing the voltage withstand tests. I vI j Table 2.6 Steam Profiles Achieved During the Sequential and j Simultaneous il Steam Exposures. Except during 4 transient ramps and where noted,*, the temperatures y correspond to saturated steam conditions in Albuquerque, 5 New Mexico. An

• Indicates the chamber was opened to

[] remove samples or the steam system had failed and 37 saturated steam conditions were not maintained. M S Sequential Chamber Simultaneous il Chamber Elapsed Time Temperature ('C) Temperature ('C) 4 0.0 Introduced steam to both chambers 1 2s 129 134

{

27 s 94 174 21 52 s 82 167 1 u, 42 s 74 150 3 m, 47 s 70 151 t, 6r, 42 s 68 150 f5 10 m, 02 s 67 131 l 11 m, 42 s 66 150 3 12 m, 07 s 173 150 tv 12 m, 57 s 173 175 jf 15 m 171 173 1 30 m 171 173 M 1 h, Om 172 173 2 h, Om 171 173 hn ~hn

• g

'E h I

Tablo 2.6 (cont.) Sequential Chamber Sicultensous el Chtabar Elapsed Time Temperature (*C) Temperature ('C) 172 171 3h,Om 173 171 3 h, 15 m 167 165 3 h, 30 m 161 159 3 h, 45 m 153 152 4h,Om 134 133 4 h, 30 m Pressure Transducer Connected to Simultaneous Chamber Changed 108* 105* 5 h, O m 112*- 93* 5 h, 15 m 163 5 h,15 m, 22 s 171 174 5 h, 15 m, 47 s 172 172 171 5 h, 18 m 172 171 6h 172 172 7h 172 171 8 h, 12 m 171 170 8 h, 18 m 169 8 h, 23 m 168 164 163 8 h, 38 m 161 8 h, 48 m 160 162 160 9h 161 10 h 160 161 160 11 h 161 11 h, 20 m 160 155 11 h, 30 m 154 150 11 h, 40 m 149 151 150 12 h 151 13 h 150 151 150 14 h 151 15 h 150 151 15 h, 10 m 150 I 15 h, 20 m 147 '147 140 15 h, 30 m 140 134 15 h, 40 m 133 123 15 h, 50 m 123 122 16 h 122 122 122 17 h 122 19 h 121 122 122 21 h 122 I d, 1h 122 123 122 h 1 d, 11 h 123 l d, 21 h 122 123 [ 122 2 d, 2 h 123 2 d, 12 h 122 123 l 2 d, 22 h 122 123 T 3 d, 8h 121 123 3 d, 18 h 121 I P t I + ~

• *** ~==o m m n

Tcble 2.6 (cent.) Sequential-Chamber ' Simultaneous #1 Chamber Elapsed Time Temperature ('C) Temperature (*C) 3 d, 23 h 121 122 4 d, O h, 42 m 121 123 4 d, 1 h, 11 m 111 115 i 4 d, I h, 20 m Opened chamber 4 d,1 h 105 87* i 4 d, 1 h, 51 m Opened chamber 4 d, 2 h, 12 m 78* 75* e 4 d, 2 h, 30 m Reintroduced steam ~ 4 d, 2 h 42 m 75* 106 4 d, 3 h Reintroduced steam 4 d, 3 h, 11 m 105 105 i 4 d, 8 h 104 105 4 d, 13 h 105 105 ( 4 d, 22 h 105 105 l 5 d, 8 h 104 105 5 d, 18 h 105 105 } 6 d, 4h 104 105 .} 6 d, 14 h 104 105 i 7 d, 0h 105 105 L 7 d, 10 h 105 105 [ 7 d, 20 h 105 106 l 8 d, 6h 105 106 6d, 16 h 105 106 9 d, 2h 105 106 9 d, 2 h, 42 m 103 104 Steam supply failure Steam supply failure 9d, 3 h, 11 m 95* 96* 9 d, 4 h, 11 m 64* 75* 9 d, 5 h, 11 m 48* 56* 9 d, 6 h, 11 m 37* 45* h 9 d, 8 h, 11 m 27* i 33* 4 9 d, 10 h, 11 m 23* i 28* { 12d, 4h, 25 m 20* 20* Z 12 6, 4 h, 27 m 22* 21* .d(; [ Reintroduced steam i 12 d, 4h, 29 n 22* 102 12 d, 4 h, 30 m 22* 103 Reintroduced steam 12 d, 4 h, 31 m 105 106 ~ 12 6, 4 h, 32 m 105 106 12 d, 4 h, 45 m 104 105 12 6, 5 h 105 105 i 12 d, 10 h 104 105 12 d, 18 h 104 105 13 d 104 105 13 d, 10 h 104 105 13 d, 20 h 105 105 14 d, 6h 104 105 m m kr fk t '~

l Table 2.6 (cont.) l Saguantial Chrmbar Simultensoun il Chcabar Elapsed Time Temperature (*C) Temperature (*C) 105 105 l 14 d, 16 h 105 15 d, 2 h 104 105 104 15 d, 12 h 105 15 d, 22 h 105 105 16 d, 8h 104 16 d, 18 h 105 105 105 105 17 d, 4 h 105 17 d, 14 h 104 105 104 18 6 105 18 d, 10 h 104 105 104 18 d, 20 h 105 19 d, 6 h 104 105 104 19 d, 16 h 104 20 d,1 h 104 105 105 20 6,.11 h 105 20 d, 22 h 105 106 105 21 d, 7 h 105 21 d, 17 h 105 105 105 22 d, 3 h 105 22 d, 13 h 104 106 22 d, 23 h 105 23 d, 9 h 105 106 106 23 d, 19 h 105 24 d, 5 h 105 105 106 24 d, 15 h 105 25 d, 1h 105 106 Steam shut off 25 d, I h, 55 m Chamber opened 86* 25 6, 2 h, 15 m 105 25 d, 2 h, 40 m Steam shut off 70* 25 d, 2 h, 45 m 94* 25 d, 3 h, 15 m 72* 61* i S l ge -- -e +e+=

l 2.3.4 HIACA Simultaneous Test il l-2.3.4.1 Test Setup The HIACA simultaneous test #1 was pgrformed using a .3 m of internal stainless steel steam chamber with s volume. The height is 125 cm and the diameter 52 cm. The top f portion of the chamber (43 cm in length) contained all the penetration flanges through which cables, thermocouples, and i other instrumentation entered and exited the chamber. The mandrels on which the cables were wrapped were suspended from the top portion of the chamber but were physically located inside the bottom portion of the chamber. This latter section of the chamber is.81 cm long. During both the aging and the accident exposures the chamber was supported as shown in Figure 2.1. This allowed for a simultaneous radiation exposure with the thermal aging and the accident steam exposures. Cables were wrapped on two mandrels connected together end to end. The top of.the mandrels was located 13 cm below the flange wnich connects the top and bottom portion of the steam chamber. Because of nonuniformities in the radiation field for most of the top mandrel, most of the cables were wrapped on the bottom mandrel. We wrapped the single conductors on the inside of the mandrel using a 25 cm diameter. The multiconductors were wrapped on the outside of the mandrel on a 30 cm diameter. After wrapping the cables on the mandrels, the cable leads were spiraled up the inside of the mandrels to the exit ports. A rubber stopper was fed from each end of the cable and inserted into a modified Swagelok tm fitting. The modified Swagelok m fitting, when tightened, compressed the rubber stopper and provided a steam seal. Figure 2.6 illustrates the simultaneous test #1 setup. I We positioned tne cables on the mandrels and prepared the cable flange penetrations prior to all aging and accident environmental exposures. Except for additional tightening of the modified Swagelok fittings, the cable lengths inside the chamber were not disturbed throughout the test. We used the stainless steel chamber as an oven, placed it in our radiation field, and used it as a steam pressure vessel. Insulation resistance and leakage current measurements were performed by filling the chamber bottom with tap water. We did visual examinations by using a crane to raise the top part of the chamber from the bottom part. Since the cables and manorels were completely supported by the chamber top, no damage to the cables occurreo during this operation. Each cable lead outside the steam chamber was % 7.6 m (25 ft) long. These long segments were necessary to pass each cable from the steam chamber to the outside or the gamma irradiation cell. Insulation resistance and leakage current measurements were pertorr.ed at this outside location. I j. c

a E-N. i. I- .4 ~^ Vj... :il"Al.. "ti:#i. m, .n~ 'd

Jau

'Yha ~ 1 a .m g- .t ~ . _.h - !') .) .E i e I AF 6_4 G s 1 E t }F gse-t, m..e,n i

..a p

s,rw. i .c i .,r _- w. M-as ~w x 5 78@' ' ( ff, a ? K!. TC -9 8' y n -. - ?f e g::1 i. . S"W?% % 'V 6 1 gp@I, (F54' y y - L i My,5' f' ~ ' ~ fi s .fa;f.'^ l b' - - - + ~ {' l, ' Y h l k ~ f:,,, ..e p 0 ~? ,a p $ V ~ ^ tnf' ~ ^ M ~~ $kl Figure 2.6. Simultaneous Test #1 Setup Prior to gy. the Start of Thermal Aging ,@%D) l l,e +4 )

y; \\ I 3 f N Ccblo L;ngth Dietenca BalGW lI Inside Chamber. Top of Mnndral (cm) (m) Cable Description

• l t

f 25 cm diameter wrappings t [ EPR A: insulated single 26-30 5.5 conductor i EPR A: insulated and jacketed single 30-34 5.6 conductor EPR C: insulated single 41-45 5.1 conductor EPR A': insulated single 45-46 6.1 conductor EPR A' : insulated and jacketed single 49-53 5.7 conductor EPR D: insulated single 53-57 6.8 conductor EPR E: insulated ar.d jacketed single conductor 5.6 57-60 EPR B: insulated single 62-66 conductor 5.9 EPR B: insulated and jacketed single 6.b 66-71 conductor 30 cm diameter wrappir.gs 6. 2' 28-35 EPR A': multiconductor 38-47 EPR C: multiconductor 7.1 46-55 EPR E: multiconductor 6.2 53-62 EPR A: multiconductor 7.3 64-71 EPR E: multiconductor 6.4

• XLPO Cables were also wrapped on the mandrel during this test.

Table 2.7: Cable Positions on Mandrel During Simultaneous Test il -

L-DP

e4f.

Twanty thermoccuplaa ware positioned in ths chcmber to p annitor temp;raturo uniformity during thermal cging. Wa y p3sition d three of-the therm: couples along the outer rim of the 4 stainless steel perforated cylinder used to support tensile specimen baskets. The remaining seventeen-thermocouples were e positioned at various locations within 2.5 cm of the cables wrapped on the mandrels. One of the thermocouples was used for 5 control purposes; another was used to provide a strip chart record of the thermal exposure. The. remaining 18 thermocouples were connected to a datalogger; perio_dic temperature measurements were recorded throughout the thermal exposure. Table 2.8 presents the temperature distribution midway through the thermal exposure. Table 2.9 summarizes the temperature readings versus time for several of the thermocouple positions. Table 2.8: Thermocouple Readings 85 Hours After the Start of the 171-1/2 Hour Thermal Aging Exposure (Part of simultaneous #1 radiation and thermal exposure) (a) Distance below top Temperature (*C) of mandrel (cm) 0* 90* 180 270* I7 14 137 136 137 137 138 139(6) 139 Ib) 27 139 52 143 140(3) 140 I4) III 139(2) 142 139 67 136 I i (b) Distance below ' o Temperature (*C) of mandrel (cm 13 135 38 142 61 139 t t F (a) Thermocouples were positioned around the circumference of the k mandrel, spaced 90* apart and within 2.5 cm of the cables. The hot ( air duct is close to the 0* position. f t (b) Thermocouples were positioned along the outer rim of the perforated cylinder used to support tensile specimen baskets. (c) (1)-(7) indicate thermocouple positions monitored by Table 2.4. ~ i 5

Tcble 2.9s Tampercture Versus Tims Profilo During Simultaneous il Thermal and Radiation Aging Exposure. Thermocouple 's Na.{fe.9 Positions (1)-(7) are identified in Table 2.8. Temperature (*C) at i Thermocouple Position h(Il !#g Elapsed Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4'L k 0 19 19 19 19 19 18 19 f i 20 min 128 153 165 154 102 143 116 lk 1 hr 141 143 142 145 139 137 137 i 1.hr, 20 min 140 141 141 143 139 135 136 s } r ? Heater off at 1 hr, 20 min N 2 hrs, 10 min 57 54 53 58 57 55 58 Heater on at 2 hr, 10 min I 2 hrs, 20 min 131 150 140 123 128 150 124 3 hrs 140 144 143 137 142 146 141 ~ - - Heater off at 3 hrs 3 hrs, 25 min 84 81 81 84 85 80 84 f Heater on at 3 hrs, 25 min 3 i ..] ' 3 hrs, 40 min 138 148 143 135 137 150 140 N 4 hrs 141 146 145 140 143 148 144 ..-? h s Heater off at 4 hrs %g 4 hrs, 30 min 77 75 72 74 75 77 79 f, Heater on at 4 hrs, 30 min F.WT 4 hrs, 45 min 132 147 161 151 149 143 127 L 5 brs 134 140 143 142 139 139 134 ? 54 5 hrs, 15 min 140 145 152 150 147 144 137

• t 5 hrs, 30 min 158 166 175 172 168 164 154

~ 5 hrs, 45 min 155 160 163 163 160 160 155 Q 6 hrs 151 154 158 157 155 154 150 s 6 hrc, 15 min 139 141 141 141 141 143 142 6 hrs, 30 min 135 137 138 138 137 138 137 1 4 7 hrs 135 137 139 139 137 138 135 10 hrs 134 137 138 139 137 138 135 15 hrs 135 137 138 138 137 137 135 20 hrs 134 137 139 138 137 138 135 25 hrs 136 - 138 140 140 138 138 136 h ' ') N h.* ?* y: Q. ar.n5[mL

Table 2.9 fcent.) Temperature ('C) at Thermocouple Position Elapsed Time 1 2 3 4 F 6 '7 30 hrs 136 138 140 140 139 139 137 35 hrs 136 138 141 140 139 139 137 136 138 140 140 139 139 137 40 hrs 45 hrs 136 138 140 140 139 139 137 50 hrs 135 138 140 140 138 139 137 55 hrs 136 138 140 140 138 139 137 60 hrs 13-138 140 14; 139 139 -135 65 hrs l 139 142 140 139 139 137 70 hrs 133 1-: : 14; 139 139 137 75 hrs 1;; 138 141 lac 139 139 '137 80 hrs 1:d 138 141 140 139 139 137 139 140 14 L' 139 139 137 85 hrs 1: s 130 2'O 14' 139 139 137 5.' .c s 139 1s 1- '39 139 137 100 hrs 133 140 1/ '39 139 137 105 hrs 13; 133 140 140 139 139 137 110 hrs 135 138 141 140 139 139 137 115 hrs 136 138 140 140 138 139 137 120 hrs 136 138 140 140 138 138 137 125 hrs 134 137 139 140 137 137 134 130 hrs 134 137 140 139 137 137 134 135 hrs 134 137 139 139 138 137 134 140 hrs 134 137 140 139 138 137 134 145 hrs 134 137 139 139 138 137 134 150 hrs 136 138 140 139 138 138 136 155 hrs 136 138 140 140 138 138. 137 160 hrs 134 137 140 139 138 137 135 165 hrs 135 137 139 139 138 137 135 I 134 137 140 139 137 137 134 170 hrs 171-1/2 hrb 135 137 140 139 138 137 135 172 hrs 93 90 91 93 91 89 173 hrs 36 27 25 27 39 25 28 . ] i

W For 122.5 hours of tha 171.5 hour theren1 expscuro wa dp ' simd1taneously irradiated the cables and tensile specimen =. We performed this radiation exposure using three irradiation time y intervals: ~ l b - 114 hr exposure starting 6 hrs, 40 min af ter the start of f. the thermal aging exposure 1 - 1 hr, 10 min exposure starting 1.46 hours after the start of the thermal aging exposure - 6 hrs, 20 min exposure starting 148 hours after the start of the thermal aging exposure After completion of the simultaneous radiation and thermal exposures, we performed room temperature dosimetry to establish the aging dose rate. A Victoreen Radicon Model 550 Integrating / Rate Electrometer with a Model 550 air ionization the probe was used to measure the dose rate at one position alo.ng centerline of the chamber. Fifty-two Harshaw'TLD-400's (calcium. fluoride manganese activated thernoluminescent detectors) were placed at 25 positions to map the relative dcse rates with respect to the Victoreen measurement. The dose rate along the chamber centerline (50 cm below the top of the mandrel) was.32 Mrd/h (air-equiv). For all but three of the cables (see Table 2.7 for cable positions during aging), the average dose rate where the cables were wrapped on the mandrels was.33 +.03 Mrd/h (air-equiv.). Thus the aging radiation dose was 40 + 7 Mrd. The absorbed dose in EPR is 14% higher than the air-equivalent dose. This gives an aging dose of 46 + 3 Mrd (in EPR) In addition to mapping the aging dose rate profile, we also mapped the dose rate profiles for each of the three Co-60 source arrangements that were used during the simultaneous radiation and This data is presented in Table 2.10. I steam exposures. I At completion of the simultaneous aging program we did both The a visual inspection and insulation resistance measurements. entire chamber with cables was then stored at ambient conditions until the start of the LOCA steam and radiation simulation (8 days after completion of the aging exposure). . g. s s Tobic 2.10:. Radiation Dose Rates (air-equiv) Used During jf ' Simultaneous Test #1. Measurements were [Pf. performed at ambient air conditions upon completion of the aging exposure. ? Measurement [ location below Aging Dose Hrd/h Accident Dose Rates

• top of mandrel Rate (Mrd/h) 1 2

3 50 cm (along centerline) .32 1 01 .62 1 03 .16 1 01 .062 1 002 Within 2.5 cm of the cables Average of several measurement locations around circumference of the mandrel. 14 cm .28 i.03 .59 i.05 .13 i.01 .06 +.04** .03 37 cm .34 1 03 .67 i.05 .17 1 02 .08 +.06** 55 cm .05 .77 i.06 72 cm .32 1 03 .68 i.05 .17 1 02 .07 1 01 I The three different dose rates columns refer to the three Co-60 configurations used during simultaneous test #1.

• • Large uncertainties reflect gradients in radi ti.)n field.

a . 1

(d;'.C "r-W. un.c.z:-- r --, _ z;FAINwp,.=vpwapq

,_ m. =!_M 1

d - 0.8 - 0.2 ~ 0.0 8 [j Mrd/h ~ Mrd/h Mrd/h Eb I I I I I I I I I ~ AFTER 4 DAYS SOME ~ SAMPLES WILL BE 160 k HEMOVED FROM TEST 149 8 CilAMBER. 138 l j W / m D j Q 121 M m m i G. t 2 i w H 105 k= 60 i I l 1 I I I A I I O 3h Sh ' 8h 11h 15h ' 4 days O days 21 days 10 sec S h 10 s - TIME

• NO O.8 Mrd/h i

1 Figure 2.7. Simultaneous Test f1 Accident Exposure Profile (as i proposed by test plan). Pressures correspond to saturated steam conditions.in Albuquerque, NM, 1 (1710C corresponds to 106 psig).. i

• ji-i 2.3.4.3 Simultnnvua Ste m and Rrdiction Expnuro Figure'2.h summarizes our intended steam and radiation profile.

The steam profile is similar to the IEEE 323-1374, Appendix B profile,3 but also dif'.'erent in several respects, most notably: 1. After four days of steam exposure we interrupted the steam exposure to remove baskets containing tensile specimens. 2. We used a 104*C saturated steam exposure after four days until the end of the test. 3. We did not apply ch'emical spray during the exposure. 4. We did not start our transient ramps at 60'C. Two nonconformances kept us from achieving this steam and f radiation profile. ) I 1. The initial ramp was achieved in less than 30 seconds (see l Table 2.6). However, a steam leak in the sequential chamber resulted in the simultaneous chamber cooling to 150*C during the first 13 minutes of the profile. We added 15 minutes to l the duration of the first peak of the profile. 2. On day 9 of the steam exposure our steam supply system }~ failed and the steam chamber cooled to ambient temperatures 8 and pressures. Twenty-one hours later we stopped the { irradiation of the samples. On day 11 we opened the chamber j and performed ambient insulation resistance measurements as t well as a visual inspection. We resumed the steam and I radiation exposures on day 12 and continued these exposures t h until day 25. Our total steam exposure lasted 21 days. } Table 2.6,l summarizes our steam temperatures during the p g simultaneous test fl. The steam conditions for the sequential test are also provided to illustrate the similarities between the sequential and simultaneous #1 test. Note: both steam chambere d were connected -in parallel to the steam supply system. Table 2.11 presents the accident irradiation history for simultaneous test #1. The total accident dose was 113 1 30 Mrd (air-equiv.). This gives a total accident and aging dose of ,l 153133 Mrd (air-equiv.) or 174 + 38 Mrd (in EPR). For comparison, the sequential test total dose was 172 + 14 Mrd I (air-equiv.) or 195 1 16 Mrd (in EPR). ~ .x - to .1i n

+ ll' Table 2.11: Simultaneous Test il Accident Irradiation History." Reported dose rates are air equivalent values obtained from Table 2.10 (average values for the 37, 55, and 72 cm measurement locations). Absorbed i dosec in EPR will be 144 higher. j Total Accident Time Dose (air equiv) Event i O hrs O Start 1st steam ramp I 0 hrs, 30 min 0 start irradiation at.71 Mrd/h 5 hrs 3.2 i.3 Stop irradiation and prepare for 2nd steam ramp 5 hrs, 15 min 3.2 1 3 Start 2nd steam ramp 5 hrs, 23 min 3.2 i.3 Start irradiation at.71 Mrd/h 4 d, I hr, 5 min 68 1 6 Stop irradiation and prepare to remove tensile specimens 4 d, 1 hr, 20 min 68 1 6 Open steam chamber to remove tensile specimens 4 d, 2 hr, 30 min 6816 Restart steam exposure 4 d, 3 hr, 15 min 6816 Restart irradiation at.17 Mrd/h 8 d, 2 hr 84 i 8 Reduce irradiation to.08 Mrd/h 9 d, 3 hr 86 + 10 Unanticipated cooldown of steam chamber begins 9 d, 23 hr 88 1 11 Stopped irradiation 11 d, 4 hr, 30 min 88 i 11 Restarted steam exposure l 11 d, 4 hr, 45 min 88 i 11 Restarted irradiation (.08 Mrd/h) 24 d, 1 hr, 50 min 113 1 30 Stopped radiation and steam exposures, opened chamber to removed tensile specimens Throughout the steam exposure the cables were loaded at 480 i Vac and 0.6 A. This exposure was interrupted to allow for i insulation resistance measurements and during the unanticipated l cooldown. the completion of the steam exposure we removed the 1 At tensile insulation specimens and then weighed them and measured their dimensions within six hours. After the chamber had cooled we performed a visual examination and then filled the chamber with tap water. Insulation resistance and leakage current j measurements were then performed. These measurements were made without disturbing the cables that were wrapped on the mandrels. We did not follow the procedures of IEEE Std 383-1974,4 Section 2.4.4 which states that the cables "should be straightened and t 0 l

n cocoiled around c cendrol with a dicmator of approxicately 40 times the overall cable diameter" prior to performing the voltage g withstand tests. E ( 2.3.5 HIACA Simultaneous Test #2 L 2.3.5.1 Test Setup The HIACA simultaneous test 42 was performed using a stainless steel steam chamber with ~ 0.4 m3 of internal volume. The height is 200 cm and the diameter 52 cm. The top portion of the chamber (43 cm in Jength) contained all the penetration flanges through which cables, thermocouples, and I other instrumentation entered and exited the chamber. The mandrels on which the cables were wrapped were suspended from the top portion of the chamber but were physically located inside the bottom portion of the chamber. This latter section of the chamber.is 81 cm long. During both the aging and the accident exposures the chamber was supported as shown in Figure 2.1. This allowed for a simultaneous radiation exposure with the thermal aging and the accident steam exposures. Cables were wrapped on three mandrels connected tugether end to end. The top of the mandrels was lccated 13 cm below the flange which connects the top and botcom portion of the steam chamber. -Because of nonuniformities in the radiation field for most of the top mandrel, all of the cables were wrapped on the bottom two mandrels. We wrapped the single conductors on the inside of the mandrels using a 25 cm diameter. The multiconductors were wrapped on the outside of the mandrel on a 30 cm diameter. After wrapping the cables on the mandrels, the cable leads were spiraled up the inside of the mandrels to the exit ports. I A rubber stopper was fed from each end of the cable and i inserted into a modified Swagelok m fitting. The modified t Swageloktm fitting, when tightened, compressed the rubber stopper and provided a steam seal. Figure 2.8 illustrates the simultaneous test #2 setup. We positioned the cables on the mandrels and prepared the cable flange penetrations prior to all aging and accident environmental exposures. Except for additional tightening of the modified Swagelok fittings, the cable lengths inside the chamber were not disturbed throughout the test. We used the stainless steel chamber as an oven, placed it in our radiation field, and used it as a steam pressure vessel. Insulation resistance and leakage current measurements were performed by filling the chamber bottom with water. We did visual examinations by using a crane to raise the top part of the chamber from the bottom part. Since the cables and mandrels were completely supported by the chamber top, no damage to the cables occurred during this operation. i 1 i l \\ l -,g %p-(dQ[GT Y N$f~ ' ^'7k_ _,.. _' 4 g r me y \\ L ~- .;g. +c [',.., m, t kl 7 I f{ P y, f l,, j ( i ~ s g 4 . =,,, b @2; I e;U5f y & 4 Td!)sI.. I $ @{d 4 1 I d

1. 4' ~ $l!Da$h f, t e;

,a j$21.'pbE$[tthf 24 d ~" ~~ [ . '.s p.d-YpI}'k.hh, " b-b;[

-/,

h> D.db NA '- hks. 'l r. 21.

ye.,

n-e : m= n s $e) Wash E f! c-- 4 R. ',N.WNOT.s _ __w$ff@CD, 5k) h;M. ..gg <,S .m 5 i& i 'a L SSWx?f. cy.~y/7 jpNt3;g,re. wax -.%-~~ r- > w{J,,k., - f.a : w,. trE.

• -.,,, f.*
• p74'jn-6 3:4 r a- * -

. = ~ wm.. j' d l d35 L Simultaneous Test 12 Setup at the Pigure 2.8. Completion of Aging. _ i

Each cablo Iced outside the steam chtsbar was s 7.6 m 1 i (25 ft) long., Thans long scgnsnto were necescary to pz=a cach cable from the steam chamber to the outside of the gamma irradiation cell. Insulation resistance and leakage current measurements were performed at this outside location. Table 2.12 lists each EPR cable placed in the chamber for simultaneous #2 testing. (Note: Several XLPO and TEFZEL cables were also tested and are not listed.) The total length of each i cable inside the steam chamber is given as well as each cable's location on the mandrel. A perforated stainless steel cylinder was positioned along the centerline of the mandrels. Two 23 cm (9 in) long perforated stainless steel baskets containing insulation specimens were placed inside this cylinder during the aging and accident exposures. 2.3.5.2 Simultaneous Thermal and Radiation Aging We positioned the stainless steel chamber in the gamma irradiation cell and connected it to a heater and blower. Airflow from the heater passed through a manifold containing twenty valves. Each valve was connected to a copper tube which entered a port to the interior of the chamber. The copper tubes were bundled into groups of 5 tubes and positioned vertically 90' i apart around the circumference of the mandrel. Holes in the tubes directed airflow away from the cables towards the wall of s the chamber. (Figure 2.8 illustrates the thermal aging setup.) Airflow to different positions in the chamber was controllable by valve adjustments external to the chamber. Hence we were able to adjust the temperature uniformity inside the chamber after the start of thermal aging without opening the chamber (as was done for simultaneous test #1). I We thermally aged the cables-for 169 hours and then allowed the chamber to cool to ambient conditions. During thermal aging, airflow fr m the heater to the chamber included fresh air. We used air velocity measurements along the heater recirculation line to estimate thg total airflow to the chamber as 3 approximately 1.4 m / min. Of this, approximately 0.2 m / min [ was fresh air. This insured that oxygen was not depleted f rom the chamber during aging. 7 i t I i i, t l l

l I {t \\ Tcble 2.12: Cablo PocitienD Cn M ndrel During Simultaneous Test #2* ,L ' I Cable Length Distance Below r Inside Chamber Top of Mandrel Cable Description (m) (cm) 25 cm diameter wrappings L F i EPR F: insulated single conductor il 5.5 49-52 h EPR G: insulated and jacketed single conductor il 5.6 53-56 EPR D: insulated single conductor il 5.5 67-70 EPR F: insulated single conductor #2 5.5 77-80 EPR G: insulated and jacketed single conductor #2 5.5 82-85 EPR D: insulated single conductor #2 6.1 95-99 30 cm diameter wrappings EPR D: multiconductor #1 7.0 86-91 1 1 EPR D: multiconductor 42 7.2 106-111

• TEFZEL and XLPO cables were also
• rapped on the mandrel during this test.

i i f I l

Twenty-four thareccouploc were positionsd in ths chnmbsr to, monitor temparature uniformity during' thermal aging. We i positioned five of the thermocouples at three positions along the )' : outer rim of the stainless steel perforated cylinder used to g support tensile specimen baskets. Seventeen thermocouples were J positioned at 16 different locations within -2.5 cm of the cables } wrapped on the mandrels. Two thermocouples were positioned near 4] t the top of the chamber at the exit ports. Twenty-two of these thermocouples were connected to a datalogger, one was connected i to a strip chart recorder, another was used for control f purposes. Table 2.13 presents the temperature distribution 7 i midway-through the thermal exposure. Table 2.14 summarizes the 'f. temperature values versus time for several of the thermocouple positions. } B Table 2.13: Thermocouple Readings 85 Hours After the Start of a i i 169 Hour Thermal Aging Exposure (Part of simultaneous

1. 2 radiation and thermal exposure).

I (a) Distance below top Temperature ('C) j of mandrel (cm) O' 90' 180' 270' II 44 cm 140 139 140 142 67 cm 142 140 (5) 140 141(6) )' 91 cm 140(3) 139 141 I4) 140 III 130(2) 111 cm 133 132 140 I ig (b) i f Distance below top Temperature (*C) of mandrel (cm) 40 138 L 58 137 i 99 133 (a) Thermocouples were positioned around the circumference of I i the mandrel, spaced 90' apart and within 2.5 cm of the ] f cables. The copper heating tubes were also positioned around the circumference of the mandrel, spaced 90' apart, j and' displaced 45' from the thermocouples. g (b) Thermocouples were positioned along the outer rim of the perforated cylinder used to support tensile specimen baskets. 0 l (c) (1)-(7) indicate thermocouple positions monitored by Table r 2.14. t I d l il r i a 3 l? s -

d. 1 I I, ' ' Temp 3rature ('C) ct Thermocouple Position Elapsed Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 hrs 34 35 34 35 35 35 35 O hrs, 18 min 81 78 74 83 79 85 77 O hrs, 28 min 103 97 96 106 102 107 102 0 hrs, 48 min 133 12.4 128 136 134 139 137 0 hrs, 58 min 144 135 l'38 147 145 150 149 1 hr, 8 min 147 136 142 147 148 150 151 1 hr, 18 min 139 129 136 138 140 141 143 1 hr, 28 min 133 125 -130 133 133 137 139 2 hrs 133 131 136 138 140 141 142 3 hrs 136 129 140 137 138 141 142 4 hrs 140 133 139 140 137 140 141 5 hrs 142 132 141 143 138 141 142 10 hrs 140 131 140 141 137 139 140 15 hrs 141 132 140 141 138 140 141 20 hrs 140 131 140 141 138 138 141 25 hrs 140 130 139 141 139 140 141 30 hrs 139 129 139 140 138 140 141 35 hrs 139 129 139 140 138 139 141 40 hrs 140 130 140 141 140 140 142 45 hrs 140 130 140 142 140 141 142 50 hrs 140 130 140 141 139 140 142 55 hrs 140 130 140 141 140 140 142 60 hrs 140 130 140 141 139 140 142 65 hrs paper feed failure 70 hrs 140 130 140 141 .140 141 142 75 hrs 140 129 140 141 139 141 142 80 hrs 140 130 140 142 140 141 142 85 hrs 140 130 140 141 140 141 142 90 hrs 140 130 140 142 140 141 143 95 hrs 139 j129 140 141 140 140 142 100 hrs 140 ,129 140 142 140 141 142 105 hrs 139 129 140 142 140 141 142 110 hrs 140 130 141 142 140 142 143 l 115 hrs 139 128 140 142 140 141 142 120 hrs 139- '129 140 142 140 141 142 125 hrs 139 129 140 142 140 141 142 f 130 hrs 139 128 140 142 140 141 142 135 hrs 139 128 140 142 140 141 143 140 hrs 138 128 139 141 139 140 142 i 145 hrs 139 128 140 142 140 141 143 150 hrs 138 128 140 142 140 141 143 i 155 hrs 138 128 148 141 140. 141 142 [ 160 hrs 138 128 140 142 140 141 143 165 hrs 139 130 141 142 139 141 142 169 hrs 139 131 141 142 139 140 141 170.5 hrs 64 68 64 64 65 65 69 172.5 hrs 41 41 41 41 40 41 41 Table 2.14: Temperature Versus Time Profile During Simultaneous Test #2 Thermal and Radiation Aging Exposure. Thermocouple positions (1)-(7) arb identified in Table 2.13.. .1 9

i y E For 143 hours of the 169 hour thermal expocure we simultandously irradiated the cables and tensile specimens. This radiation exposure was continuous.. We used our simultaneous test

1. 1 donimetry corrected for Co-60 decay to estimate the gamma dose rates during aging (see Table 2.15).

• he average dose rate was

.30 i.03 Mrd/h (air-equiv). Thus tht aging radiktion dose.was 43 + 4 Mrd. The absorbed dose ir. EPR is 14% higher than the airTequivalent dose. This gives an~ aging dose of 49 1 5 Mrd (in EPR) At completion of the simultaneous aging program we performed a visual inspection, insulation resistance and AC leakage current measurements. The entire chamber with cables was then stored at ambient conditions until the start of the LOCA steam and radiation simulation (8 days after completion of the aging exposure.) Table 2.15: Radiation Dose Rates (air-equiv) Used During Simultaneous Test #2. Dose rates were calculated from Table 2.10 data allowing for 8 months Co-60 decay between exposures. Measu.*ement Accident Dose Rates

• location helow 1.ging Dose Mrd/h top of mandrel Rate (Mrd/h) 1 2

3 50 cm talong centerline) .29 i.01 .57 1 03 .15 i.01 .057 1_.002 Within 2.5 cm of the cables 14 c$ .26 +.03 .54 +-.05 .12 +-.01 .06 + .04** i .03 1 37 cm .31 i.03 .61 i.05 .16 i.02 .07 i.05 l 55 cm .71 i.06 72 cm .29 i.03 .62 i.05 .16 i.02 .06 1 01

• The three different dose rate columns refer to the t.hree Co-60 configurations used during simultaneous test #2.
  • Large uncertaintier reflect gradients in radiation field.

Note: Co-60 pencils extend from 10 cm to 130 cm below the top of the mandrel. Hence the 72 cm dosimetry data is applicable to those cables and tensile specimens positioned between 72 and 111 cm below the mandrel. I i 6 [

)

f 2.3.5.3 Simulteneoun Storm nnd R^ diction Exp9:uro Figure 2.9 summariz:0 cur intOndcd etera cnd rcdiction profile. The steag profile is similar to the IEEE 323-1974, Appendix B profile, but also different in several respects, most notably: 1. After four days of steam exposure we interrupted the steam exposure to remove baskets containing tensile specimens. 2. We used a 104*C saturated steam exposure after four days until the end of the test. 3. We did not apply chemical spray during the exposure. 4. We did not start our transient ramps at 60*C. Three nonconformances kept us from achieving the steam and radiation profile. 1. Prior to the first ramp we momentarily passed steam through the chamber (which was open to ambient conditions) i 2. During the first 171*C saturated steam peak water accumulated in the bottom of the steam chamber and submerged some cables. We estimate the maximum water level as between 67 and 91 cm below the top of the mandrel. (See Table 2.12 for cable positions.) We drained the water from the chamber 1-1/2 hours a'ter the start of the first steam peak. This proble. did {, not recur. k 3. On day 16 of the steam exposure our steam supply system failed and the steam chamber cooled to ambient t temperatures and pressures. Eight hours later de { stopped the irradiation of the samples. On day 18 we i I opened the chamber and performed ambient insulation resistance and leakage resistance measurements. We also performed a visual inspection. We then removed ) one EPR D single conductor and one EPR D multiconductor 2 cable as well as all the tensile specimens. On cay 21 f-we resumed the steam and radiation exposures for the cables. We ended these exposures on day 25 for a total steam exposure of 21 days. Table 2.16 summarizes our steam temperatures during simultaneous test #2. Table 2.17 presents the acciden t irradiation history. The total accident dose was 106 1 20 Mrd g (air-equiv). This gives a total accident and aging dose of 146 1 23 Mrd (air-equiv) or 166 1 26 Mrd (in EPR). '7 - 4 4 4 a

hNb khh h :!dd k b M $ I @ M emwi-N f Mmr e.r4tp9wg i n..; ' =, N ~ 0.8 ~ 0.2 ~ 0.0 8 'i ~ Mrd/h Mra/h Mrd/h n K... I I I i i I I i i 171 9 AFTER 4 DAYS SOME ~ SAMPLES WILL BE 160 ( REMOVED FROM TIST 149 8 CHAMBER. 138 W a: D 121 M a:w i a m 2 i w H 105 i 60 .i i l i 1 i I s-i i O 3hSh" S h -11 h 15h 4 days 12 days 21 days 10 sec S h 10 s TIME E3 NO O.8 Mrd/h Figure 2.9. Simultaneous Test 12 Profile (as proposed by test plan). Pressures correspond to n.".turated steam conditions in Albuquerque, NM (1710C corresponds to 106 psig).

[ '~ Tabis 2.16 L Excrpt Steam Profile Achieved During Simultaneous Tant (2. ~ during transient ramps and where.noted,*, the tem An

• indicates the chaaber was opened to remove samples or that saturated steam conditions were not Mexico.

maintained. j Chamber temperature ( P,C) at distance below ' top of' mandrel '111 cm 91 cm 67 cm 44 cm e l Elapsed 22* 30* 27* 26* momentarily passed steam through the chamber 0 hrs 88* 85* 86* 75* 79* 10 sec 79* 78* s 65* 20 sec 72* 71* 74* i 60* 66* 70* s 30 sec 65* 4 56* 60* 67* '40 sec 57* 52* '55* 61* J 1 min 51* 49* i 49* 50* I4* 60* 2 min 2 min, 30 secFirst ramp started; water accumulation 165* 142* 162* 157* l 2 min, 40 sec 165* 169* 171* 2 min,.50 see 143* 169* 170* 171* t 4 min 135* 167*x 171* 171* I 3 min , *m 137* 165* 171* 171* 141* 160* 169* 171* 5 min 17 min 159* 169* 171* 141* i 27 min 157* 168* 171* 6 1 hr 159*' 166* 168* 140* 1 hr, 17 min 144* 1 hr, 27 min, 146* 159* 166*, 168* 1 p Start drawing water from chamber ~ 1 hr, 37 min 168* ,169* 170* 170* i 1 hr, 47 min 171 172 172 171 1 171 172 172-172 i j 171 172 171' 171 2 hrs 3 hrs 172 172 172 j 3 hrs, 17 min 171 165 165 3 hrs, 37 min 165 165 T 156 " i 156 156 ] 156 138 138 4 hrs 138 3 4 hrs, 27 min 138 x 116 116 l! 116 117 ' I 5 hrs 104 103 105 5 hrs, 20 min 100 10 sec 130 136 127 143 5 hrs, 20 min, 5 hrs, 20 min, 162 162 164 20 sec 162 r 5 brs, 20-min, 30 sec 171 171 171 171 l l 171 171 171 171 ~ I 171 171 171 171 8 6 hrs 7 hrs 171 171 171 f 171 y ) 8 hrs j b s $ fh

Tablo 2.16 (cant.) Cht:bar tsmpareture (.*C)-et distcnca below top of mandrel Elapsed 111 cm 91 cm 67 cm 44 cm 8 hrs, 20 min 171 172 171 171 8 hrs, 30 min 169 170 170 170 9 hrs 160 161 161 161 10 hrs 160 161 160 100 11 hrs 161 161 161 161 11 hrs, 40 min 160 160 160 161 11 hrs,. 50 min 158 158 158 158 12 hrs 152 153 152 153 12 hrs, 10 min 149 149 149 149 13 hrs 149 150 149 149 15 hrs 149 149 149 149 15 hrs, 20 min 140 140 140 140 15 hrs, 30 min 133 133 133 133 15 hrs, 40 min 123 123 124 123 15 hrs, 50 min 121 122 121 121 16 hrs 121 121 121 122 20 hrs 121 122 121 122 1 d, 6 hrs 122 122 122 122 1 d, 16 hrs 122 122 122 122 '2 d, 2 hrs 122 122 122 122 2 d, 12 hrs 122 122 122 122 2 9, 22 hrs 122 122 122 122 3 d, 8 hrs 122 122 122 122 3 d, 18 hrs 122 122 122 122 4 d, 20 min 121 121 121 121 Opened chamber 4 d, 50 min 90* 90* 90* 89* 4 d, I hr, 20 min 88* 88* 88* 88* Reintroduced steam l 4 d, I hr, a 50 min 105 106 106 106 4d, 4 hrs 105 105 105 105 4 d, 14 hrs 105 106 106 106 5d 105 106 106 106 5 d, 10 hrs 105 105 105 105 5 d, 20 hrs 106 106 106 106 6 d, 6 hrs 105 105 105 105 6 d,16 hrs 105 106 106 106 7 d, 2 hrs 105 105 105 105 7 d,12 hrs 106 106 106 106 7 d, 22 h'rs 106 106 106 106 8 d, 8 hrs 106 106 106 106 8 d, 18 hrs 106 107 107 106 9d, 4 hrs 106 106 106 106 9 d, 14 hrs 106 106 106 106 10 d 106 106 106 106 10 d, 10 hrs 106 106 106 106 e nna : li ,4

p m

T;blo 2.16 (cent.) 34 Chtmbar t:mpgrcturo (cc) ct dictcnca b21ow y- top of mandral 4 111 cm 91 cm 67 cm 44.cm 7 Elapsed 3 105 106 106 106 9 10 d, 20 hrs 105 105 105 k 105 11 d, 6 hrs 106 166 106 106 11 d, 16 hr s 106 106 106 L, 106 12 d, 2 hrs 106 106 106 106 S 12 d,12 hrs 106 106 106 106 106 106 12 d, 22 hrs 106 i 106 13'd, 8 hrs 106 106 105 14 d, 4 hrs 105 106 106 106 105 13 d, 18 hrs 106 106 106 106 x 14 d, 14 hrs 107 107 107 107 106 106 15 d 106 106 15 d, 10 hrs 106 106 106 106 16 d, 6 hrs 106 106 106 106 15 d, 20 hrs 105 105 105 105 16 d, 14 hrs L Steam supply f ailure 92* 93* 92* 93* .) 16 d, 15 hrs 61* 62* 61* 60* A 16 d, 17 hrs 47* 47* 48* .} 47* 40* 40* 16 d, 19 hrs 40* j 40* 1 36* 36* 36* 36* 16 d, 21 hrs j 35* 35* 35* 35* 16 d, 23 hrs 17 d, 5 hrs 32* 32* 32* 32* 17 d i 31* 31* 31* 31* l 17 d, 10 hrs 29* 30* 30* 3 30* 17 d, 20 hrs ]! 42 min 27* 28* 28* 29* 21 d, 1 hr, 43 min 27* 28* 29* 32* 21 d, 1 hr, 4,..j 44 min 28* 30* 102* 102* 21 d, 1 hr, f Reintroduced steam lf-45 min 103 103 103 103 21 d, I hr, sj 46 min 105 105 105 105 's 21 d, 1 hr,

3f 21 d,

2 hrs 105 105 105 105 21 d, 5 hrs 106 105 106 106 ein 105 106 105 106 l 21 d, 10 hrs f 21 d, 20 hrs 105 105 106 106 f 22 d, 6 hrs 105 105 105 105 .I 22 d, 16 hrs 105 106 106 106 I 23 d, 2 hrs 105 105 106 105 105 106 106 106 k.jf 23 d, 12 hrs 107 107 106 106 I 23 d, 22 hrs 105 105 105 24 d, 8 hrs 105 105 105 105 105 [ 24 d, 18 hrs 106 106 106 25 d, 4 hrs 105 t ff Steam turned off . f_t ia b'i5

1 Table 2.17 SinultanOcu3 Taat #2 accid 3nt Irrcdicticn History. t I-R3 parted d3CG ratsa are air equivalent valuac ~ obtained from Table 2.15 (average values for the 37, 55, and 72 cm measurement locations.) Absorbed i doses in EPR will be 14% higher. Total Accident

• Time Dose (air equiv)

Event 0 hrs O Start steam exposure 0 hrs, 14 min 0 start irradiation at.65 Mrd/h 5 hrs, 8 min 3.3 i.3 Mrd stop irradiation and prepare for 2nd steam ramp 5 hrs, 20 min 3.3 1 3 Mrd Start 2nd steam ramp 5 hrs, 34 min 3.3 1 3 Mrd Start irradiation at.65 Mrd/h 4 d, 20 min 63 1 5 Mrd stop irradiation and prepare to remove tensile specimens 4 d, 1 hr, 25 min 63 1 5 Mrd Restart steam exposure 4 d, 1 hr, 43 min 63 1 5 Mrd Start irradiation at.16 Mrd/h 5 d, 2 hr 67 1 5 Mrd Interrupt irradiation for 12 minutes 11 d, 23 hr, 20 min 93 1 9 Mrd Reduce irradiation to.06 Mrd/hr 12 d, 22 hr 94 1 10 Mrd Interrupted irradiation for 14 minutes 12 d, 21 hr, 50 min 97 + 13 Switched Co-60 configuration, dose rate =.06 Mrd/h 16 d, 14 hr 99 1 14 Mrd Start of unanticipated cooldown 16 d, 23 hr, 35 min 100 i 15 Mrd stop irradiation 21 d, 1 hr, 45 min 100 i 15 Mrd Restart steam exposure 21 d, 4 hrs, 14 min 100 1 15 Mrd Restart irradiation at.06 Mrd/h 25 d, 4 hrs 106 1 20 Mrd End steam and radiation export P \\ ~ l I i 8 4 o m - - ~,

Throughout noot of tha ctoca exposuro tho cnbloc wsrc lord:d ct 480 Vcc cnd 0.6 A. Exc pticn: waro during the firct trenciant (severe water leakage from the Tafzal cabloo alco in tho 9 peak chamber required us to reconfigure the loading circuit), during-i insulation yesiktance measurements, and during the unanticipated cooldown period, t During the unanticipated cooldown we removed the tensile .insulation specimens and then weighed them and measured their dimensions. These samplec were not. reinserted into the chamber prior to restarting the steam exposure. " At the completion of the steam and radiation exposures we performed a visual examination and then filled the chamber with water. Insulation resistance and leakage current measurements were then performed. These measurements were made without disturbing the cables that were wrapped on the mandrels. We did not follow the procedures of IEEE Std 383-1974, Section 2.4.4 wETch states that the cables "should be straightened and recoiled around a mandrel with a diameter of approximately 40 times the overall cable diameter" prior to performing the voltage withstand tests. 3.0 Results 3.1 EPR A and EPR A' EPR A multiconductor cables, single conductor cables, and insulation specimens were exposed during the sequential and simultaneous il tests. These materials were purchased in 1977. A 1981 purchase of the "same or improved" cable product was obtained prior to simultaneous test fl. Multiconductor and single conductor "1981 cables" were exposed during this latter test; results are' identified as for EPR A'. We generated the single conductor cables by carefully disassembling multiconductor

cables, i

( 3.1.1 Electrical results Insulation resistance (I. R. ) measurements were performed periodically throughout the aging and accident exposures. Figures 3.1-3.3 illustrate the I.R. behavior for the single con-ductor, single conductor with primary jacket, and multiconductor, respectfully. Figure 3.4 gives I.R. results for EPR A'. For the single conductor, I.R. measurements were performed between the conductor and the grounded steam chamber (which contained either steam or water). For the multiconductors, I.R. measurements were performed between the conductor and the grounded steam chamber with the other conductors of the multiconductor guarded. Insula-tion Resistance measurements recorded for day 11 were during the unanticipated room temperature cooldown and are several orders of magnitude larger than those recorded during the steam exposure.. - ~ ~ ~ ~ -

] gli I I i i i 1 7_ _o 2 -O ~ 12 o o g 10 ,i 0 2 l. n E 11 i 10 = =- C 3 = w ~ W ~ O ~ z 10'O =- = __= F u) m W 9 (E 10 o o o 3-o oo z o O E p ~ _J 8 o a 10 =o m 5 0 0 o0o z o O E o 00 i 7 O ~ 10 _= O 00 l i 5 O SIMULTANEOUS #1 E

• l o SEQUENTIAL 2

8 'I I I I I I 10 O 12 24 O 15 25 ,hhff HOURS DAYS AGED UNAGED i Figure 3.1. Insulation Resistance for EPR A: Single i Conductor with Primary Insulation r ..,-.,..e.

M. E rn %,s '1 1 Eli I I I I l l E o ? ! )- 12 10 g o 'e = 0 E r,. n Il l 11 i i 1o 4' C; E i q. si W o o o o C0D E l o[ Q O z o t < 10 =- H = E r 3 m O m C A I W o s m g 1 z 10 g-op E I O o o i. p o y 8-a -00 4 D 8 10 2 m g .g z g=, 1 O SIMULTANEOUS +1 2 j o SEQUENTIAL 7 g 10 5- = a... = yl s q 6 d 10 i i 'l O 12 24 5 15 25 4 POST 3 HOURS DAYS TEST AGED f, UNAGED I Figure 3.2. Insulation Resistance for EPR A: Single Conductor with Primary Insulation and Jacket +I+C /j N 5,1J g

l

• w EI I I

I I I I I 12 O 10 Qo 8 E 0 ~ E 11 5 10 ea w o LLI 0 z to g.O O Ooo <c 10 = 0 o F i oo n O E M 00 O m su c: 9 10 = o o Z 0 o = F Ooo o o 8 3 10 m E Z 5 l 7 8 10 O SIMULTANEOUS +1 r o SEQUENTIAL _~ s go i i i i i 0 12 24 5 15 25 l l.iOURS POST DAYS TEST AGED UNAGED i i Figure 3.3. Insulation Resistance for EPR A Multiconductor l l t 1

.l EII I I I I I i 5 _O 12()o O O 10 O 7 y 10 r 8 i Q 0 00 88 o 0 00 ^ W 10' o 000 g% q _r q F m E O W 9 0 O m 10 = = O O Z o .o OO O H Q J 8 O 10 5OO 5 z O SINGLE CONDUCTOR: ~ PRIMARY INSULATION 7 O SINGLE CONDUCTOR: 10 _= PRIMARY INSULATION T ~ AND JACKET E O MULTICONDUCTOR 6 10 i i i i i O 12 24 5 15 25 l HOURS POST DAYS TEST AGED UNAGED ~ Figure 3.4. Insulation Resistance for EPR A' Cables During Simultaneous Test #1. +n n-, g-

=- Laakage current data obtained during pcot-test caesurements in summarized in Table 3.1 During these tests, the cablas were immareed into a grounded water bath. Tha single conductor censurem2nts were between' the conductor and a grounded tap water bath. For multiconductors, one conductor of the multiconductor was electrified, the others were grounded as was the water bath. 3.1.2 Insulation Specimens We obtained tensile specimens by carefully disassembling a multiconductor, stripping the single conductor primary jacket from the ' insulation (they were not bonded together) and then removing the stranded conductor from the center of the insulation. Some of these EPR A tensile specimens were exposed with the cables during the HIACA sequential and simultaneous il tests. In addition, other tensile specimens were aged by seven different simulations (see Section 2.3.2) using Sandia's LICA facility. At completion of aging, we inserted these latter samples into the HIACA steam chambers at appropriate test points so that for each of the seven aging populations, one-third of the tensile specimens were exposed to one of three accident simulations: 1. Sequential accident irradiation then steam exposure (the sequential accident tes t) 2. Simultaneous accident irradiation and steam exposure (simultaneous accident test #1) 3. Steam exposure only (the steam exposure of the s sequential test). Unaged tensile specimens were also exposed to these accident j simulations. After four days of the LOCA simulations all samples were removed from the steam chambeq. This was necessitated by EPR A's unexpected response to the accident environments. Many samples experienced complete reversion and lost their original form. For many sample groups, monitoring weight, dimensional, and tensile property changes was impossible. Table 3.2 summarizes the visual appearance of the sample groups at the completion of the four day LOCA exposures. We defin : Blooming: Migration of components (waxes, oils, activators) to the surface due to induced stresses. Surface is not broken. Measling: Migration of components (waxes, oils, activators) to the surface. Surface is broken. Reversion: Change to a linear polymer that allows flow and use these terms to describe the visual appearance of EPR A. l l f -,-e.

Leaktge Current (mA) Simultaneous Test #1 Applied Voltage Secuential Test EPR A: primary insulation 0.7 0.7 600 Vac 1.3 1.3 1200 Vac 19 2.0 1800 Jac 3.0 2.6 2400 Vac EPR A': ' primary insulation with jacket 0.7 0.7 600 Vac 14 1.3 1200 Vac 2.1-1.9 1800 Vac 2.7 2400 Va'c 2.5 EPR A: multiconductor 1.2 1.1 600 Vac 2.3 2.0 1200 Vac 3.4. 3.0 1800 Vac 4.5 4.0 2400 Vac EPR A': orimary insulation 0.6 600 Vac 1.2 1200 Va 1.6 1800 Vac 3.1 2400 Vac t EPR A': primary insulation t; wir.h jacket 0.5 Il 600 Vac 1.0 j 1200 Vac 1.5 e 1800 Vac ?.0 I 2400 Vac 5h Ci EPR A': multiconductor 1.0 LI! 600 Vac 1.9 1200 Vac 1800 Vac 3.8 2400 Vac 1 Post-Test Leakage Current Values for EPR A and A' Cables. E' Measurements were made at the completion of a one minute J Table 3.1: 'l electrification for the 600, 1200, and 1800 Vac -;( the completion of a five minute exposures and at 1 electrification at 2400 Vac. 1 'j' I 'I' I .t ~ }

~ -..-_.. i i 3 Sequential HI ACA Exponuren Simultaneous HIACA Exposure _a_ Ultimate Tenalle Ultimate Tensile Ultimate Tensile Ultimate Tensile Elongation Strength Elongation S tr ength e/c T/T e/e T/T o o o o Unaged 1.00 1 02 1.00 1 07 1.00 1 02 1.00 1 07 g (360_+ 30%) (8.7 1 0.3 MPa) (360 1 30%) (8.7 1 0.3 MPa) 7 Aged .29 1 03 '6 1 09 05 1 03 231 02 e After Saquential Accident Irradiation .16 1 01 .n6 1 13 Tabic 3.3.a Tensile Propertien for EPR A Samples Aged using the HIACA Facility (the Sequential and Simultaneous il Tests). l I. 9 t 1 i e

~ -- ._~ =_ 8 G After 'Aginq After Sequential Accident Irradiation Ultimate Tensile Ultimate Tenalle Ultimate Tensile Ultimate Tensile Elongation Strength Elongation Strength Aging Method *** e/c T/To e/eo T/To o Unaged 1.00 +.00 1.00 + 03 .32 1 04 .65 1 03 (360 1 301) 8.7 + 0.3 11Pa) 4 dT+R 0.00 + 08 0.90 1 06 .26 1 03 611 05 30 T + R 03* % 0.2* 28 d T + 28 d R 0.33 +.04 0.85 1 03 .18 1 03 .59 +.14 j, 28 d R + 28 d T <.03* 0.26 1 07* w I I 28 d T + 55 h R 0.31 1 04 0.99 +.21 .19 1 04 .641 06 f 5 h R + 28 d T 0.06 + 03 0.21 1 02

• .03

.18 i.01 7dT+R 0.03 1 03 0.26 +.02 %.03* <.36* NOTES: (1) Errors reflect one standard deviation of three measurements. (2) Insulation thickness is nominally 0.0 mm. Samplen were extrenely brittle and sometimes cracked in the pneumatic jaws used for the tensile measurements. Samples were too brittle to measure. See Section 2.3.2 for aging details. Table 3.3.h Relative Tensile Properties of EPR A Af ter LICA Aging + IIIf.CA Sequential Accident Irradiation. t

r i l + k. f a i =li I 1 I I I I E cr o o o 0 -2 -O 0 q I. 10 n E e i 11 3 C: 10 =- = v = = 4 4 m o 1 z O O 000 o 10 o OOO a{t 0 1-10 =- = y en = = 2 en Oo 00 w 3 m i Z 9 10 o =_ =- = = -H o ~ J o J D O 6 o0 8 2 10 O si;JULTANEous #1 =- = 3 o SEQUENTIAL g ) 1 7 10 g = i = 3 y 'i 6 'l l l l l l l 10 O 12 24 5 15 25 l 3j4 l HOURS POST DAYS TEST

• A.)

."3 AGED q UNAGED 4 j Figure 3.5. Insulation Resistance for EPR B Single Conductors with Primary Insultation a O..r _a_ .8't

T 3

, 3,-

g ,-o 9,. EII i 1 1 I I I E ( >. o o o 12 0 10 0 = _= ^ 11 E to y = b 3 O O O ooo E w O O 000 m 0% O 10 z 10 00 = = = = F O m ~ M O o w g 0 C 10 =o 0 .= Z 5 00 9 O__ H ~ 8 a 10 = = m 5 E z ~ O SIMULTANEOUS +1 O SEGUENTIAL 7 10 = 6 10 ,i i i i l 0 12 24 5 15 25 l HOURS POST DAYS TEST AGED UNAGED Figure 3.6. Insulation Resistance for EPR B S. ingle Conductors with Primary Insulation and Jacket i, ~

P Lackcgm Current (mA) Applied Voltngo Sequentiel Teet Simultaneoue Test $1 s Primary insulation only 600 Vac 0.8 0.6 1200 Vac 1.5 1.2 1800 Vac 2.2 1.7 2400 Vac 2.9 2.3 i Primary insulation and jacket 600 Vac 0.8 0.7 1. 1200 Vac 1.5 1.3 l 1800 Vac 2.2 1.9 2400 Vac 2.9 2.5 i Table 3.4: Leakage Current Values for EPR B Single Conductor Cables at the Completion of Test Exposures. Measurements were made at the completion of one minute electrification for the 600, 1200, and 1800 Vac exposures and at the completion of a five minute electrification at 2400 Vac. Measurements were between the coppe'r conductor and a grounded water bath. Sequential Test Simultaneous Test #1 Weight Increase 4 d LOCA 2+1 0+1 End of LOCA 4 + 11 -1 + 1 i Length Increase 4 d LOCA 0+3 -2 + 3 End cf LOCA -2 [ 3 0[3 Outer Diameter Increase 4 d LOCA -5 + 3 -5 + 3 End of LOCA -18 ['3 -5 [ 3 Table 3.5: Percentage Increase for EPR B Insulation Specimen Properties - (

V Ultimate tensile clongation and ultimata tensile strength ware mecsurgd prior to cging, ofter cging, after 4 days of LOCA Tensilo exposure, and at the completion of the LOCA exposure. measurements were made within 24 hours of removing the tensile specimens from the steam environment and also several months We after removing the specimens from the steam chamber. h t it had . monitored the weight of the samples to ensure t a stabilized prior to performing these latter measurements. Results are given in Table 3.6. 3.3 EPR C An EPR C multiconductor and an EPR C single conductor cable (This product was not. were exposed to simultaneous test fl. received from the manufacturer until after the start of theW We obtained sequential test.) carefully disassembling a multiconductor cable. compression molded sheets of EPR C material from h sequential and simultaneous il tests. 3.3.1 Electrical Results Insulation resistance (I.R.) measurements were performed periodically throughout the aging and accident exposures. behavior for the single Figures 3.7 and 3.8 illustrate the I.R. respectively. For the single conductor and multiconductor, measurements were perforned between the conductor (which contained either steam or conductor, I.R. and the grounded steam chamber measunements were performed water). For the multiconductor, I.R. between the conductor and the ground wire and shield of the multiconductor construction with the second conductor of the Insulation resistance measurements multiconductor guarded. recorded for day 11 were during the unanticipated room temperature cooldown and are several orders of magnitude larger then those recorded during the steam exposure. In Table 3.7 we summarize our leakage current data obtained During these tests, one conductor during post-tast measurements.of the multiconductor was connected to the The other conductors and the shield and of the testing unit. The cable was immersed into a ground wire were grounded.The single conductor measurements were' grounded water bath. between the conductor and a grounded water bath. t I*

, p qr.y.y 1

1 1 s Simultaneous Test il Conditto.1 Sequential Test e/c T/To e/c T/T o o o Unaged 1.00+.10 1.00+.03 1~. 0 0 +.10 1.00+.03 (330 1 301) (7.1 1 0.4 H1'a) (330 1 30%) (7.1 1 0.4 MPa) Aged .37+.06 1.21+.04 20+.08 .58+.10 Afte: Sequential .20+.05 1.00+.10 RAccident .71+.05 .17+ 03 .70+.08 4 d LOCA. 20+.04 .62[.04** .21[.04** .74[.08** .23[.04.* m LOCA 20+.04 .78+.06 .14+.03 .74+.05 CD End of .147.03** .607.13** 247.04** 677.05**

• We normalized T/T, using the unaged cross-sectional areas.
• *These measurements were made within 24 hours atter removing samples from the steam chamber.

Table 3.6 Ultimate Tensile Propertien for EPR D. The LOCA tensile measurements (execpt those marked by **) were performed after the nample weight had stabilized.

E11 I I i i l I 1 l 12<iO o O 10 ? E 2 I. 5 E 11 3 i 10 =- C 3 [ ~ W U = < 10 = = E j b o m m 0oo 9 0 000 E 10 y o 5 O 9 0 g. J 8 T 3 10 =- cn = z O SIMULTANEOUS + 12 ~ i 7 T 10 r = = ~ 6 i i i i i i 10 O 12 24 5 15 25 POST HOURS DAYS TEST AGED UNAGED Insulation Resistance for EPR C Single Figure 3.7. Conductor with Primary Insulation

%. &. ~ I .e...e .'. - n .b .w. - 2.= 311 I I i l E= --s 1 .'i,. 1013Q Q = = = u 2-p o O ~ = ~ ....s'. A ad? E' jo12 n4 = 8 = =

.re w<@-

C:

r-1,

.e.,+x-w ~ M:. o g.73 z 1 O' um 4 = 5 p, = .;;g us. z.q w ~ 10 00O o ooO 10 = ~ =- - 8 z = = a -0 0 a O o d .c E o e ._t c, -.i D 10~ =- 5 c) = .-i.2 z -?, O SIMULTANEOUS +1 2 ~ ~ 8 10 = = s 't 7 II I I I I 10 O 12 24 5 15 25 l n POST j',.g l HOURS DAYS TEST c, ..1 ; 4 'r n :t % ~ A, AGED

-,.r.:,

--. i.). ~ UHAGED ..,.r , - 9 .~ 5; Figure 3.8. Insulation Resistance for EPR C Multiconductor .,2 d .q ..i j -70. 1; 11

l Leakage Current (mal simultaneous Test 91 Applied Voltaqe Single Conductor 0.7 600 Vac 1*4 1200 Vac 2.5 2000 vac J Multiconductor I*3 600 Vac 2.5 1200 Vac 4*1 2000 Vac 4 W Leakage Current for EPH C Single Conductor and Multiconductor I Table 3.7: Measurements were made at Cables After Simultaneoun Test II. the completion of a one reinute electrification for the 600, 1200 Vac exposures and at the completion of a five minute electrification at 2000 vac. O m wh O e 4

s 3.3.2 In ulntion Sp~cim"no nsulation specimens were used to monitor weight changes, ~ almensional changes, and tensile properties. We removed specimens after the first four days and at the completion of the Table 3.8 summarizes the percentage increase in steam exposure. specimen weight, length, width, and thickness during the LOCA simulations. Ultimate tensile elongation and ultimate tensile strength were measured prior to aging, after aging, after 4 days i i of LOCA exposure and at the co=pletio'n of-the LOCA exposure. Tensile measurements were made within 24 hours of removing the tensile specimens from the steam environment and also several months after removing the specimens from the chamber. We monitored the weight of the samples to ensure that it had stabilized prior to performing these latter measurements. Results are given in Table 3.9. 3, d. EPR D EPR D multiconductor cables, single conductor cables, and the insulation specimens were exposed to all three tests: secuential test and both simultaneous tests. 3.4.1 Multiconductor Results The EPR D multiconductor cable visually had the same general appearance at the completion of both simultaneous tests. After teth exposures, the jacket was longitudinally split (see Figures 3.9a and 3.9b) and the bundle of inner conductors had bulged partly out of the jacket. The circumference of the jacket was not large enough to contain the bundle of conductors originally enclosed by the jacket. The exposed gap in the jacket was approximately 0.6 cm wide. Feasurement's made at the completion of simultaneous test (2 e on an EPR D multiconductor clearly revealed that the bundle of conductors had swelled. The circumference of the bundle was approximately 3.3 cm. Measurements performed on an unexposed "new" cable yielded a circumference (with jacket remove 6) of approximately 2.8 cm. The diameters of each of the exposeo rulticonductor single conductors was between.47 and.51 cm. As received frcm the factory, single conductors have a diameter of approximately. 41 cm. Weight measurements performed on insulation removed f rom the stranded conductors indicated a weight. increase of 50% compared to "as received f rom the f actory" insulation. (Measurements were made within a week of the end ot the steam exposure to first allow for electrical measurements, hence 50% represents a lower bound for the weight increase since moisture desorption started after removing the samples from the steam environment.) The multiconductor jacket had also swelled, but not sufficiently to contain the swelled bundle of conductors. The circumf erence of the jacket (measured circumferential1y from one side of the gap to the other side) was approximately 3.7 cm. For unexposed cable, the circumference was 3.6 cm. iI Simultaneous Test il Sequentini Test f, ; Weicht Inrease 9+2 8+2 233[2 4 d LOCA 9 }[ 2 End of LOCA 7 Lencth Increase _ 0+5 2+3 513 4 d LOCA 03[3 - End of LOCA Width Increase 212 011 7+2 4 d LOCA 516 End of LOCA hhicknessIncrease 8+9 12 + 10 20][6 4 d LOCA 20}[7 End of LOCA Pcrcentace Increase for EPR C Insulation Specimen Table 3.8: Prcperties l B e l } > h I

• "s o kf o

Condition Sequential Tent Simultaneous Test il e/c T/T e/e T/T

• o n

o o Unaged 1.001 08 1.00*.02 1.00+.08 1.001 02 (513 + 101) (12.2 1 0.8 HPa) (513 1 10%) (12.2 1 0.8 MPa) Aged .381 0' .621 06 .591 16 .73+.11 After Sequential .11+.01 03*.05 RAccident 4 d LOCA .11+.02 63+.06 .21+.03 .69+.06 .14{.02** 65[.06** .29103** .68103** w ^ End of LOCA .13+.C3 66*.07 .15+.03 .62+.07 .14103** .5810i** .22102** .5910,3**

• We normalized T/T untng the unaged cross-sectional areas.

o

• • These measurements were made within 24 hours after removing samples from the steam chamber.

Tabit 3.9s Ultimate Tenstle Properties for EPR C. The LOCA tensile measurements (except those marked by **) were performed after the sample weight had stabilized. I4

9 .e p,' y .l .f # , k. a. ..,3 /g M-m.,. p. l ,J

• N' '

~ hhN ;' k-E I A . - [T

• Ik

. pyJ gpay{j@Sy'gY.,,yG.,.$... ssNr sf'-WZ:

-4 %~A.2

".r...'T6jhgmf[Uif.t as - E

.r-%

.s OQ:c.c t [.F .p hc; .... = s-, . g [,*8p 6-iM "10.t,2'qy' Rii%'- '"- L';;Y t I.** e [*C.*5 I'.-Oj [' s'.?,...'..

• 5; 4

'

• 4[,'iO**,. !'., '"p% aK%'[*9g W%-:

g V g*Y%'at.*~* $'M8S M&. - -- I N M. gr i M MMM ...n n. ~ ? n n, >.r. - = -w g:,w~ -a. -- n ? '~ Fg'spLgg s L.- ,. -- w - q "./ " ~ ~ 4~.,J.if-~'. m.v=:.n - w,. m m# ... M ; _.,, ma a: g

1.

"1 7..G" T g ..-2

w.,

O R... g~ ~ " Q,.~. 2.. c.g* b. 8 w.,. k.A, .? j. 6 - ~ ;x. n-:- co ,y:V,~m.p gy.,J } ,.v".s .? y9... 'p ..) M A' .g

• A.1 g

\\'l ... '4 H - M .~..,,:. ;; 4, V; j ~.i d 3.. c - e i s. . ::. y; -.y y ,, -. + f y y.z s p.- i 3.s .. v., '{ e -.s l'} s.*':.- g

• ?

- \\ }.'. \\. , \\.\\ y 3 u , 6, .s o s ). ;i. ; .., i..

t.

.,4 1.- 1, g- , i -l- \\ i. (. 5, s g'- .( .,,.(' ys.,.' ~ a b. 1, - e r.. 6 f,3.k j . :g...h 1.. K. k,...m.b.,, 3, h.s. -; ,m W 1 i.,

+.

I t C. - w: I i < g-.. - .g :. ) s.:/ g.\\ gM@. - e.-1,.4 p q t :.J.i,0 ... ~N. f,. g rp'. M. it'.f po E ..4

• r. i r-:.

,. r. , i.-r j o j- .s<, !r.,, i., I W- '1 g t - U i - }. c .t.. 1. si .w{ - 2 yg I, f ._et

.'5g 'g (; i ~

.l 6 z _\\ L-2 s\\ ).,..' ,N.i*j .j o 2.- - g: p t.

4. -,(

b,, a hh,'.. - j gg e, i .? % a t ue .z d;*, "J) - #,' -Q.. [ '~4' \\. M .., j...

• 1 J'. Y *,

m - g -u.q.. A,, ~ -is N "G..',.f, g%. C . ge-- W_ .r:,. - -- - 4..,, - F,wM 1 { y 1,.se., a s'(,3, b.h.)- 4.: 2 ,a tp- } ..I r' ~~ ] to

.,e %. \\.

. ~;., :. - ^^ L*

Ys t

U ..n '\\n-1 y. ~l'~ V t*

• li

~ 3 ( a. .? s. "L* m====r '***.... '.*1 ..l* 'L ~ 1 I.j 1 +o \\,.,.,., J..' ' T-M 19...".'.a .9.--.'-

.,a ?

.'*"-;... < c. '. :.M f3 )..*li,l y y , x., AI..Mir4'.?,m.,:s r. $

b

' '.c . ~ .c . ~, ,.c ;sqp m..n. w -.. sr u.-.n. ~.,.., w ... ~.:...e....:. ~.s. i. e....e w _ p. %' a.G w*,a = w.t %ey %c,y.c..:,=r 4;[n'#1ri. ~.

• Q NI

,>- a n.= n c - ? *. % u -,.,. s.we. newwr.p..m.. -;: w a > w. m..-erc,4 mea. .w.. 2, s c .. ~ ,p ... ' =.' ..: h l*h:,' . ** 'A.k*I * $ ? ' '~' - "*^ e e C, J .e .'g fa ,r 1, j~ e t

.s..--

%. :.;.q . -i;p .~ , =.. c ;.. . 9.. c, c. _. 4-* e ( t ..-..v.,. ...., ~ ..w. [ oc,%.s._.,.'. <,.w. a m,gr%s %%w. -

• .B L -.., u,..... f g.

a .... +. -=* wuw 9v.w ::e.cgpp DE %sm+rm.m. m f ...s W -._ w.- =-

.v e a

.

ew m '1 w p-v. o -w x ~a..m;.,..- m.e -.xm.ww-m.-x:- 9 my .m, .~ %~e. 2~,. . -,..-..e. : 2:3.r.,... ..? i**=' J' Y U'::s ' :..:.t:M a e m&.,M..~SF'# M N.,,. Z.1 & ~^-%." i M,,'Py' l=ci;:@. ~,.n ---..n -.2-PMh::'-?M-o 4 5W4 .m. i&-

.+~c.~- y g w.c1e p....4- -

9 -m. o a 7 p.a,g.$ T-.. $ $ ;. E.5 %.y - 5.k $ 0 h.] O W s Y. k y 17, - - Q e.y, ,,, y g 3 4 3

^ E F W.'% Y-.?. Y. O. ~:X.. L':.QI.- :.,

- :-Q-,..

4. e."2'.M..ua,,:.t y. ' :

3.:

"n

.;.0

i..,; 4l..@.

-,j i g.. tn .n l { -s..s -l; 5 ~ v. a ~ .+ w 4 '+ 1 o

'i.. i.. f..

i. .~ ~. as .s ..s. t': 'i V- ? 4 -{. :: q y,3. y" h 4 .1 ' - ' '. - -l 1 .. - :\\ x;g. cm n; i ~ n :... s i j .j c a g, f

• N,i-nN _ _ _

e 4 . ! t-p s . pi. v:.a (:3--l m ?8h'i,7..;;;.-->.~ G..;.ith..-y<h:l$h55h .. f>f. s + =. H

• t -

h t. o r.. ? c .h.y ".c , Y. O 51.p.?gr.,p.M /:y c: c 'y . y U c. m-~ :. w g's e

n

.,e; e,

L. .A .....l ~

r

. o C ', \\ ' T 5'.h ' * ) ' h*E.,,l 'c,# . *1,,- m j .-p.--+:Q)5%'& m ....n. %.- :.:. ~.'y%.;;q.:c5g. -:cm&R*g.;.-3& h n v:. :. -

-:yng.1:.

\\ o y { pU { ...,..,,r** .j .,, i .f . +.. - 4 a \\ i k.rC7v' "3,' $.je/ S..f,4 v[. N: a-O.,,s.h -.. ~.~:u.. 4 7 5 ... 5.0. -.4-. .m% ..Y..-2 Ai .t .e -r.:J.'.*?c 4.~ tge:r.' <KV <r.v~xAc.is%4"? * *fd.. .,s ? u@m. + ',4,EW2.k.. 9 'j ~ w':. . gg

w ew uye,, q~~.'.q

y.+. a

:-;-.>ff0..x. -tic,

...,' c Qfi.V. a. 4,,?,,n,.o.q>.a.,. Y. pv., L ^M%94.i?;pA@eOVk:#@xM.g@3WK:::$.,[:. r a ~,. l'fy;,;5 e E. ? y1 %w Ori% $W'-:G2,y::m 'T' l f W%*'i~ ' #te' 07Y.W.MM*.i-C*/f.C57.t:f.64 M 9 9Jg. .4 .a 1 k O t. .t l..: -- 7 6 - -b A e 4a I. 9 1 i b,

Barc oxidized coppar conductors (w 1.9 cm in length) waro visible for each of the EPR D cables exposed during the second simultaneous test. (This observation was made on day 1C during the unexpected steam cooldown (see Figure 3.9b.). Segments of the insulation had fallen off the conductor on the side where the jacket had split allowing the bare conductors to be observed. This was noted without handling of the multiconductors. Fo r th e multiconductor exposed during simultaneous test #1, similar behavior was observed during post test examinations but after handling. After careful removal of the jacket from the multiconductor, pin holes were discovered in the insulation where the cable had rested on stainless steel clips (part of the mandrel support system, see Figure 3.9b). A greenish-blue residue (possibly copper sulfide) was noted at the pin hole locations. A few centimeters away from this location a % 1 cm chunk of insulation fell off the white conductor during post-test removal of the split jacket. Both the copper conductor and the cracked surface of the insulation were bluish-green, suggesting that the insulation crack had developed prior to handling. Several centimeters f rom this location we purposely split the same conductor's insulation to insure that the greenish-blue residue had not dif f used througi. the insulation rather than along a crack. We conclude that the insulation integrity had been breached prior to handling. For both simultaneous tests, the EPR D multiconductor cables ~ c::hibited large leakage currents during post-test measurements (Table 3.10). Insulation resistance. measurements performed during the LOCA simulations illustrate electrical degradation beginning several days after the start of the accident test (Figures 3.10-3.12). In contrast to the simultaneous testing results, the EPR D culticonductor cable which we exposed to the sequential test haa an intact jacket (see Figure 3.13). The multiconductor diameter was approximately 1.1 cm; the same as for an unexposed "new" multiconductor cable. This EPR D multiconductor cable exhibited small leakage currents during post-test measurements (see Table 3.11). Periodically insulation resistance measurements were performed throughout the sequential test. Results are shown in Figure 3.14. Insulation resistance measurements recorded for day 11 were during the unanticipated room temperature cooldown and are several orders of magnitude larger than those recorded during the steam exposure. The insulation resistance values at the end of the sequent:ial test are several orders of magnitude higher than those measured after the simultaneous _ tests. 3.4.2 single Conductor Results The EPR D single conductor cables were obtained by carefully removing the multiconductor outer jacket and sheaths ano then separating the individual insulated condectors. Thus our EPR D single conductors were obtained from the same cable reel as our EPR D multiconductor cables. a Leakage Current (nA) Simultaneous Tent 11 Simultaneous Test f2 Applied Multleonductor il Multiconductor la voltage black red white black red white black red white Unsged 600 Vac 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 s Aged 600 Vae 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 Fost Test 600 Vac 180 >750 >750 200 150 540 Measurementa not performed 1200 Vac $750 e Table 3.10: Leakage Current Valut. for LPR D Multiconductors. 2$ Measurements were periorned at the completion ot i simultaneous test i l r.nd o n d a y 20 louring the unanticipated cooldown) for simultaneous test 12. Post test leakage current reasurements were not performed on multiconductor 12. This cable was removed from the ste:n chanber prior to the restart of steam and radiation exposures on day 21 and kept for future analysis. Figure 3 9b 111ustrates the bare copper conductor evident for this cable. All measurements were made at the conpletion of one minute electrification. Meenutenents were between the copper conductor and a grountled wat er ba th. For simultaneous test 97 the water bath had a conductivity of 360 umhos/cm. 1 m m-4 l

EII I I I I I I E' O= BLACK CONDUCTOR _ 0:-RED CONDUCTOR O = WHITE CONDUCTOR - 2 1 = = = 0 ? o E ~ I 11 C 10 - =- -= ~ W ~ o o g 10 p. 10 5-m _I m g g 8 z 10 =- O 5 = H oo o U [ C o a ~ D 8 5 o O ,0 g U7 2 o o O = O o ~ o _ of O o 7 Bo 10 r - 6-e B E L O W G 5 IN S T R UMENT-RANGE 6 10 O 12 24 5 15 25 i l HOURS POST DAYS TEST AG D l UNAGED Figure 3.10. Insulation Resistance Measurements for an EPR D Multiconductor During Simultaneous Test Fl. Measurements for day 13 were at room temperature during an unanticipated cooldown. l

i-EII I I I I I I ^ O= BLACK CONDUCTOR Er O= RED CONDUCTOR 2 10 Ef O= WHITE CONDUCTOR n E 11 i 10 C; E S E g g Z 10 E = m CO ~ g Q 1O' C =- = z O 5 9 b Oh I-< =j 10 0 g 7 Q m = Z Z O Cg A 60 7 O OO i 10 y = 2 -O - -tQ BELOW E INSTRUMENT : RANGE 6 10 ti i i, i l 0 12 24 5 15 25 l HOURS POST DAYS TEST AGED UNAGED Figure 3.11. Insulation Resistance Measurements for EPR D Multiconductor fl During Simultaneous Test #2. After ambient measurements on day 1,8 during unanticipated cooldown, I.H. testing for this cable was terminated.

~S \\ 5 Eli I i i l i ! E l O= BLACK CONDUCTOR _- 12 @ O= RED CONDUCTOR O= WHITE CONDUCTOR _ 10 -5 e 2 E i Ci - 11 10 r W 5 E o z 4 l-O e1 r u) I g Z 9 o 10 = 0 p i o o g 3 (S S O O O ^ 10 o g = = = 2 O OO ~ Q 7 10 =- O t= 5 --O-(D-CD-g i BELOW i INSTRUMENT RANGE 6 10 Il I I I I I O 12 24 5 15 25 l HOURS POST DAYS TEST AGED UNAGED I'ig ure 3.12. Insulation Resistance Measurements for EPR D Multi-conductor #2 During Simultaneous Test #2. After av.bient measurements on day 18 during unanticipated

cooldown, I.R.

testing for this cable was terminated. ~81-A

, p.

'y L. & P:

• "9

,.y s 4 s m','.c_ n., w wwW. w. 1-

::.. f' 2

.1 ..,,L... .~e. D. .J. * .-... ; f - ;; *+ e ) M d. e e. kW*.,,,,, %g.- u. f.- ..? .cy e -&, .p '.:': 7 k;.;,- yig~ .. th ':r.Dw. h Jh  ;. ~ c$_e.s* %%Q}. ~. f; -T X, M., ?* ^'.. A .m.~.. ~, 1

• . s,:

--~~-a _. :n n. v.x.... +u. m ::.s >4 w-- .,*-*'a- . "dr 3 4.D.~ c.- -a w.

.. m

. O dA y > p 6<0,.-D-* t. z.s ' ..U'" -. L.. 2 :,' I.N.;.... E

• l'.' Dr.

m ~.pv.~ - +.3

7.,...~

.~ ggt %. tcb.,.V 9 h+- - Q %g

• • -EPR A without jacket

.u ..y.,- S2,3 I-h-k-N PR B l glE f '. _. - ~j. . i. y W J ^ g j-p. [ t- ~~ q,7 c.,

'g, s..

.. :y.13 (.7? M.. 454.q,g.kG..E i f, M. g g % q

M.M...EPRA

_g fh M-(l977) e m 3... g e,,. ~ . -- 3 4 . r f**. .l ? -q -q-~~~,...s y a~ p -.&- e x.j. na c ~- la_,>v., -w._. i . m:- t-'- ..._ _ s..; L,w, - ~ ~~- -- .,.. gi -pg o 1 t - -- ) g.. 6

s ~s-i<

l '. y- ~... -~ k.., w : - :.:~.. '~'n ~1% I...,-.., <. m -r, w t-. - ' ~.; u e u: s:, %'H,;..wL. --4 .,? !... - j.,. e y s' I f:f 4 J;;".c..., ::s. - 9 M....... :: 3

4.,

p .s fd'y,. '5d.. y *gi,.. -f. EPR E , V~'eyM;g. iggs.3-h,; g "d# m' k[M:=DW:,. dW6Mhs-- ~, '..pY i

Ei88,

.

/. {

y . ;n.. ~.... ":"..n:;:~,~;;r;;?.s ....-.-,n e.: p. m. 3 ,s j' - - - - -. g ~< ?' u, g ,a. s ..**)

1. dha 2 * *

-ad** i = V%_. ... 2_. w. .. ~. .J EPR E ..y..-,.- v,. g&,-, k W ^*=4~'n-T.; * - W;ef.e :s.~. 3 4... x,.; *j f1.:c.. Jn_ .Q i,'. ~ '  :. ~ m. -.

y.:,,,,.;v.. w 'r.

3 ,.,.t :.9,:.v~;., -s ^ m. L.: 3 EPR B + 4 ... L] .&. :.g..:s::,.-:: =h.: :,9 - u ; +...

.~

g! hbY .N:<.-" 25PPs IMW. CnW49E EPR D without Jacket deum Ma'iSRnn @ gM Y-4 Y A M: i.Lif A wid

• W.n3

.:.t?.: * . :: 4... t .,g ,::.. 3 v :. :. .1 ~ 3 Figure 3.13. Cables at Completion of the Sequential '4 Test 9 0 .i 9 J ) 4 81-t J, e T 'e 0 a-**.'98851 .,, -- "#94444., -- q a.e tq.,.,,,_ y, gyg g,' T*~eenn.e ,__-J %_; p

c 4 'V Applied Voltage Leakage Current (mA) hiack conductor red conductor white conouctor 600 vac 1.2 1.3 1.4 1200 Vac J.S 2.6 a.5 1800 Vac J.7 4.0 J.8 a 19 3.0 2400 Vac 3.1 S*a i e cn us' Table 3.11: Leakage Cur r ent Valu'en for EPR D Multiconductor at the Completion of tne Sequential Test Exposure. Measuremer.tn were made at the completion of one minute electr if ication for the 600 1200, and 1600 Vac exposures a five minute and at the completson at electrification at 2400 Vac. Measurements were between the copper conductor and a grounded water bath. l.cakage current nnstrumentation was not available to measure leakaqe currents of 5 to 10 sA. 4 e e s

T. G e 11 + .?; I I..- 3II I I I I i l 3 r-(1 1 6 1 -o .h.c 12 10 o = = [ ~ a ^ s E. 33 10 e 3 C E = 3 o s- ~ 99 QQQ ~ W o Z O

t 1

r O 1 s F ~ ~ i m O O 4 f y t c: 9 i 10 = = Z E E I 9 ~ O ~ Q O O ~ ~ ~ O o O 000 51o-o = = m i O E 4s, E 00 ...) ~ 7 O BLACK CONDUCTOR 10 g-O RED CONDUCTOR ] ~ j O WHITE CONDUCTOR 4 6 10 'j O 12 24 5 15 25 i ,3 POST HOURS DAYS a, TEST 3 [*j AGED .'O \\ '~ -1 UNAGED 7 4 7 ] Figure 3.14. Insulation Resistance for EPR D Multiconductor During the Sequential Test 3 Ji '4 $ ( .) s 4 o

In contrast to the poor electrical proparties exhioited by the single the multiconductars during simultaneous testing, conductors had low leakage currents and high insulation l resistance values at the completion of the simultaneous tests (Table 3.12 and Figure 3.15). Visually, the insulation was Measurements performed at intact with no bare conductor evident. the the completion of the second simultaneous test indicate that single conductor insulation had swelled. (The outer diameter was .41 cm for unexposed "new" single .46 cm compared to S Weight measurements demonstrated that the single S conductor,s). conductor insulation increased in weight during the steam exposure by at least 30%. (This measurement was taken within one week of the completion of the steam exposure and represents a lower bound f or the weight gain.) For the sequential test the EPR D single conductors also haa low leakage currents and high insulation resistance values at tne (Table 3.13 and Figure 3.16). completion of the steam exposure Visually the insulation was intact with no bare conductor evident. The insulation had swelled (the outer diameter was .41 cm for unexposeo "new" single .46 cm compared to % conductors). Weight measurements were not performed. 3.4.3 Insulation Soecimens Insulation specimens were used to monitor both weight changes and tensile properties. We removed specimens after the first four days or the steam exposure and also at the completion (For simultaneous test # 2 the specimens of the steam exposure. were removed during the unanticipated cooldown on day 18.) summarizes the percentage increases in insulation Table 3.14 specimen weight, length, and outer diameter f or the LOCA simulations. Simultaneous LOCA test #2 contained both unaged ano simultaneously aged specimens. For both simultaneous LOCA the simultaneously aged specimens had substantial exposures, The sequentially exposed weight and dimensional increases. specimens had smaller weight and dimensional changes during the (especially aftet 4 days LOCA exposure). The LOCA simulation unaged specimens exposed to a simultaneous LOCA had relatively (when compared to the other EPR D rusults) small weight and dimensicnal changes. insulation After removal from the steam exposure, the EPR D specimens desorbed the moisture collected during the steam Figure 3.17 illustrates thic behavior. exposure. O D 9

• )

- - - _ -.. _ + .,c 'I 1 Applied Voltage Leakage Current (mA) Simultaneous Tent il Simultaneous Test 12 Single Conductor fl Single Conductor te Unaged 600 Vac 0.5 U.5 Aged 600 Vac 0.5 U.6 Post Test 600 Vac 1.0 e.g o, I?CO Yee 2.2 e.g. m 3.7 1800 vac 3.6 s 2.7 2400 Vac 10 >x >5 5.0

• Measurement made during unanticipated cooldown and cable removed f rom chamber prior to restarting the steam exponure

[ l Table 3.12: Leakage Current for EPR D Single Conductors During Sinultaneous Testa. Measurements were l made at the conpletion of a one minute electrification for the 600, 1200, ano 1800 Vac r exposures and at the completion ot a five minute electrification at 2400 Vac. Measurements were between the copper conductor and a grounced sater bath. l l s -,e-v-.- ,-m .n

[tI I I I I I i ~ ~ 1 i ~ 12 o o 10 C 8 6 E ~ ~ ~ 6 11 = 10 e d W ~ O k ~ 0bO C C 10 F 10 =- m I m m 6 c Z 9 O 10 F 5 C@ 5 9 O 8 [3 N 10 5 O SIMULTANEOUS TEST +1 O SIMULTAREOUS TEST +2 7 10 SlHGLE CONDUCTOR +1 3 7 O SIMULTANEOUS TEST +2 ~ I SINGLE CONDUCTOR +2 6 10 i o 12 24 5 15 25 l HOURS POST DAYS TEST AGED UNAGED rigure 3.15. Insulation Resistance for EPR D Single Conductors During Simultaneous Tests. Simultaneous test #1 data for day 11 is at room temperature; simultaneous test $2 data for day 18 is at room temperature. This data was obtained during unantic.iPated cooldowns during the steam exposures.. 4 -

I Applied Voltage Leakage Current (mA) 1.0 600 Vac 2.0 1200 Vac 3.1 1800 Vac 2400 Vac 4.5 Table 3.13: Leakage Current for EPR D Single Conducto'r at Completion of Sequential Steam Exposure. Measurements were made at the completion of one minute electrification for the 600, 1200, and 1800 Vac exposures and at the completion of a five minute electrification at 2400 Vac. Measurements were between the copper conouctor and a grounded water bath. e 4 4 e S 0 6 i

U (X 1 1 I I I I I I E ~ ~ -0 O 12 O 10 -=- E l n E 8 11 s-1 g 10 00 O o00 m o ko10 00 ? 1 =- F E E M _~ M W 8 10 0 s =- z O o I-O o J 8 3_ a 10 =- M Z 7 10 r 7 2 6 i i ^ i i i 10 o 12 24 5 15 25 l HOURS POST DAYS TEST AGED UNAGED Figure 3.16. Insulation Resistance for EPR D Single Conductor During the Sequen,tial Test 8 -

e Sequential Simultanesus Simultaneous T'st 82 e Test Test 11 Aged at start of LOCA Unaged at start et LOCA Weight Increase 4 d LOCA 52 + 3 120 1 4 144 1 5 16 + 2 Unanticipated Cooldown 172 + 5 23 1 2 End of LOCA 121 1 4 173

• 5 Length Increase 4 d LOCA 2+3 28 + 3 33 + 4 2+3 e

c) Unanticipated 8 Cooldown 42 + 4 74 3 End of LOCA 5+3 3513 Outer Diameter Increase 4 d LOCA 14 + 5 38 + 4 41 + 3 S+3 Unanticipated Cooldown 47 + 3 10 + 3 End of LOCA 38 1_5_ 53 + 3 Table 3.14: Percentage Increase for EPR D Insulation Speclaen Properties l l l l i

h! Th2 insulatien ep;cinsna w2ro cico uccd oc tensilo specimens. Ultimate tensile elongation and ultimate tensile. strength were measured prior to aging, af ter aging, af ter 4 days of LOCA exposure and at the completion of the LOCA exposure. Since moisture absorption may act as a plasticizer and substantially influence tensile properties, we performed tensile measurements (1) within 24 hours of removing the tensile specimens from the steam environment (simultaneous test il and sequential test) and (2) several months after removing the tensile specimens from the steam environment (all three tests). We monitored the weight of the samples to insure that it had stabilized prior to performing these latter measurements. Results are given in Table 3.15. For both sets of measurements, the dimensions of the samples (both inner and outer diameters) were different than f or unaged specimens. Our reported tensile strength values were calculated using the unaged cross-sectional areas. This was necessitated by the difficulty of measuring the inner diameters for the swollen insulation. (Otalitatively, the sequentially exposed specimens had smaller inner diameters than unaged specimens while the simultaneously exposed specimens had larger inner diameters.) 3.4.4 Jacket and Insulation Chemical Analysis A white powder migrated to the surface of the chlorinated polyethylene jacket cf EPR D multiconductors during both the secuential and simultaneous tests. For the simultaneous test tne powder was evident at the completion of aging. For the sequential 4 test we first observed it on the eighth day of the LOCA simulation during our visual examination in response to the unanticipated cooldown. Upon completion of the accident exposures we removed some of the powder f rom the sequentially exposed jacket and performed emission spectroscopy and wet chemical analysis. Antimony (> 10 wt %), chlorine (w 4.5 wt %) and bromine (v 8 wt %) were important iconstituents of the powder. Wet chemical analysis was used to determine whether the chlorine or bromine had diffused into or interacted with the EPR D insulation enclosed inside the CPE jacket. For comparison purposes, analysis was also performed on an unaged specimen and on single conductor specimens. The single conductor specimens had been exposed without a jacket to our sequential and simultaneous tests. Neither the single conductors nor the unaged insulation specimens had detectable bromine contents (< .2 wt %). Chlorine contents of 6 to 10 wt % were detected. The EPR D specimens enclosed inside a CPE jacket did have measurable bromine contents i (.7 wt % after simultaneous exposure; 2.5 wt % after sequential exposures) and slightly enhanced chlorine contents (10-12 wt %). Additional details are presented in Appendix B. 9 e

• g, 4:r

{, 1000 1 D = SIMULTANEOUS 4d LOCA i n b-X = SIMULTANEOUS LOCA (END OF l ~ SIMULTAf4EOUG +1 TEST) i w g 0 = SEQUEf4TIAL 4d LOCA O = SEQUENTIAL LOCA (El4D OF TEST) 2 J Q O 100 c. c ~\\ D W \\ O \\ O 2 } r.'. r, 0 l e ON G 'ij 7 'r-Z o w F 10 Z O O 5 s o D l- _0 c O M 1 I I I I I I O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 DAYS AFTER REMOVAL FROM STEAM EXPOSURE Figure 3.17. EPR D Weight Changes After Rc'moval From Exposures,

r t.)

i I i I i Condition sequential 1est Simultaneous Test il Simultaneous 02 Samples Aged Before LOCA Samples Aged Samples Unaged be f or e 1DCA before thCA e/c T/T e/c T/T e/e T/T e/e T/t o o o o o o o o Unaged 1.00+.04 1.001 04 1.00+.04 1.00+.04 1.00+.09 1.001 05 1.00+.09 1.00+.05 (240+104) (8.8+ (2401104) (8.01 (240110%) (3.31 (240+104) tu.6+ 0.6MPa)

0. 611P a )

0.6MPa) 0.6MPa) t Aged .41+.04 1.041 04 .19+.01 .591 04 .12+.04 .75+.04 After 1 Sequential RAccident .08+.01 .691 07 4 d LOCA 04 .52+.04* .131 01 .57+.04* .16+.02 .58+.048 .331 07 1.091 08* t.09**) 1 4**) t.16**) (.<**) 16 d LOCA ,.18+.02 .52+.05 251 04 .57+10* 8 us End of l LOCA .06*.04 .50+.11* .13+.02 .61+.02* I (.0T**) (.2I**) t.0T**) t.2I**) i

• Because of the difficulty of r.casuring changes in cross-sectional j

area. we norma 11:ed T/To using the unaged cross-sectional areas. I j

• *These measurements were made within 24 hours af ter removing samples from steam chamber.

Table 3.15: Ultinate Tensile Properties for RFA D. f The LOCA tensile nessurements (eacept those marked by **) were performed af ter the sample l weight had stab!!! sed. 1 i i I

?' 3.5 EPR E EPR E multiconductor ccblec, cinglo conductcr ccblos, cnd insulation tensile specimens were exposed during the sequential test and simultaneous test 41. We generated the single conductor cable by carefully disassembling a multiconductor cable. Because the primary jacket and insulator were bonded together, our single - conductor cables actually consisted of a jacket and insulator covering the conductor. We obtained compression molded sheets of the insulation material from the manufacturer and used. them to generate our tensile specimens. Multiconductor Results Simultaneous test il contained one EPR E multiconductor cable with 8.4 m of cable inside the steam chamber. The sequential test contained three EPR E multiconductors with lengths internal to the steam chamber of 6.3, 9.2, and 17.6 m. 4 Insulation resistance (I.R.) measurements were performed periodically on these cables throughout the aging and accident These measurements were made between one of the exposures. conductors of the multiconductor and the ground wire and ground sheath with the other conductor of the multiconductor guarded. Our megohmmeter had a minimum reading of 1 Ma at 500 Vdc and 0.1 Ma at 50 Vdc. During thefirst 171'C LOCA steam peak we measured I.R. 3.7x10 a-m for both conductors of the EPR E values of multiconductor in the simultaneous chamber. For the three EPR E multiconductorsexposedtothesequentialgestprofile,a-m and 2.5x10g black th conductors gave I.R. values between 1.7x10 ..-m at 50 Vdc (readings at 500 Vdc were less than our instrument range.) We did not measure the white conductors at 50 Vdc curing the first 171*C steam peak. I Figure 3.18 illustrates the I.R. cata for the 9.2 m multiconouctor cable (white conductor) during the sequential test as well as the I.R. data for the multiconductor cable (white conductor) during the simultaneous test. Insulation resistance measurements recorded for day 11 were during the unanticipateo room temperature cooldown and are several oroers of magnituoe larger than those recorded durin.g the steam exposure. The simultaneous exposure I.R. values are typically an orcer of magnitude better than the sequential exposure 1.R. values (For the sequential exposure', the normalized 1.R. values for the threc .nulticonductor cables rarely varied by more than a f actor of two. This suggests that our measurement error is substantially less than the difference between the simultaneous and sequential results.) A similar order of magnitude difference between cimultaneous and sequential I.R. values was observec for the black conductors. +,

5Il i I I I I i = = 12 10 00 Eo 5 l = 0 8 E O 33 i 10 _E C E O w o Z 10 10 = F E E th G o O O m 0 0 CC 9 10 = O = = z = o O o l~< 0 0 000 0 O d 10 6 g 0 0 oo 5 5 0 a 00 O 7 O SIMULTANEOUS +1 10 o SEQUENTIAL (500V) E O 0 0 SEQUENTIAL (50V) 0 10 I I I i f 0 12 24 5 15 25 I HOURS POST DAYS MST AGED UNAGED rigure 3.18. Insulation Resistance for EP3 E Multiconductors ' Me 3+

~~~ At completion of our LOCA simulations we performed leakage ~. current measurements for each conductor of our multiconductor During these tests the conductor was connected to th~e cables. The other conductor high voltage terminal of the testing unit. The cable:was also and the shield and ground wire were grounded. We summarize in Table . immersed into a grounded tap water bath. At 2400 Vac, each 3.16 our results for the black conductors. conductor had leakage currents greater than 750 mA (the upper A 2400 Vac withstano measurement range of our instrumentation). test voltage was used by the manufacturer during his However, the 30 mil thick composite qualification tests. insulation and jacket contained a 20 mil insulation layer with a Therefore a 1600 Vac withstand test more 10 mil jacket layer. 383-1974. adequately reflects the 80 Vac/ mil intent of IEEE Std After a 1 minute 1600 Vac exposure, our measured leakage currents (Since were less than 10 mA for each of the black conductors. the 750 mA leakage currents during the black conductor measurements may have impacted the later white conductor measurements, we do not report the white conductor test results For multiconductor leakage current testing there at 1600 Vac.) is no significant dif ference between simultaneous and sequential test results. 3.5.2 Sincie Conductor Results ? In contrast to our EPR E multiccaductor I.R.

results, sequentially exposed EPR E single conductors had a factor of 10 higher I.R. values than did simultaneously exposed EPR E single conductors.

Figure 3.19 illustrates this behavior. All I.R. mecsurements were performed after a one minute 500 Vdc As for the multiconductor results, insulation electrification. resistance measurements recorded on day 11 are several orders of magnitude higher thasn those measured during the steam exposure since they were measured at ambient temperatures. Table 3.17 summarizes our leakage current data obtainea a t the ;ompletion of the test exposures. These sinjle conductor measurements were between the conductor and a grounded water bath. We do not observe significant differences in leakage current caused by dif f erences between simultaneous and sequential test procedures. 3.5.3 , Insulation Specimens Insulation specimens were used to monitor weight changes, 1 dimensional changes, and tensile ~ properties. We removed l specimens after the first four days and at the completion of the There was not appreciable increase in any of steam exposure. i these parameters because of the test exposures. k

- _ _.. =- l l l l l l ~~ Leakage Current (mA) Simultaneous Test 11 Applied Voltage Sequential Test Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 600 vae 1.8 1.6 1.3 3.2 1000 vac 3.1 3.1 3.7 5<x<19 1600 vac 5+x*10 $<x*10 5<ss10 5<x*10 e f ID 2400 Vac

• 150
• 150
• 750
• 750 a

1 Table 3.16: Lenkage current values for EPR E Mult1 Conductors Atter, l the Sequential and Simultaneous Il typosures. Measurements were made at the c wpletion ot one minute electritication for the 600, 1000, an/. 1600 vac exposures. At the 2400 Vac the instrumert neasurement range (750 mA) was exceeded prior to l a 5 minute electrification. the completion of 9 1 l l 1 l

If 1,.- s-E I l-1 I I I I I E Q -0 12 0 10 e 3 O o E 31 10 = d i E g 0 o 1go -" z< ~ o O p O m 5 0 3 u) O tu O 9 O c-10 e = o Z E O_ o o .~ 1-o 0 o 0 8 d 10 o 0o m E o E Z ~ g ~ 7 0, O SIMULTANEOUS +1 10 E i o SEQUENTIAL O 6 10 0 12 24 5 15 25 l I POST } I HOURS DAYS TEST ] 3 l AGED UNAGED figurc 3.19. Insulation Resistance tur EPR E Composite Primary Insulation and Jacket

o ogt' e o r Leakage Current (mA) Applied Voltage Sequential Test Simultaneous Test il 600 vac 0.9 1.2 1000 Vac 1.5 2.2 1603 Vac 2.6 so 5.0 j) 2400 Vac > 750 3 150 l Table 3.17: Leakage Current Val *ses Ist EPR E Single Conductor Cables After the Sequential and Jimultaneous fl Exposures. Measurements were made at the completion of one minute electri!!catipp., tor,tip f00, 1000, and 1600 Vac exposures. t At the 2400 vac the instrument measurement range (750 mA) was exceeded prior to the completion of a 5 minute electrification. b

• 0 e.

, _ _ ~ - _

Ultimato tencilo olongation end ultimato tyngilo stesngth wero mnasured prior to aging, after aging, after 4 days of LOCA exposure and at the completion of the LOCA exposure. Tensile measurements were made within 24 hours of removing the tensile specimens from the steam environment and also several months after removing the specimens from the chamber. Results are given .in Table 3.18. The sequential test exposures reduce both the ultimate tensile strength and the ultimate tensile elongation ' ore than does the simultaneous test exposure. m 3.6 EPR F Two EPR F s1.igle conductor cable and insulation tensile' specimens were exposed during simultaneous test #2. 3.6.2 Electrical Results: , Figure 3.20 illustrates the I.R. behavior of both EPR F single conductors. All measurements were performed after a one minute 500 Vdc electrification between the conductor ano the grounded steam chamber. (The chamber contained either steam or water during all I.R. measurements. For the unageo, aged, day 18, and post test data ambient temperature tap water was in the chambers. All other measurements were performed in the steam environment.) Table 3.19 summarizes our leakage current data cbtained during the test. These single conductor measurements were between the conductor and a grcunded tap water bath. 3.6.2 Insulation Specimens: Insulation specimens were used to monitor weight and dimensional changes during the accident simulation. We removed specimens after the first four days and during the unanticipated cooldown of the steam exposure (simultaneous test #2). He report in Table 3.20 results for two sets of insulation specimens: those that were aged with the cables and those that were unaged prior to the start of the LOCA simulation. Upon removal from the steam environment, the samples desorbcd moisture. Tensile properties are reported in Table 3.21. 3.7 EPR G Two EPR G single conductor cables were exposed during simultaneous test #2. The jacket and insulation were bonded together for these conductors and nence we could not generate any insulation tensile specimens. Figure 3.21 illustrates the I.R. i behavior of both EPR G single conductors. All measurements were performed after a one minute 500 Vdc electrification between the conductor and the grounded steam chamber. (The chamber containe'd either stea.n or water during all I.R. measurements. For the unaged, aged, day 18, and post test data ambient temperature tap water wss used in the chamber. All other measurements were perf ormed in the steam environment.) Table 3.22 summarizes our leakage current data obtained during the test. These single conductor measurements were between the conductor and a grounded tap water bath. -100-

%. 4

-..w.44 04.ieh% NS T.1/inidfgj f u.. g...~ w u....(..,(. [ N...

-. % dN44N);hhdhhb.jN$h'.4. 4 'sh pa., 2.. .;./g,h ig.,c,.. g. ' N simultaneous Test il Condition Sequential Test e/c T/T,*

efe, T/T,*

o Unaged 1.00+.12 1.00+.16 1.00+.12 1.00+.16 ~ ~ ~ (380 + 50) (8.4 1 0.3 HPa) (380'+ 50) (8.4 1 0.3 MPa) Aged .34+.04 1.38+.29 .491 07 1.28+.22 After Sequential .11+.02 1.45+ 29 RAccident I 4 d 1,0CA .04+.01 .68+.14 .27+.04 1.22+.25 g .07I.01** .77114** .311 05** 1.22E.23** ~ w End of LOCA .05+.01 .71+.14 .19+.03 1.18+.21 I .07+.01** .75+.18** .19i.04** .98T.17'*

• We normalized T/T using the unaged cross-sectional areas.

o

• • These measurements were made within 24 hours after removino samples from the steam chamber.

Table 3.18: Ultimate Tenaile Properties for EPR E. The I/XA tensile measurements (eacePt thone tra r k ed by * *) were performed after the sample weight had stabilized. I 5

3II I I I I I I 5 9 12 10 g o 0 s = o n E, i C 10 5 3 = = m g Z o ~ ~ 0 p 1 r 3 O O'O m 00 o g ~ O ~ 9 68 ~ Z 10 = o = _0_ 5 = t_ Q .1 V .3 6 0 m 10 = 9 E 5V O ~ O = CABLE #1 ~ O = CABLE +2 i 7 10

=

=_ _~ 6 10 0 12 24 5 15 25 l HOURS I POST DAYS TEST kGED l UNAGED Figure 3.20. Insulation Resistance for EPR F Single Conductor Cables During Simultaneous Test #2 d -102-i

_,y_,-- ,-...,<.m, /,imsg) t ~. e Applied Voltage Leakage Current (mA) 1 Sin <ric Conductor fl Single Conductor 62 Unaged 600 vac 0.4 0.4 Aged 600 Vac 0.4 0.4 Post Test ha 600 Vac c3 0.7 0.7 1200 Vac 'd 1.3 1.4 1800 Vac ~~ 2.0 2400 Vac 2.0 2.7 >5 Table 3.19: Leakage Currerta for EPR F Single Conductors During Simultaneoun Tent 42. Measurements were made at the completion of a one minute electrification for the 600, 1200, and 1000 Vac exposures and at the completion of a five minute electrl!! cation at 2400 Vac. Measurements were between the copper conductor and a grounded water bath. 4 =

i.i .': *W j .h '- 4

f.,

4 5-t .= <>P I n; n + ..? 2 d, - se. A 2 Samples Aged Samples Unaged

+

before LOCA before IACA ~ ~ Weicht Increase j f 4 d LOCA 59 _+ 1 ,8+1 Unanticipated i ACooldown 94 + 2 20 + 1 a '4; Leneth Increase 4 d LOCA 9+5 0+5 r Unanticipated 7 Cooldown 15 + 5 215 Ceter Diameter ?. Increase n .- 5

Q 4 d U>CA 23 1 2 3+2

.m '.)s Unanticipated

j Cooldown 31 + 2 6 +2 I

.j l -4 .]. Table 3.20: Percentage Increase for EPR F Insulation Specimen Properties During Simultaneous Test 12. S -~ S 4 o ' al ,4 74 a ',<9 g 4 5

r. ob 2

4 .g <4 .-B 9 Ti I 4 e 1 -104- 'I t. ,3) '.l4

D- ~ ~. ~ 4 5II I I I i l 1 5 i t2 so q_3 o O n E 11 8 10 =- 3 C 5 E w g idO Z r oo o 1 H m OO e 06 0 o m CC 9 ,o n =- = a 6 o P o O O 1 g o 4 E 6 <0 t m =. m 5 5 z 0 7 O= CABLE +1 10 _r o= CABLE +2 5 6 10 i i O 12 24 5 15

25. l l HOURS POST DAYS TEST AGED UNAGED 1

Figure 3.21. Insulation Resistance for EPR G Single Conductors (composite insulation and jacket) During Simultaneous Test.12 .l -105-

'l 2 9 I Condition Samples Aged at Start of LOCA e/e T/T

• Samples Unaged Prior to Start of 14CA n

o e/e, T/T

• o Unaged 1.00 +.05 1.00 +.06 1.00 +.05 1.00 +.06

'(288 + 13%) (12.4 + 0.8 MPa) (288 + 134) (12.4 + 0.8 MPa) ~ ~ Aged .50 +.04 .91 +.06 s-. ,o Atter 4d LOCA .22.+. 01 .77 _+.06 .28 _+.05 .85 _+.08 Unanticipated Cooldown .10 + 04 .57 +.08 .10 1 01 .58 +.07

• We normalized T/ o using the average unaged crosa-sectional area.

T Table 3.21: Ultimate Tensile Propertien for EPR F During Simultaneous Test $2 i G l i 1

3..

o i APPlled Voltage Leakage Current (mA) Single Conductor Il Single Conductor (2 Unaged 600 Vac 0.5 0.5 Aged 600 Vac 0.5 0.5 Post Test be 600 Vac O ~0.7 0.6 1200 Vac }# 1800 Vac 1.7 1.2 2.2 2.0 2400 Vac > 5.0 5.0 Table 3.22: Leakage Current for EPR G Single Conductors During Simultaneous Test 12 Measurements were made at the completion of a one minute electrification for the 600, 1200, and 1800 Vac exposures and at the completion at a five minute electrification at 2400 vac. Measurements were between the copper conductor and a grounded water bath. 9 e e 1

a i 3.8 EPR-1483 Ccmproccion molded EPR-1483 was cut into tensile specimens and aged by seven diff erent simulations (see section 2.3.2). At completion of aging the samples were inserted into the HIACA steam cr. ambers at appropriate test points so that for each of the seven aging populations, one-third of the tensile specimens were exposed to one of three accident simulations: 1. sequential accident irradiation.than steam exposure (the sequential accident test) 2. ' simultaneous accident irradiation and steam exposure (simultaneous accident test #1) 3. steam exposure only (the s team exposure of the sequential test) Unaged tensile specimens were also exposed to these accident simulations. EPR-1483 specimens were removed from the HIACA tes t chambers af ter the first four days and at the completion of the steam exposures. Tables 3.23-3.25 summarize weight and dimensional changes resulting from the different aging and accident combinations. Results for tensile properties are given in Tables 3.26-3.28. Figure 3.22 illustrates that the weight and volume gains are linearly related while Figure 3.23 demonstrates an inverse relationship between the weight gain and the ultimate tensile ~ s treng th. 3.9 Japanese EPR-5 Prior to the start of simultaneous test # 2, Dr. T. Seguchi of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Takaski, provided some compression molded sheets of EPR-5, a commercial chemically cross-linked fire-retardant EPDM insulation material. The sheets were cut into tensile specimens; half were aged with the cables tested during simultaneous test $2. The other half (unaged) were inserted into the steam chamber prior to the start of the simultaneous # 2 accident simulation. Weight gain and dimensional changes during the accident exposure are summarized in Table 3.29. Insulation ultimate tensile properties are summarized in Table 3.30. 9 -108-

p I l I Calculated t Weight t Length 4 Width n Thickness t Volume Aging Method

• Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase i

Unaged 17 5+3 611 16 + 13 2 9 + 15 94 h T + H 22 713 8+1 21 1 5 40 + 7 7dT+R 67 1913 20 + 1 46 + 9 108 1 14 30 d T + R 45 16 + 7 15 1 3 31118 75127 28 d T + 28 d R 22 713 9+3 24 + 11 45 + 14 ~ h 28 d R + 28 d T 30 914 12 + 1 2016 46 + 9 O ]) 28 d T + 55 h R 24 7 1 3-811 23 1 6' 4218 55 h R + 28 d T 30 9+4 10 + 1 26 + 5 5118 + Table 3.23: EPR-1403 Properties After the Simultaneous Radiation and Staan Accident Simulation.

• See Section 21.3.2 for aging detallo.

l e l

3..-- q..

. ~.. - .,, ~ ~,. m - g.? +-- W - .rgy ,3 .m .':y* ) .- ' n-r , *;;A n,-%p.: 4 ;.,y g. . - +.' . o.g .( g.6.. 7 ..j.v A.. .c,.m _i --. e ?:y.w.. - :. :.y .,,c..; . y..j.. c .,2. 3_ .- c.. - n' L_ ,'f * - t. - * =.. < u \\ v:: .u. r u v. J ij

v.,.

i,. s. y .r - V S.1.~,. ,'+.,.1 J, p;..; ',. /L.,.,,.-;t i,*. : +. z. 4,.... 0.+,. s ~< p.3. ~ n.,;. s.:q. = 9 tc. .w s . :v o y, \\. ;..

3. ..:>

g ,.3 .. q m. . ~,. w4 s x. m :.:....? ... m, u..v. q

q. v.,.gg y'. w.

.a ~ g

e..

... ::. ~ -.~ =:, ,-Q

g..w. p:.m..

c. ' : m,.. ; ?.

a , L i,* ), ^ '.T ,..- ?, ; Mnl' "'MSEgc.- .'Q ,E.:Q' -h'$ - '.C Y

• h J.,..lJo *f e -. -.;.

g..

.,y t :. W '.. s d 4~

h. ':4.

M.. W ."/r,M f@/N4;.5,;3,;Q.:ii g y';n"i- ~- k m %, : ' u L.9 S':eh w%.u& .;,&e....,ce~,.r44., ;t. .<. G. M M < hsa .n. 2~.i A. k:C. $.',.m*r.a. i. s.,q*-,.,pJ s '; u.. ._ A%c. L1.%,' / !.p..N ~ .%q,! 't* -A . u rw -... a .m.. 4 . n ....,d N g yp g< g;$' \\- .T d'2%%r 4- / M. ' e-~d4 6 ,4 P'

• 'Thn.

@t,Ih%'g 4 *%=%p% g, ~?yI!O@n$$}t>- - t } tax.;4! ^ &w:^ G

.,V;c,yy*!b. n...0 trw ;.r~W ';q n:. cp.. s.:,.x.y?.

t ...,_ p :r ' %. y< My.;W j . 4,. -6 y %. b'.n..g-e, gyn..-syv;. : m...o.s. u.y w.Q A >%c..%, .~ nn _strg: .c. n..s e 2+ .+ .n _. c. g,w. ca. .n.. , A,n.. g.t.]... p Ky?, 9- ,.. g .M v s _N'.(m?. p. I.7' g ',, '.. ...r 3.: %~ _ N v,.:5.N

. 4,.,.

-

... r ,4 = MENTC-B.. j ~. g ...wR ~ C.y Q ( [ A... ~~ i 4- ..y> ..y g 1 3 w-am.M e

i.. 8+m., :

a.=.,%yJ v.c ,m..,.. A. ~.,...,. J h.% h Sh-h..,Lh. NMh. ph -.,li N.. ?..

a..

qv + = .,.. s

~... m

. r,, s,w -vmmt,'khj. g-i.~.4%9f.l .;.q*1;w s ~.a .~ o-h . n-xt?,f. M.v,Q4 m v k. x

.4

...b s .M.. _ _ m.If. N.M- _. v:. c :4 m..c....h:b.'a'..;.-M. ~ t 8 r-- ~ ' s. ,s: i.9 .w -.. a:,,? ' 9.:--x.

.i ~.. <. va,"

r '

..< q.x..uin; ; ? .y.

,n q>

.a ~ ,m, .r-- l 1 9 ...y y 4 y e-s } u..--- c 7 (;., e I k { . i. f f,/ \\, \\, e i c t. s g % & :' y 1 J ', l -j ' i., { ~ ~l Lc. -~- ~--.o O c' p:.,:>-;]!h u' p s 7 !M.~ ; % i i & ;c,,,, ',V. g.,i,N,,%;.-. ) . d h.; wwi

.;* @. &f-

T ^u W '- C.-

.Av 's...'D4 #:m,.,.?9:i:,EMg e%Q y,'y _. ;,._,. 4. p.. ' R..;; W...; % @ R%. -. -.r e.p'9 d: .0 q: $gsp;Mf,l',.W.. . M;%-,m W.,.: ;q;M .:.. -.e f Q i ?- . ?j

.,~g

-= -.- - w, 3 . ' ~. & - ..;,;,cg :s. x .-r. . ^y',"_ Q :..A - ',:f j [ g *.*; % 'f j M i G 4*. n 'l9.$hc c. i - - - v. '_T. 3 sq ::: . p.= q >:.-s? ..:.a w e m ). /. l. .,,.. + y ~ ,,/ I [ a.2-p, ( J ,s ., I.w. 4 g

8

/- 4 (' J' f-4 - <. s'J.U e,.%*.f r ..n. h,. (- l.

i-1. Nif

ii[ h h Q ^ ?l $ Qf@e$.

S:Q.....-f,' qmQ '%....] ) .:e' ' q:

• =-

[ - .s .h .s. 7.,:.m.,:; -. ,2 ..e ...,.D e g 9, [* 4 [....,....-~y .y -., m. e...y,., x c:- .~- .>/ h 4 .,.".,,,,,[..:

b..'

• 4

^ g ~ ~.,. n. u;,. ,.g, e l 1 3 4 t I ) i 1 i l l l 1 L

d Iu g! e l g i 1 ,D [ s d 1 R+ Ie, k I Calculated t Weight i Length % Width n Thicknecs t Volume p Aging Method

• Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase ___

Unaged -1 0+2 2+2 0+ 63 217 ( 94hT+R 5 0+2 3il 614 11 1 5 .n ? 7dT+R 46 14 + 4 17 + 1 36.+. 5 81 + 9 tj, e 30 d T + R 55 1614 16 1 3 34 1 10 80116

l P

P 28 d T + 28 d R 5 2+2 411 314 1615 l s 28 d R + 28 d T 12 3+3 6+1 12 + 6 2218 g 28 d T + 55 h R 8 2+2 -7 1 1 717 2+7 55 h R + 28 d T _ _ 10 2+2 5+2 1216 20 1 7 ' Table 3.24: EPR-1483 Properties After a Steam Only Accldent Simulation. m 5 9

i' ' '77, J ~ ~.. 1 l g weight % Length I hidth % Thickness g Volume Calculated Aging Method

• Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase Unaged

- -3 4 5+3 13 2 29 + 24 53 1 39 94 h T + R 39 7+3 7dT+R 14 1 1 32 ?,5 El 18 I 53 9+4 19 + 4 4 4 + 17 87 + 24 he 30 d T + R y 66 y 10 + 3 27 + 2 58 + 14 121 + 21 28 d T + 28 d R -e 5+3 17 + 2 28 d R + 28 d T 46 + 5 79 + 9 63 7 f, 3 18 + 1 45 + 5 28 d T + 55 h R 1 83+8 55 7+3 17 1 2 43 f,4 79 + 8 5 5 h R + 2 8 d 't, 58 733 19 1 3 4 2 + 13 81,f,18 t Table 3.25: EPR-1483 Properties Af ter the Sequential Radiation Followea by Steam Accident Simulation. l t

~- ...,,_y. e 8 O, e e After 4 d Steam At End of Steam After Agiag Only LOCA Only 14CA Aging Method

• T/T, s/e, T/T
• e/e T/T, e/e o

o o Unaged

1.001 05 1.00+.09 1.061 07

.961 09 1.08+.06 1.021 09 94 h T + R .991 05 .931 08 1.031 08 .92+.10 1.061 05 .881 08 7dT+R .83+.06 .41+.05 .70+.04 .361 05 .64+.04 .321 04 3 30 d T + R .791 07 .411 10 .73+.08 H ~ .431 07 .72** ,.42** [ 28 d T + 28 d R .98+ 07 .47+.10 .95+.09 .42+.05 .93+.08 .44+.04 23 d R + 28 d T 1.011 10 .411 05 91** .43** .78+.04 .461 09 28 d T + 55 h R .9,71 08 .351 04 .991 14 .40+.07 .981 05 .381 06 55 h R + 28 d T .931 06 .321 04 .83** .31** 1.011 07 .411 04

• = We normali ed T/T using the unaged cross-sectional areas.

o

• • = Only one sample available for measurement.

Table 3.26: EPR-1483 Ultimate Tensile Proper ties for the Steam Only IDCA Simulation. i ) . l

, - - ~ - ' ~ 4 i ' ' "y y; I r After 4 d Sequential At End ot Sequential - After Aging LOCA LOCA Aging Method

• T/T, c/c, T/T,*

e/e, T/T,* e/e o Unaged 1.001 05 1.00+.09 .72+.08 .141 02 .80+.05 .16+.02 94 h + R .991 05 .931 08 .801 05 .171 02 .721 08 .151 02 a 7dT+R .831 06 411 05 .581 08 .11+.02 .471 11 .091 02 30 d T + R .791 07 .411 10 .671 07 .121 02 .521 06 .111 01 ks 28 d T + 28 d R . 9 8.+. 0 7 .47.+. 10 . 6 4.+. 0 4 .11_+.02 g 8 2P d R + 28 d T 1.011 13 411 05 .621 08 .121 02 .551 08 .111 02 28 d T + 55 h R .971 08 .351 04 .711 13 .121 02 .711 04 .111 01 55 h R + 28 d T .931 06 .321 04 .511 04 .091.,01 .63+.13 .121 01

• = We normalized T/To using the unaged cross-sectinnal areas.

Table 3.27: EPR-1483 Ultimate Tenelle Properties for the Sequential Raolation Followed by Steam IECA Simulation.

li i 't li f After 4 d Simultaneous At End of Simultaneous After Aging LOCA Aging Method

• T/T e/e T/T
• e/c T/T
• e/e LOCA o

o o o o o Unaged 1.00+.05 1.00+.09 1.011 11 .27+.05 .80+.18 .161 02 l i 94 h T + R .991 05 .931 08 .94+.11 .241 04 .84+.17 .181 03 f 7dT+R .83+.06 .41+.05 .68+ 07 .211 03 .331 05 .081 01 30 d T + R .79+.07 .411 10 .69+.06 .211 03 .621 06 .161 03 i p 28 d T + 28 d R .98+.07 .47+.10 .901 06 .231 04 .74+.10 .161 02 H f 28 d R + 28 d T 1.0l+.10 .411 05 .891 16 .22+.04 .77+.12 .161 02 28 d T + 55 h R .971 08 .351 04 .9t't.08 .211 02 .801 11 .141 02 55 h R + 28 d T .93.06 .321 04 .81+.22 .18+.04 .69+.16 .13+.02 1

• = We normalized T/T using the unaged cross-sectional areas.

o T.ble 3.28: EPR-1483 Ultimate Tennile Properties for the Slaultaneous Radiation and Steam LOCA Simulation. ? d I {

t. I l I i i i i i i i 70 X o i O i 60 O O mo 50 k X O Io 40 ~ O l-I O $2 30 XX LOCA SIMULATION m TECHNIQUE: 3 X 2R 20 X = SIMULTANEOUS O = SEQUENTIAL i O = STEAM ONLY 10 0 O O 00 O I I I I l I O O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 % VOLUME CHANGE i Figure 3.22. Relationship Between Weight and Volume f Changes for EPR-1483 l e [ -115- ---e - - --m ....-.em.6 -,,._,r ,y-,.. -,.

~ ~ 70 ,X O i O 60 ~ O C O y 50 R yD 40 O LOCA S!!4ULATION Z O TECHNIQUE: l c 30 x x l W 3: X = SIMULTANEOUS 1 I O= SEQUENTIAL X.. x X g 20 O= STEAM ONLY x O i 10 O i O O O I I I O O O.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH (T/T,) Figure 3.23. Re'lationship Between Weight Changes for EPR-1483 and the Normalized Ultimate Tensile Strength 1 -116-

---

r,--,

..-,--,n. ,-,--.,--w--

o l I t t l I I Aged at Start of LOCA Unaged at Start of LOCS Weight Increase l 4 d LOCA 4411 25 f,1 Unanticipated Cooldown 7712 49 1 1 Length Increase 4 d LOCA 14 1 5 715 Unanticipated Cooldown 21 1 5 14 f,5 Width Increase t } P g 4 d LOCA =J 914 4 f, 4 a Unanticipated i Cooldown 1815 1114 Thickness Increase t 4 d LOCA 30 f,8 1814 Unanticipated Cooldown 451 4 35.+. 4 1 Table 3.29: Percentage Increase for Japanese EPR-5 Insulation specimen Properties i s I i l I i i f

9 1 I Condition 3amples Aged at Start of LOCA Samples Unaged Prior to Start of LOCA e/e T/T

• e/e T/T
• o o

o o .l Condition Samples Aged at Start of LOCA Samples Unaged Prior to Start of LOCA Unaged 1.00 + /07 1.00 +.17 1.00 +.07 1.00 +.17 ~ (560 + 37) (7.8 1 1.3 MPa) (7.8 + 1.3 MPa) (560 + 37) H ~ ~ w ~ f Aged .33 +.05 .97 +.17 i After 4d LOCA .13 +.02 .85 1 15 .19 1 02 .83 1 14 Unanticipated Cooldown .10 +.01 .80 +.14 .11 +.02 .79 +.17

• We normalized T/7, usir.1 the average unaged cross-sectional area.

Table 3.30: Ultimate Tensile Properties for Japanese EPR-5 During Simultaneous Test $2 Q e c -a e- ~ ~'

4.0 DISCUSSION For EPR A multiconductor cables we did n'ot ob' serve electrical performance variations caused by differences between our simultaneous and sequential test procedures. Insulation resistance, I.R., was monitored periodically during the test , exposures. A voltage withstand test was performed upon completion of the accident simulations. During this latter test the leakage current was measured. An observable electrical performance difference was noted for the EPR E multiconductor cables. For the sequentially exposed EPR E cables we were unable at the start of the LOCA simulation to make I.R. measurements at 500 Vdc. The I.R. values were less than the lowest instrument ll reading, namely 1 Mu. After reducing the applied voltage to 50 l Vdc we did measure normalized I.R. values of N 2 Mu-a. In contrast, the simultaneously exposed multiconductor EPR E cable had a normalized I.R. value of 37 Mu-a at 500 Vdc. The post-test leakage current values were similar for both the simultaneous and sequentially exposed EPR E cables. An EPR C multiconductor cable was exposed to simultaneous test il environmental conditions only. The normalized I.R. values were greater than 3000 Mu-m throughout the test. The post-test leakage current was less than 5 mA during a voltage withstand test of 80 Vac per mil of insulation thickness. Electrical performance of our EPR D multiconductors depended strongly on LOCA simulation techniques. Both electrically and ~ visually the simultaneously exposed EPR D multiconductor cables were worse than the sequentially exposed multiconductor cables. An example is provided by the post-LOCA leakage current data obtained after immersing the cables in tap water. At 600 Vac the sequentially exposed multiconductor had leakage currents of % 1 mA. In contrast, the simultaneously exposed i multiconductors had leakage currents of several hundred milliamps. Although we do not know exactly why this occurred, we will discuss three possibilities, the firbt of which we consider the most likely explanation. The remaining two l hypotheses are presented for completeness in the discussion. 1) Figure 3.9 illustrates that the EPR D multiconductor jacket split during the simultaneous steam and radiation exposure. In Section 3.4 we also rep'orted that the insulation had swelled dimensionally during the simultaneous accident simulation. Possibly the dimensional swelling of the EPR D insulation caused stress buildup within the multiconductor geometry. When the jacket split to relieve the stress, the sudden i release of constrictive force on the insulators may 1 have caused cracking or breakup of the insulation. Alternatively, sections of insulation which adhered to the jacket during,the splitting were pulled away from the conductor. The bare copper conductor evident in Figure 3.9b is suggestive of such a process. -119- ~ l ) a- --

- ~ 

\\ Mi .k. Our tensile specimen dato (cse Tablo 3.14) indicaten that spatial swelling for sequentially exposed specimens is less severe than for simultaneously '5 exposed samples. Thus for the sequential specimens, _g the initiating stress for jacket " splitting" would be 1 In addition, the jacket may have had less severe. }" better tensile strength during the sequential steam We did not exposure and hence resisted splitting. i-measure the jacket tensile strength during our tests but note (see Figure 4.1) that simultaneous radiation and thermal exposures more severely degrade tensile strength for chlorinated polyethylene jacket material than does a thermal followed by radiation sequential set of exposures to the same environmental stresses. A variation of the above hypothesis is as follows: l swelling of the insulation caused splitting of the This removed a constraint on the insulation i jacket. and allowed it to crack when its ultimate tensile id-elongation became less than the strain produced by '3 bends in the cable. The applied strain to the cable consists of two " bend" components: (1) The 4 multicoriductor consists of a ' helical arrangement of i1 single conductors spirally wound around each otner. 3 4 (2) The multiconductor is also wound on a mandrel. From Thomas and Finneyl6 we compute that the radius for a helix with radius a and lay of curvature, re, length h is: j$ r e = a[1 + (h/2na)23 For EPR D, the lay length, h, is approximately 11 cm h while the helical diameter is between one and two 3 thicknesses of each individual conductor. (The l;j diameter of a single conductor was s.5 cm by the end I, of the simultaneous LOCA simulation.) Thus we e to be 7-13 cm. We relate this helical "j i calculate r radius of curvature to strain by arguing that the outer surface of the insulated conductor must stretch to y accommodate the helical wrapping of the inner surface with radius r. The elongation, e, at the outer. .s e surface will be e = 2a/rc 1 j We predict that the helical component of elongation for the EPR D multiconductor geometry is between 4 and 74. during In addition to the helical elongation component, testing our EPR D multiconductor cooles were wrapped on a mandrel with a radius of 15 cm. The radius of the i ,1 -120-I \\ $E ~ , _.. ~.. _

1 l 1.40 i i i CPE 1.30 e 120*C -R l ~ as / 1 ( OR23

• 120*C W

1.20 O R,o.c ~ 3 l l 1.10 l T/T [ o PC o I w / Z 1.00 / ~ I i s i \\ [ f-.. / ~ ~d" s U O.90 l 1 l 0.80 I 1 I i i i I O 200 400 600 800 TIME (hours) Figure 4.1. Chlorinated Plyethylene Jacket Ultimate Tensile Strength-Behavior. Each portion of the sequential i exposures lasted ~ 300 h. From reference 22. l

ip nulticonductor was s.55 cm. This producsc c " mandrel" elongation component of s 74. We'there~ fore

• i predict a maximum strain for some insulation segments of l

10-154. This maximum strain would occur at the outer surface of mandrel and helical wraps. Room temperature measurements performed on.EPR D tensile specimens within 24 hours of the completion of both the simultaneous and sequential test exposures yielded ultimate tensile elongations of s 204, comparable to I our-theoretical strain predictions of 10-154. ll Figure 3.9b illustrates that EPR D insulation " breakup" did occur at maximum strain locations (i.e., the outer i surface of both the helical and mandrel wraps). While similar behavior might have been expected for the sequentially exposed multiconductor (its geometry and tensile properties were similar) the jacket did not split; impeding strain relief. 2) The EPR D spatial swelling also could have caused stress buildup for the multiconductor geometry because the three insulated conductors are' spirally wound around each other. Hence, one conductor provides restraints against the spatial swelling of its neighboring conductor. For single conductor geometries this stress buildup would not occur. Though plausible, this hypothesis does not explain the degradation visible in Figure 3.9b; namely degradation on the outer surface of the multiconductor bundle. 3) A chemical interaction between jacket and insulation might also help explain our EPR D results. It is known that some chlorinated polymers evolve hydrogen chloride Salovey{gdiation and/or thermal environments. during reports that " hydrogen chloride is the major volatile product of irradiated polyvinylchloride. The formation of hydrogen chloride during irradiation is sensitive to temperature" and is larger at higher temperatures.17 Rose and Coffey report that 10 during processing chlorinated polyethylene will under,go rampant catalytic dehydrochlgrination above approximately 190"C. Clough11'19 reports on significant chlorine and antimony losses from chlorosulfonated polyethylene formulations during accelerated aging. He alco presents chivrine and antimony loss data for several EFA formulations. j We also observed fire retardant loss during our simultaleous and sequential tests. Section 3.4 provides evidente for antimony, bromine, and chlorine migration from the CPE jacket. This effect was observed earlier in the simultaneous test than for the sequential test. i l -122-1

F 2,4 Possibly the simultaneous exposures generated more hcl and/or HBr than did the sequential exposures.

Moreover, since the CPE jacket was not present for the single conductors, the single conductors were exposed to less EC1 and or HBr than the multiconductor insulators.

The absence of detectable Br in the single conductor insulation supports this hypothesis (see Section 3.4). The evolved acid may have broken chemical bonds between '"9 the polymer chain and thgD *laims that tha water calcined clay. Blodgett c stability of EPR is due to the reinforcing effect of fillers when they are cross-linked into the polymer matrix. He alFO states that for long life in water, any hydrogen chloride must be neutralized. r our three hypotheses emphasize insulation and jacket mechanical degradation rather than dielectric degradation. This is consistent with previous studies indicating that permanent-changes in the electrical properties of elastomers were minor and ingplation life depends on its resistance to mechanical that damage During our tests we extensively monitored mechanical properties for several of the EPR insulations. Tensile properties, moisture absorption, and dimensional changes were measured. Our results clearly indicate that EPR cannot be considered to have generic behavior with respect to these parameters. For example, Table 4.1 summarizes moisture absorption data for each of the EPR's we tested. Some EPR's (EER B and EPR E) experienced small moisture absorption during our tests while other EPR's (EPR D, EPR F, EPR-1483, and the Japanesa EPR-5) exhibited substantial moisture absorption. We also observed large dimensional change variations among the different EPR's. Results are summarized in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. Table 4.4 presents normalized ultimate tensile property data at the completion of accelerated aging. Our simultaneous aging techniques are more severe than our sequential technique for EPR A and EPR D ultimate tensile elongation properties and for EPR A, EPR B, and EPR D ultimate tensile strength properties. Table 4.5 presents normalized tensile results at the completion of the accident exposures. Results for EPR A are uncertain; EPR D and EPR E elongation degradation are worse for the sequential exposure. Ou results clearly show that tensile property degradation should n, ce used by itself to predict electrical degradation for mult-aductor cables. Tensile property results may be useful to establish when insulation is susceptible to damage caused by other factors such as jacket degradation and bend i radius. For example, sequentially exposed EPR D multiconductors performed substantially better electrically than did l -123-

h h [y' [' Table 4.1 ,;.g s Insulation Specimens: Percentage W'eight' Increases '13 [l[ Cable Sequential Simultaneous simultaneous x Material Test

• II'I Test $1*

Test $2** &l EPR A +50% ? EPR B +4% -l% EPR C +9% +23% EPR D +121% +173g +172% EPR E +0% +7% EPR F +94% EPR-5 +77%*** 2 EPR-1483 +55%**** +45%***** 9'4 3

• Both the sequential and simultaneous il LOCA profiles were interrupted at day 9 by an unanticipated steam cooldown.

i The test was continued and measurements were made at the ] end of 21 days of steam exposure 8

• • Measurements made during unanticipated steam cooldown starting at day 16 of LOCA profile I
    • Data for samples aged before start of LOCA i
      • Sequential 28 d thermal then 55 h irradiation aging exposure

j followed by sequential test accident exposure, di

' Eg

• • • • • Simultaneous 7 d radiation and thermal exposure followed by a

24 simultaneous test il accident exposure. 4 z 1 e g

'3 Table 4.2 Insulation Specimens: Percentage Increase in Length Cable Sequential Simultaneous Simultaneous f l Material Test

• Test fl*

Test #2** 't EPR A +0% ? EPR B +0 4. +0% EPR C +0% +5% EPR D +5% +35% +424 i EPR E +04 +0% +19% EPR F 6 +21t*** EPR-5 EPR-1483 +7t**** +164***** 6

• Both the sequential and simultaneous i1 LOCA profiles were i

t interrupted at day 9 by an unanticipated steam cooldown. ,j I The test was continued and measurements were made at the e end of 21 days of steam exposure

• • Measurements made during unanticipated steam cooldown starting at day 16 of LOCA profile

}l i .I

• • • Data for samples aged before start of LOCA
      • Sequential 28 d thermal then 55 h irradiation aging exposure followed by sequential test accident exposure i

l

• • • • • Simultaneous 7 d radiation and thermal exposure followed by simultaneous test il accident exposure

'f p o t I t i t'l .) i l a, -125- .ij

Table 4.3 Insulation Specimens: Percentage Increase in' Outer Diameter Cable Sequent {al Simultanegus Simultanegus Material Test Test il Test (2 EPR A +19% ? EPR B -18% -5% EPRsC3 +5% width +7% width \\ +20% thickness +20% thickness EPR D +38% +53% +51% EPR E3 +2% width +0% width +0% thickness +0% thickness EPR F +31% fEPR 5 +18% width 4 +30% thickness 4 EPR-1483 17% width 5 6 +20% width +46% thickness 5 +46% thickness 6 IBoth the sequential and simultaneous #1 LOCA profiles were interrupted at day 9 by an unanticipated steam cooldown. The test was continued and measurements were made at the end of 21 days of steam exposure 2Measurements made during unanticipated steam cocidown starting at day 16 of LOCA profile i 3The manufacturer provided sheets of insulation material prior to providing actual cable construction. Sheet material was cut to be used as tensile specimens. These specimens were compression molded rather than extrusion molded. 4 Data for samples before start of LOCA. 5Sequential 28 d thermal then 55 h irradiat'on aging exposure i followed by sequential test accident exposure. 6Simultaneous 7 d radiation and thermal exposure followed by simultaneous test il accident exposure. -126-

I' Materiel Sequential Test Simultaneouc Test #1 e/e T/T e/e T/T o o o o l EPR A .29 1 03 .96 1 09 .05 1 03 .23 i~.02 EER B .37 1 06 1.21 1 04 .28 1 08 .58 1 10 l l EPR C .38 1 05 .82 1 06 .58 i.16 .73 1 11 EPR D .41 1 04 1.04 1 04 .19 i.02 .59 1 04 EPR E .34 1 04 1.38 1 29 .49 1 07 1.28 1 22 i Table 4.4: Ultimate Tensile Properties at the Completion of Accelerated Aging Material Sequential T'est Simultaneous Test #1 e/e T/To e/e T/T o o o EPR A ? ? ? ? EPR B .20 1 04 .78 1 06 .14 i.03 .74 1 05 EPR C .13 1 03 .66 i.07 .15 1 03 .62 1 07 EPR D .061 04 .50 1 11 .13 1 02 .61 1 02 EPR E .05 +.01 .71 + 14 .19 1 03 1.18 1 21 i I Table 4.5: Ultimate Tensile Properties at the Completion of the Accident Exposures + -127-

4 simultaneously exposed EPR D nulticonductorn even though the f ormer 's insulation tensile properties were as degraded by thet end of the test. This is reasonable since the sequentially exposed EPR D multiconductor experienced less dimensional swelling and not the jacket splitting which we hypothesize initiated mechanical damage for the simultaneously exposed insulation. It is interesting to note that in our tests the EPR D simultaneoasly exposed multiconductors uniquely satisfied all the following conditions: 1. The insulation experienced large dimensional changes ano substantial moisture absorption. 2. The insulation had low tensile property values at the completion of the test. 3. The jacket split. 4. The cable was tested as a multiconductor. Other test specimens catisfied some of these conditions, but no other specimen satisfied them all. For example, EPR F also experienced substantial dimensional changes, but EPR F was not tested by us as a multiconductor. Two other features of EPR D separated it from the other EPR's we tested. First, it employed a chlorinated polyethylene jacket; all other jacketed EPR cables in our tests used chlorosulfonated polyethylene jackets (see Appendix C). Second, the initial elongation for EPR D was less than all the other EPR's. This is demonstrated in Table 4.6 For insulated single conductors we do not observe large electrical performance variations caused by differences between our simultaneous and sequential test procedures. EPR A, B, D, and E are examples. EPR C, F, and G insulated single conductors were only exposed to simultaneous testing environmental conditions. For each of these single conductors the I.R. and leakage current behavior was similar to that observed for the EPR A, B, D, and E single conductors. The simultaneously exposed EPR D single conductors phrformed substantially better than did t!wir multiconductor counterparts. We hypothesize that the excellent single conductor behavior resulted from (1) the absence of jacket-insulation interaction effects and/or (2) the less severe bending of the single conductor specimens compared to the multiconductor test specimens. The single conductor specimens, unlike the multiconductor insulated conductors, did not have a " helical" bend component associated with the multiconductor geometry. Hence the insulation strain was less. Quantitatively, \\ -128-

,5511 idW s...q To (MPa) w eo(%) 5% Material 8.8 1 0.6 R~F 420 1 10 EPR A g 7.1 1 0.4 330 1 30 EPR B 12.2 1 08 513 1 10 EPR C* 15.2 1 06 240 1 10 EPR D 8.4 1 0.3 380 1 50 i> EPR E* ^ 12.4 i.8 290 1 10 EPR F 9.8 1 0.4 i 320 1 20 EPR-1483* 7.8 1 1.3 hg Japanese EPR-5* 560 1 40 D.

• These EPR specimens were obtained from compression molded EPR 717 sheets.

Ultimate Tensile Properties for Unaged, Unexposed Table 4.6: EPR Tensile Specimens: EPR G values are not ] reported since the jacket is physically bonded to the insulation. __ftl g ML aq r l 9 Ibk_ l. ,A P E b 'eo , ef. j my <g -129-a

for our EPR D single conductors wa wrappsd the cables on a mandrel with a 25 cm diameter (50 x the outer diameter of the single conductor). insulation surface of SWe predict this caused a strain on the outer for our tensile ~ specimens.44; a value less than what we measured conductors is unexpected and it also was not chserved.Hence cracking of th More generally, based on our post-test tensile measurements, we ' predict that our EPR B, EPR C,. EPR D, EPR E, and EPR P single conductors would not have insulation cracking at the completion of our accident exposures. This was experimentally verified. Predic.tions for EPR A and EPR G cannot be made because of the absence of post-exposure tensile data. Our test facility employed saturated steam conditions for the accident steam simulations. Hence oxygen was swept from the experimental chamber at the start of the accident exposures. Oxygen presence during steam exposures has recently been demonstrated to sometimes strongly affect EPR tensile properties. For example, Gillen, et al.,23 showed that tensile properties for an EPR material (our EPR A) dependence en the oxygen concentration during cccidentexhibited a pronounced simulations. those LOCA simulations with oxygen present.More degraded tensile prope Contrasting this

result, for their EPR-S (our EPR-1483) material oxygen concenggation was not an important accident parameter.

Kusama, et al.

also demonstrate that tensile properties for EPR LOCA simulations. materials are sensitive to the oxygen concentration during PWR degraded when oxygen was present during the LOCA simulations. For neither of these studies, were simultaneous thermal-irradiation aging techniques used prior to f.he LOCA simulations. We are currently investigating whether the importance of oxygen during LOCA simulations dependJ on the preconditionin being studied.g2 (aging) technique. EPR C and EPR D naterials are we will be better able to predict whether addition of oxygenUpo during our steam exposures would have more FOverely degraded our single conductor electrical results. and multiconductor cables suggest:The electrical behavior differences 1. Contrary to historical perspective, our results and hypothesis indicate that testing of single condudtors J.. may not be more severe than multiconductor,.tecting. has been suggested that a multiconduc' tor jacket /provides It additional protection not available to a cingle conductor. IEEL Otd 383-1974 4 in its Table lesupports this perspective by allowing single conductor test results to be used as a qualification bases for l multiconductor control cables. Our results suggest that l jacket-insulation interaction effects may be important. 7 r m 1 l -130-e (! Ji b Y,

p y -( F ) 2. Soms ccble qualification tests may not cdaquntoly account for "une" b:nd conditions. An example is qualification of multiconductogs via testing of single conductors. IEEE Std 383-1974 does not recommend cable curvature during environmental exposure. It does state in Section 2.4.4: Upon completion of the LOCA simulation, the specimens should be straightened and recoiled around a metal mandrel with a diameter of approximatoly 40 times the overall cable diameter and immersed in tap water at room temperature. While still immersed, these specimens should. . pass (a) voltage withstand test. Our calculations for EPR D illustrate that the single conductor " helical" radius of curvature due to the multiconductor geometry is less than 40 times the single conductor's radius. We also observe that manufacturers' minimum bend radius recommendations are not always correlated to qualification test conditions. For example, EPR C instrumentation cables were qualified to MSLB conditions using a mandrel of radius 14 cm. The manufacturer marketing literature lists a minimum bend radius for this cable of s 6 cm. Installation practices are customer specific and are not addressed. an additional conclusion.Our single conducto$ and multiconductor test res Insulation resiscance'is strongly dependent on steam temperature but not very dependent on whether a radiation environment is simultaneously applied. A (primary insula tion only), EPR D, and EPR E di'd we notice For only EPR observable I.R. simultaneous test measurements. differences betwsen our sequential and not occur at IFor EPR D these differences did later after mechanical degradation had presumably started.the EPR A and E we did not observe a consistent effect of radiation For on I.R. behavior. For example, multiconductors have lower I.R. sequentially exposed EPR E values than do simultaneously exposed multiconductors while EPR E and EPR A single conductors exhibit the opposite dependence on testing technique. We recognize that the sequentially exposed cables had experienced much more irradiation at the start of the steam exposure than did the simultaneously exposed cables. reflect Our results the practical difference between simultaneous and sequential qualification techniques. -131-L 1 ,y }* l i

n

1 i It should ba notsd that our test conditions differ from the qualification test parameters used by some manufacturers and utilities. We'did not intend our tests to be qualification tests and chose our research test parameters to match our experimental capabilities and to " generally" reflect test procedures used by the cable industry (for example, there is no standard

• environmental profile).

EPR D is an example where our test conditions differed in several respects from those employed by the manufacturer during his qualification tests:

1.. We loaded our cables at 0.6 amps while EPR D was loaded l

by the manufacturer to currents greater than or equal to 10 amps. ~ 2. Our test profile employed two transient steam ramps while EPR D was tested using a steam profile that had only one. transient ramp. 3. Our steam profile had saturated steam conditions with maximum temperatures of 172*C and maximum pressures of 106 psig. EPR D was qualified employing superheat 4 conditions to 196*C with pressures of 65 psig or less. 4. Our steam profile did not include chemical spray. EPR D qualification testing included chemical spray during part of the accident simulation. The major goal of our research was to investigate if test results are sensitive to whether simultaneous or sequential stress exposures are employed. For EPR cable products we cannot provide a generic answer. EPR C provides an example of a cable product for which simultaneous testing procedures are currently 'e not warranted. This product had excellent electrical performanc during our simulta,neous tests. Insulation tensile degradation and dimensional ch'nges were comparable for sequential and t a simultaneous testi'ng techniques. Moreover, the residual tensile elongation at the completion of our tests was s 604; large enough to possibly accommodate additional degradation if oxygen presence during accident simulations is important. (We did not include oxygen during our accident simulations.) EPR D is a cable product for which simultaneous tes-ting techniques were more severe than our sequential procedures. For this product, the simultaneously exposed multiconductor performed electrically worse than did its sequentially exposed 3 counterpart. Dimensional changes during accident simulations did depend on whether simultaneous or sequential techniques were employed. Likewise, jacket degradation was strongly dependent on exposure technique. Finally, the residual insulation tensile elongation at the completion of our tests was s 20%; close to our predicted " embrittlement threshold". Thus EPR D may not accommodate additional degradation if oxygen presence during accident simulations is important. I I' -132-L

^ ^ y i.f l i irradiation-stoca i il3 For EPR D we only employed a thermal ag ng-Possibly, an ~ ld adequately exposure sequential test procedure. irradiation-thermal w.e $sf ese. arch program i ultaneous results. i dimensional changes, the US-French cooperat ve ri tion followe . duplicate our s m aging test sequences are as severe as s(in pro g q esearch programs, In addition to the US-French cooperative rf rmed to establish w ,g we recommend that research tests be per o dation than others. f I some EPR materials experienced more degra t which aging and Without this information we can only repordegrade individual EPR ,7 l accident test procedures most severe yproducts hich test procedures l ible because proprietaryd EPR fo most realistically simulate aging an l This last research goal may be imposs l make progress in this research area dissues asso ifficult. ignificance of our ,g During its assessment of the safety sthe USNRC mu Two l factors. ,w l changes we observed for Fi

research, additional technical results from Both concern the substantial dimens onahesize may be responsibl i

V some EPR materials and which we hypotfor the ele ulticonductor These results are: d for some of d cables. The large dimensional changes we observet the start of the j our EPR's did not occur immediately a For EPR D we did not observel days afte 'N 1. Mi accident simulation. E electrical degradation until severaHence, safety systems , N,j 1 f an accident start of our accident exposure. required to function only at the start oma

f!

s of the cable g , idif insulation. he extent of 3-2 1 Accelerated aging strongly impacted tdime

f. _

• tion; in 2.

F for unaged agreement with previous results.3.20 compare 743 fj and aged tensile specimens. insulation had a 42% d r .4 l l ased its diameter simultaneous LOCA simulation. j the same accident simulation only incre 40 year Our aged specimens were accelerated to a l f EPR D I far in excess for any current application o l ) Future tests [ by 7%. l gd (it was not marketed until late 1976. l life; lts would be l% need to establish whether similar resu l l ~$( obtained for naturally aged cab e. '] l i e m -133-r N

$? $ ~._ _ E o y,%. REFERENCES +< 1 I l. 10CFR50.49 " Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants," g Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register, Vol. 48, T No. 15, 2729, 1/21/83. F- 'h 2. A. J. Szukiewicz, " Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment -- Including Staff Responses to'Public Comments," NUREG-0588, Rev. 1, U.S. NRC, Washington, DC, July 1981. 3. IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, IEEE Std 323-1974, New York, NY. '} l l 4. IEEE Standard for Type Test of Class 1E Electric Cables, s Field Splices, and Connections for Nuclear Power Generating Stations. ANSI /IEEE Std 383-1974 (ANSI N41.lC-1975), New York, NY. 1 5. F. V. Thome, " Preliminary Data Report: Testing to Evaluate ,? Synergistic Effects from LOCA Environments, Test IX. i Simultaneous Mode; Cables, Splice Assemblies, and Electrical [ Insulation Samples," SAND 78-0718, April 1978. 'I 6. K. Yoshida, Y. Nakase, S. Okada, M. Ito, Y. Kusama, S. Tanaka, Y. Kasahara, S. Machi, " Methodology Study for i j Qualification Testing of Wire and Cable at LOCA Condition," presented at 8th Water Reactor Safety Research Information j Meeting, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1980. 7. T. H. Ling and W. F. Morrison, " Qualification of Power and Control Cable for Class lE Applications," presented at the IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, New York, NY, January 27-February 1, 1974. Conference Paper C74045-1. [ 8. U. I. Vaidya, " Flame Retarded EPDM Integral Insulation { Jacket Compositions With Excellent Heat Resistant and

g Electrical Stability."

Presented at ACS Rubber Division g Meeting, October 12, 1978, Boston, MA. 8 {- 9. L. D. Bustard, " Ethylene Propylene Cable Degradation during p LOCA Research Tests: Tensile properties at the Completion j of Accelerated Aging," NUREG/CR-2553, SAND 82-0346, May 1982. 10. E. A. Salazar, D. A. Bouchard, D. T. Furgal, " Aging with Respect to Flammability and Other Properties in Fire-Retarded Ethylene Propylene Rubber and Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene," NUREG/CR-2314, SAND 81-1906, March 1982. t i i 'I

g

-134- ',l.

h 11. R. L. Clough, " Aging Effects en Fire-Ratardant,Additivc0 in 4 Organic Materials for Nuclear Plant Applications," NUREG/CR-2868, SAND 82-0485, August 1982. 12. L. L. Bonzon et al., " Qualification Testing Evaluation Program Light Water Reactor Safety Research Quarterly ' Report, April-June 1978," SAND 78-1452, NUREG/CR-0401, November 1978. 13) K. T. Gillen, R. L. Clough, and L. H. Jones, " Investigation of Cable Deterioration in the Containment Building of the Savannah River Nuclear Reactor," SAND 81-2613, August 1981. 14. W. H. Buckalew and F. V. Thome, " Radiation Capabilities of the Sandia High Intensity Adjustable Cobalt Array," SAND 81-2655, NUREG/CR-1682, March 1982. j 15. E. E. McLlveen, V. L. Garrison, and G. T. Dobrowolski, " Class lE Cables for Nuclear Power Generating Stations," IE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems PAS-03 (4), July / August 1974, pp. 1121-1132. We determined the referenced activation energy for Arrhenius-type plots. 16. G. B. Thomas and R. L. Finney, Calculus and Analytic Geometry, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 5 ed., 1979. 17. R. Salovey, " Poly (vinyl Chloride) " in The Radia tion ~ Chemistry of Macromolecules, Vol. II, M. Dole, ed., Academic Press, 1973, p. 38. 18. J. C. Rose and R. J. Coffey, Rubber World, Vol. 187 (2), p. 28, November 1982. 19. R. L. Clough, " Aging Effects on Fire-Retardant Additives in Polymers," J. Polym. Sci., Polym, Chem. Ed. 21, 767 (1983). 20. R. B. Blodgett, Rubber Chemistry and Technology, 52, 410 (1979). I 21. K. T. Gillen, E. A. Salazar, C. W. Frank, " Proposed Research l on Class 1 Components to Test a General Approach t'o Accelerated Aging Under Combined Stress Environments," SAND 76-0715, NUREG/CR-0237, April 1977. g 22. L. D. Bustard, "QTE LOCA Testing Research," SAND 83-1086A. I Presented at the EPRI/Sandia/NRC Information Exchange, San Diego, California, May 1983. 1 23. K. T. Gillen, R. L. Clough, G. Ganouna-Cohen, J. Chenion, and G. Delmas, "The Importance of Oxygen in LOCA Simulation Tests," Nuclear Engineering and Design 74 (1982), 271-285. L l -135-J

EM it h y 24. Y. Kusama, S. Okada, M. Yoshikawa, M. Ito, T. Yagi, Y. Nakase, T. Seguchi, and K. Yoshida, " Methodology Study fot ?m ' l Oar Qualification Testing of Wire and Cable at LOCA Conditions," NUREG/CP-0041, Proceedings of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tenth Water Reactor Safety Research Information Meeting, v 5, p 330. a b' l 9 m.g ~f4 55 I i"<' ,a -136-

i

[jj{.- l t 1 APPENDIX A: Summary of Unanticipated Events During Testing n Our sequential and simultaneous tests did include several y In this appendix we summarize.these 'tg" unanticipated occurrences. events and discuss their significance. Our discussion emphasizes EPR D results since this cable product exhibited substantial degradation during our simultaneous tests. 1. Event: During the first four and a half hours of thermal aging for simultaneous test #1, the heater was turned off three times and the chamber opened to allow for adjustment of the heater ducts. Hence the cables and insulation samples were thermally cycled. Discussion: We redesigned the heater ducting before performing simultaneous test #2. This latter test did not thermally cycle the cables and insulation samples. Simultaneous test #2 did produce similar EPR D behavior as simultaneous test fl, hence the thermal cycling is considered not important. 2. Event: During thermal aging for simultaneous test (1, lp)k the chamber overheated for approximately an hour. The maximum temperature during this transient was 175'C. i i Discussion: During thermal aging for simultaneous test ? 42 the chamber temperature did not exceed 150'C (see y Table 2.14). Moreover, during thermal aging for t.hc sequential test we also momentarily achieved temperatures near 150'C at the start of the thermal exposure. Finally, a sqven day'150*C thermal exposure was chosen by the manufacturer of EPR D for 7 qualification tests. For all these reasons, the 175'C .ss jexposure during simultaneous test il aging does not i ppear to explain EPR D's behavior. ld$ a 2, ;. 3. Event: During the first ramp of the sequential test, a M-penetration leaked excessively and had to be retorqued. In. The ramp was continued after retorquing the 4; penetration. Since the simultaneous chamber was initially connected in parallel to the sequential chamber, the leak in the sequential chamber affected the steam profile for simultaneous test #1. Upon discovery of the leak, the simultaneous chamber was isolated from the sequential chamber and its ramp continued separately. Table 2.6 summarizes the time-temperature .J history for these steam exposures. Discussion: The penetration that leaked excessively contained only feedthroughs for EPR E multiconductor g-cables. A post test examination revealed no cracks or flaws for EPR E jackets in the vicinity of this l penetration. The differences in sequential and simultaneous test il steam profiles do not appear W % l -137-

= - - - E significant enough to explain EPR D behavior differences between the two tests. This nonconformance definitely cannot explain the differences between EPR D single conductor and multiconductor behavior during simultaneous test fl. This nonconformance did not occur for simultaneous test #2 which had similar EPR D i behavior as for simultaneous test fl. 4. Event: Prior to the first ramp of simultaneous test 62 i we momentarily passed steam through the chamber (which was open to ambient conditions). Discussion: Both the entrance and exit ports for the steam flow were located in the top section of the chamber. EPR D's poor visual appearance and electrical i behavior occurred where the cable was wrapped on the i mandrel well away from these ports. This nonconformance i cannot explain the differences between EPR D single conductor and multiconductor behavior since both types of cable configurations were in the chamber.

Moreover, j

the nonconformance did not occur during simultaneous test fl. Simultaneous test #1 did produce similar EPR D behavior as simultaneous test #2. For all these reasons, this nonconformance is considered unimportant. 5. Event: During the first peak of simultaneous test #2 a d Tefzel cable excessively leaked water onto our current i and voltage loading circuit causing it to fail. We reconfigured and repaired the loading circuit and resumed current and voltage loading of cables. a l Discussion: Insulation resistance measurements for 4 EPR D made after this nonconformance gave expected i i values consistent with simultaneous test #1. Thus the i nonconformance is considered unimportant. l 6. Event: During the first peak of simultaneous test #2 water accumulated in the bottom of the steam chamber and l submerged some cables. We estimate the maximum water i level as between 67 and 91 cm below the top of the mandrel. We drained thb water from the chamber 1-1/2 hours after the start of the 1st steam peak. Discussion: Examination of Table 2.16 indicates that water submergence lowered the exposure temperature for i those cables submerged. Both EPR D single conductors and multiconductors were submerged. Simultaneous test

1. 1 did produce similar EPR D behavior as simultaneous test #2, but did not include water submergence.

Thus the nonconformance is considered unimportant. i l 7. Events: On day 9 of the simultaneous test il steam i exposure the steam supply system failed and the steam { chamber cooled to ambient temperatures and pressures. \\ -138-i f I

W k,- Twsnty-ona hcura lator thn irradiation was stoppsd. On day 12, the steam and radiation exposures were resumed. On day 16 of the simultaneous test #2 steam exposure the steam supply system failed and the steam chamber cooled to ambient temperatures and pressures. Eight hours later the irradiation was stopped. On day 21 we resumed the steam and radiation exposures. Discussion: Insulation resistancu measurements made during simultaneous test #2 for EPR D multiconductors j clearly show I.R. degradation starting prior to the unanticipated cooldown. Figure 3.lb was photographed during the cooldown and clearly indicates degradation i prior to restarting simultaneous test 92.

Likewise, high leakage currents were measured during the cooldown (see Table 3.1).

This data indicates that for EPR D the cooldown could be considered the end of a 16 day continuous test with poor electrical and visual behavior evident at the completion of the test. Table 2.16 demonstrates that the cooldown was gradual and not abrupt. For all these reasons we discount the cooldown as the cause of EPR D's poor multiconductor behavior i during simultaneous test #2. It is therefore also unlikely that the simultaneous test #1 cooldown was important. Finally a nonconformance that did not occur needs to be discussed. During all our steam exposures wc loaded the cables ~ at 480 Vac and 0.6 amp. This load circuit never " tripped out" due to EPR D degradation. The circuit was not designed to " trip out". Current flow was limited by load resistors to 600 mA. In addition, since we did not apply a chemical spray nor water spray during the steam exposure, our test only provided a rather pure i steam environment as a path between an insulation failure and ground. This path is not expected to be very conducting and insulation failures would not necessarily be evident until post-test I.R. and leakage current measurements were made using tap water as a conducting medium. i i i i i i l 1 i ~139-l l r ,-,,,r-,-,-, ,,e-n , -., - - - - - - -, - - -, - - - - ~ - - - - - ~- +------,------,e

< P. 1 , 7 [ APPENDIX B: Chemical Analysic for EPR D Scmples. 1 Eleven samples were sent to Huffman Laboratories

• for analysis.

The samples were: 1. EPR D white insulation removed from an unaged cable. 2. EPR D white insulation removed after completion of aging and accident exposures from a simultaneously (simultaneous test #1) single conductor. exposed l 3. EPR D white insulation removed after completion of aging and accident exposures from a sequentially i exposed single conductor. 4. EPR D insulation removed after completion of aging and accident exposures from a simultaneously exposed multiconductor. 5. EPR D insulation removed after completion of aging and accident exposures from a sequentially exposed. multiconductor. 6. CPE jacket removed from an unaged EPR D multiconductor t cable. 7. CPE jacket removed from a simultaneously exposed EPR D multiconductor cable. White surface residue was scrapped from the jacket prior to chemical analysis. 8. CPE jacket removed from a sequentially exposed EPR D 5 multiconductor cable. White surface residue was i scrapped f' rom the jacket prior to chemical analysis. 9. CPE jacket removed from a sequentially exposed EPR D r' multiconductor cable. t 10. CPE jacket removed from a simultaneously exposed EPR D multiconductor cable. 11. White powder scrapped off the surface of the CPE jacket exposed to the sequential test sequence. + f l

• 3830 High Court, P. O. Box 777, West Ridge, Colorado 80034

'i i i i -140-

b hFu t unnuco em a a * 'ayey*o r a, CUSTOMER f: HUFFMAN LABORATORIES,lNC. DATE 05/16/83 f l 01175 LA 049483 g" 3e30 HioM COURT. P.O. Box TTF I P.O. 52-9761 I % gg,p.e m pea c43mg RECD 04/19/83 .i i ANALYSIS REPORT k. t L. D. BUSTARD [ SANDIA LABORATORIES. l REC. DIV. BLDG. 894 f i ALBUQUERQUE NM 87185 5 1 t SEQUENCE / 01 02 03 04 SAMPLE ID 1 2 3 4 CHLORINE------% - - - 9.72 - - - - - 8.43 - - - - - 8 33 - - - - - 11.04 B R OMI N E-------% <0. 2 0 - - - - - (0. 2 0 - - - - - (0. 2 0 - - - - - 0.66 SEQUENCE / 05 05 07 08 SAMPLE ID 5 6 7 8 CHLORINE------> - - - 10.85 - - - - - 14.22 - - - - - 10.31 11.41 B R OMI N E--..--!. - - 2.58 - - - - - 3 57 - - - - - 3.an - - - - - 2.91 m. SEQUENCE / 09 to 11 SAMPLE ID 9 10 11 I CARBON.------% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.60 HYD50CEN------% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.43 [ C81LORINE------i - - - 11.07 - - - - - 10.90 - - - - - 4.59 BROMINE-------! - - - 2.71 8;20 3.74 SPECIAL ANAL. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

• ^

i I

• THE EMISSION SPECTR0 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS IS ENCLOSED ON A SEPARATE PAGE.

THE CARBON HYDROCEN DETERMINATION WAS PERFORMED BT COMBUSTING THE SAMPLE AT 1 1050 DECREES C IN OITCEN, THEN SEPARATING AND MEASURING THE RESULTING CARBON DIOXIDE AND WATER. AFTER COMBUSTION IN A TIN CAPSULE ( WHICH RAISES THE l TEMPER ATURE OF THE SAMPLE TO ABOUT 1600 DECREES C) THE COMBUSTION GASES WERE SWEPT THRU COMBUSTION CATALYSTS AND THRU A COOLED TUSE CONTAINING CaCl2 WHICH TRAPPED THE WATER BUT ALLOWED THE CARBON DIOXIDE TO BE SWEPT DN THRU A SCR.UBBER TO REMOVE NITROGEN OXIDES AND INTO A COUL0 METRICS CARBON DIOXIDE COULOMETER WHICH MEASURES THE CARBON DIOXIDE. AFTER SWEEPING ALL OF THE CARBON g i DIOXIDE FROM THE CaC12 TUBE, THE COOLING WATER WAS TURNED OFF AND THE TUBE HEATED TO DRIVE OFF THE WATER WHICH WAS SWEPT INTO A HEATED TUBE OF 1,1' -f, CARDONTLDIIMIDAZOLE WHICH OUANTITATIVELT CONVERTS WATER TO CARBON DIOXIDE. THE RESULTING CARBON DIOXIDE WAS THEN SWEPT INTO ANOTHER CARBON DIOXIDE COULOMETER FOR MEASUREMENT. ACETANILIDE FROM THE NBS WAS USED AS A STANDAR!. [ THE EMISSION SPECTRDCHEMICAL ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED BT FIRST ASHING THE l SAMPLE WITH SULFURIC ACID, THEN PLACING IT ON A CARBON ROD, AND PASSING A HISM 4 -141-

35 d fI 20 Q i '~- m m e asmato ms

• DM"

~ CUSTOMER f: HUFFMAN LABORATORIES,INC. 01175 . sa3o wioM court. P.O. pos m DATE 05/16/83 LABf 048483 wn..i ruoo.. cono< oo ooosa P.O. 52-9761 PM) coNm2 RECD 04/19/83 V s e (CONT) ** I h ANALYSIS REPORT P b L. D. BUSTARD SANDIA LABORATORIES REC. DIV. BLDG. 894 l ALBUQUERQUE NM C7185 VOLTAGE ELECTRIC SPARK BETWEEN THE 5%MPLE ROD AND ANOTHER CARBON ROD. THE LIGHT PRODUCED IS THEN SEPARATED BT PASSING THRU A DIFFRACTION GR ATING AND RECORDED ON FILM WHICH IS THEN COMPARED TO FILM PRODUCED BT RUNNING INTERNAL STANDARDS. THERE WERE NOT ANT APPROPRIATE NBS STANDARDS AVAILABLE. THE CHLORINE AND BROMINE DETERMINATIONS WERE PERFORMED BT COMDUSTING THE SAMPLES IN OXYGEN AND ABSORBING THE COMBUSTION GASES IN A B ASIC SOLUTION, FOLLOVED BY TWO TYPES OF MEASUREMENT. OME METHOD INVOLVED ABSORBING THE COMBUSfION GASES IN A SOLUTION OF SCDIUM HYDROXIDE AND SCDIUM BISULFITE. DESTROTING THE THE BISULFITE WITH H202, ADJUSTING THE pH, THEN TITRATING THE SOLUTION WITH SILVER HITRATE USING POTENTI0 METRIC END POINTS FROM A SILVER SULFIDE ELECTRODE AND DOU3LE JUNCTION REFERENCE ELECTRODE. THE OTHER METHOD USED A KOH AND H202 ABSORBING SOLUTION WHICH WAS THEN RUN THRU A WESCAN ION CHROM ATAGR APH FOR DETERMINATION OF THE BROMIDE AND CHLORIDE CONTENT. A FAIRLY WIDE RANGE OF HALOCEN CONTENT WAS FOUND IN MOST OF *HE SAMPLES WHICH IS DUE TO THE NON-HOM00ENIETT OF THE SAMPLES. THE METHODS T*tcMSELVES SHOULD GIVE REPEATABLE RESULTS WITHIN PLUS OR HINUS 0 3% ABSOLUTE. THE FOLLOWING TABLE GIVES THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY THE TWO DIFFERENT METHODS ALONG VITH SOME REPLIC ATES. FOR STANDARD, MATERIALS WE USED P-CHLOR 03ENZOIC ACID AND I P-BROM0 BENZOIC ACID SUPPLIED FROM THE BRITISH DRUG HOUSE. I ION CHROMATAGRAPH SILVER NITRATE TITRATION SAMPLE i CHLORINE 1 BROMIHE% CHLORINE 1 BROMINFi 1 10.09 (0.20 ?.72 10.P2 <0.20 <0.20 2 9.12 <0.~0 a.67, 8.33 <0.20, <0.20 2 10.51 <0.20 8.64, 8.23 <0.20, <0.20 4 11.C0 0.58 10.47 0.74 5 11.65 2 33 10.81, 10.10 2.83,<0.20 6 16.60 3.96 14.15 3.55 7 11.45 3.69 9.17 3.19 8 11.19 3.48 11.62 2 34 9 11.07 2.71 12.10 10 11.90 3.74 10.85 11 0.62, 4.17 6.72, 8.76 8.76 6.07 11 6.07 8.56 -142-I

l Spectron Laboratories,,:. # 1 231 M K PLINo Statty, 80215 - - '~~ G.:..... ".,".7"*.*".*"'** ~ l cus.socAL Amatvsas. nassancH cowoutvine AretL 27,1963 HuPPMAN LASoRAfo48ts, INC., Post OPract sox 777, WHEAT Ricos, Cotonaoo 90034 I Artswis oN: DAtt RAINes t Sv8Jtete 004 ANALYSTS REPORT, Tov 4 PURCHAst omotR wo.14963. DtAn DALet THE roLLowsNo Amt ouse ouAttrArtve-stulouAN7trattyt smissioN seccinocwenscAL ApeALysis mesvL75, o87AINto IN exAMIN47 tow oF Yov4 SAMPLt. THey Amt twentssto As Welch 7 PERCENT Acts, ANo ARE esTIMAf ts oNLY. i Fie-r.it Fee 19 No. 481 * %11 ANrtmoNy MAJOR

• SIL con 0.5 5 InoN O.1 LEAD 0.1 Cwmoitum 0.005 ALUMINUM 0.001 CALesum 0.001 CoPete 0.001 MAoNE5IUN 0.0005

(* = Cowc'N wtLL Asovt 10s, Not ettenniuAste av spec?moonAPw; FILM j mertatNett 48300-S) I No CTHER ELtatuts wtRE otiteidD. THE spretnoonAPw oots not ottact: C, H, 0, N, 5, St. og tut HALoctNs. 0u4 INvolet is ENClosto. THAmt YoV. SINetacLv SP PTRAN LABmATm!ES, INC. yJ, .: Y-Lto D. Faternicusow, Ja., Danteron 5 d ENet. - INv. 6107 8 .143-

APPENDIX C Jacket Behavior Chlorosulfonated polyethylene (CSPE) or chlorinated 8 polyethylene (CPE) jackets are employed for all the commercial EPR product constructions which we tested except for EPR F. j (The EPR F single conductor does not have a jacket.) In this appendix we describe the jacket behavior observed during our tests. Our data consists mostly of visual descriptions since jacket tensile specimens were not part of the test program. I Figures A.1 and A.2 illustrate the degraded condition of the jackets at the completion of the sequential test and simultaneous test fl, respectively. The simultaneous test was clearly more damaging for both CPE and CSPE jacket materials than was the sequential test. (EPR D's jacket was CPE; all other cables had CSPE jackets.) At CSPE and CPE jacket was intact;the completion of the sequential test, every there was no cracking evident. In contrast, at completion of the simultaneous test, every multiconductor CSPE and CPE outer jacket was substantially cracked and degraded. The type of jacket degradation depended strongly on both the manufacturer cnd the jacket material. Figure A.3 illustrates two CSPE jacketed cables produced by different manufacturers. The upper cable in Figure A.3 has many small surface cracks with more gigantic (but localized) rupturing and splintering of the jacket. The icwer cable has no evidence of small surface cracking. jacket occurred.Rather, localized splitting and splintering of the In contrast to the localized degradation exhibited by these two CSPE jackets, the CPE outer jacket for EPR D multiconductors had one continuous longitudinal crack Figures 3.9a and 3.9b). (see EPR A, EPR B, EPR E, and EPR G cables also had CSPE jackets surrounding each single conductor. For EPR E and EPR G, these jackets were initially bonded to the insulation; for EPR A and EPR B the insulation and jacket were not initially bonded together. At completion of simultaneous testing, the EPR G single conductor jackets had longitudinal cracks. The EPR A, EPR B, and EPR E single conductor jackets were intact. ) A white powder migrated to the surface of the CPE jacket { (the EPR D multiconductor cables) during both the sequential and simultaneous tests. For the simultaneous test tile powder was evident at the completion of aging. For the sequential test we first observed it on the eighth day of the LOCA simulation during { our visual examination in response to the unanticipated cooldown. Upon completion of the accident exposures we removed some of the powder from the sequentially exposed jacket and performed emission spectroscopy and wet chemical analysis. Antimony ( 10 wt t), chlorine (%4.5 wt 4) and bromine (S8 wtt) were Appendix B). important constituents of the powder (see r i e I -144-

a g 4 During tharaal Eging the jackots alco 4ppeared to lose ingredients from their formulations. This was evident.as a greasy film that accumulated on the inside surface of the chamber as well as in the blower used to circulate hot air to and from the chamber. i Our thermal exposures also caused mild mechanical damage to For example, during simultaneous ,the jackets of several cables. thermocouple wiring caused jacket indentations in test #1 aging, EPR D's CPE and EPR A's CSPE jackets. At completion of the simultaneous test #2 aging exposure, the EPR D multiconductor #2 CPE jacket had a circumferential crack %.5 cm long and The crack was next to a clip that supported the %.15 cm wide. cable on the mandrel. I 4 l l i i e L l O I e -145-

m - a pM x .W , 9 h. g 7[1 g i t '. _ e-, a __.,gg g i 7 w ~.. [OCN -+ ff .g.. rp

• EPR A wihtout jacket v.-

e__ --_ - Nw'm le,g.,,I, _ S = _ --- m gg " I +--E P R D y?H".4..t.& 4 5>S' h., _ -- . f~.M",jIfe d.If,2N rk 9 n M..% 'f- -. w,.:a..: I n, o r m s e. .m-r l ~:: q e.yp,:q.[q g w ..Oyj g . ;.,.2.;.. EPR A (1977) .t l l&

• D - f, x3.hE,..I j

......a c :y P~:'; Mc., . E }. t ?,.;.).., L .7 - m 1 ..c..l T. ~ <l L'.'. A m - -~f '.? W..: ~ ~ ', EPR D %.M. #.i"* vF.;a _ i83I g r'*h c.'4'4 N s ;2p'" - - * * * ^ *= P" ' t "~ 2.w.). 3..w.o - m L'r aJmy.S; -t . ce M.Y~h [,j f.f.,$ p w.- u, ;;:,p 7.N, pi;' T

W c G mi.: d' = =----' ' ' I 5). ~.v.-tii&h.;C,$

, r.- scc .? ; p w. L.cg& C.p.3j 't.-,' 7>_ W a y g g j,,' *,n 7 4 EPR E Ek 'hY

• W.< M,%.;Q.e,gQQLyg.b.d, y:g.+N()I

,p...g : 2 } .p;.g,y..y..y.,-

,.e,m ;

.:n:

.m..%, (,.,.. 2..,~.c.......<..e. ,.,-..c,.. .m.. - - :2. . p w...- % y \\ !$t-92,4'42'.v.'0:,J KeQt@y ' 9., 9 v. y~ ZT 1w EPR E ~ y - V. g.. a m ,m, a a EPR B .. v?r -m hh? EhWDhY 2.* *' "'

• .*Wh7 ~

EPR D Without jacket Figure C.I. Jacket Visual Appearance at the Completion of the Sequential Test -146-

YI p; j i, 7 *! 0 i i I -d F,* ,a r 1. m er ' L s I >1 r

---

abb XLPO B m. -.- :. -

_ yg f ~ 59@ d*lu e ;. A /'

• 2 MERtSEn!3 J

a~== g t.t &r$Mk[Yk #'D ~ h".%Mb j -w.w ; ..-s .+.$ $.. M-:.5 +er.,,a 65 = l .'f4 w g.pt;e m T_- 1981 EPR A f3s. ~ [ p m ~7-M pe:g,9 % m ~, s.. s.c *.% v w w. ., 4., g p %.> 4 4 i y y ) - :*.'.'g ?::-, ~ -.,%d".Mm..',. _.,J .N j./..: .,t ) . cv \\ -i'Mi. hk.1-i I ~

• ~..

.5. 1 f EPR C h. f,** h f k. h h 5 h. ~- \\ ;,, .+

V '~

o .w. <n E $? ~ E % ' - 7 ' - %,. + .g EPR D f i ;.IS..TlEM 7,.;j$.: L -- q

C.if

.f ".R i Q } l Ipls...h)[jIdh M A ... [..~~~ N? N 1' ^ .m .s b ..a -- f . _.I 39yy gyg g -- Y ..p"'yi:%.:uh%m;~CW -Qh. jf. L l : --lh - ) ? ,n I 2 g f b:;%^ tp sw:a,. ... e.k ~

P u

mm ...:.l y.y.N.A.:..,,G%---- r.3,p.y r.?. y. ;r v:. L.% g % W" C J. ~ #. g I C.. 'dC. ;.y'it EPR E j i. 9 ,k.a h J i-m- ~ i t ..e EMS im ~ ' fi t Figure C.2. Jacket Visual Appearance at the Completion of Simultaneous Test #1 a 0 -147-

i I i 1 I hkh) ihyhjl . sug6,.%vil _ l b kw y3 1p{.,e 2:p * '

• p

*. - W.

.m ?$ ' '-

. ; i ??)w: u.o u' W]%ie:

L e:

,,.f; '. 9,;ps u 4 q,,. 4

b. --

O ,l *^ Y ~'.. b &m* CU 7 OU . m _$ h s::J'N[*% ei u [ ' . ;_M

• jj y v [ 2 '

h - 3., c. e... .sr ,4 c .,2 s. DO On c xy.:;: ~. a.?. w m gz O OO C l '. e OC ) { , { ;. .7.'., ,v,. '.. .C u .k%..*:'TA'.5R$Ql'*1 f&vy*.n_;_ sig& }

1. 0 9

w-... e y% h '.&-Q & n-s.; s$ ,k.. w+ 9 7 s~. t a -w-A.=. %g' \\ \\}+):.,- 4)g' :,.. *. :, em, wgc.g 1:. Og 1 nv A mu l +- 0 O

r.,

r

a. ~

.4 C. l -i

• G H

.%\\ -). . C's '> *.. prn

• I I
• 1 ?,

t.ase e h,f. b' f t},t'h '~' h.l4[,-lo. 0f. + l $N$$y%w::an-l o o i:*.d(. g <w .n,.p:v t eh y:.;a. g.> a.. ea . m. v. -. -. xO . w:- - 2. 2-mr e .4 ' .r;. fmre~ Q. f..;.,,f I ,4 :i..*. - '-g:33. . k 's.g A(.cygy.Qf. a.W;ti g.,.n . :hi 4.l..-M Sgj C

C F

l .?.e c,- +,. .--e.. 7; .eK.-3.3.c p ;; ..% p :; s._.N , ;w.;-.;; ) f. naO ".g S,... _.g 3, ? MO, ?'l,*Di;yOA . -W g.9.4 H U ..._c.,." g

• s v:Y.

jA %k EW h . o w.... p% V1 W J;.T. s ^s a m.w w~i.r viirsn,v?'Sra.'@ ..wp j wm.=# o_ i WS-if.p.?s t ..A t - -/cus.u.p- ,3r .x. 4.:s .c s ,.x .. s- . a. , ;s .r 4 ?,- ?).. s i .:, - :.'M'2.- 'u*

• -4 LLs i

1 -148-I ~-, - I

W f Commic00rict a l'En2rgio ALOniqu2 3" ! ORIS/ LABRA Furukcwa Electric Co., Ltd. g'3 DP N* 21 Hiratsuka Wire Works 9 91190 Gif-Sur-Yvette 1-9 Higashi Yawata - 5 Chome 2. FRANCE Hiratsuka, Kanagawa Pref 3 Attn: G. Caussens JAPAN 254 E I J. Chenion Attn E. Oda E

7. Carlin v

Gesellschaf t fur Reaktorsicherheit f. Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique (GRS) abH CEN Cadarche DRE/STRE Glockengasse 2 g BP N* 1 D-5000 Koln 1 13115 Saint Paul Lez Duiance WEST GERMANY FRANCE Attn Library I Attn J. Campain Health & Safety Executive pj Conductores Monterrey, S. A. Thames House North P.O. Box 2039 Hilbank Monterrey, N. L. London SWlP 4QJ MEXICO ENGLAND Attn P. G. Murga Attn W. W. Ascroft-Hutton Electricite de France ITT Cannon Electric Canada Direction des Etudes et Recherches Four Cannon Court 1, Avenue du Ceneral de Gaulle Whitby, Ontario LIN SV8 92141 CLAMART CEDEX CANADA FRANCE Attn: B. D. Vallillee Attn: J. Roubault L. Deschamps Imatran Voima Oy Electrotechn. Department f Electricite de France P.O. Box 138 Direction des Etudes et Recherches SP-00101 Helsinki 10 Les Renardieres FINLAND Boite Postale n* 1 Attn B. Regnell 77250 MORET SUR LORING K. Koskinen [ FRANCE I Attn: Ph. Roussarie Institute of Radiation Protection V. Deglon Department of Reactor Safety J. Ribot P.O. Box 268 00101 Helsinki 10 EURATOM FINLAND Commission of European Communitlec Attn L. Reiman C.E.C. J.R.C. 21020 Ispra (Varese) Instituto de Desarrollo y Diseno ITALY Ingar - Santa Fe Attn G. Mancini-Avellaneda 3657 C.C. 34B FRAMATOME 3000 Santa Fe Tour Plat - Cedex 16 REPUBLICA ARGENTINA 92084 Paris La Defense Attn N. La ba th FRANCE Attn G. Chauvin E. Raimondo ) i -150-I

l c.j) p! 9~. [" Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute NOK AG Baden Takasaki Radiation Chemistry Beznau Nuclear Power Plant Research Establishment CH-5312 Doettingen Watanuki-machi SWITZERLAND Takasaki, Gunma-ken Attn O. Tatti JAPAN Attn N. Tamura Norsk Kabelfabrik K. Yoshida ~ 3000 Drammen NORWAY Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Attn: C. T. Jacobsen Tokai-Mura Naka-Gun Nuclear Power Engineering Test Center Ibaraki-Ken 6-2, Tcranomon, 3-Chome 319-11 Minato-ku JAPAN No. 2 Akiyana Building Attn Y. Koizumi Tokyo 105 JAPAN Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Attne S. Maeda Osaka Laboratory for. Radiation Chemistry 25-1 Mii-Minami machi, Ontario Hydro Neyagawa-shi 700 University Avenue Osaka 572 Toronto, Ontario MSG 1X6 JAPAN CANADA Attn Y. Nakase Attn: R. Wong B. Kukreti Kraf twerk Union AG Department R361 Oy Stromberg Ab Hammerbacherstranse 12 + 14 Helsinki Works D-8524 Erlangen Box 118 WEST GERMANY FI-00101 Helsinki 10 Attn

1. Terry' FINLAND Attn:

P. Paloniemi Kraf twerk Union AG l Section R541 Rhe inisch-We s t f a11 sche r Postfach: 1240 Technischer 'Uberwachunge-Verein e.V. D-8757 Karlstein Postfach 10 32 61 NEST GERMANY D-4300 Essen 1 Attn: W. Siegler WEST GERMANY Attn R. Sartori Kraf twerk Union AG Ipmmerbacherstrasse 12 + 14 Sydkraft Postfach: 3220 Southern Sweden Power Supply D-8520 Erlangen 21701 Malmo WEST GERMANY SWEDEN Attn W. Morell Attn O. Grondalen Motor Columbus UKAEA Parkstrasse 27 Materials Development Division CH-5401 Building 47 Baden AERE Harwell SWITZERLAND OXON OX11 ORA Attn: H. Fuchs ENGLAND Attn: D. C. Phillips -151-}}