Text

Forwards Draft NUREG/CR-6095, Aging,Loca & High Potential Testing of Damaged Cables. Rept Documents Testing That Provided Basis for NRC Info Notice 92-081.Expects That NUMARC Will Provide NRC W/Results of Assessment
	ML20057A324
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/24/1993
From:	Thadani A; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Rasin W; NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT &
References
	RTR-NUREG-CR-6095 IEIN-92-081, IEIN-92-81, NUDOCS 9309140018
	Download: ML20057A324 (1)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _.. s, August 24 1993 Mr. William Rasin Vice President and Director Technical Division Nuclear Management and Resources Council 1776 Eye Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006-2496

Dear Mr. Rasin:

I am sending you a copy of a draft repart from Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), NUREG/CR-6095, SAND 93-1803, " Aging, Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA), and High Potential Testing of Damaged Cables." This report documents the testing that provided the basis for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Information Notice (IN) 92-81, " Failure of Electrical Cables with Bonded Hypalon Jackets." SNL management has approved this draft report and NRC has completed its review. SNL supplied this report to various industry representatives (including NUMARC) for peer review before final publication. The enclosed report should provide NUMARC with additional information to support your assessment of the concerns with bonded jacket electrical cables identified in IN 92-81. As stated in your letter of January 22, 1993, we expect that you will provide us with the results of your assessment. If you have any questions, please contact George Hubbard at 301-504-2870. Sincerely, p]&Q lb ibe h Ashok C. Thadani, Director // Division of Systems Safety and Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Mh [ (G,13 COR' As stated A rp pg-4 L y.[,w /Jnf AQ*] i i y / W / d bd d' ^,# D Distribution: See next page , g5,$. 3 (iccS) l g jz) n (0 yyj).pf(lbbkbV" f

See previous concurrences.

pad dY SPLB:DSSA Tech Ed. SPLB:DSSA SPLB:DSSA D:DSSA D:DSSA ADummer* GHubbard* CMcCracken* MVirgilio AThadani 08/18/93 08/18/93 08/18/93 08/18/93 08/St/93 08/T4f/93 [G:\\EQ\\RASIN3.AMD] {[gedg M g ph p 9309140018 930824 PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC PDR i s' {

f i Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185 I August 12,1993 i Mr. Hukam Garg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission M/S OWFN 8H7 Washington, DC 20555 l

Dear Hukam:

Enclosed is a copy of the draft of NUREG/CR-6095. SAND 93-1803. Aging. Loss of-Coolant A ccident iLOCA ), and High Potential Testing of Damaged Cables. This draft has been approved [ l by Sandia management and has completed NRC review. It has now been supplied to various industiv representatives for review as we agreed. If you have any final comments please provide l l them by September 14, 1993. Also since the repon has now been approved for public release l l and comment, a copy of this draft repon can now be placed in the NRC Public Documents Room. ( Please fax any final comments that you might have to Ray Vigil, (505) 844-8719. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Ray at (505) 844-5639 or Mark at (505) 844-5599. Since ly. } 's s' ' kT Ray. Vigil I Components and Structures Safety and Reliability Depanment 6449 fa W Mark J. Jacobus Strategic Defense Studies Department 4114 Copy to (w/o enclosure): 4114 M. J. Jacobus 6449 R. A. Vigil i dos o30305 t l

l e.3 f j NUREG/CR-6095 SAND 93-1803 l RV l Aging, Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA), and High Potential l Testing of Damaged Cables i i Ray A. Vigil' Mark J. Jacobus j I l Manuscript Completed: June 1993 l Date Published: August 1993 i l l I Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque,NM 87185 Operated by l Sandia Corporation for the U. S. Department of Energy { l P Prepared for Division ofReactor Controls and Human Factors Instrumentation and Controls Branch l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Under Memorandum of Understanding 40-550-75 Washington, DC 20555-0001 NRC FIN L-1903

Science & Engineenng Associates. Inc.

6100 Uptoum Blvd. NE Albuquerque. NM 87110

t Abstract Expenments were conducted to assess the effects of high potennal tesung of cables and to assess the sun 1vability of aged and damaged cables under loss-of-coolant a :tdent (LOCA) conditions. High potenual testing at 240 Vd:/nul on undamaged cables suggested that no damage nas incurred on the selected cables. Dunng aging and LOCA testing. Okonite ethylene propylene rubber (EPR) cables with a bondedjacket expenenced unexpected failures. The failures appear to be pnmanly related to the level of thermal aging. For Brand Rex cross hnked polyolefin (XLPO) cables, the results suggest that 7 mtis of insulation rematrung should pre the cables a high probability of sunmng accident exposure following aging. ~~ itat: nmstanm d-en. hen ~ ri!s ofi: s ilati~1 rem-n r* 'meged cab! s is approvirnately U k'!de This voltage level would almost certainly be unacceptable to a unlity for use as a damage assessment tool. However, additional tests indicated that a 35 kVd: voltage apphcanon would not damage virgin Brand Rex cables when tested in water. Although two Rockbestos sihcone rubber cab!cs failed danng the accident test, the degree of thermal apng seemed to be at least as imponant as the reduced wall thickness in causing the failures. It appears likely that under less stressful therrrd aging conditions. the sthcone rubber cables would sun 1ve accident tesung with as httle as 4 mtis or less of remaining insulation. ~. 11NIV I l 1

r,,-- , l,. Table of Contents ZXI:CLTVE

SUMMARY

l0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES... .3 2.0 EXPERIhENTAL ARRANGEMENT. --4 2.1 Test Specimens. ..4 2' T -' Str te n- .1 2.2.1 Phase I.. -4 2.2.2 Phase 11.. 2.2.3 Phase III. =6 2.3 Sample preparation.... 6 2.4 Emironment Monitonng. 7 2.5 Insulation Resistance. ' 30 TCIT RESLI.TS .S 31 PNV 1 Results.. .8 3.2 haase 11 Results. ..8 3 2.1 Thermal and Radiation Apng., .. 8 3.2.2 IDCA Simu!: tion Rcsults..

9 3.2.3 Post-Accident Dielectn Tests..

... 15 l 3.3 Phase III Results... . 15 40 CONCLUSIONS. 17 I 50 REFERENCES.. ........... 18 o. I I i V I

l t e List of Figures .P,, s.gt a Firure 1. Lengthwise Cross-Secuens of Brand Rex Rockbestos, and Okomte Samples with 30,15 and 7 Mils of insulation Remaining. .7 2. Thermal Aging Profile.. .9 3. Cracks in Oionite Insulation Post-Thermal Aging.. ..10 4. LOCA Simulauen Temperature Profiles.. .10 ' OCA imm::aa Assure Psofiles... .. ] 1 6. Okonnte Failures Post-LOCA.. .. 12 7 Eqmvalent Time-Temperature Corresponding to the Thermal Aging in this Program and Prenous Sandia Testing.. ........-.. 13 8. Dielectnc Strength Based on Remaining insulauon Thickness.. ..15 9. Breakdown Voltages for Damaged Brand Rex Cables Tested in Water. 116 l List of Tables Pagg s Table 1. Number of Samples for Each Test Condition. 4 2. Approstmate Equivalent Agmg Temperatures for 40 and 60 Years. 3. Breakdoun Vohages and Confidence intervals from Phase I.. 8 4. Times When Okonite Cables Blew 1 A Fuses. - II 6 Summah of Rockbestos Cable Data.. -- 13 5. Summarv of Brand Rex Cable Data. -14 7. Breakdoivn Voltages and Confidence Intervals from Phase 111.. 16 l i f l l l 1 si I l

',~ + Nomenclature ACRS Advisory Comnuttee on Reactor Safeguards AWG Amenean Wire Gauge r CSPE chlorosulfonated polyethylene (also known as HypalonS) EPDM ethylene propylene diene monomer EPR ethylene propylene rubber EPRI Electne Power Research Insutute EQ Equipment Qualificauon failure Dunng LOCA exposure, failure is defined as the opening of a 1 Amp fuse. ID inner diameter IR Insulauon Resistance LICA Low Intensity Cobalt Array, facility for performing irradiation exposures located at Sandia National Laboratories. LOCA loss-of-coolant a :: dent a design basis event for nuclear power plants. mil one-thousandth of an mch I NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission [ SR silicone rubber TVA Tennessee Valley Authonty XLPE cross linked polyethylene XLPO cross linked polyolefin vii

i t -l l 3.' l .l Acknowledgments l l i Our appreciation is extended to all who contributed to this research cfTort. Ed Baynes and Mike Ramirez assisted with test - ( preparations and test monitoring. Gary Fuehrer created the data logging programs and the data rew*= programs Curt Nelson assisted with data reduction and technical advice. Deanna Sevier performed the x-rays. Special thanks go to - Hukam Garg for his suppon and guidance throughout this program. i l i ) llo Vde) or ac voltages had been used dunng the LOCA em1ronment. simulation, earlier failures may hast occurred. Reckh stos SR cabl~ with as little as 4 mils of insulation Additional results. beyond the objectnts, were provided by remaming have a res.mable probability of sumvmg in an this test program. The failures of the Okonite cables in acciden, after thermal and radiation apng to the this program and in a previous test program suggest that conditions defined :n this test program. It appears that the bonded CSPE ja:ket is detnmental to ostrail cable thermal aging may have been a sigmficant factor (together integnty. These results indicate that even the undamaged with the reduced wall thickness)in causmg two failures cable cannot meet its rating with the bonded CSPE jacket that w ere observed for the Rodbestos SR cables. Thus. u hen thermal apng is performed accordmg to the NUREG/CR 6095

_. _ = I i I ) q -j -t Executive Summary j l ( Arrhenius theory as used in this testing. Another. interesting result indicaes that even though the Okonite l cables sustained cracks during thermal aging (prior to the j LOCA simulation), all of the cables survived for a period of time in the LOCA simuladon. The first Okonite failure _j !cpering cf 1 A fusc) oce :rred at 11 hours (just after the j i chamber emironment became saturated steam) and the l final Okonite failure occurred 182 hours into the LOCA profile (ahhough there were indications of erratic behasior 'l ~ and perhaps even failure well before the fuse opened). It must be noted, however, that no chemical spray was used i during the LOCA simulation. The use of chemical spray would have caused failures to appear shortly after the l chemical spray was started because of the enhanced ground plane created by the chemical spray. .i l i I f l i r i l ~. i ? j 1 I 1 NUREG/CR-6095 '2 i

^ I 1.0 Introduction and Objectives j I Amid allegations that cables had been improperly handled The specific program objecuves were as follows-and potennally damaged during installation at the Watts Bar and Sequoyah nuclear power plants, the Tennessee a. Assess whether high potential testing at Valley Authonty (TVA) proposed an m ntu high voltage 240 Vdc/ mil causes damage to selected cables. dielectnc test program to assess whether installed cables High potential testing of cables will be performed had been damaged. Under agreement with the Nuclear with the cables immersed in uiter. Regulatory Commission (h1C), TVA disconnected met doles from wnice, tilled the cabie conautt wnit b. Assess the minimum msulauon thickness water, and performed a 240 Vdc/ mil dielectne withstand necessary for accident functionality after j test on the cables [1]. Cables passing tlus test were accelerated aging to nominal lifetimes of 40/60 assumed to be funcuonal, while cables that failed this test years through aging and accident testing of were replaced. The NRC objected to the testing of cables damaged cables. in air, but agreed to tesung with the conduits flooded with water pnor to the high voltage application. Plant c. Assess the voltage level necessary for a high l operations personnel objected to the use of water in the potential test to detect when the insulation conduits, but eventually agreed to perform the tests. Some thickness has been reduced to the minimum lesti results from the TVA testing were desenbed in as defined in objective b. Informanon Notice 87-52 [1]. Concerns from the Advisory Commmee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), d. Assess whether high potential testing (at voltage TVA, and internally at NRC were raised that these high levels found in objecthe c) causes damage to potential tests may be damaging cables and/or that the selected sirgin cables. technical basts for setung the test voltage was inadequate. ] To vescht these concerns a test program was set up to c. Determine the relationship between cable length i assess potential damage resulting from high potential and de breakdown voltage. tesung and to examine the performance of damaged cable in accident emironments. N 3 NUREG/CR-6095

i \\ 2.0 Experimental Arrangement 2.1 Test Specimens water causes damage to seleced cables. The 240 Vde/ mil entenon is identical to that used in the TVA testing. Ultimate cable breakdown voltage was the entenon that Cable types were selected on the basts of matenal, usage in was used to evaluate damage. A set of 60 cables (20 of nuclear power plants, and availabihtv. Also taken into each of the three types of cablet each 3-fl lonc,. was m um ir wrm ani ts fmm predem; Candia ter. suojected to 24 cycies of 240 Vddmil high potenual programs, spwifically the Aging Degradation of Cables testing. Each cycle consisted of five minutes on and fht Program (2] Each cable type chosen was approved for use minutes off giving a total of 120 minutes energized and in this test program by the NRC Three cable types were 120 minutes deenergized The intent of this procedure chosen for this test program: was to simulate the possible application of a 240 Vddmil test performed periodically dunng a cable's lifetime. This 1. Okonite Okolon 112 AWG smcie conductor set and a similar set of 60 virgin cables were then cable insulated with 30 mils (0.030 in) of subjected to de breakdown testing. (Because of the high de ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) breakdowm voltage of the Okonite cables, ac testing had to insulation with a 15-mil bonded; be used for breakk.cn termg of these cables.) The chlorosulfenated polyethylene (CSPE) jacket breakdown voltages of the two sets of cable were compared lalso called a composite tnsulauon)- to establish whether the 240 Vdc/ mil affected the ultimate breakdown of the cables. 2. Rockbestos silicone rubber (SR) #16 AWG smgle conductor cable insulated with 30 mils of The high potential testing was conducted using a silicone rubber and jacketed with a fibergf ass Hipotronics 880PL portable de tester with a range of braid. 0-80 kVdc and a Hipotronics 750-2 ac tester with a range i of 04Mac. He current inp sensitivity settmg for the ac j 3. Brand Rex =12 AWG. stranded single and de testers was approximately 20 mA and 5 mA, conductor cable with 30 mils of cross linked

5PCCU**I -
F polyethylene (XLPE)insulanon. Results from previous tests at Sandia indicated that de Both the Okonite and Brand Rex cables are nuclear tesung results in more scattered data than ac high potential quahfied. w hile the Rockbestos cables are not nuclear testing when testing damaged cable in the presence of an qualified The Rockbestos catJes were the oniv silicone i nized gas (3) To address this possibility when testing in rubber product that we were able to procure fo'r testmg'. water two additional sets of 15 Brand Rex cables (one set cycled at 80 Vac/ mil as descnbed above, and the other set Test Strategy drgin) were tested to breakdown in water with an ac 33 potential applied. Table I shows the overall tesung The test program consisted of three phases. Phase I was conditions for Phase 1. the high potential testmg of virgm cables to determine if 240 Vdc/nul tesung damages cables: Phase II was the Table 1 Number of Samnles for Each Test Condition tesung of intentionally damaged cables to determme the voltage level necessary to detect when damaged cables will Cable Aging Condition Unaged Aged 240 not survive aging and accident testing; and Phase Ill was Type Minutes Brand 240 Vddmil-Water 20 20 the high potential testmg of virgin cables to determine if testmg at the voltages dermed in Phase 11 damages cables Rex 80 Vadmil-Water 15 15 2.2.1 Phase I Rockbestos 240 Vdc/ mil-water 20 20 Silicone The objective of Phase I was to assess u hether 240 Vdumil high potential testmg of cab!es immersed in Okonite 240 Vddmil-Water 20 20 Okolon I A tended anet is defmed as a cable Jadet that cannni casily be J separa:ed from the insulation Poe.sibly danng natural a png or acceicrated sting,. a jadet mnially unhanded may effccuvely become tumitti NUREG/CR-6095 4
Expenmental Arrangement Table 2 Annroximate Eouivalent Arine Temperatures for 40 and 60 Years. 4 40-yr 60-yr Aging Aging Time Activation Ambient Ambient Cable Type Temperature Hours Energy Temperature Temperature ('F/* O (eV) (* F/'O ('F/*O OLumte CSPE 316/158 336 1.04 162n2 154/68 Okomte ] EPR 316/158 336 1.10 169n6 162n2 ] Brand Rex XLPE 316/158 336 1.37 192/89 187/86 Rockbestos SR 316/158 336 2.55(7) 244/118 241/116 In addition to the abost tests, the relationship between De thermal aging conditions were chosen to gn e a cable length and dielectn uithstand voltage was 60-year equivalent life at 65*C for a matenal with an im esugated. A decrerse in dielectnc withstand voltage is acuvauon energy of 1.00 (slightly below the actnauon expected as cable length increases because of the random energy of the CSPE jacket on the Okonite cables). With a nature and magmtude of cable imperfections. This selected aging time of 2 steks (336 hr), Arrhenius concept is the premise of the
weak-link

theory.
calculations gave an aging temperature of 158'C (316*F). Because all samples were aged simultaneously, each Hountr. previous tests at Sandia indicated that the material had a different equn alent aging temperature for a decrease in withstand voltage might be greater than 40- or 60-year life. Table 2 gists the approximate egceted when tesung with a: voltages in the presence of equivalent aging temperatures for 40 and 60-year '- an ionized gas [3]. To briefly examine whether such an lifetimes for each of the matenals tested. The activauon effect might occur with de testing in water, three longer energies in the table were either approximated from lengths of Brand Rex cable were tested (in addition to the manufacturers' data on the same or similar materials or 3-fl long samples). Two samples were 25-fl long and one approximated from available literature. Rev should not was 50-ft long. The data from the longer cable lengths be considered definitive since actual matenal acuvation was then compared statistically with the data from the energies were not determined. shorter cable lengths. The acuration energy for CSPE was esumated based on 2.2.2 Phuse H the data in References 4 and 5. Three different Hypalon@ matenals were tested in References 4 and 5: Phase 11 consisted of aging and accident tesung of 31 the insulation of a Kerite cable. the jacket of the same intenuonally damaged cables (10 each of Brand Rex and Kerite cable, and the innerjacket of an Anaconda cable. Okonite and 11 of Rockbestos) to assess the minimum In previous contacts, Kente indicated that their insulation insulation thickness necessary to give reasonable matenal is a considerably modified fonn of CSPE. In fact, Kerite stated that their insulation matenal is not Hypalon@ confidence that the aged cables would survive dunng accident conditions. The radiation aging was performed in the DuPont trade name for their CSPE. However, the Sandia's Low Intensity Cobalt Array (LICA) facility in a testing in References 4 and 5 indicated the matenal is stry stainless steel test chamber surrounded by Cobalt pencils similar to other Hypalon@ and the term H palon@ is 3 arranged in a cortfiguration that would satisfy test used in References 4 and 5. Because base Hypalon@ is directn es. Thermal aging followed the radiation exposure known to degrade much faster than matenals such as EPR and was performed in the same test chamber (out of LICA and XLPO, it is not at all surprising that Kente would peoll. ulth electne circulation heaters used to maintain the significantly modify the insulation matenal. However, the temperature within the chamber. Air was introduced into jacket would not be expected to have as much modification the chamber dunng both radiation and thermal aging on either the Kerite or the Anaconda cables. Thus, we feel egosures to maintain ambient ovvgen concentrations. the jacket materials should represent the Okonite jacket The nominal plant radiation aging simulated uits 20 quite util. The actnation energ'es in References 4 and 5 Mrads. for thermal aging only are 2411 kcal/ mole (1.04 0.04 eV) for the Kente Jacket. 25 kcal/ mole (1.08 eV) for the 5 NUREG/CR-6095
i l l ,Expenmental Arrangement Anaconda innerjacket and 2112 kcal/ mole (0.91!0.09 eV) for the Kente insulation. Giving more uright to the Following completion of the LOCA simulation those jackets than the Kente insulation, 1.04-1.08 eV seems to cables that survived were subjected to the following be a reasonable choice for the Okonite jacket. The dielectnc tests until failure of the cable was observed: difference between the 1.04 eV and 1.08 eV is quite small 240 Vdc/ mil for five minutes based on the toutst and the lower value was selected for subsequent analysis. remaining amount ofinsulation as measured by The accident ra6auon e90sure consisted of 110 Mrads pre-test x rays or by diameter measurements. l and was performed concurrently with the aging radiation 210 Vde/ mil for five minutes based on the xtente 1N de"d dose r: te eng radntio'i exposurc was approximately 300 krads/hr for 433 hours to achieve nominal cable insulation thickness. the total radation exposure of 130 Mrads. Actual dose ultimate breakdown voltage. rates in the chamber were determined by using 50 thermolununescent dosimeters placed around the mandrel on which the cables were mounted in the test chamber. The LOCA test failures utre assessed to determine a The cobalt pen::1 configurauon produced a mean dose rate enterion for approximate remaining cable insulation of 297.2 krai'hr with a 1-o sample standard deviation of thickness necessary for cable functionality dunng accident 23.9 krads/hr. The desired temperature dunng thermal con 6tions. To determine the voltage nerrmry to detect agmg was mamtained by two circulation heaters and the when less than the minimum thickness of insulation test chamber was insulated to minimize heat loss. Dunng remains at least ten cables of each type were milled to the thermal agmg exposure, the temperature inside the varying thicknesses and tested to breakdouTL The charaber was momtored by 20 type K thermocouples. resulting voltage levels were then used for the Phase III AAer compleuen of the aging and accident radiation and tesung. the accelerated thermal exposure. the cables utre exposed to a LOCA simulation similar to the test profile specified l in Figure Al ofIEEE STD 3231974 Standardfor 2.2.3 Phase III Quahymg Class IE Eqwpmentfor Nuclear Power l Generarmg Storions [6). No chemical spray was used The objective of Phase ill uss to assess whether high dunng the accident eposure. The LOCA exposure potential testing at the voltage lestis defined in Phase 11 l followed the IEEE STD 323-1974 temperature and causes damage to selected virgin cables. As in Phase I, pressure profiles for the first four days. After the first four ultimate cable breakdown voltage in water was the days, the temperature and pressure utre not decreased enterion used to evaluate whether damage had been done. l according to IEEE STD 323-1974. Rather, they remained A set of cables was subjected to high potential testing at at the same level for an ad6tional six days. giving a total the voltage determined in Phase 11 for six cycles of five I test duration of ten days. This abbreviated test is minutes on and five minutes off, for a total of 60 minutes. substituted for a longer test at redu cd egosure levels with Breakdous voltages of these cables were compared to the the understan6ng that the two tests are not necessanly breakdown voltages of the unaged cables from Phase i to technically equivalent. The EQ-Risk Scoping Study [7] establish whether the voltage cycling affected the ultimate indicated that equipment operability is most important breakdown of the cables. danng the irutial few days of an accident. The study con:!uded that "PRAs [probabilistic nsk assessments] 2.3 Sampie Preparation calculate that equipment function only has high risk significance if the egmpment operation occurs during the first few days aher a: ident initiation. Hence, PRAs only No special sample preparation was needed for Phases I and model plant a::ident response for the first 24 to 48 hours.- III. Samples were cut in 3-ft lengths with one end hating Thus, acceleration of the post-accident phase of the a Raychem heat shrinkable end:ap. Samples were cycled a:cident test appears to have relatively little nsk under defined conditions and tested to breakdown in a significan:e. 2.1-in inner diameter (ID) conduit that was filled with water. The cables were energized at 110 Vde, O Amps dunng the LOCA test. Each cable was individually connected to a Sample preparation for the aging and accident crposures l 1 A fuse. The fuse was sized to protect the poutr supply of Phase Il required approximately 60 ft of cable per l when gross failure of a cable occurred. A data logger and sample. Ten samples of the Okonite and Brand Rex cables l computer system automatically momtored the insulation and eleven sample of the Rockbestos cable were tested. l resistance of each cable at mtervals rangmg from 10 All of the cables. except a virgin specimen of each type, seconds to 10 minutes dunng the LOCA simulation. were damaged at five locations. A miniature lathe with a high speed grinding atta:hmem was used to produce a NUREGICR-6095 6
Expenmental Arrangemeist i , nominal one-mch leneth of damaged insulation as shown 7.. nYtronment h onitoring in Figure 1. The cables were mounted in a % block clamping device in the lathe cross-feed, w hich is Twenty type K thermocmples utre placed near the cables adjustable in 0.001-in (1-mil) increments. Hence, the nc empera e erm es were mn a an data logger. He presme depth of cable damage can be controlled to a few 1 i thousandths of an inch. He length of the damage area inside the test chamber was also monitored dunng the
"***""*""E*

E*"E*'
{ was controlled by the lonptudinal feed on the lathe. i Damage extent on the Rockbestos cables was difficult to reproduce because of the eccentncity between the insulator 2.5 Insulation Resistance and conductor. In adition, as the damage to the hkHtm " m! stet merev.eri. the irwulation e tsily tore l insulauon resistance measuremems were u.ade pnor to i Thus, heanly damaged insulation (>25 mits) was not and after radiation agtng and after thermal aging using a casily induced by our damage technique. The extent of Keithley electrometer connected to a computer-based data damage at each lo:ation was confirmed by measunng the acquisition system. A thorough explanauon of the i cable diameter before and after the milling operation Keithley electrometer IR scrup. procedures, and limitations I and/or by selected x-rays of the sampic and/or by post-test can be found in Appendix A of Reference 2. thickness measurements using an optical comparator. During the a:cident steam exposure, a data logger and He cables were then wTapped around a test mandrel computer system automatically momtored the insulation mounted in a test chamber. The damaged secuen of each resistance of each cable at discrete times, ranging from 10 j cable in the chamber was approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) long; seconds to 10 minutes between measurements. Rese irs ) the lead wires inside the chamber were about another are referred to as contmuous irs, although in reality, they 1.5 m long (vanes sh ghtly dependmg on the position of are not contmuous. The continuous irs are quite accurate the cable in the test chamber), and the remaining cable for resistances as low as 100 n. Houner. accuracy for l length (approximately 50 ft) was used for external 7 high resistance measurements (>10 0,) is limited by the connections. design of the system (2). irs above 10'O for a 3-m length of non coaxial cable have little adverse effect on nuclear power plant circuitry. Using the Keithley electrometer setup, IR measurements were made at sestral times during the accident steam exposure. These irs were performed at voltages of 100 and 250 Vdc for 1 minute. i Jacket (See Note) , ~. _........,, _. l Undarna med InsulatJon lr% yM. MMMeuc&sgyf5l@g;W i:~ ; p-+~iConductor4%Njs@h:m:q er m m.;sm;v mpc% wn w na r nc an mm m - w;us D arna ged InsulatJon (15 rnus) e m 7 qw.w.9_rm-r yr.w ms&SJ mdq S C M bM R %=F;&Scondoc. tog "M q gru
6 E ' ~ W i4 Q W E s k _..
MEM;tiQ Darnaged InsulatJon ("I rnile) af d$ MNdMWWN=O~5N#5iM 5 Figure 1 I.cngthwise Cross-Sections of Brand Res. Rockbestos and Okonite Samples With 30,15.7 mils of Insulation Remaining (Draming is not to scale). l (NOTE: Only OkonHe Lamples Hove an Addu6 anal 15-mil ILonded CSPEJacket.) l 7 NUREG/CR 6095 i
4 i 1 3.0 Test Results l 1 3.1 Phase I Results 13.8% f r uncycled cables. The standard deviations of ac breakdown voltages compared to the means were 10.7% for cytled cables and 12.6% for virgin cable. Hus, ac and The results of the Phase I testing indicate the dtfrerences in de tests did not produce significantly different amounts of breakdown voltage between cycled and uncytled cables for scaner in Gese tests. cach undamaged cable type. The high potenual tesung i i was conducted using a Hipotromes 880PL ponable d: The results from the tests to assess whether breakdown ' ester with a rance nf 0-RO kVdc cnd a Hiootmmes 750-7 voltage decicasch with length indicated that the 3-ft cable a: tester with a range of 0-50 kVac. All cables were tested results (40 samples, for a total length of 120-ft) did not to breakdown using the de test set except for the Okonite differ appreciably from the longer length cable results (3 i cables. w hich had breakdown voltages over 80 kVdc samples, for a total length of 100 ft). For this companson, i (based on the first 12 samples testedk Therefore, Okonite O' '"** N "
#I '" ** **
cables were tested to breakdown using the ac test set. De of each group of cables should be roughly the same. The 4 additional set of 15 Brand Rex cables was also tested with lowest breakdown voltage of the 3-fi samples was 44 kVde, i a: apphed voltages. while the lowest breakdown voltage of the three longer samples was 45 kVdc. Of course the astrage breakdown Table 3 gives the mean and 95% confidence inten21s for of the 34 samples was higher (62.0 kVde, including; both i the differences between breakdown s oltages of uncycled the cytled and the uncycled samples) than the average (virgin) and eveled cables. The stattsucal data in Table 3 breakdown of the longer lengths (55.6 kVde). again in are based on the assumption that the breakdown voltages accordance with the " weak-link" theory. Hus, these .1 are normally distnbuted. Note that except for the h,mited de tests in water do not suggest any unexpected Rcrkbestos cables. all of the confidence intervals include cable length effect (ahhough the expected effect is 0, indicatmg that the mean differen:e between breakdown i voltages of cytled and ungtled cables cannot be Present). l considered stausucally signtficant at the 95% confidence level. It may also be concluded that. with 95% confidence-3.2 Phase II Results the differences between the means for breakdown voltage s of ungtled and cycled cables do ;ot exceed 9.2 kVdc or 3.2.1 Thermal and Radiation Aging 4.1 kVa: for the Brand Re> cables. 2.0 kVac for the Okomte cables and 3.1 kVJe for the Rockbestos cables. For & Rase U tuung. de tow radasn &se ra@ Note that two of the differences in means were postuve and fr m 45 Mrad Muse of gradenWn 6e test j two were negauve. Based on the above data. high chamber). All of the cables had at least 120 Mrad total potentral testmg at 240 Vd:! mil does not significantly dose to some p4.'t of the cable. He chamber v2s not chance the ulumate breakdown voltage of the tested r tated dunng the radiation aging. No test anomatics were i d ies reponed during the irradiation penod. Temperature gradients during thermal aging were hmited to about 17'F in the tests to compare the scatter of a: versus dc testing, the standard devianons of the d: breakdown voltages compared to the means were 10.6% for cycled cables and Table 3 Breakdown Voltaces and 95% Confidence Intervals from Phase L i C cled Differencein Means & Number of Cable T pel Uncycled 3 3 Test Type Breakdon n Breakdown 95 % Samples (Mean kV) (Mean kV) Confidence Inten al Tested Unc3cled/ Cycled i Brand Rex /a 29.2 27.5 -1.7
2.4 15/15 Brand Rex!d:
59.7 64.2 4.5 4.7 20/20 Okonite/d: 31.4 31.8 0 4
1.6 20/20 Rockbestos/d:
38 6 36 8 -l 8 14 20/20 NUREG/CR-6095 8
1 Results i '(24*C). Figure 2 shout the temperature dunng thermal 3.2.2 LOCA Simulation Results agmg Note the drop in temperature at approximately 6 j days. This anomaly in temperature uns caused by a failed Following aging. the cables stre subjected to the LOCA ) circulauon heater. The defectne circulation heater was simulation. The temperature and pressure profiles dunng i removed while the rematning ctreulation heater the LOCA simulation are shown in Figures 3 and 4, mamtamed at least 100*C until a new circulation heater respecuvely. Plots for the first 24 hours of the socident was added to restore the chamber to the desired simulation are shown along with overall test profiles. The temperature. The drop m temperature existed for IR of each cable during the accident simulation is shoum l approumately 24 hours. The thermal aging was extended in Appendix A. An unexpected power supply failure l % '4 hr to compensate for this anomalv. occurred at approximately 30 hours into the LOCA { simulauon. A new pourt supply was installed at approximately 46 hours into the LOCA simulation J go, accounung for the brief transient noted in many of the 1 170[ insulation resistance graphs. 160 -C b1 Because of the cracks in the Okonite cables, we expected ~ ~' ~ U ' % w A^ ~ that all the damaged Okonite cables, except for the single g 1' g150f undamaged cable and the cable with the least amount of l damage, would fail early in the lhCA test. As it turned E 3 140 t L out. the undamaged cable n2s one of the first cables to 4 I i E f blow a 1 A fuse after the chamber environment became [*h saturated steam at approximately 11 hours from the start of l -Averate the LOCA exposure (see Table 4). The last surviving 120[/ -Mmi::ium Okonite cable sample blew its 1 A fuse at approximately i 210 l -Manmum 182 hours into the LOCA simulation. Other cables that utre known to have cracks through to the conductor did 200 ' not blow 1 A fuses until as late as 137 hours into the 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 LOCA test. Had chemical spray been present during the i test. these cables would hast all blows tuses carlier l s Hours because of the enhanced ground plane. These failures Figure 2 Thermal Aging Profile would probably have occurred soon after the chemical spray uns started. After completion of the thermal aging, a sisual inspection In a steam emironment, a cable with a crack through to revealed that all of the (intentionally) damaged Okonite the conductor behaves much like a terminal block (in the cables had developed cracks in their insulation and'or jackets. The virgm sample did not appear to have any sense that power and ground are only separated by the signs of cracks. Most of the cracks utre adjacent to the em1ronment). with IR very dependent on geometry and emironment. Some theoretical considerations regarding i damage locations, but outside the damaged area. Fi ure 3 F terminal block IR are given in Reference 9. As a cable I is a photograph of these cracks in several of the Okonite cables. The cracks utre circumferential and most utre splits longitudinally (as all the Okonite cables did). the l through to the conductor, although some cracks were geometry changes and the IR degrades until complete failure occurs. Because no chemical spray uns used in apparent only in the CSPEjacket (especially on the cable i with the least amount of damage). No cracks through to these tests and because actual geometry would be unknown in a real application, the exact timing of the IR behasior the conductor were noted on the cable with the least amount of damage. The exact cause of the cracks in should not be considered generally applicable. Rather, any cable that demonstrated erratic IR behasior should be unknown, but a major factor appears to be thermal aging of the bonded jacket material, followed byjacket cracking considered vulnerable to failure prior to blowing the i A fuse. that propagated to the insulation. Because of these failures and other subsequent accident test failures, the NRC issued Information Notice 92-8118]. The other two cable tpes (Brand Rex and Rockbestos) did not appear to have cracks 1 in the insulation. i 9 NUREG/CR-6095 \\
Resuns' .m ym I Ft Y ^ e e n C. .af' j .h j g e, i i <.-= k W 7 i 59 -V [ m p.<.-) .i: i v. '!\\ g '7g j ~ ..g ~~ .t " '.W t, .Cp (M ' ^ /- y = _ _-- 1 L,. C??' ~. _.. l .A [J. 2 ~. l Figure 3 Cracks in Insulation Post-Thermal Aging l l 1 l l 180 s. 1so, J~ n is g.1 160 I ,1 LOCA Temperature g 140 34o Profile (Average) 8 120 { 120 _5 100 \\ $ 100 f [ 80 f LOCA Temperature [ so. E Profile (Average) e C % r. yMr c r 1 l 'O I 40f ( i U? l 0* 0 j 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 24o 264 l Hours Hours l Figure 4 LOCA Simulation Temperaturr Profiles t 1 i NUREG/CR-6095 10 I l
t l Results 1 M M. l i 70 " LOCA Pressure 70 $ LOCA Pressure ( Profile Profile l 60 60 ti i 1; E E 50 j 50 b b F E@f 2@@ E l 2 30 f g;30ii t g. 20 j 20 m 10h 10[ 0^ 0' 0 2 4 6 81012141618202224 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 i IIours lloun i Figure 5 LOCA Simulation Pressure Profiles Table 4 Times When Okonite Cables Blew 1 A Fuses Cable Time of Minimum Cable Time of Minimum [ Number Blown Fuse Insulation Number Blown Fuse Insulation (hours) Remaining (hours) Remaining l (mils) (mits) j Okomte 21 102 2.5 Okonite 26 90 5 i Okonite 22 137 6.5 Okonite 27 122 6 i Okomte 23 50 5.5 Okonite 28 97 3 i Okonite 24 11 5.5 Okonste 29 182 5 Okonite 25 81 3 Okonite 30 14 30 f venriedin x-r y me.amie a. It ums evident during the post-LOCA inspection that the could affect the undamaged cables as util as the damaged l Okonite cables had clearly detenorated grossly during the cables appears to be the increased thermal aging used in l LOCA exposure. All the Okonite cables had longitudinal this program. Thus we strongly beliest that the lesel of l cracks over much of their length, exposing the center thermal aging used in this test program v2s the single i conductor as shown in Figure 6. In addition, identical most important environmental factor that caused the undamaged single conductor Okonite Okolon cables that Okonite cables to fail. In the previous testing [10), one of utre used as cable ties in the test chamber exhibited the four Okonite cables failed during a IDCA simulation aAer same type of extensrve longitudinal cracking. Because of aging for 9 months at about 98'C (208'F), while none of the nature of these failures and comparison from previous three cables failed during a LOCA simulation after aging testing (discussed later), ut believe that the failure rate of for 6 months at 98*C (208'F). In by cases, radiation the Okonite Okolon cables under our test conditions is aging u2s performed concurrently s ah the thermal aging. esseatially 100% Because of their unexpected failures. no The equivalent 40-3 tar aging temperatures corresponding data for the minimum msulation thickness necessary to to the 9-and 6-month aging exposures are 57'C (135'F) survive agmg and accident tests can be determined for the and 54*C (129'F), respectwely, assuming an activation Okonite cables. The observed failures were very similar in energy of 1.04 eV (which corresponds to an approximate appearance to a failure of an Okonite cabic and several a:tivation energy for the Okonite CSPE jacket). Thus. in failures of another cable that had a bonded CSPE jacket in an approximate sense. ut can say that after the equivalent l p7evious testing at Sandia [10}- of 40 years at $4*C (129'F), O of 3 cables failed; after the equivalent of 40 years at 57*C (135'F),1 of 4 cables Based on a comparison of the experimental conditions in failed; and after the equivalent of 40 tars at 76*C 3 the two test programs. the only significant difference that NURE9CR@95 1I 1 i --r-w
l l'. 'Results j (169'F), all of the tested cables failed. Based on this data, in addition to the Okomte cables, five Brand Rex and two I j it is reasonabic to conclude that after agmg at 54*C (129' Rockbestos cables that had been (intenuonally) damaged j F) for 40 years (assuming an actn auen energy of 1.04 eV). pnor to agmg also blew their 1 A fuses dunng the LOCA. the cables are hkely to sumve accident testmg. Beyond 55 The failures of these cables dunng accident tesung urre
C (13 l'F) normal temperature. the probabthty of failure all at damaged lo::adons. The damage locadons were cut dunng an accident increases and by 72*C (162*F), failure from the cable, cross-secuened as close to the breakdoun appears almost censin (for the radiation exposure dose and lo::ation as possible, and the insuladon thickness was accident profile used in our tesung).
measured using an optical comparator. Tables 5 and 6 give a summary of the performance of the Brand Rex and To apply the da:a to hfeumes of other than 40 years, the Rockbestos capies in the 1 OCA tests. The nominal Arrhenius theory can be used to equate the test conditions remaining insulation is based upon diameter measurements dunng milling. The opacal measurement to a temperature for any given lifeume (or conversely, a hfeume at any gnen temperature) This is shoum in
2s performed after LOCA testing. From Table 5, in Figure 7. where the thermal agmg data from the previous appears that 7-mils is about the minimum insulation thickness necessary for Brand Rex cable funcuonahty tesung and the current tesung is compared, using an acuvation energy of 104 eV. The top cunt is based on dunng accident conditions after aging to the conditions the current testing and is obnously the most sestre used in this test program. Cable 4 exhibited signs of thermal agmg conditions. The middle cunt corresponds failure in 4 out of 5 damage locations; thus. the data for cable 4 in Table 5 is reponed as a range of remaining to 9 month of aging tt 98'C (208'F) and the lower cunt insulation thickness. Cables 2 and 6 both passed the ccrresponds to 6 months of aging at 98'C (208'F)
LOCA test with less than 6 mils ofinsulauon remaining. Assummg the Anhenms theory to be vahd. any time. However, these cables failed very early in dielectne testing temperature pomt on a gntn cunt represents the same (discussed later). indicatmg that they may have failed thermal agmg as any other pomt on the same cunr. Thus. during the LOCA if ac voltages had been applied and/or if for example, at 50*C for 60 years. no failures would be the applied voltage had been higher (but still within rating expected. at 54*C for 60 years, some failures would be of the cabic). expected. and at 68'C for 60 years, almost certam failure would be expected. l r7 _ _ _ _ _ J _ ; m,, g r [ p k u f8 i ~. U{, 3 J 0 p -===' ( p 1 [ x-F i 4 ,(j Figure 6 Okonite Failures Post-LOCA NUREG!CR-6095 12 i
Results 100 5'S ^ Current.2 Weeks Aging, All raiwd 90 F = + Predous,9 Months Agios, I of ~. ss - (\\ ,x 4 Failed Preneus,6 Mosths Aging,9 of (g g \\( '*g
y J Faikd j
's g '*w I I R ,5 i I \\\\ N. '[\\ ["[ 'Qg 60 - I 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 Lifetime (yr) Figure 7 Equivalent Time-Temperature Corresponding to the Thermal l Aging in this program and Preious Sandia Testing Tahic 5 Summarv of Brand Rex Cable Data ~. Nominal Post-dielectric Remaining Breakdown Optical " Breakdown Cable # Insulation X-ray Voltage (Vde)* Measurement Voltage (mils) (mils) (Vde/ mil) 1 3 Y Failed 4.5 Immediately 2 4 Y 960 3.0 320 3 3 Y Failed N/A Immediately 4 2.5-6 Y Fuse Blown 229 6.3 Hnurs 5 2.5 Y Fuse Blown 141 4.4 Hours 6 3 Y $00 5.6 89 7 8 N Failed 3.9 Immediately 8 10 N 2400 7.7 310 ( 9 30 N 5R000 N/A 1900 "
10 15 N
28000 12.7 220 For those cables that blew the i Amp fuse during the LOCA simuistiart the hour that the fuse opened uss recarned as the failure amie.
This data is based on remammg msulation thickness iluckness is based on ben avanlable measurement usmg opical n<sy or shamster ;.
....a;.; in order ofpreference. Based on nnmmal msulat on thickness of 30 mits. 13 NUREG/CR-6095
.~ - - - ~ Results Table 6 Summarv of Rockbestos Cable Data Post-dielectric Nominal Breakdown Optical Breakdown Cable a Remaining X-ray Voltage (Vdc)* Measurement Voltage * * (Vde/anil) { insulation 4 (mils) 11 11.5 N 3400 16.5 2100* " i 12 19 Y 2200 18.9 120* " l 13 12.5 N 71500 21 6 1000 l 14 17.5 Y Failed 20.9 Immediately l 15 20 N 23000 9.2 2500 I6 19.5 N 6800 3.9 1700 17 17 N Fuse Blown 175 N/A Hours 18 19 N 33000 13.2 2500 "
l9 14.5 N
31000 13.5 2300 20 30 N 50000 N/A 1700 " " ~ i 31 5 N 8100 5.3 1500-For those canics that bica ow 1 Amp fuse dunns the IOCA simuistmast ow hour that the fuse opened oss recorded as the failure sm. i 71us data as based on remairung msulation thicknest lhickness as based on best available- - - - ~ usang optsal a.rsy, or diameter e sn order of preference. These cabies dwi nas bruak dous at damagad locatens. but the Vdumilis based on the uptical rnessuremera of uucknesk nevenhelesL Based on nemunal msutstean thickness of 30 mitt Actual ensuistoon thskness uas probably lower, whch would have resuhsd in higher breakdown wohape per md. Table 6 indicates that the two Rockbestos cables that failed i10*C (230*F)(although this is based on a somewhat dunng LOCA exposure had appreximately 17-21 mils of uncenain activation energy). Even though the silicone l insulation remammg. These two Rockbestos cables began rubber is rated to 150*C (302'F), the severe degradation j to show degradation during the accident test at about 26 noted on this cable indicates that aging probably played a j hours (cable that blew I A fuse) and 212 hours (cable that major factor in the failures. Because the only failures j did not blow a 1 A fuse) Only one of these cables occurred with about 15 20 mils ofinsulation remaining underwent pre-test x-rays to confirm remaining insulation and because all ihr cables with less than 15 mils of l esumates. with the x-ray indicating a minimum remaining insulation remaining sunited the accident test, the l thickness of 17.5 mils. The acmal failure point of this reduced insulation thickness was probably not the most same cable was measured as 20.9 mils with the optical entical factor in the failures. Howeser, it must be noted i comparator after the test (note that the actual failure poim that the cable that blew a 1 A fuse during the LOCA would not necessanly be the point of minimum insulation exposure and the cable that failed immediately during the ] thickness). After the accident, the remaining thickness on post-LOCA dielectnc test both had failures occur at the other sample could not be determined because of severe damaged locations. indicating that the reduced insulation degradation at the failure point. Unfonunately, this cable was at least an imponant factor in the failures. The was not x-rayed before aging and the only measurement of overall results suggest that if this silicone r-bber is used at insulation thickness is based on the diameter somewhat lower temperatures, it might be epected to measurements dunng milling. Because of the strong sunive accident testing for cables with 4 mils or more of eccentncity of the Rockbestos SR cables. this latter remaining insulation. It is estn possible that cables with measurements can be sigmficantly in error (perhaps by as less remaining insulation would sunist since all of the much as 10-mils; for example, see the error in the tested cables with less than 15 mils ofinsulation sunited measurement of cable 15 h the accident testing. During sample peparation, we found that when the insulation ns milled below a cenain point In contrast to the two cable failures several Rockbestos (approximately 25 mils removed), the insulation tore and cables sumved the accident test with insulation exposed the conductor; thus, we were unable to easily thicknesses ranging down to 3.9 mils. As noted iil grind samples to remaining insulation thicknesses less Table 2. the 40- and 60-year equivalent thermal aging than 5 mils. temperatures for the Rockbestos cable utre both more than NUREG/CR-6095 14 . ~..
Results 3.2.3 Post-Accident Dielectric Tests is possible that these cables would hast also failed during the accident exposure. Howtver, unlike the cables that immediately failed the post.LOCA dielectne tests, neither Following completion of the a:cident test. suniving cables of these two cab!cs had any indicadon of problems dunng were subjected to the follomng dielectric tests until failure the LOCA simulation. Dere appears to be a clear of the cable was obsentd. Cables remamed on the difference in breakdown voltage in Vddmil between the mandrel for the dielectnc test except for the Okonnte cables Brand Rex cables with less than 8 mils ofinsulation which were removed because of their total failures. remaining and those with greater than 12 mils remaining. With less than 8 mits remaining, the breakdown voltage a. 240 Vddmil for Dve nunutes based on the lowest did not exceed 320 Vddmit. while above 12 mils the nomirn! rerraming amount of mrulation. See breakdown voltage was not less than 1900 Vddnui. Figure 8 cunt A. After the accident exposure, the silicone rubber cables b. 240 Vdumil for Dve nunutes based on the nonunal were very fragile, lending support to the theory that cable insuladon thickness (7200 Vdc for all cables thermal aging ums a significant factor in the failures of the tested). See Figure 8 line B. silicone rubber cables. The silicone rubber cables all had ( breakdown voltages of at least 1000 Vddmil except c. Uhimate breakdous voltage, j cable 12, which had a breakdown voltage of 120 Vddmit. 4000, (Note that cable 12 had no indication of degradation dunng the LOCA exposure.) Cables 11,12. and 18 did not g break down at damage locations. Cabie il broke down at ll ! e Brand Rex i Rockbestos SRl a locadon away from any damage, white cabies 12 and 18 ! LA broke down in locations adjacent to a damage area. When 3000 h ! { {! cable 12 was inspected after the breakdown, a crack was found adjae:nt to a damaged area. It is possible that this i b e e d \\ cable was accidentally bumped and damaged danng the j e, i removal of the Okonite cables from the test mandrel (the . W 2003 - Okonite cables were removed from the mandrel prior to N I the breakdown testmg of the remaining cables), causing f f a s the premature breakdown. However, the fact that the C } breakdown voltage was over 2000 Vdc tends to indicate s 1000 F s { that damage w2s not done during removal, since any damage done during removal would be expected to cause lB',* throut,h-wall cracks [2]. Rather, the crack was probably inducM when the cable broke dowm. Similar behanor uss i 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 observed wah a Kente cable in previous Sandia tests when the cable m2s subjected to post-LOCA bends and high Rmeg Insuhtio:: (mils) potenual testing [lIj. Figure 8 Dielectric Strength Based on Nominal 3.3 Phase III Results Remaining Insulation Thickness he results from the Phase III testing show the differences The results of these post-LOCA breakdown tests are given in breakdown voltages betuten Brand Rex cables cycled at in Tables 5 and 6. Figure 8 presents the dielectnc strength 35 kVdc and the uncycled Brand Rex cables from Phase I. data in Vddmil of remaining insulation versus remaining he 35 kVdc cycling voltage entenon sus determined by insulation thickness for the Brand Rex and Rockbestos examining the results of numerous breakdown tests of cables. Note that the two Brand Rex cables that passed the damaged Brand Rex cables as shown in Figure 9 and from accident test mth less than 7 mils ofinsulation remaining prenous Sandia tests [~,]. The 35 kVdc test voltage will (samples 2 and 6) both had breakdown voltages less than detect when Brand Rex cables have insulation damage the 600 Vac rating of the cable (considering 600 Vac to be greater than 23 mils presided that the cables are tested in equivalent to 1800 Vdc). In addition the breakdown water. Twenty-five cables were cycled as in Phase I for a voltage in Vddmil for these two cables was much lower total of 60 minutes at 35 kVdc (30 minutes mth voltage than the expected breakdown voltage of this matenal (i e., applied and 30 minutes without voltage applied). The about 2000 Vddmil) after LOCA. If the cablec had been cables utre then tested to breakdoum in a 2.1-inch ID energized mth ac potential and/or if the applied voltage conduit filled with water. Table 7 gives the mean and 95% had been higher (but sull within the rating of the cable). st confidence intervals for the breakdouw voltages for these 15 NUREG/CR-6095
l " Result's cycled cables and the virgin cables from Phase 1. Note that voltagnfter cycling is really just a reel-to-reel variation i the difference in means is positive, indicating that cycling rather than any effect of voltage cycling. Thus, it appears i did not appear to adversely affect the breakdown strength that the effects of voltage cycling are smaller than the of the cables. However,it should be noted that the Brand effects of reel-to-reel variations in cable breakdown Rex cables tested in Phase H1 were from a dtfrerent reel of voltage. cable. Thus, it is likely that the increased breakdowTi Table 7 Breakdown Voltaces and 95% Confidence Intervals frorr Phase ITL Cable Type / Uncycled Cycled Difference in Number of Test Type Breakdown Bres Adown Means & 95% Samples Tested (Mean kV) (Mean kV) Confidence Uncycled/ Cycled j Interval (kV) ) i Brand Rex /DC 59.7 67.4 9.7
4.0 20/25 i
l l kVdc 70 65 60 N 1 1 N I \\ g i 40 35 x 30
\\
05 20 15 10 A l l Nl + 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Mils Removed Figure 9 Breakdown Voltages for Damaged Brand Res Cables Tested in Water i l NUREG/CR-6095 16
l 4.0 Conclusions t The following conclusions may be drauti from this c. The major causes of the Okonite able failures = l program: seem to be the extent of the thermal aging and the presence of a bonded CSPE jacket that ages more a. Brand Rex XLPE cables with 7 mils ofinsulation rapidly than the underlying insulation. It should remaining are likely to sunive in an accident be noted that the tested cable ass rated for j after thermal and radiation aging to the 40-year operation at 90*C (194*F), while our j conditions dermed in this test crogram. testing simittated only aboe,72*C (162*F) for the ~ jacket and 76*C (169'F) for the insulation using I b. Rockbestos SR cables with as little as 4 mils of the activation energies ginn in Table 1. insulation remaming have a reasonable probability of surviving in an axident after f. In a limited set of testing with applied dc thermal and radiation aging to the conditions voltages, no unexpected length effects were noted. defined in this test program. Such effects had been suggested in prmious ac testing at Sandia when the cables were tested in j l c. It appean that thermal aging may have been a an ionized gas emironment. 4 i sigmficant factor in causing the two failures that were observed for the Rockbestos SR cables. g. High potential testing of cables using the Thus, reduced thermal aging might decrease the 240 Vdc/ mil critenon did not cause damage to the failure rate of these cables. The two Rockbestos three cable types tested. SR cables that failed began to show degradation dunng the accident test at about 26 hours (cable h. High potential testing using a test voltage of i that blew 1 A fuse) and 212 hours (cable that did 35 kVdc for Brand Rex cables did not appear to i l not blow 1 A fuse). cause damage to the cables. Reel-to-reel ( vanations in breakdown voltage appear to be d. All of the (intentionally) damaged Okonite greater than any effects of 35 kVdc testing. l EPDM/CSPE cables mth less than 15 mils of i insulation remaining failed before the completion 4 I of aging. The one undamaged cable failed during t the LOCA simulation shortly after the test i chamber emironment became saturated steam. I The one cable that had approumately 15 mils of [ insulation remaining blew a 1 A fuse 182 hours into the LOCA simulation. Both of these failures j would have occurred earlier if chemical spray had been used during the LOCA exposure. j I I I 1 i t 17 NUREG/CR-6095 r
i l 5,0 References I 1. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 6. IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class IE 05cc of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Information Notice 87-52: Insulation Breakdown Stations IEEE Standard 32.2-1974, New York, ofSilicone RubberInsulatedSmgle Conductor NY. Cables Dunng High Potential Testmg Washington DC, October 1987. 7. L. D. Bustard. J. Clark, G. T. Medford, and A. hL Kolaczkowski. Eq,npment Ovalification 2. M.1. Jacobus. Agmg. Londition Afonitonng, and (EQ)-Risk Scopmg Studv, NUREG!CR-5313, Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) Tests ofClass SAND 88-3330, Sandia National Laboratones, IE Electncal Cab /cs. l'olume 1: Cross Imled Albuquerque, NM. January 1989. Polvolefin Cables. NUREG/CR-5772, S AND91-1766/1. Sandia National Laboratories, 8. United States Nuc' car Regulatory Commission. Albuquerque, NM. August 1992. Omce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. NRC Information Notice 92-81: Potential Deficiency of i 3. R. A. Vigil and M J. 3acobus. Detecimg Electncal Cables with Bonded Hypolon Jackets, \\ Damaged Cables Usmg a Presons:ed Gas Washington. DC, December 1992. Techmque SAND 92-2917C Presented at the Electne Power Research Institute Power Plant 9. C. M. Craft. An Assessment ofTermmal Blocks in Cable Condition Momtonng Workshop San the Nuclear PowerIndustrv, NUREGICR-3691, Francisco CA. Febnzarv 1993. SAND 84-0422, Sandia Nationallaboratories. Albuquerque, Nht September 1984. 4. K. T. Gillen and R. L Clough, Time. Temperature-Dose Rate Superposition: A 10. M. J. Jacobus. Aging, Condition Atomtonng, and Afethodologvfor Predictmg Cable Degradation Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) Tests of Class Under Ambient Nuclear Power Plant Agmg IEElecincal Cables l'olume 2: Ethylene Conditions. S AND88-0754, Sandia National Propylene Rubber Cables. NUREG/CR-5772. Laboratones. Albuquerque, NM. August 1988. SAND 91-1766/2, Sandia National Laboratones, Albuquerque, NM, November 1992. 5. K. T. Gillen and R. L. Clough. Predictive Agmg Resultsfor Cable Afatenals m Nuclear Power 11. M. J. Jacobus. Aging. Condmon Afomsonng, and Plants. SAND 90-2009. Sandia National Loss-of-Coolant Accident tLOCA) Tests ofClass Laboratones. Albuquerque. Nht November JE Electrical Cables, l'olume 3: Aliscellaneous 1990 Cable 7) pes. NUREG/CR-5772. SAND 91-1766/3, Sandia National Laboratones. Albuquerque. NM, November 1992. l l l l l NUREG/CR.6095 18
e l l a v i I k 4 4 1 4 l 1 1 i l 1 1 i a Appendit A Insulation Resistance of Each Conductor During Accident Testing l a J In this appendix. the insulation resistance measurements are shown for each conductor tested during the accide For each of the conductors. tuo figures are shoum. The first figure shous the data for the first 24 hours of the LOCA exposure and the second figure shout the data for the entire LOCA exposure. The Keithley discrete measurej 4 on the plots are identified as 100 or 250 Vdc. These measurement were made at these soltages for a i minute d Table A 1 shows the Keithley IR measurements taken beturen the aging and accident sequences. 1 ~4 3 '- i 4 I i A 4 i i i i I I I l 4 ). ~ ~ ,.. -r
Ea Table A-1 Keith'cy Discrete IR Measurements Taken Prior to LOCA Testing Cable Number Baseline IR Post Radiatii.n Aging Post Therinal Aging (E+11 Q) PreThermal Agin8 Pre LOCA E +11 01 E+11 O) Brand Rex 1 3.442 1.846 1.422 2 3.7022 2.159 17.38 3 3.553 1.823 16.4I 4 3.496 1.73 18.81 5 3.859 1.672 17.81 6 4.276 - 2.061 17.20 7 4.821 2.205 16.71 8 3.644 1.791 14.51 9 3.842 1.705 20.29 10 3.545 1.879 17.87 Re:kbestos SR 11 0.4201 0.4045 3.219 12 0.1 % 9 0.1724 1.67 13 0.3 % 2 0.1285 2.231 14 0.1596 0.1588 1.63 15 0.3353 0.02414 1.493 16 0.2659 0.1114 2.054 17 0.2784 0.3463 2.37 18 0.3465 0.3728 2.526 19 0.3767 0.3935 3.05 20 0.2338 0.267 2.078 Okonite Okolen 21 2.915 1.243 7.577 22 2.25 1.043 5.648 7.3 2.096 0.9907 5.847 24 2.579 1.026 6.2157 15 3.016 1.32 6.957 26 2.573 1.119 7.139 27 2.332 1.162 7.723 28 2.645 1.!!4 6.929 29 2 846 1.031 6.905 30 2.938 1.148 8.001 Rockbestos SR 31 0.3651 0.2814 3.713 A.I hVREG/CR4095
~ i Brand Rex til Continuous 100 VIR 1.00E+10 2 I .$1.00E+09 f ~ d M 'ON N [ 1.00E+08 ~5 " 1.00E+07 8 i j 'i 1.00E+06 \\ 1.00E+05 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hotas) l l l Figure A-1 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sample #1 during the first 24 hours. ) 1 l I l i Brand Rex #1 Continuots 1 I 100 VIR 1.00E+10 250 V IR i I i? .a 1.E1.00E+09j*. 3 t. s o 1.00E+08 lJ g[8 I ! lh /) 1.00E+07 i }1.00E+06 1.00E+05 l 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 -264 LOCA Exposure (hotas) Figure A 2 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sampic #1. l NUREG/CR 6095 A.2 .1
t.- l l l Contmuous j Brand Rex #2 100 V IR 1.00E+10 t 250 VIR l e I .!1.00E+09 i o e X 1.00E+08 f i N /
1.00E+07 8
se '5 1.00E+06 _E_ 1 1.00E+05 O 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22~ 24 j LOCA Exposure (hours) j =, 1 Figure A-3 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sampic #2 during the first 24 hours. i ) ~. Brsnd Rex #2 Continuous 100 V IR 1.00E+10 250 V IR ? .E 1.00E*09 o *" o e e e s e 1 o j1.00E+08 NDN f)DN l .c C
1.00E+07 s'il 3 1.00E+06 8
1.00E+05 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 i LOCA Exposure (hours) '1 i Figure A-4 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sampic #2. l l A3 NUREGCR4095 '
1 I
,... ~ -. ., ~ -. -,. -, -.,,, _ ~
=_. __ 4 i Brand Rex #3 Continuots l t 100 V IR 1.00E+10 $1.00E+09 'l I 250 V IR
1.00E+08
[ { l f 1.00E+07 } C V M a: 1.00E+06 E i j 1.00E 45 ~a l j 1.00E+04 1 1.00E+03 i 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 i l LOCA Exposure (hours) i Figure A-5 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sampic #3 during the first 24 hours. ~. Brand Rex #3 Continuous 5 100V IR 1.00E+10 l $1.00E+09l. 250 VIR j ~ 1.00E+08 E E I I g 1.00E+07 j 1.00E46 I b6 1.00E+05 3% jfk/r O [ j 1.00E+04 1.00E+03 0 24 48 72 120 144 -168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours). Figure A 6 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sampic #3. 1 NUREG/CR4095 A-4 'l _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _,_. _ g
- _ _ = I L i t I Brand Ret #4 Continuois l 100 V IR 1.00E+10 250 V IR $1.00E+09 :* = .c V l.00E+08j D l 5 1.00E+07 .. ~ g 1.00E+% 8 i g 1.00E+05 3 j I.00E+04 j J 1.00E+03 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hours) - Figure A-7 Insulauen Resistance for Brand Rex Sample #4 during the first 24 hours. a. Brand Rex #4 Continuots 100 VIR 1.00E+10lE 250 V IR I $1.00E+09 1.00E+08 I {I 8 ] 5 1.00E+07 \\ } .e C z 1.00E+06 g \\j %N g 1.00E+05 11 i s 5 ~ l j 1.00E+04 1.00E+03 0 24 48 72 96 120- 144 168 192-216 240- 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) i Figure A-8 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sample # 4, 1 f I A-5 NUREG/CR 6095 l ' T A' y "yg-y-3,- na p.,
r Brand Rex #5 Continuous i i 100 V IR 1.00E+10 lL50 V IR O l E 1.00E+09 i 3 i}1.00E+08 ll '9A l D a i v *- [ 1.00E+07 I g ,y 1.00E+06 { W l 1.00E+05 l 1.00E+04 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 I LOCA Exposure (hours) ) L Figure A 9 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sampic #5 dunng the first 24 hours. Brand Rex #5 Continuous { 1 1 100 V IR 1.00E+10 I* 250 V IR O E 1.00E+09 o e, ,? 4 _3 8 1.00E+08 E -f1.00E+07 rme opened uJ, q a l ,51.00E+06 kI )IOh [ I I ]4 I 4 '1 @ 1.00E+05 1.00E+04 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) I Figure A-10 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sample #5. l hTREGICR 6095 A6 _... _.. - -.,.... _....... -... ~... -.. _,, -.. ~.
I l \\ Brsnd Rex #6 Continuots i 100 V IR t 1.00E+10 250 V IR O j E 1.00E+09 t i f\\ g r I I w m g ,i e~ TJ W l 8 LCOE+0S i 5 l I 2 1.00E+07 0 t l x E 1.00E+06 g t i @ 1.00E+05 1.00E+04 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 l 1 LOCA Exposure (hours) l t i Figure A-11 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sample #6 during the first 24 hours. l 1 l ~. Brand Rex #6 Continuous i = 100 V IR i l 1.00E+10 i 250 VIR ? e' c .E 1.00E+09 6* i e [ m ,8 I 8 = .... W) fg\\- j 1.00E+08 .c C E 1.00E+07 E 'i '5, 1.00E W j .E ~ 1.00E+05 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 -l LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-12 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sample #6. i A-7 NUREG/CR&5
l. -
b l Brand Rex #7 Continuous 100 V IR 1.00E+10 g 250 V IR =.00E+09,l E1 "5 a 1.00E+08 i V ] -{l.00E+07 x 8_, 1.00E+06 -3 @ 1.00E+05 1.00E+04 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-13 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sampic #7 during the first 24 hours. ~. Brand Rex #7 Continuous 100 V IR 1.00E+10g E1.00E+09k' 250 V IR 3 fa } 1.00E+08 M ' - a g r4 -y 1.00E-07 ] m E 1.00E+06 I I .=: f l .- ~ ~ L @ 1.00E+05 I l.00E+04 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A 14 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sample #7. i l l l NUREG/CR 6095 A-8
= l Brand Rex #8 Continuous i 100 V IR 1.00E+10 r ^ 250 V IR I 1.00E+09 -: =. .c JE i = 8 1.00E+03 i ((_ l 8 y1.00E+07 E E 1.00E 46 i $1.00E+0S l r 1.00E-04 j 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 l LOCA Exposure (hours) l l 1 Figure A-15 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sampic #8 during the first 24 hours. j l ~. f Brand Rex #8 Continuous i 100 V IR 1.00E+10 e ? 250 VIR l 7 E 1.00E+09 **. s ~ 3 i 7_' 't # 8 1.00E+08 tI .E. -l 1.00E+07 i x j 1.00E+% ~ e [g1.00E+0S 1.00E+04 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240' 264 LOCA Exposure (hotrs) Figure A 16 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sampic #8. A.9 NUREG/CR 6095
i Brand Rex #9 Continuous l l 100 V IR 1.03E+10 250 V IR ,i? 4 ig ) ! 3 1.00E+09 ll 1 3 l3 n ~ j 'j1.00E+08 z c: l .2 1 3 1.00E+07 5 4 .E i' l.00E+06 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hotrs) Figure A 17 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sampic #9 during the first 24 hours. l 1
~.
1 Brand Rex #9 Continuous 1 I I i 4, 100 V IR 1.00E+10 [ 250 V IR y l, 4 1 103E+09 !., e e tavjh mrnk ~p gql:-
j 1.00E+08 I
x E
3 1.00E+07 t
S { i 1.00E+06 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOC A Exposure (hotas) Figure A-18 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sample #9. NUREG/CR-6095 A 10 ~
I F Brand Rex #10 Continuots 100 V 1R 1.00E+10 250V IR j 8 1.00E+09 e a-E r I NfN 1.00E+08 ac 3 1.00E+07 s .0 1.00E+06 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 \\ LOCA Exposure (hotas) i l Figure A-19 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sampic #10 during the first 24 hours. ~. Brand Rex #10 Continuou 100 V IR 1.00E+10 250 V IR n E 11.COE+09, 8 i. E -@ 1.00E+08N I f(4 Ned %fIII ~ 3 1.00E+07 3 8_ l.00E+06 0 24 48 72 120- 144 ~ 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hotrs) Figure A 20 Insulation Resistance for Brand Rex Sample W10. I NUREGICR 6095 A 11 an h
l Rockbestos SR #11 Continuots 100 V TR 1.00E+10 250V IR 5 1.00E+09 S o $1.00E+08 # 3 b .E l C
1.00E+07 i
e. g 3 lW* .?.00E+06 tt/ s 1 1.00E+05 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hours) i Figure A 21 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sample # 11 during the first 24 hours. ~. Rockbestos SR #11 Continuous 100 V IR 1.00E+10 250 v iR 3 1.00E+09 s $1.00E+08 Y } d II .E gM 5 00E+07,) ,l 1 / e i il4 4 ] 1.00E+06 'i * .E 1.00E+05 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-22 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestes SR Sample #11. I NUREG/CR4095 A-12 m ...... _ ~ _.... _...,.. _. _..
) 4 l 4 2 i i 4 Contmuous j Rockbestos SR #12 j I 100 V IR j i i 1 i 1.00E+10 250 V IR I a r 4 E .c 1.00E+09 l 8 1.00E+08 .5 0 " 1.00E+07 ? .h I ?,,1.00E+06 j 1 E l 1.00E+05 O 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 { } LOCA Exposure (hours) 1 1 N l 4 r Figure A 23 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sampic #12 during the first 24 hours. 1, u' d ~ Continuous Rockbestos SR #12 100 V IR i 1.00E+10 250V IR 1 g E.00E+09 I 1 j 3 8 'Y 5 1.00E+08 "" .? D " 1.00E+07 8 ~ii 3 1.00E+06 .E 1.00E+05 0 24-48 72 ' 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) l Figure A-24 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sample #12. i i 4 A-13 NUREG/CR 6095 3 -i . ~.
i l Rockbestos SR #13 Continuous i = 100 V IR 1.00E+10 1 250 VIR _e l .E 1.00E+09 C E I \\ e v v F E 1.00E+08 I .E l. l 1.00E+07 E l 'i l 3 1.00E+06 G l ~ l00E+05 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-25 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos Sample #13 dunng the first 24 hours. 1 I Rockbestos SR #13 Continuous I 100 V IR l 1.00E-10 g I 250 V IR e s E l
.E 1.00E+09 a
o a ~ l 8 L,*t E 1.00E-08
!m b
my I .E \\ U E 1.00E+07 E i ~ 1.00E+06 .E. 1.00E+0S ( 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 ( LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-26 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sample #13. NUREG/CR-6095 A-14
r Rockbestos SR #14 Continuous 100 VIR 1.00E+10 250 V IR n E.= 1.00E+09 h f a M j 1.00E+08 M i x C
1.00E+07 8
=, j ] 1.00E+06 .E 1.00E+05 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hours) i Figure A 27 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos Sampic #14 during the first 24 hours. ~. Continuous Rockbestos SR #14 100 V IR 1.00E+11 250 V IR ^m E 1.00E+10 a ? w 8 1.00E+09 g j 1.00E+08 a"' y g fr [ M 7 F {.' ,i'y e z 8 1.00E+07 __.$1.00E+06 1.00E+05 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 '216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A 28 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sampic #14. 1 NUREG/CR4095 l A 15 I 1 m _... _. _,,,,. _ _. _., _,.... _,,..,, -, 4 f, __
i i Rockbestos SR #15 Continuots ) 100 V IR 1.00E+10 250 V IR I O .!1.00E+09 S u $1.00E+08 F I b j .3 I E j1.00E+07 i O '5 ^ s
s
] 1.00E+06 I l i 1.00E+05 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hotus) i l l Figure A 29 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos Sampic #15 during the first 24 hours. ] i ~. I Rockbestos SR #15 Contimnus 100 V IR 1.00E+10 2EVR l' j1.00E-09 1 i l 1.00E48 f Y h Ok T^[ N l i l 1 g } ( J i1 E47 i c .51.00E+06j 100E45 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-30e Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sampic #15. NUREG/CR4095 A 16 l 1 n
i Continuous f Rockbestos SR #16 i 100 V IR l 250 VIR f 1 1.00E+10 l a 1.00E+09 .c ) S 8 (L. / sqy j 1.00E+08 V h .m_ " 1.00E+07 ~ 8 i 'g 3 1.00E+06 .E. 1.00E+05 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 l LOCA Exposure (hours) 4 i j i Fip:r: A-31 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos Sampic #16 during the first 24 hours. Continuous Rockbestos SR #16 100V IR 1.00E+10 250 V IR ^ .!1.00E+09 a e 3 O 'W ^ ' fl l.00E+08 i I .s
1.00E+07 E
't } 1.00E+06 .e. 1.00E+05 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (botrs) Figure A-32 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sampic #16. NUREG/CR4015 A-17 .. - ~ . _., _... ~.. _ , _..,' r;..._ :
l Continuous Rockbestos SR #17 6 100 V IR 1.00E+09 250 VIR ^m 8%NhN g,, ~ 1.00E+08 l m E U y1.00E+07 5 M l I g .-~ 1.00E+06 s R a .5 1.00E+05 l 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 4 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A 33 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos Sampic #17 dunng the first 24 hours. ~ Continuous Rockbestos SR #17 100 V IR I 1.00E+09 250 V IR 1.00E+08 "E"e, I .g 1 w k 8 1.00E+07 [i 4 _a I j 1.00E+06 \\ FtseOp M x .8 1.00E+05 f i W 1.00E+04 A s .=E r #Wh 1.00E+03 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A 34 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sampic #17. NUREG/CR 6095 A-18 ,.....w ,.e _,..,,m, .,,..g._.. >,.__y -.y.wy, e
l i l i i i 2 Contmuous Rockbestos SR #18 t 1M V R a 1.00E+09 l 150V IR ) l ii = .c y. --- g i e y-- o 1-i j 8 1.00E+08 i i E / l .E l ? U j l .!1.00E+07 J w J 3 E 1.00E+06 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 - 14 16 18 20 22 24 ) LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-35 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos Sampic #18 during the first 24 hours. 1 Rockbestos SR #18 Continuous 100 V IR 1.00E+09 !E 250 V IR ^ ..a ,k ' 8 1.00E+08 h { ~ [N i I V i 9 E .5 C 2 8 1.00E+07 ~i ~s _E l.00E*06 0 24 48 72 120 144 -168 192 216 240 - 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A 36 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sampic #18. i e A-19 NUREG'CR 6095 1 .~~ _,,,m-- -r.,,- ,y, ~~ r r
7.- _.. _ _ i i Continuous Rockbestos SR #19 100 V IR 1.00E+10 250 V IR j m is .c 1.00E+09 ) o g a 1.00E+08 } 3 1 C L .Y k
1.00E+07 I
t]Whl*g ~5 1.00E+06 i 1.00E45 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-37 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos Sampic #19 during the first 24 hours. l l ~. Rockbestos SR #19 Continuous 100 V IR 1.00E+10 250 V IR 3 1.00E*09 S 8 E 1.00E+08 I. i V .ii C
1.00E+07 1
8 l 'g i ] 1.00E+06 .5 1.00E+05 0-24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) ] i Figure A-38 Insulation Resistance for Rocklestos SR Sampic #19. hTREG/CR 6095 A-20 l
i ~ l l I Rockbestos SR #20 Continuous ] 100 V IR 1.00E+09 l 250 V IR E h" l 8 1.00E+08 - @ ' j S E .E Ce .5 1.00E+07 To E ~ 1.00E+06 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (notes) i Figure A-39 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sample #20 during the first 24 hours. ~_ Rockbestos SR #20 Continuous 100V IR l 1.00E+09 I 250 V IR E .c3 GI a () f Pl C { #i 8 1.00E+08 l l E I i .E C l ,@1.00E+07 E l = E 1.00E+06 l 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192-216 240 264 j LOCA Exposure (hours). I Figure A-40 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sampic #20. i A-21 NUREG/CR 6095 l I
Okonite Okolon #21 Continuous 100 V IR 1.00E49 t l 250 V IR O 1.00E+08 / I Y-l l E F i 1.00E+07 g m g tw&O6 j f ,M m'N,p. I .n 1.00E+0S t j1.00E+04 8 1.00E+03 = j j1.00E+02 l 3 1.00E+01 i l 1.00E+00 l 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 j LOCA Exposure (hotus) i l Figure A-41 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sample #21 during the first 24 hours. l l l Okonite Okolon #21 Continuous l 100 VIR l 1.00E+09 I j 250 V. IR l?1.00E+08 [p l nl ! j= 1.00E+07 pq g i I i l 8 1.00E+06 m \\ g ) r= Fuse Opened p n 1.00E+0S U 1 5 '.00E+04 \\ nw' .9 100E+03 s1.00E+02 5.00E+01 1 l 1.00E+00 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) l Figure A-42 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sample #21. l l hTREG/CR 6095 A 22
t l l I e 4 l l l Okonite Okolon #22 Continuots 100 V IR 1.00E+09 [ 250 VIR I O 1.00E+08 E l i 1 1.00E+07 p-g 1.00E+06 } I ICS Mhh g-j l 3 1.00E+05 t j1.00E+04 l 8 1.00E+03 $ 1.00E+02 l 5 1.00E+01 l 1.00E+00 l 1 l l 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 I LOCA Exposure (hotrs) l ) L s l Figure A-43 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sampic #22 during the first 24 Imrs. i i I Okonite Okolon #22 Continuots l 100 V IR 1.00E+09 l 'j1.00E+07h(y 250 V TR , y 1.00E+08 8 1.00E+06 A,f Fuse Opened I 1.00E+05 b j1.00E+04 1 5 1.00E+03 ~ l = i 1.00E+02 l 2-1.00E+01 .1.00E+00 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 . LOCA Exposure (hours) i l Figure A-44 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sample #22. i l A-23 NUREG/CR-6095
,l. l l Okonite Okolon #23 Continuous I i 100 V IR l 1.00E+09 j 250 V IR ^ 1.00E+08 E i 4 V-l ] i 1.00E+07 h -9[ 1,00 [1.00E+04 l j .! 1.00E+03 $ 1.00E+02 q 3 1.00E+01 = ) 1.00E+00 ^ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-45 Insulation Resistan:e for Okonite Okolon Sample #23 during the first 24 hours. l Okonite Okolon #23 Continuous 100 V IR 1.00E+09 j}s 250 V IR O 1.00E+08 4 E i 1.00E+07 gQ
1.00E+06 s i l
i %- Fuse Opened -i 3 j g 1.00E+05 .j l j1.00E+04 ,!1.00E+03 j -) 1.00E+02 f - 1.00E+01 E 1.00E+00 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-46 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sampic #23. i NUREG/CR-6095 A-24
i l I 1 f Okonite Okelon #24 Continuous 100 V IR 1.00E+09 r 250 V IR j 7 1.00E+08 E .Y_ \\; i 1.00E+07 Fuse Opened 3 1.00E+06 u 1.00E+05 .I E ) 1.00E+04
h
.A 8 !.00E+03 = $ 1.00E+02 f = 5 1.00E+01 100E+00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-47 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sample #24 during the first 24 hours. Okonite Okolon #24 Continuous 100 V IR 1.00E+09g ' 250 V IR i O 1.00E+08 7 E h i 1.00E+07, t h1.00E+06 Fuse Opend E2 1.00E+05 j1.00E+04 ' 'A t 5 1.00E+03 $ 1.00E+02 i f 1.00E+01 1.00E+00 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-48 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sample #24. NUREG/CR 6095 l A 25 --._,.._,.__.,___.,.-....,,_,..m, .-,..,.v.. ,,,-..r,..
i l Okonite Okolon #25 Continuots I 100 V IR 1.00E+09, 250 V IR i O 1.00E+08 i E , i 1.00E+07 ..R ( .= e 6.00 erg 6 A 5.00E+05 1 1 ./ [ { 1.00E+04 5 1.00E+03 l - 1.00E+02 l 5 1.00E+01 1.00E+00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hours) 1 ( Figure A-49 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sample #25 during the first 24 hours. I Okonite Okolon #25 Continuous 3 100VIR. i 1.00E*09 250 V IR g 1.00E+08 f ] rl ,= ' i 1.00E*07 f 8 1.00E+06 e jj I, Fuse Opened u 1.00E+05 i, f1.00E+04 fk 8 1.00E+03 NAA J = g I jIEE+02 5 1.00E+01 1.00E+00 0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 l LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-50 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sample #25. I i NUREGICR-6095 A-26 i m._-..~.___...,...m_. ~, -.. - -., ', -
4 Okonite Okolon #26 Continuots 100 VIR i 1.00E+09 250 V IR O 1.00E+08 j E i i 1.00E+07 e-1 =, _ ! i w g 5 ! t ::' tA O ,8_ 1.00E+03 s1.00E+02 5 1.00E+01 1 1.00E+00 j 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 . 24 l LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-51 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sampic #26 during the first 24 hours. l Okonite Okolon #26 Continuots i 100 V IR 1.00E+09 250 V IR ) ?1.00E+08 i 1.00E-07 fim 0 }1.00E+06 f i Fuse Opened g 1.00E+05 j1.00E+04 'l '" r j 8 1.00E+03 " v,A r r = i 1.00E+02 'J m 5 1.00E+01 4 1.00E+00 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 4 LOCA Exposure (hours) f Figure A 52 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sampic #26. i s 1 A 27 NUREG/CR4095
Okonite Okolon #27 Continuous 1.00E+09 r 250 V IR 7 1.00E+08 E i 1.00E*07 p- ' ' 'i A. i %[ 1. 1.00E+04 g ,[1.00E+03 41.00E+02 E.00E+01 1 1 1.00E+00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 .20 22 24 l LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-53 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sample #27 during the first 24 hours. ~. Okonite Okolon #27 Continuous 100 V 1R 1.00E+09 ? 1.00E+08 i 250 V IR = i 1.00E+07 $ p 8 1.00E+06 Fuse Opened ,f1.00E+05 ( F s j1.00E+04 f k ,[1.00E+03 t }1.00E+02 5.00E+01 1 1.00E+00 O 24 48 -72 120 144 168 192-216-240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-54 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sampic #27. j NUREG/CR-6095 A 28'
Okonite Okolon #28 Continuous I 4 100 V IR 1.00E+09 ! 250 V IR j y1.00E+08 i 1.00E+07 b k100E+06 Q i .h1.00E+05 [1.00E+04 ,8_ 1.00E+03 r ~ s E!.00E+02 S.00E+01 1 1.00E+00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hours) i Figure A 55 Insulation Resistan:e for Okonite Okolon Sampic #28 dunng the first 24 hours. .l i l Okonite Okolon #28 Continuous 100 V IR 1.00E+09l 250 VIR i 0 1.00E+08 I Ej 1.00E+07 plIn I 31.00E+06 Fuse Opened h1.00E+05 *L a3 r f1.00E+04 ( i 8 1.00E M3 4 r. i 3, 1.00E+02 j E 1.00E+01 1.00E+00 O 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-56 insulation Resistan:e for Okonite Okolon Sampic #28. 9 A 29 NUREG/CR4095 j i ..e.
i =j a 4 i j l Okonite Okolon #30 - Continuous 1 IR l 1.00E+09 l i 250 V IR O 1.00E+08 E j j 1.00E+07 y-3 1 ME" t ,f 1.00E+05 . ( bd j1.00E+04 I L Fuse Opened i 8 1.00E+03 j k1.00E+02 l S.00E+01 1 3 ,g 1.00E+00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 l t LOCA Exposure (hours) e f Figure A 59 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sample #30 during the first 24 hours. j i i i j Okonite Okolon #30 Continuous 100 V IR l 1.00D09 j 250 V IR l ? 1.00E+08 f[ = i j 1.00E+07 Ir t I i 8 1.00E+06
h 1.00E+05 i
j 1.00E+04 8 8 1.00E+03 Fuse Opened l 1.00E+02 S.00E+01 1 i 5 1.00E+00 0 24. 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A 60 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sample #30. a d i A-31 NUREG/CR-6095 - .,.. _,. _., _.. _ _ ~..., _.... _... ~.. _.,. _ _ _ _.. _... _ _.
I 1 i Okonite Okolon #29 Continuous ) I I 1.00E+09 l 250 V IR 7 1.00E+08 E i 1.00E+07 (
COE*ns F
.h_1.00E+05 ) f j1.00E+04 -E 1.00E+03 t -E 1.00E+02 e 5 1.00E+01 l 1.00E+00 O 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hours) i l Figure A-57 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sample #29 during the first 24 hours. I i t l '- l l l Okonite Okolon #29 Continuous [ I s00 V IR 1.00E+09g l }1.00E+08{ 250V1R -$ 1.00E+07 y*\\ [t Fuse Opened j 8 1.00E+06 18, i ,f1.00E+05 [ f A J j j1.00E+0i l ,@1.00E+03 s.1.00E+02 3 1.00E+01 1.00E+00 0 24 48 72 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOCA Exposure (hours) Figure A-58 Insulation Resistance for Okonite Okolon Sample #29. NUREG/CR 6095 A-30 4 v -w -w e,, 4 e-w,w--w--e,.----s -,e-, .,ma em.,,-y,, -4 q--y -e,- e.-
I 4 i Rockbestos SR #3I Continuous 100 V IR 1.00E+10 ' 250 V IR ~ I E .= 1.00E+09 4 e 8 1 g-5 1.00E+08 .E D 2 1.00E+07 5 E 3 1.00E+06 i .E r -f 1.00E+05 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 LOCA Exposure (hotus) Figure A-61 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sampic #31 daring the first 24 hours. ~. l Continuous Rockbestos SR #31 100 V IR 1.00E+11 250 V IR ^., i E 1.00E+10 e ~S I 8 1.00E+09 e, E ns "Fi# P7 1.00E+08 5 .E_ 1.00E+07 k @ 1.00E+06 1.00E+05 O 24 48 72 95 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 LOC A Exposure (hotrs) l l Figure A 62 Insulation Resistance for Rockbestos SR Sampic #31. i 1 l NUREG/CR 6095 A-32 I
i h DISTRIBUTION: CEA/CEN-FAR (3) Attn: M. Le Meur Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. J. Calmet Attn: E. C. Davey G. Gauthier Instrument and Control Branch Departement de Surete Nucleaire Chalk River Nuclear l2boratories Service d' Analyse des Mat 6 riels i Chalk River, Ontario K0J 1J0 et Structures CANADA B.P. 6 92260 Fontenay-aux-Roses Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. FRANCE I Attn: S. Nish i 1600 Dorchester Boulevard West Electricite de France (2) Montreal. Quebec H3H 1P9 Attn: M. Pays CANADA M. Dorison Direction des Etudes et Recherches Canada Wire and Cable Limited I.As Renardieres Attn: Z. S. Panin Boite Postale No 1 Power & Control Products Division 77250 MORET SUR LORING 22 Commercial Road FRANCE Toronto, Ontario CANADA M4G IZ4 FRAMATOME (2) Attn: G. Chauvin Commissariat a l'Enercie Atomique E. Raimondo CIS Biointernational LAPRI (3) Tour Fiat - Cedex 16 Attn: G. Gaussens 92084 Paris La Defense J. Chenion FRANCE F. Carlin BP No 32 ITT Cannon Electric Canada 91192 Gif-Sur-Yveite CEDEX Attn: B. D. Vallillee FRANCE Four Cannon Court i Whitby, Ontario LIN 5V8 Commissariat a l'Enercie Atomique CANkDA Attn: J. Campan ~ CEN Cadarche DRE/STRE Ontario Hydro (2) BP No 1 Attn: R. Wong 13115 Saint Paul Lez Durance B. Kukreti i FRANCE 700 University Avenue Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X6 Electricite de France (2) CANADA Attn: G. Kauffman C. Rey R. McCoy ( S.E.P.T.E.N.) Yankee Atomic Electric Company 12,14 Ave.Dubrieroz 1671 Worcester Road 69628 Villeurbanne Framinghem.MA 01701 i Paris, FRANCE M.Shaw Electricite de France Institute of Materials Science Attn: F. Duchateau University of Connecticut Direction des Etudes et Recherches Box U-136 1 Avenue du General de Gaulle 97 N. Eagleville Rd. 92141 CLAMART CEDEX Storrs,CT 06268 FRANCE DIST-1 1
K. W. Brown G. Hubbard Tennessee Vallev Authority USNRC/NRR Electrical and T5chnical Sdrvices M/S 8DI OWFN W11C110 400 W. Summit Hill Drive P. Shemanski Knoxville,TN 37902 USNRC/NRR M/S 11F23 OWFN H. Garc (5) USSRC/NRR/OSP G. Toman M/S OWFN 8H7 Ogden Env. & Energy Services Co. 1777 Sentry Parkway West A. Marinos Abington Hall Suite 300 USNRC/NRR/OSP Blue Bell, PA 19422 M/S OWFN SH7 G. Littlehales M.Vacins The Rockbestos Company USNIlC/RES 285 Nicoll St. l M/S NL-005 New Haven, CT 06511 S. Accerwal M. Tabbey USNRC/RES Fluorocarbon Corp. M/S NL-005 1199 Chillicothe Rd. Aurora OH 44202 S. D. Alexander USNRC/NRR G. Sliter M/S OWFN 9D4 Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave. R. Moist Palo Alto,CA 94304 USNRC/NRR M/S OWFN 9D4 J. Gleason Wyle 12boratories U. Potapovs P.O. Box 077777 USNRC/NRR Huntsville, AL 35807-7777 M/S OWFN 9D4 l J. B. Gardner l R. Wilson 29 Miller Road j USSRC/NRR Bethany,CT 06525 M/S OWFN 9D4 Thamir J. Al-Hussaini H. Walker Duke Power Company i l USNRC/NRR/OSP P.O. Box 33189 i 1 M/S SD1 Charlotte,NC 28242 l C. Anderson Kenneth Baker USNRC Region I Ray > chem Corporation 300 Constitution Place R. Paolino Menlo Park, CA 94025 USNRC Recion I ~ Michael G. Baver N. Merriweather Dow ChemicaiCompany USNRC Region II Building B129 Freepon,TX 77541 C. Paulk USSRC Region IV Bruce Bernstein EPRI i T. Stetka 101919th St. NW USNRC Region IV Washington, DC 20036 DIST-2 l
l 1 Premnath Bhatia Barry Doolev l Baltimore Gas & Electric EPR'I ~ P.O. Box 1475. FSRC 3412 HilMew Avenue Baltimore, MD 21203 Palo Alto,CA 943M l John Billinc John R.Ferraro ERA Techiiology Ltd. Northeast Utilities Service Co. ) Cleeve Road P.O. Box 270 1 l Leatherhead KT2275A Hartford, CT 06141-0270 l UNITED KINGDOM l Edward E. Galloway William Z. Black Detroit Edison Georgia Tech 2000 Second Avenue School of Mechanical Engineering Detroit, MI 48226 Atlanta, GA 30332 larry Gradin Bruce P. Bolbat ECdTECH Pennsylvania Power & Light 6702 Bergenline Avenue l 2 North Ninth Street West New York, NJ 07093 Allentown, PA 18101 Ken Hancock Paul Boucher EBASCO Plant Services, Inc. i GPU 2 World Trade Center l 1 Upper Pond Road 90th Floor Parsippany, NJ 07974 New York, NY 10048 Robert J. Brunner Izhar Hac ue Pennsylvania Power & Licht Ontario idydro 2 N. Ninth Street 700 University (,A8H4) Allentown, PA 18101 Toronto, Ontano CANADA MSG 1X6 Daniel O. Bye Southern California Edison Bruce L Harshe l P.O. Box 128 Consumers Power Company San Clemente, CA 92672 1945 Parnall Road P-14-408 T. Champion Jackson, MI 49201 Georgia Power Company 62 Lake Mirror Road Jerry Henlev Forest Park, GA 30050 Digital Engineering Inc. 658 Discoverv Drive Jim Civav Huntsville, A'L 35806 Washingion Pub. Pow. Supply Sys. P.O. Box 968 John Hoffman M/S 981C Ravchem Corporation Richland, WA 99352 306 Constitution Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 Allen Davidson Patel Engineers John J. Holmes 408 Cedar Bluff Road Bechtel Western Power Company Suite 353 12440 E. Imperial Highway Knoxville,TN 37923 Norwalk,CA 90650 DIST-3 l l
i \\ I Nels Johansson Stuart Litchfield INPO Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. Suite 1500 P.O. Box 97-E-290 1100 Circle Parkway Perry,OH 44081 Atlanta, GA 30339-3064 Sam Marquez Suresh Kapur Public Senice Co. of Colorado Ontario Hydro 2420 W. 26th Avenue 700 University Denver,CO 80211 i Toronto, Ontino CANADA M5G1X6 B. G. McCollum i EBASCO Plant Senices. Inc. Brent Karlev 400 N. Olive Nebraska Public Power District LB. 80 141415th Street Dallas,TX 75201-4007 P.O. Box 499 i Columbus, NE 68601 Richard D. Meininger ECAD Senices S. Kasturi P.O. Box 229 MOS Middletown, PA 17057 25 Piedmont Drive Melville, NY 11747 T. Narang Texas Utilities Electric Company T. A. Kommers P.O. Box 1002 The Okonite Co. Glen Rose,TX 76043 1601 Robin Whipple Belmont, CA 94002 T. P. Schaefer Conax Buffalo Corp. Yasuo Kusama 2300 Walden Avenue Japan Atomic Enercy Research Inst. Buffalo, NY 14225 1233 Watanuki-macIli Takasaki, Gunma-ken Dasid K. Olson JAPAN 37102 Northern States Power P.O. Box 600 Vince I.amb Monticello,MN 55441 Westinchouse P.O. Box 355 Keith A. Petty 1 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Stone & Web' ster P.O. Box 2325 M.I_ebow Boston, MA 02107 Consolidated Edison Co. of New York 4 Ining Place Paul Phillips New iork, NY 10003 Kansas Gas & Electric 201 N. Market Ting Ling Wichita, KS 67202 Cablec Industrial Cable Co. East Eichth St. Paul J. Phillips Marion!IN 46952 University of Tennessee 434 Dougherty Enc. ~ Knoxville, TN 37996-2200 DIST-4
Ben E. Preusser Don Stonkus i Arizona Public Service Co. Ontario Hydro Arizona Nuclear Power Project 800 Kipling Avenue P.O. Box 52034; Station 6078 Toronto, Ontario Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 CANADA M8ZSS4 I_arry Raisanen Harvey Sutton Detroit Edison Virgima Power 6400 N. Dixie Hichway P.O. Box 26666 ) Fermi 2, M/C 203EF2 TAC Richmond,VA 23261 Newpon, MI 48166 j Mike Sweat Albert B. Reynolds Georgia Power Company University of' Virginia 333 Piedmont Avenue Reactor Facilit Atlanta, GA 30302 Charlottessille,yVA 22901 Steve Swingler Ted Rose Central Electricity Research Labs. Electro-Test. Inc. Kehin Avenue P.O. Box 159 Leatherhead, Surrev San Ramon, CA 94583 UNITED KINGDdM KT 22 75E Marcia Smith Aki Tanaka Pacific Gas & Electric Ontario Hvdro P.O. Box 56 700 University Avenue. A7-F1 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Toronto, Ont'ario CANADA M5G 1X6 j J. Solano l Illinois Power Doug Van Tassell V-928D Flonda Power & Light Route 54 East P.O. Box 14000 Clinton,IL 61727 700 Universe Beach Juno Beach, FL 33408 Richard St. Once Southern California Edison Joseph Weiss P.O. Box 128 EPRI San Clemente, CA 92672 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Clint Steele Washington Pub. Pow. Supply Sys. Robert N. Woldstad P.O. Box 968 GE Nuclear Energy M/X 981C 175 Curtner Avenue Richland, WA 99352 San Jose, CA 95125 Jan Stein Asok Biswas EPRI Southern California Edison Co. 3412 Hillview Avenue San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Palo Alto,CA 94304 5000 Pacific Coast Highway San Clemente, CA 92672 ' Ontario Hydro (2) Attn: Jean-Marie Braun Greg Stone 800 Kiphng Avenue KR151 Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M8Z 554 DIST-5
of .e Phil Holzman STAR Alex Marion i 195 High Street Nuclear Management and Resources Winchester,MA 01890 Council l l 1776 Eye St. NW, Suite 300 l l Vince Bacanskas Washington, DC 20006 3706 l Gulf States Utilities j River Bend Station 1811 R.L Clough MA-3, P.O. Box 220 1812 K.T.Gillen r St. Franscisville, LA 70775 4114 M.J. Jacobus (5) 6400 N. R. Ortiz i 6403 W. A. von Riesemann i j Alfred Torri Risk and Safety Engineering 6404 D. A. Powers l 1421 Hymettus Ave. 6449 M. P. Bohn l Leucadia,CA 92024 6449 E. E. Baynes 6449 D.M.Ramirez George Daniels 6449 C. F. Nelson l Rochester Gas and Electric 6449 S. P. Nowlen i 89 East Ave. 6449 R. A. Vigil (20) i l Rochester, NY 14649-0001 6471 A.J.Moonka 6624 L D. Bustard l Kurt Cozens 7141 Technical Library (5) Nuclear Management and Resources 7151 Technical Publicanons l Council 8523-2 Central Technical Files 1776 Eye St. NW, Suite 300 i Washington, DC 20006-2496 Fred Mocolesko Nuclear Engineering Department Boston Edison Company s 25 Braintree Hill Office Park Braintree, MA 02184 Gil Zigler Science and Engineering Associates P.O. Box 3722 Albuquerque,NM 87190 l Edward H. Aberbach Brand Rex Company l 1600 West Main Street Willimantic, CT 06226-1128 Jack Lasky The Okonite Company P. O. Box 340 Ramsey,NJ 07446 Jeff Gebhardt Energy Operations GSB 3-West Route 3 Box 137G Russelville, AR 72801 DIST-6
.~,... ; DISTRIBUTION: w/o enclosure Central File [w/ enclosure] NRC PDR [w/ enclosure] SPLB EQ File [w/ enclosure] WRussell AThadani MVirgilio CMcCracken GHubbard JTatum CGratton ADummer V0rdaz PShemanski, PDLR WBeckner, SPSB AEl-Bassioni, SPSB NSaltos, SPSB JCraig, RES MVagins, RES JVora, RES SAggarwal, RES CAntonescu, RES CBerlinger, EELB EWeiss, EELB FBurrows, EELB JWermiel, HICB AMarinos, HICB HGarg, HICB I l l L .]}}

NUREG/CR-6095, Forwards Draft NUREG/CR-6095, Aging,Loca & High Potential Testing of Damaged Cables. Rept Documents Testing That Provided Basis for NRC Info Notice 92-081.Expects That NUMARC Will Provide NRC W/Results of Assessment

Contents

Text

Dear Mr. Rasin:

Enclosure:

Dear Hukam:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

NUREG/CR-6095, Forwards Draft NUREG/CR-6095, Aging,Loca & High Potential Testing of Damaged Cables. Rept Documents Testing That Provided Basis for NRC Info Notice 92-081.Expects That NUMARC Will Provide NRC W/Results of Assessment

Text

Dear Mr. Rasin:

Enclosure:

Dear Hukam:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search