ML17325A125: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:INDIANA6MICHIGANELECTRICCOMPANYDONALDC. | {{#Wiki_filter:INDIANA6MICHIGANELECTRICCOMPANYDONALDC.COOKNUCLEARPLANTUNIT2STEAMGENERATOR TUBEINTEGRITY | ||
-APRIL1987AnAssessment oftheNextOperating IntervalLengthAttachment 1toAEP:NRC:0936J Preparedby:AmericanElectricPowerServiceCorporation OneRiverside PlazaColumbus, Ohio43216May18,1987870bOCR050003ib0201b9870522pDRADPDR8i TABLEOFCONTENTSLISTOFABBREVIATIONS LISTOFTABLESANDFIGURESREFERENCE SUBMITTALS | |||
==1.0INTRODUCTION== | ==1.0INTRODUCTION== | ||
1. | |||
1.1ReportObjectives 1.2Operating Experience Overview1.2.11~2.2Background MostRecentOperating Period2.0CONDITXON OFTUBEBUNDLES2.1SteamGenerator Inspection andTubePlugging-March19872.1.12.1.2EddyCurrentAnalysisCriteria/Tube PluggingCriteria6EddyCurrentInspection Results-------72.2TubeDegradation GrowthRateEvaluation 2.2.12.2.22'.3TubePluggingComparison 9GrowthRateDetermination 10Probabilistic ModelVerification | |||
-----ll3.0EVALUATION OFOPERATION THROUGHTHEENDOFFUELCYCLE6123.1USNRCRegulatory Guide1.121Basis123.1.13.1.2F1.3MinimumAllowable WallDetermination | |||
---12LeakBeforeBreakVerification | |||
------14EddyCurrentTestingUncertainty | |||
-----153.2Operating IntervalJustification | |||
-SafetyAssessment 154.0OPERATING INTERVALDETERMINATION 4.1Operational Considerations 4.2TubeBundleCondition Projection | |||
==5.0CONCLUSION== | ==5.0CONCLUSION== | ||
S 16161718 LISTOFABBREVIATIONS ASMEDIEC,ECTEFPDEFPMgpdgpmIGMECoIGA/SCCMWt-hrNDDR.G.RxxCxxSGxxSLB/FLBAmericanSocietyofMechanical Engineers Distorted indication Eddycurrent,eddycurrenttestingEffective fullpowerdayEffective fullpowermonthGallonsperdayGallonsperminuteIndiana&MichiganElectricCompanyIntergranular attack/stress corrosion crackingKilohertz | |||
: Megawatt, thermalMegawatthours,thermalNodetectable degradation USNRCRegulatory GuideRowandcolumndesignation ofsteamgenerator tubeSteamGenerator No.21,22,23,or24SteamlinebreakorfeedlinebreakaccidentscenarioSQRSuSquirrelUltimatetensilestressTWUDSThrough-wall penetration Undefined signal LISTOFTABLESANDFIGURESTable1Table2ListofTablesIndications ofHotLegSecondary SideCorrosion-March1987A.Including onlythemostsignificant indication pertube.B.Including multipleindications pertube.TubesPluggedDuetoIGA/SCC-GeneralComparison Table3Table4Table5Table6TubesPluggedDuetoIGA/SCC,Compensated forChangesinAnalysisandPluggingCriteria-Comparison byLocationCook2SteamGenerator Tubing-MinimumAcceptable WallRequirements A.Tubesheet creviceandtubesheet surfaceregions.B.Tubesupportplateintersections. | |||
Cook2SteamGenerator Tubing-Allowable WallLossDetermination Operating IntervalJustification | |||
-Remainder ofFuelCycle6-R.G.1.121BasisListofFiuresFigure1Figure2Figure3SG21Tubesheet Map:March1987SG22Tubesheet Map:March1987SG23Tubesheet Map:March1987ECInspection Results-ECInspection Results-ECInspection Results-Figure4SG24Tubesheet Map:ECInspection Results-March1987 ListofFiuresCont'dFigure5SGs21,22,23,and24:ECInspection Results-March1987;Indications ofIGA/SCCvs.Generator Elevations Figure6SGComposite: | |||
"Start-of-Interval TubeBundleCondition | |||
-July1986"comparedto"End-of-Interval TubeBundleCondition | |||
-March1987Figure7Figure8Figure9Comparison ofModelPrediction toActualECInspection Results,Tubesheet CreviceRegionComparison ofModelPrediction toActualECInspection Results,Tubesheet SurfaceRegionComparison ofModelPrediction toActualECInspection Results,TubeSupportPlateIntersections Figure10FigurellFigure12A.Fullrange,0to1004TW.B.Blowupof40to100%TWrange.Projected End-of-Interval Condition, Tubesheet CreviceRegionProjected End-of-Interval Condition, Tubesheet SurfaceRegionProjected End-of-Interval Condition, TubeSupportPlateIntersections REFERENCE SUBMITTALS AEP:NRC:0936G, lettertoMr.HaroldR.Denton,NRR-USNRC, "SteamGenerator TubeLeakandReturntoPowerOperation," | |||
datedApril9,1987.AEP:NRC:0936E, lettertoMr.HaroldR.Denton,NRR-USNRC, "SteamGenerator TubeIntegrity," | |||
datedNovember24'986;transmittal ofWCAP-11329 (proprietary version)andWCAP-11330 (non-proprietary version). | |||
AEP:NRC:0936C, lettertoMr.HaroldR.Denton,NRR-USNRC, "SteamGenerator TubeIntegrity | |||
-InterimStatusReport,"datedFebruary7,1986;transmittal ofWCAP-11055 (Proprietary version)andWCAP-11056 (non-proprietary version). | |||
AEP:NRC:0936A, lettertoMr.HaroldR.Denton,NRR-USNRC, "SteamGenerator TubePlugging-InterimStatusReport,"datedOctober10,1985. | |||
STEAMGENERATOR TUBEINTEGRITY | |||
-APRIL1987AnAssessment oftheNextOperating IntervalLength | |||
==1.0INTRODUCTION== | ==1.0INTRODUCTION== | ||
D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC: | 1.1ReortObectivesReference Submittal 1addressed thecourseofactiontakenasaresultoftheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnit2(Cook2)steamgenerator tubeleakwhichoccurredonMarch3,1987.Theletterdocumented thepreliminary tubeinspection results,addressed restoration oftubebundleintegrity tothesamelevelasatthebeginning ofthepreviousoperating period,andpresented qualitative justification forreturntopowerandoperation forastaff-recommended initialperiodofthreemonths.Thepurposeofthisfollow-up reportistoprovideamorecompleteevaluation ofrecentevents,andtopresentquantitative justification foranoperating intervalinexcessoftheinitialthreemonths.Historically, assessment ofanoperating intervalbetweensteamgenerator tubeinspections hasconsidered onlythesafetyissuesofUSNRCRegulatory Guide1.121.Suchanassessment waspresented forCook2tojustifyoperation throughtheentirecurrentfuelcycle(Reference Submittal 2).However,evenminorsteamgenerator tubeleakage,althoughnotasafetyissueandinfactallowable uptothelimitsetbytheplantTechnical Specifications, isundesirable frombothregulatory andoperating perspectives. | ||
D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC: | Inrecognition ofthisfact,determination ofthenextoperating intervalwillfocusonminimizing thepotential foraforcedoutageduetoexcessive steamgenerator leakage.ThesafetyissuesofR.G.1.121willofcoursebeagainmetbythismoreconservative approach. | ||
D.C. | 1.20eratinExerienceOverviewl.2.1Background Cook2incorporates anuclearsteamsupplysystemmanufac-turedbyWestinghouse, andislicensedfor3411MWt.Initialcriticality occurredonMarch10,1978.Theunitis D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936J Attachment 1currently operating initssixthfuelcycle;at,theendofMarch1987,about5.7effective fullpoweryearsofoperation havebeenaccrued.Cook2hasfourWestinghouse Series51steamgenerators. | ||
D.C.CookUnit2AEP: | Adescription ofsignificant featuresandareviewofthetypesoftubedegradation experienced priortoNovember1983arecontained inReference Submittal 3.Alloftheearlytubedegradation wasunrelated tosecondary sidecorrosion. | ||
D.C. | Thefirstsignificant indication ofsecondary sidetubecorrosion intheCook2steamgenerators occurredinNovember1983,whentheunitwasremovedfromserviceduetosteamgenerator tubeleakage.Detailsofthatandsubsequent eventshavebeendiscussed intwomeetingswiththestaff(December 4,1985andSeptember 16,1986)andaredocumented inReference Submittals 2,3,and4.Forconvenience, however,following isachronology ofsignifi-cantsteamgenerator eventsuptoMarch1987.oNovember7,1983ForcedOutae-firststeamgenerator tubeleakduetosecondary sidecorrosion. | ||
Leakrateof0.29gpmLeakidentified inSG21,TubeR16C40ECTof1225tubesintwosteamgenerators Pluggedthreetubes,allduetoindications ofsecondary sidecorrosion Restarted onNovember22,1983oMarch10,1984RefuelinOutae100percentECTineachsteamgenerator seventubesamplesremovedforanalysis; confirmed intergranular corrosion intubesheet regionPlugged402tubes,68ofwhichwereduetoindications ofsecondary sidecorrosion Restarted onJuly7,1984 D.C.CookUnit2AEP'NRC0936JAttachment 1oJuly15,1985ForcedOutae-steamgenerator tubeleakLeakrateof0.22gpmLeakidentified inSG23,TubeR16C56ECTof25tubesinSG23Pluggedtwotubes,bothduetoindications ofsecondary sidecorrosion Attempted restartonAugust2,1985oAugust2,1985ForcedOutae-steamgenerator tubeleakduringstart-upLeakratemeasurements notpossibleLeaksidentified inSG23,TubesR7C28andR14C70ECTof1500tubesinSG23Plugged35tubes,allduetosecondary sidecorrosion Initiated boricacidtreatment program(30percentpowersoakandon-lineaddition) | |||
Restarted onAugust22,1985oAugust23,1985ForcedOutae-steamgenerator tubeleakduring30percentpowersoakLeakrateof0.2gpmLeaksidentified inSG22,TubeR14C41andSG24,TubeR19C52100percentECTinSGs21,22,and24;ECTofalltubesinSG23nottestedduringAugust2,outageFirstECindications notedathotlegtubesupportplateintersections Fivetubesamplesremovedforanalysis; confirmed intergran-ularcorrosion attubesupportplateintersections D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936J Attachment 1Plugged110tubes,104ofwhichwereduetosecondary sidecorrosion Decidedtoadministratively limitunitpowertoabout,80percentRestarted onOctober23,1985oDecember4,1985Presentation toNRCStaffJustified continued operation untilscheduled refueling outage,approximately 90effective fullpowerdaysfromtheOctober23restartoFebruary28,1986RefuelinOutaeMinorsteamgenerator leakage,about0.04gpm,attimeofshutdownLeakidentified inSG22,R16C45ECTinaccordance withTechnical Specification surveillance requirements oninitialsampleof550tubes;classification ofSGs22and24asC-3requiredexpansion ofprogramtoalltubesineachsteamgenerator Plugged151tubes,149ofwhichwereduetosecondary sidecorrosion Boricacidtreatment programcontinued (creviceflushing, 30percentpowersoak,andon-lineaddition) | |||
RestartonJuly7,1986Unitpoweragainadministratively limitedtoabout80percentoSeptember 16,1986Presentation toNRCStaffJustified continued operation throughentirefuelcyclewithoutshutdownforsteamgenerator surveillance-D.C.CookUnit2AEPNRC0936JAttachment 1InformedstaffofintenttoreplaceCook2steamgenerators 1.2.2MostRecentOperating PeriodCook2beganoperation inFuelCycle6onJuly7,1986.Thermalpoweroutput,throughout thecyclehasagainbeenadministratively limited-typically to80percent,althoughtherehavebeenbriefperiodsofoperation at90percentinordertoperformcertaintestsandtomeethighsystem'loaddemandduringthesummerpeakperiod.Thermalgeneration | |||
.throughtheendofMarch1987hasbeen14,990,974 MWt-hrs,orabout183EFPDs.Onebriefoutageunrelated tosteamgenerator tubedegrada-tionoccurredearlyinCycle6.Following that,Cook2rancontinuously foraperiodof226calendardaysuntilbeingremovedfromserviceonMarch3,1987duetoanindicated primary-to-secondary leakinSG22.Themeasuredleakratewas0.247gpm,wellbelowtheTechnical Specification leakratelimitof500gpd(0.347gpm).TheleakingtubeinSG22wasidentified byhydrostatic testingasTubeR28C53,andwassubsequently confirmed byeddycurrenttestingtohaveathrough-wall defectinthehotlegtubesheet creviceabout3.7inchesbelowthetubesheet surface.Thisdefectistypicalofthesecondary sideIGA/SCCpreviously identified intheCook2steamgenerators. | |||
Toverifytubeintegrity priortoreturning toservice,aneddycurrentinspection programconsistent withtherequirements ofTechnical Specification 3/4.4.5wasperformed. | |||
Testingresultsarepresented anddiscussed inSection2.0ofthisreport.Afterrestoring tubebundleintegrity bypluggingdefective tubes,theunit,returnedtoserviceonApril21,1987.BeforechangingtoMode3,creviceflushingwithboricacid(1000-2000 ppmboron)wasperformed; a32-hoursoakatabout30percentpowerwithboricacid(50ppmboron)wasconducted; on-lineadditionofboricacid(5-10ppmboron)willcontinueduringpoweroperation. | |||
Unitthermalpowerwillagainbeadministratively limitedtoabout80percent,althoughbriefperiodsofhigherpoweroperation maybenecessary fortestingortomeetsystemloaddemand. | |||
D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936Z Attachment 12.0CONDITION OFTUBEBUNDLES2.1SteamGenerator InsectionandTubePluin-March1987Althoughnotmandatory sincetheTechnical Specification leakratelimitwasnotexceededpriortoshutdown, IGMECoelectedtoverifythecondition oftheCook2steamgenerator tubebundlesbyperforming aneddycurrentinspection consistent withtherequirements ofTechnical Specification 3/4.4.5.TestingresultsofaninitialsampleofaboutsixpercentofthetubesineachofSGs22and24necessitated expanding theinspection topotentially affectedareasofalltubesineachsteamgenerator. | |||
2.1.1EddyCurrentAnalysisCriteria/Tube PluggingCriteriaThecriteriausedtoanalyzeeddycurrentdataduringtheMarch1987inspection werethesameasthoseusedduringtheMay1986inspection. | |||
Thesecriteriaweredeveloped fromacorrelation offieldbobbincoileddycurrentdatawithmetallography resultsoftubesamplesremovedin1984and1985,andarediscussed indetailinReference Submittals 2and3.Forconvenience, following isabriefsummaryofpertinent eddycurrentsignalclassifications: | |||
oClearIndication reortedinercentthrouh-wallenetration or4TW-Asignalwithanunequivocal phaseanglemeasurable at400kHz,confirmed at100kHz;industrypracticeistouseathreshold voltage,usuallyabout1volt,todiscriminate betweenreportable andnon-reportable clearin'dications; asaconservatism, however,allclearindications, regard-lessofvoltage,werereportedfordisposition duringtheMay1986andMarch1987inspections. | |||
oDistorted Indication DI-Asignalvisibleat400kHzbelievedbytheinterpreter torepresent tubedegrada-tion,butwithanunquantifiable phaseangle;expectedcorrelation inmixedfrequencies orothersinglefre-quenciesisnotnecessarily present.Qindication inthetubesheet creviceregionwhosesignaltraceat400kHziscomplexwithanunquantifiable phaseangle;theseindications havehistorically beenshowntocompromise tubewallintegrity. | |||
D.C.CookUnit2AEPNRC09367Attachment 1oUndefined SinalUDS-Ananomalous signal,notnecessarily indicative oftubedegradation, but.whichtheinterpreter believesshouldbenotedforconsidera-tionanddisposition. | |||
oNoDetectable DeradationNDD-Asignalwithnoevidenceoftubewalldegradation; eitherthereisnodegradation oritisbelowthedetection threshold. | |||
TubepluggingcriteriausedduringtheMarch1987inspection werebasically thesameasthoseusedduringtheMay1986inspection, althoughanadditional conservatism wasincorporated forindications attubesupportplateintersections, asnotedbelow.Development andrationale forthesecriteriaarecontained inReference Submittal 2.Forconvenience, following isabriefsummaryofthepluggingcriteriaimplemented forsecondary sidecorrosion ineachofthethreeareasofconcern:oTubesheet crevicereionhotle-Allclearindications, DIs,SQRs,andUDSsinthetubesheet creviceregion(fromthetubesheet rolltransition tothesecondary faceofthetubesheet) wereconsidered pluggable, regardless ofvoltageorphaseangle.oTubesheet surfacereionhotle-Allclearindications, DIs,andUDSsinthetubesheet surfaceregion(fromthesecondary faceofthetubesheet uptoabout6inchesintothefreespanoftubing)wereconsidered pluggable, regardless ofvoltageorphaseangle.oTubesuortlateintersection hotle-Clearindications meetingathreshold voltageof1.75voltsandhavinganindicated through-wall penetration of>40percentwereconsidered pluggable. | |||
Inaddition, someindications notmeetingthevoltagethreshold werepluggedonphaseanglealonebased'nrecommendations ofthedatainterpreter. | |||
Thisrepresents anaddedconservatism overthecriteriausedinMay1986.ITheTechnical Specification pluggingcriteriaof>40percentthrough-wall penetration wasappliedtoallotherareasofthesteamgenerator tubing.2.1.2EddyCurrentInspection ResultsSummaries ofpertinent hotlegeddycurrentindications, bytypeandlocation, aregiveninTables1-Aand1-B. | |||
D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:09368 Attachment 1Quantities inTable1-Arepresent individual tubes;fortubeswithmultipleindications, onlytheindication deemedmostsevereislisted.Pluggingcriteriaareillustrated bytheboundarylinedrawninthetable.The107tubesinsidetheboundarywereremovedfromservicebyplugging. | |||
Inaddition, threetubeswerepluggedduetoreasonsunrelated tosecondary sidecorrosion (twobecauseeddycurrenttestingcouldnotbeperformed andoneasaprecautionary measureduetoaDIatthetubesheet rolltransition). | |||
InTable1-B,allindications havebeentabulated. | |||
ThelargertotalcomparedtoTable1-Areflectsthefactthatsometubeshavemultipleindications, particularly at.tubesupportplateintersections. | |||
Thistotalpopulation ofindications isusedinlaterdegradation growthrateevaluations. | |||
Figures1,2,3,and4aretubesheet mapsforeachCook2steamgenerator showingthelocationandextentofwalldegradation inthesteamgenerator tubing.Indications plottedarethosecontained inTablel-A.Figure5graphically depictsthedataofTable1-Bforeachsteamgenerator. | |||
Figure6isacomposite forallfoursteamgenerators, andgivesagraphical comparison oftotalindications reportedduringtheMarch1987inspection tothetotalindications leftinservicefollowing the1986inspection. | |||
Thisprovidesanoverviewoftubedegradation progression duringthepastoperating period.2.2TubeDeradationGrowthRateEvaluation Theobjectives ofthissectionaretodetermine ifthetubedegradation observedduringthemostrecentoperating intervalisconsistent withaveragegrowthratespreviously developed, andtoattempttoidentifycharacteristics ofthestatistical distribution ofpreviousgrowthratedatawhichcouldbeusedintheevaluation offutureoperating intervals. | |||
Threepastoperating intervals areofinterestinthissection,andforconvenience arereferredtoas84-85,85-86,and86-87.Pertinent, factorsineachintervalareasfollows: | |||
D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936Z Attachment 1IntervalDurationEFPDsBoricNominalAcid?Power84-857/07/84to7/15/85291.2No100485-8610/23/85to2/28/8685.0Yes86-877/07/86to3/03/87183.1Yes804804Thegeneral,averagegrowthratesincurrentuseweredeveloped afterthe85-86interval, andarebasedonapplyingidentical analysiscriteriatothe1985and1986inspection data;specifics ofthismethodology arediscussed inSection2.2.2.The85-86intervalprovidedauniqueopportunity todevelopagrowthratemethodology, becausemanytubesleftinserviceafterthe1985inspection wouldhavebeenpluggedhadthelateranalysisandpluggingcriteriabeeninuseatthetime.Thevalidityoftheexistinggeneralgrowthratemethodology willbeexaminedin,twoways.First,tubeplugginghistorywillbereviewedtoseeiftherecentpluggingisconsistent withpluggingexperience duringtheearlierinterval. | |||
Thiscomparison cannotdemonstrate thatthemethodology isvalid,butcanbeusedtoshowthatthemethodology isnotnecessarily invalid.Second,thepopulation ofindications fromtherecentinspection willbeevaluated toseeifitstatistically fitsthedistribution ofthe85-86intervalgrowthratedata.2.2.1TubePluggingComparison Abroadindicator oftubedegradation growthrateisthetubepluggingrequiredattheendofeachoperating inter-val,asshowninItem1ofTable2.'Anobviousfallacywiththisgrosscomparison isthatitdoesnotaccountfordif-ferentoperating intervallengthsorforchangesindataanalysisandpluggingcriteria. | |||
Accounting foroperating intervals of9.7,2.8,and6.1EFPMsforthe84-85,85-86,and86-87intervals, respectively, yieldsthecomparison showninItem2ofTable2.Furthercompensation forchangesinanalysisandpluggingcriteriaresultsinthemoremeaningful comparison giveninItem3.Thislastcomparison reflectsthe107tubespluggedattheendofthe85-86intervalwhichwouldhavebeenpluggedattheendofthe84-85intervalifthelatercriteriahadbeenapplied,andthe10tubespluggedattheendofthe86-87interval'hichneednothavebeenplugged.(Theselatter10tubes D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936ZAttachment 110hadsupport,plateindications belowthe1.75voltthreshold forplugging, butwerepluggedasanaddedconservatism basedonrecommendations ofthedatainterpreter). | |||
ReviewofTable2showsthatthecompensated tubepluggingrateduringthe86-87intervalcloselymatchesthat.ofthe85-86interval(15.9vs.14.8tubes/EFPM), | |||
whichindicates thatthegeneraltubedegradation growthrateobservedinthe86-87intervalisconsistent withthat.observedinthe85-86interval. | |||
Thisisanexpectedresultsincepowerlevelandchemistry parameters wereconsistent duringeachinterval. | |||
Sincethegrowthratemethodology incorporates different generalgrowthratesforthetubesheet creviceregion,tubesheet surfaceregion,andtubesupportplateinter-sections, aslightlymorerefinedtestistoevaluatetubepluggingratesateachofthesethreeareas.Table3providesacomparison ofthecompensated tubepluggingrateforeachareaduringthe85-86and86-87intervals. | |||
Reviewofthetableshowsthatthetubepluggingrateineachareaisfairlyconsistent forthetwointervals, andfurthersuggeststhatthegrowthratemetholodogy isvalid.Fromareviewoftubeplugginghistory,itcanbeconcluded thatthepluggingrequiredinMarch1987isconsistent withthepreviousoperating period.Therefore, thenumerical degradation growthratedatadeveloped duringthatpriorperiodmaybevalidforassessing thenextoperating interval. | |||
2.2.2GrowthRateDetermination Quantitative generalgrowthrateshavebeenevaluated afterpastoperating intervals forthethreeareasofinterest. | |||
Thedetermination oftheaveragegrowthrateforeachareahasbeenmadebycomparing eddycurrentinspection resultsbeforeandafteranoperating interval. | |||
Tubeswithoutevidenceofdegradation orwithverylow,non-quantifiable degradation havebeenexcludedfromthecalculations. | |||
Thus,thegrowthratesdetermined reflectthegeneral,averagedegradation growthrateoftubesundergoing observable degradation | |||
-nottheentiretubebundle.Severalmethodsfordetermining numerical growthrateshavebeenused.Themostobjective andreliableisadirectcomparison ofclearindications fromoneintervaltothenext("4TW-4TW"Method).Theothermethodsareregardedaslessdependable sincetheyutilizeassumptions oninitialconditions. | |||
Theyareuseful,however,becausetheyallowacomparison tothe"~TW-4TW"Methodresultsandbecausetheyprovidealargersamplesize.Asreportedinprior' D.C.CookUnit:2AEP:NRC:0936J Attachment 1submittals, thealternate methodsandthe"4TW-4TW"Methodyieldconsistent results.Asnotedearlier,the85-86intervalprovidedauniqueopportunity toassessgrowthratesusingthe"4TW-4TW"Method.Becauseofnewanalysisandpluggingcriteriathatevolvedafterthe1985outage(fromtubesamplesremovedduringthe1985outage),anumberofnow-pluggable indica-tionswereleftinserviceandgivenanopportunity togrowduringthe85-86operating interval. | |||
Comparison ofthereevaluated 1985datawiththe1986dataresultedindevelopment ofthegeneralgrowthratemethodology described inReference Submittal 2,andsummarized belowforconvenience: | |||
85-86IntervalIGASCCGrowthRatesLocationMeanGrowthRateSampleSizeTubesheet CreviceRegionTubesheet SurfaceRegion1.600.821918TubeSupportPlateInter-sections0.6638Theabilitytodetermine newgrowthratesduringthe86-87intervalforthetubesheet creviceandtubesheet surfaceregionsusingthe"<TW-~TW"Methodhasbeeneffectively eliminated becauseofpluggingcriteriawhichremovedallpreviousindications fromservice.Thusthepopulation'f 4TWsfromthisoperating intervalrepresents theextremeingrowthratepossibilities, i.e.tubesclassified previously asNDDwhichgrewtohigh4TWs.Inessence,allthatcanbeobservedisthetailofthestatistical distribution ofgrowthrates.Iftheextremesofthepopulation canbeshowntofitthedistribution ofthepreviousgrowthratedata,theassumption canthenbemadethatthedistribution asawholehasnotchangedandaprobabilistic growthratemodeldeveloped fromthe85-86intervaldatawillbevalid.2.2.3Probabilistic ModelVerification Toevaluatetheextremesintubeconditions observedinthemost.recentoperating interval1)astart-of-interval tubecondition probability distribution wasdetermined, 2)thegrowthrateprobability distribution fromthe85-86interval D.C.CookUnit2AEP'NRC0936ZAttachment 112wasassumed,3)thetwodistributions werecombinedtodefineanhypothetical end-of-interval tubebundlecondition, and4)thehypothetical condition wasthencomparedtotheMarch1987inspection resultstoconfirmthemodel.Thestart-of-interval tubecondition probability distribu-tionwasestablished fromthe1986inspection resultsandtheprobability ofdetection/non-detection forvariousindication sizes.Non-quantifiable indications (DIs,SQRs,andUDSs)wereincludedinthepopulation inanappropriate 4TWsizerangebasedondetection threshold andothereddycurrentinformation independent of"sizing"parameters whichweredeveloped fromcorrelation ofprevioustubesampleanalysisandeddycurrentdata(seeReference Submittal 3,WCAP-11055, Figure4.1andReference Submittal 2,WCAP-11329, Figure2.2.4).Theendresultsoftheabove-described comparison areshowninFigure7forthetubesheet creviceregion,Figure8forthetubesheet surfaceregion,andFigures9-Aand9-Bfortubesupportplateintersections. | |||
Inthetubesheet surfaceregionandattubesupportplateintersections, themodeldatawasfitwitha"bestestimate" curve.Inthetubesheet creviceregion,themodeldatawasfitwithamoreconserva-tive"over-prediction" curveinrecognition ofthefactthatcrevicecorrosion hasbeenthelimitingfactorforcontinued operation. | |||
Reviewofthesefiguresshowsverygoodagreement betweenthemodel'sprediction andtheactualinspection results.Fromthisitisconcluded thatgrowthratedatafromthe85-86intervalisvalidforassessing thelengthofthenextoperating interval. | |||
==3.0 EVALUATION== | |||
OFOPERATION THROUGHTHEENDOFFUELCYCLE63~1USNRCReulatorGuide1.121Basis3.l.1MinimumAllowable WallDetermination Minimumwallrequirements fortheCook2steamgenerator tubingwerecalculated inaccordance withthecriteriaofR.G.1.121,entitled"BasesforPluggingDegradedPWRSteamGenerator Tubes".Confirmation thattherecommendations oftheguidearemetintheCook2steamgenerators wasdemonstrated inReference Submittals 2and3,andisrestatedhereforconvenience. | |||
D.C.CookUnit2AEPNRC0936ZAttachment 113Thebasicrecommendations ofR.G.1.121areoutlinedbelow.I.Allowable minimumwalldetermination perthefollowing: | |||
Fornormalplantoperation, primarytubestressesarelimitedsuchthatamarginofsafetyof3isprovidedagainstexceeding theultimatetensilestressofthetubematerial, andtheyieldstrengthofthematerialisnotexceeded, considering normalandupsetcondition loadings. | |||
2.Foraccidentcondition | |||
: loadings, therequirements ofparagraph NB-3225ofSectionIIIoftheASMECodearetobemet.Inaddition, itmustbedemonstrated thattheappliedloadsarelessthantheburststrengthofthetubesatoperating temperature asdetermined bytesting.3.Foralldesigntransients, thecumulative fatigueusagefactormustbelessthanunity.II.Leak-Before-Break Verification, i.e.,thatasinglethrough-wall crackwithaspecified leakagelimit(Technical Specification leakratelimit)duringnormaloperation wouldnot;propagate andresultintuberuptureduringpostulated accidentcondition loadings. | |||
Inestabishingthesafelimitingcondition ofoperation ofatubeintermsofitsremaining wallthickness, theeffectsofloadingsduringbothnormaloperation andpostulated accidentconditions mustbeevaluated. | |||
ItemI.3isaddressed indetailinbothReference Submittals 2and3.Briefly,fromtheviewpoint offatigueandrelatedimplications ofcracking, thecausesofcrackingareaccounted forintheverification ofleak-before-break. | |||
Inthecalculation oftubeminimumwall,threedistinctareasoftubedegradation withintheCook2steamgenerators wereaddressed: | |||
thetubesheet creviceregion,thetubesheet. | |||
surfaceregion,andthetubesupportplateintersections. | |||
Basedonpreviousmetallography, tubeminimumwalldetermination forlocalized tubedegradation occurring inthetubesheet creviceoratthetopofthetubesheet assumed: | |||
D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC0936JAttachment 1142~Tubedegradation tobecharacterized aseithermultipleSCCorIGA/SCC(intergranular SCCcombinedwithshallower, morewidelyspreadIGA).Tubewalldegradation canbeevaluated asequivalent thinning(asaresultofIGA)withasuperimposed crack.3.Theaxialextentoftheequivalent thinnedlengthoftubedegradation is1.5inches.Also,theIGA(equivalent thinning) wasuniformaroundthetubecircumference. | |||
: Likewise, thetubeminimumwalldetermination forthe'localized tubedegradation occurring atthetubesupportplateelevations assumed:1.Tubedegradation tobemultipleSCC,withindividual cracks0.1to0.2inchinaxialextent.2.Partialthrough-wall crackingcanbeevaluated assingleandmultiplecracks.3~Astubesupportplatedegradation wasconfinedtothethickness ofthetubesupportplate,themaximummacrocrack lengthisequaltothesupportplatethickness, or0.75inch.4.Link-upofmultipleSCCisimprobable atpostulated accidentcondition pressuredifferential asreflected inthetubespecimenbursttests.Resultsofthesecalculations areprovidedinTable4foreachoftheaboveareasoftubedegradation. | |||
: Moreover, Table5providesasummaryofminimumwalldetermination forthethreeregionsoflocalized tubedegradation occurring intheD.C.CookUnit2steamgenerators. | |||
Ineachcase,thelimitingcriterion fordetermining theallowable wallreduction istheR.G.1.121criterion fornormaloperation thatrequiresamarginofsafetyof3againstexceeding theultimatetensilestressofthematerial. | |||
3.1.2Leak-Before-Break Verification Theleak-before-break rationale istolimittheallowable primary-to-secondary leakrateduringoperation suchthattheassociated cracklengthwhichTechnical Specification leakageoccursisthecriticalcracklengthcorresponding totubemaximumnormalthroughlessthanburst.atthe D.C.CookUnit2AEPNRC0936JAttachment 115maximumpostulated pressurecondition loading(SLB/FLB) | |||
.Again,Reference Submittals 2and3showonthebasisofnormaloperation thatunstablecrackgrowthinatubeisnotexpectedtooccurinthetubesheet crevice,topofthetubesheet, ortubesupportplateintersections oftheCook2steamgenerators intheunlikelyeventofalimitingaccident. | |||
Itisdemonstrated thatgrowthofpartialthrough-wall cracksexhibitalimitedaspectratio.Thischaracteristic resultsincrackextension through-wall priortoreachingtheSLB/FLBcriticalcracklength.3.2IGMECo'sutilization ofaprimary-to-secondary leakmonitoring, policywhichemphasizes bothabsoluteleakratemeasurement andrateofchange,andwhichincludestheinitiation ofactionpriortoreachingtheTechnical Specification limit,yieldsadditional safetymargin.3.1.3EddyCurrentTestingUncertainty Comparison ofinsitueddycurrentinspection resultswithlaboratory destructive analysisoftubesamplesremovedfromtheCook2steamgenerators hasprovidedagoodbasisfordetermining theeddycurrent.testinguncertainty associated withtheparticular tubedegradation experienced. | |||
onCook2.Fortubesamplesinwhichmetallography revealedtubewallpenetration tobeatleast40percentthrough-wall, theinsitueddycurrenttestsyieldamaximumunder-prediction of16percent.Aswallpenetration getsdeeper,theeddycurrenttestsmorecloselypredicttheactualdepthofpenetration (seeReference Submittal 3,Figure4-3).Tobeconservative, a16percenteddycurrenttestinguncertainty isusedtoevaluateoperating intervallength.0eratinIntervalJustification | |||
-SafetAssessment Theinfluence oftheoperating environment mayaffectsomeofthetubesinthesteamgenerator andresultinlocalized walldegradation. | |||
Aspartofapreventive programtodetecttubedegradation, in-service inspection usingeddycurrenttechniques wasperformed. | |||
Affectedtubeswitharemaining wallthickness greaterthantheminimumrequiredwallthickness areacceptable forcontinued service,providededdycurrentmeasurement uncertainty isaccounted forandanoperational allowance forcontinued degradation untilthenextscheduled inspection isconsidered. | |||
Table6summarizes theprojected safetymarginsforlocallydegradedsteamgenerator tubing,bytubeelevation, uponcompletion ofCycle6operation ofCook2(about240EFPDsor8.0EFPMsfromstart-uponApril21,1987).Itisdemonstrated fromasafetyperspective that,operating intervalmarginexistsat D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936J Attachment 116allthreetubeareasinquestionwithrespecttotubeminimumallowable wall.Thesemarginsarebasedonthemaximumpermissible walllosscalculated inaccordance withR.G.1.121criteria, aneddycurrenttestinguncertainty of16percent,andthegeneraldegradation growthratesdescribed inSection2.2.2.Whiletheaboveevaluation demonstrates thattherecommenda-tionsofR.G.1.121aremetforanoperating intervalof8.0EFPMs,theincidence ofprimary-to-secondary leakageduringthatintervalisnotprecluded. | |||
I&MECohasconservatively chosentoestablish anoperating intervalwhichminimizes thepotential forforcedoutagesduetosteamgenerator tubeleaks.4.0OPERATING INTERVALDETERMINATION 4.10erational Considerations Asnotedearlier,anoperating intervalbetweensteamgenerator inspections willbeselectedsuchthatthepotential foraforcedoutageduetosteamgenerator leakageisminimized. | |||
However,becauseofthehighcostandhighoccupational radiation exposureassociated withsteamgenerator inspections, theoperating intervalshouldbeaslongaspossibletominimizethenumberofintermediate inspections requiredpriortoreplacement oftheCook2steamgenerators. | |||
The.selectedintervalshouldalsobeconsistent withfuelcycleconsiderations, andshouldofferIGMECosomeflexibility forscheduling basedonsystemloadrequirements. | |||
Atstart-uponApril21,1987,Cook2hadabout240EFPDsoffuelremaining inCycle6.Sincetherecenttubeleakoccurredafteronly183EFPDsofoperation, theneedforanintermediate inspection isapparent. | |||
Anobviousintervaltolookatwouldbethemid-point oftheremaining fuel,orabout120EFPDs.At80percentpower,theearliestthiscouldoccurismid-September 1987,whichwouldnotconflictwiththescheduled Cook1refueling | |||
,andshouldbeafterthesummerpeakloadperiod.However,choosingtheexactmid-point oftheremaining fuelaffordsIGMEConoflexibility astowhentoremovetheunitfromservice;alateshutdownwouldviolatethejustified intervalandanearlyshutdownwouldmakethesecondintervallongerthanjustified. | |||
Anallowance ofaboutthreeweeksshouldbeaddedtoprovidethisneededscheduling flexibility. | |||
Therefore, anoperating intervalof140EFPDs,or4.7-EFPMs, D.C.CookUnit2AEP'NRC'0936Z Attachment 117isacceptable fromanoperational perspective. | |||
Thepotential forsteamgenerator leakageduringthisintervalisassessedinSection4.2.4.2TubeBundleCondition Pro'ection Duringthemostrecentoperating | |||
: interval, asteamgenerator tubeleakofsufficient magnitude toinitiateunitshutdownoccurredsoonerthanexpectedbasedonthepriorsafetyanalysiswhichjustified operation throughCycle6.AlthoughtheleakwasbelowTechnical Specification limitsandwaswellwithinoperatorcontrolcapabilities topreventanoff-siteradiation release,theelementofsignificant currentinterestiswhytheleakoccurredinsuchashorttimeframe.Xnanefforttoaddressthisconcern,severalpossibilities wereidentified. | |||
Eachpossibility, alongwithitsassociated responserelativetoselecting thenextoperating intervalandanevaluation ofitslikelihood ofbeingtrue,isoutlinedbelow:higherthanduringpreviousperiods.~Resonse-Usethehighermeangrowthratestoadjusttheoperating intervaltocomplywithsafetyanalysisconsiderations. | |||
Evaluation | |||
-Littleornoevidencecouldbefoundtosupportthispossibility; asdescribed inSection2.2,growthratesareconsistent withthe85-86interval. | |||
generaldz.stributions ofgrowthratesandinitialconditions, andistherefore arandomevent.~Resonse-Maintaintheprioroperating intervaljusti-fication, andaccommodate leakagefromanyadditional "outliers" throughleakratemonitoring andmaintenance shutdowns asrequired. | |||
Evaluation | |||
-Someevidencesupporting thispossibility isfoundinthefactthatthereisalownumberofveryhighlevelindications separated fromthemaindistri-butionofindications. | |||
combining theextremesofthegeneraldistributions ofgrowthratesandinitialconditions. | |||
D.C.CookUnit2AEPNRC0936JAttachment 118~Resonse-Adjusttheoperating intervaltoreducethepotential forleakagebyconsidering thestatistical distribution ofthegrowthratedata.Evaluation | |||
-Evidenceinsupportofthispossi-bilitywasdeveloped throughaprobabilistic modelcombining start-of-interval tubeconditions andgrowthrates,asdescribed inSection2.2.3.Theresultsoftheevaluation havelargelyeliminated thefirstpossibility. | |||
Whilethesecondandthirdcasesarestillpossible, thepresentinformation favorsthethird.Therefore, undertheassumption thatextremedegradation conditions areafunctionofoperating intervalandnotarandomoccurrence, itseemsprudenttoadjusttheoperating intervaltominimizethepotential forleakage.Consistent withtheSection4.1discussion ofreasonable operating intervallengths,anoperating intervalof4.7EFPMswasconsidered. | |||
Toassessthereduction inpotential forleakage,theprobabilistic modeldescribed inSection2.2.3wasappliedinthesamemannerasusedtoassessgrowthrate.Theanalysisincludednewstart-of-interval conditions resulting fromtheMarch1987inspection andplugging, andusedthegrowthratedistribution derivedfromthe85-86interval. | |||
Theprojected end-of-interval conditions forthetubesheet creviceregion,tubesheet surfaceregion,andtubesupportplateintersections areshowninFigures10,ll,and12.Sincetheend-of-interval projections shownoappreciable numberoftubesatextremewallpenetrations, suchasmightresultinleakage,the4.7EFPMintervalisconsidered appropriate. | |||
==5.0CONCLUSION== | ==5.0CONCLUSION== | ||
S Thefollowing conclusions havebeendrawnfromreviewandevaluation oftheMarch1987Cook2steamgenerator tubeleakeventandsubsequent eddycurrentinspection results:oTheleakwastypicalofpreviousIGA/SCCdegradation experienced intheCook2steamgenerators. | |||
Anadequateunderstanding ofthisdegradation mechanism hasbeenacquiredthroughpreviousmetallographic examination andbursttestingoftubesamples,sonofurtherdestructive testingisnecessary. | |||
oTherecentoveralleddycurrentinspection resultsand D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936J Attachment 119thenumberofpluggable indications areconsistent withexperience intheprioroperating | |||
: interval, andcanbeusedtoshowthat.thegeneral,averagedegradation growthratemethodology developed fromthe85-86operating intervalisstillvalid.oAR.G.1.121safetyevaluation basedontubestructural limitsfortheCook2steamgenerator tubing,generaltubedegradation growthrates,andaconservative eddycurrentuncertainty margincouldbeusedtojustifyoperation throughtheremaining 8.0EFPMsofCycle6.However,thereisadistinctprobability ofatubeleakoccurring duringthatinterval. | |||
oAprobabilistic gr'owthratemodeldeveloped fromthegeneralgrowthratedatabasecanbeusedtopredictextremeconditions ofthetubebundlesfollowing aspecified operating interval. | |||
Determination ofanoperating intervalbasedonextremeratherthangeneraltubeconditions shouldgreatlyreducetheprobability ofaprimary-to-secondary steamgenerator tubeleakduringthatinterval, althoughthepossibility ofarandom(outlier) eventcannotbeprecluded. | |||
Selection ofaconservative operating intervalbasedonextremetubeconditions shouldalsoincludeoperational considerations toreasonably limittheeconomicpenal-tiesandincreased personnel radiation exposureassociated withmorefrequentsteamgenerator inspec-tions.Anoperating intervalofabout4.7EFPMsmeasuredfromthereturn-to-power inApril1987appearsmostappropriate whenconsidering bothextremetubeconditions andremaining fuelinthecurrentfuelcycle.IGMECowillremoveCook2fromservicewithinthatintervaltoverifyandrestoreasnecessary theintegrity ofthesteamgenerator tubebundles.Thesubsequent operating intervalwouldendattheCycle7refueling outage.oSelection ofoperating intervals beyondCycle6shouldconsideroperating experience duringthenexttwointervals, theresultsofthenexttwotubeinspection | |||
: programs, lengthofthenextfuelcycle,andscheduling ofthesteamgenerator replacement outage.I&MECorecognizes thatexcessive steamgenerator tubeleakageresulting inunscheduled shutdowns isnotacceptable onacontinuing basis,andhasadoptedaconservative. | |||
D.C.CookUnit.2AEP:NRC: | D.C.CookUnit.2AEP:NRC:0936J Attachment 120approachtoselecting thenextoperating intervalwhichshouldgreatlyreducetheprobability ofaforcedshutdownduetoleakage.Previously instituted remedialmeasures(e.g.-bettersecondary waterchemistry, boricacidtreatment, andadministrative powerreduction) willbecontinued during.theinterval. | ||
Intheunlikelyeventthattheincidence ofextremewallpenetration isarandomeventandisnotpredicted bytheforegoing probabilistic | |||
: analysis, thenIGMECo'sleakratemonitoring programandtheTechnical Specification leakratelimitwillensureleak-before-break conditions andthatanorderlyshutdowncanbeaffected. | |||
IGMECo'sadministrative policyofshuttingdownbeforereachingtheactualleakratelimitaddsadditional margintoleak-before-break considerations. | |||
Table1Indications ofHotLeSecondarSideCorrosion | |||
-March1987A.Including onlythemostsignificant indication pertube,totalforall4SGs.Location<404>404DIUDSSQRTotalTubesheet Crevice64255Tubesheet Surface1931TubeSupportPlatesTotal15182159433615042630716B.Including multipleindications pertube,totalforall4SGs.Location<404>40<DIUDSSQRTotalTubesheet CreviceTubesheet Surface196425531TubeSupportPlatesTotal16192383035851042869955 Table2TubesPluedDuetoIGASCC-GeneralComarison0eratinInterval84-8585-8686-872~3~Tubespluggedduetosecondary sideIGA/SCC(totaltubes)Tubespluggedduetosecondary sideIGA/SCC(tubes/EFPM) | |||
Tubespluggedduetosecondary sideIGA/SCC,compensated forchangesinanalysisandpluggingcriteria(tubes/EFPM) 14114.525.514952.714.810717.515.9Table3TubesPluedDuetoIGASCCComensatedforChanesinAnalsisandPluinCriteria-ComarisonbLocationLocation0eratinInterval85-8686-87Tubesheet Crevice(tubes/EFPM) | |||
Tubesheet Surface(tubes/EFPM) | |||
TubeSupportPlateIntersections (tubes/EFPM) 10.92.81~114.89.05.11.815.9 Table4Cook2SteamGenerator TubinMinimumAccetableWallReirementsA.Tubesheet creviceandtubesheet surfaceregions.CriteriaCondition MinimumWallinchesyieldASMECodeSu/3normalfaultednormal0.0150.0170.019B.Tubesupportplateintersections. | |||
CriteriaCondition MinimumWallinchesyieldASMECodeSu/3normalfaultednormal0.0120.0130.015Table5Cook2SteamGenerator TubinAllowable WallLossDetermination LocationGeometric Condition BasisAllowable Wall~LossTubesheet CreviceRegionAxialextent>1.5inchesSu/362Tubesheet SurfaceRegionAxialextent>1.5inchesSu/362TubeSupportPlateIntersections Axialextent<0.75inchesSu/370 Table60eratinIntervalJustification Remainder ofFuelCcle6-R.G.1.121BasisItemAllowable tubewallloss(>)ECTuncertainty (4).Growth(4/EFPM)Projected growth(+o/8'EFPM)Plugginglevelrequired(4)Tubesheet Crevice62*161.612.833.2Tubesheet Surface62160.826.639.4TubeSupportPlates70*160.665.348.7Plugginglevelimplemented | |||
(%)AllAll40.0*Tubeburstwithinthetubesheet creviceregionorattubesupportplateintersections isconsidered tobeincredible. | |||
ECINSPECTION RESuLTS-MARCHf987SECONDARY SIDECORROSION, HOTLEGPLANT:DCCOOKUNIT20~PLUGGASLE INOICATIONS. | |||
TSCREVICE(2)w~teN-PLUGGASLE INOICATIOHS. | |||
TSPS092)GENERATOR: | |||
2i0~PLUGGABLE IHOICATIOHS. | |||
TSSURFACE(T)TOTALTUBES:3388OUTOFSERVICE(N): | |||
f42v~PLUGGASLE IHOICATIOHS. | |||
TSPo(5)TOTALTUSESASSIGNER209~~aoOJJ~~JJJ25C/lD~~~++~20IIVAd'DCll~J4~JJJJ~JJJ~JJ~JTJJ~joO~4~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o5IIrgNAHNAYIIIP.INLET(NotLog)IIIIICOLUHHSIIIIIIR88oFigure1I ECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCHl987SECONDARY SIDECORROSION, HOTLEGPLANT:DCCOOKUNIT2GENERATOR: | |||
22TOTALTUBES:3388OUTOFSERVICE(B):2lOo-pLUBBABLE ZNorcAnoNB. | |||
TscREvrcEtao)ksNOIR.USSABLE ZNOZCATZONS. | |||
TSPs(2fB)0~PLUSSABLE ZNOZCATZONS. | |||
TSSURFACEBO)T>PLUSSABLE ZNOZCATZONS. | |||
TSPs0)70TALTUBEsAssrsNEo: | |||
247k00~~JkJkkkkkJkkkkJ~JkJJ~kkJkJkkJkSkJJJ~~k~~~~~~s~~~~4~~~k~~~~0~JksJJoJSJk20V-XOJkkkkkJ0okkk~J~JkSk~ks4kos~kkk0kkkJ0~J0J0J000~J~~~~~~s~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~s~k~~~sJJk~~~~kkJ~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~s~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~IIgIII8RZtLETtNotLay)IIIII=IIIIIIIIIt88800RR-880COLUNNSNOZZLEFigure2 ECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCH1987SECONDARY SIDECORROSION, HOTLEGPLANT:DCCOOKUNIT2GENERATOR 23TOTALTUBES'388 OUTOFSERVICE(0):2100~PUNSABLEINOICATIOHS. | |||
TSCREVICE(27)NNRVISSABLE IINICATIONS, TSPOt64)0~PLUSBA))LE IHOICATIONS, TSENFACE(9)v~PLU66ABLE INOICATIONS, TSPs(1)TOTALTLNESASSISNEL121J~~J~JJ~~ssr~~00~0r0~J~J0~~J0~ss~rrr~os~~~0~~~~r44or00~~~~0~JIQR20V10r~~r~~~~00~~~r~~rr~~~~r~~~r~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~srr~r~~~~~JJ~re~IIgNAWAYIIIm8RI%ETOhtLsg)IIIIIIIIIIIIII)'38m)800R888880c-COLUMNSHOZZLEFigure3 ECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCH1987SECONDARY SIDECORROSION, HOTLEGPLANT:OCCOOKUNIT2CI~PLUSSABLE Z)QICATZOMS, TSCREVICE(8)A~~U68ABLEINOZCATZONS, TSPr(Zfd)GENERATOR 24TOTALTUBES:3388OUTOFSERVICE(s)'010~PLUBSASLE I)NICATIONS, TSSNFACE(8)T~PLUSSABLE IHOZCATZNBL TSPs(1i)TOTALT(NESASSZSNE(k f39AA~AAA~~~A~AAAVAAAAAAATA~AAAAAAAA~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~s~r~~~~s~~~~~20V~~s~ArAss~4A~~4s~~ArA4~sLO8s~ssburrsburrs~s~rsr'~~~r~~~~~rer~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~rs~~srsss~r~~~~~rsvpIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII888P888$8))88888)IANNAYI)LET(HotLoO)COL(NNSFigure4 OCCOOKUHIT2SteamGenerator I2fECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCHi987cvCaOCCOOKUIIIT2SteamGenetator: | |||
22ECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCHi98700to8H820HI"0Ha2HTM4TSiH~aHsHSH~~~sHTHTRHTSHtHSHSH~OHeHVHGENERATOR ELKVATZONS 4R0088HIt.0OI20HI-0HD2HTlOI'tmfHCHtkHsHSH~~~sHTHTRHTSH4HaHSM~sH4MVHGENERATOR ELEVATZONS | |||
>40%TW~DZ<<40KTW~UDSSQRQ>40%TW+DZQ<<40KTWQUDSQSQROCCOOKUIIIT2SteamGenetstoaI23ECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCHi987OCCOOKUNIT2SteamGenetstot':24ECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCHi98700to8H10000oI8HCOO820HI-0HD2HVlOITSIH4HeHaHatt~~~OH7HTEHT4HCHRHSH~sHOHvHGENERATOR ELEVATZONS 20HI-0HD2HTIHTSfHfHsttSH5H~~~eH7HTCHTSHkHsttaHAHsHOHVHGENERATOR ELKVATZONS | |||
%40XTW~DZ<<40KTW~UDSggSQR>40%TW~DZ<<40%TW~UDSSQRFigure DCCOOKUNIT2SteamGenerator: | |||
00START-OF-INTERVAL TUBEBUNDLECONDITION | |||
-JUL198640000N8HQ.0NZ0HI"00ZH350300250200150100ao0TMHTS-1H1H-2H2H3HSH4H4H-5HSH-SH6H7HTEHTSH1H2HSH4HSHSH7HGENERATOR ELEVATIONS | |||
>40KTW+DI<40KTW+UDSDCCOOKUNIT2SteamGenerator | |||
:00END-OF-INTERVAL TUBEBUNDLECONDITION | |||
-MARCH198740000N8HU0NZ0Hl-0H0ZHSSO900250200150100500THHTs-1H1H-2H2H-SH9H-4H4H-aHSH-SHSH-7HTSHTSH1H2HSH4HSHSH7HGENERATOR ELEVATIONS>40XTW+DI<40KTW+UDSFigure6 40C0~rfg)30O~IH200Inspection Model1005060708090100TubeWallPenetration,10KIntervalsFigure7Comparison ofModelPrediction toActualECInspection Results,Tubesheet CreviceRegion i6Co14U12HiO8O6z2'~Y'Inspection Model405060708090iooTubeWallPenetration,iOXIntervalsFigure8Comparison ofModelPrediction toActualECInspection Results,Tubesheet SurfaceRegion (o500C04003000200z~Inspection Model0iO2030405060708090100TubeWallPenetration, KOXIntervalsFigure9-AComparison ofModelPrediction toActualECInspection Results,TubeSupportPlateIntersections FullRange,0toKOOKTW 25C0~He20U~HC150c1054'Inspection Model405060708090100TubeWallPenetration, 10KIntervals Figure9-BComparison ofModelPredictiontoActualECInspection Results,TubeSupportPlateIntersectionsBlowupof40to100KTWRange | |||
10010EDz.01TubeWallPenetration,5%IntervalsFigure10PredictedEnd-of-Interva1Condition, | 10010EDz.01TubeWallPenetration,5%IntervalsFigure10PredictedEnd-of-Interva1Condition, Tubesheet CreviceRegion 10010*Sr.14TubeWallPenetration, 5XIntervals Figure11Predicted End-of-Interval Condition, Tubesheet SurfaceRegion 100TubeWallPenetration,5XIntervals Figure12Predicted End-of-Interva1Condition, TubeSupportPlateIntersections 03 Attachment 2toAEP:NRC:0936J SteamGenerator ManwayCoverClosureRepairsMarch-April 1987 h | ||
D.C.CookUnit2AEP'NRC:0936j' | D.C.CookUnit2AEP'NRC:0936j'ttachment 21ESTEAMGENERATOR MANWAYCOVERCLOSUREREPAIRSMarch-April 1987Eachsteamgenerator channelheadhalf(hotlegandcoldleg)hasa16-inchmanway;designoftheboltedclosureisshowninFigure1.Whenopeningthemanwaystoperformtubeinspections following theMarch1987steamgenerator tubeleak,difficulty inremovingtheboltsonbothlegsofSGs22and23wasencountered. | ||
Therewasevidenceofgallingundertheboltheadatsomelocations, andanobservation wasmadethatinsufficient threadlubricant mayhavebeenusedduringthepreviousinstallation. | |||
FiveboltsonSG23couldnotberemovedbyde-torquing andweredrilledout.TheboltsonSGs21and24wereremovedwithoutdifficulty. | |||
ActionstakenbyI&MECoasaresultoftheboltremovalproblemincluded: | |||
oAdesignchange(RFC)toallowuseofhardenedsteelwashersundertheboltheadswasapproved. | |||
Thischangeisintendedtoprovideamoreuniformfrictionfactorunderthehead,andtherefore introduce moreuniformbolttension.oThenewly-approved washersandnewmanwaycoverboltswereprocuredforuseinre-installing themanwaycovers.oWestinghouse washiredtoinspectandgaugetheboltholes.A"go/notgo"gaugewasusedtodetermine theacceptability oftheholepitchdiameter. | |||
Thegaugetolerances werethoseofanewholeandweretherefore veryconservative. | |||
ResultsoftheboltholegaugingprogramonSGs22and23wereasfollows:oSG22-Fiveholesonthehotlegandfiveholesonthecoldleghadoversizepitchdiameters andrequiredrepair.oSSZZ-Thirteenholesonthehotlegandeightholesonthecoldleghadoversizepitchdiameters andrequiredrepair | |||
D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936J' | D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936J'ttachment 2Eventhough:nodifficulty wasexperienced onSGs21and24,themanway.coverboltholesonthosetwosteamgenerators weregaugedasanaddedprecaution. | ||
'h SECL-87- | Resultsofthatinspection areasfollows:oSG21-Allsixteenholesonbothhotandcoldlegswereslightlyoversizeandcouldnotbedispositioned byWestinghouse. | ||
~87-229NS-EKS~/L-87- | Znalllikelihood, theholeswereacceptable andacompleteanalysiswouldhavealloweddisposition oftheminthe"as-found" condition. | ||
However,duetotheinherentdifficulty inmeasuring insitufemalethreadparameters (e.g.-threadform,threadangle,andactualpitchdiameter), | |||
sufficient datatodoacompleteanalysiscouldnotbereadilyacquired, soitwasdecidedtorepairthesealso.oSG24-Allholeswereacceptable. | |||
Twomethodsoffemalethreadrepairareincommonuse:replacement oftheexistingthreadswithaHeli-coil andinstallation ofathreadedinsert.TheHeli-coil methodwasselectedfortheUnit2repairs,withthethreadedinsertmethodheldasaback-upintheeventtheHeli-coil technique wasunsuccessful onaparticular hole.Westinghouse providedasafetyevaluation andinstallation procedure foreachmethod;anRFCtoallowtheuseofeitherwasapproved. | |||
However,useofthreadedinsertswasnotnecessary. | |||
TheHeli-coil repairtechnique consistsofdrillingtheexistingboltholeabout1/8inchoverthenominalsizetoremovetheoldthread,threading theresultant holewithanappropriate sizedthreadtap,andthenscrewinginastainless steelHeli-coil (tradenameforahelicalthreadwhoseoutersurfacemateswiththenewly-tapped holethreadsandwhoseinnersurfaceformsfemalethreadsforthebolthole).Thenewholeacceptsthesamesizedboltasbefore,andactuallyhas"better"threads(closertolerances, moreexactthreadform,and-inthiscase-bettermaterial). | |||
Heli-coils areconsidered apermanent repair.TheHeli-coil repairsweremadetoallaffectedboltholesasnotedabove,andthemanwaycoverswereputinplace-usingwashersandnewbolts-withoutfurtherincident. | |||
Weareevaluating thecauseofthisproblemandwewillinformtheNRCoftheresultsofthisevaluation whenitiscompleted Dia.ofCover26.75D~23bcFigure1PrimaryManveyArrangement GasketDia.16.~~Dia.18.1350.25--"16Bolts1-7/8in,Gasket:I.D.16.0625.O.D.=18.0625 Attachment 3toAEP:NRC:0936J Westinghouse NuclearSafetyEvaluation ofLooseMechanical PluginSteamGenerator 22 SECLr87-229CustomerReference No(s).Westinghouse Reference No(s).~NS-RCS~L-87-450WJ%TEAHOUSE NUCLEARSAFETYEVAIIJATION CKXZIZST1)NUCLZARPRATE(S)D.C.COOKUNIT22)CKKKLESTAPPIZCABIZ TO:IlXSEMESCALPIDGPH'MIGENERATOR 22(SubjectofChange)3)Ihesafetyevaluation oftherevisedprocedure, designchangeormodification requiredby10CFR50.59 hasbeenpreparedtotheextentrequiredandisattached. | |||
Ifasafetyevaluation isnotre@~orisimxmplete foranyreason,explainonPage2.PartsAandBofthisSafetyEvaluation CheckListaretobecompleted onlyonthebasisofthesafetyevaluation performed. | |||
CHECKIZST-PARDA(3.1)YesNoXAchangetotheplantasdescribed intheFSAR?(3.2)'esNoXAc1mngetoprocedures asdescribed intheFSAR?(3.3)YesNoXAtestorexperiment notdescribed intheFSAR?(3.4)YesNoXAchangetotheplanttechnical specifications (Appendix AtotheOperating License)? | |||
4)CHECKIZST-PARPB(Justification forPartBanswersmustbe'included onpage2.)(4.1)YesNoX(4.2)YesNoX(4.3)YesNoX(4.4)YesNoX(4.5)YesNoX(4.6)YesNoX(4.7)YesNoXWilltheprobability ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated intheFSARbeincreased? | |||
Willtheconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated intheFSARbeincreased? | |||
Maythepossibility ofanaccidentwhichisdifferent thananyalreadyevaluated intheFSARbecreated?Willtheprobability ofamalfunction ofequipment important tosafetypreviously evaluated intheFSARbeincreased? | |||
Willtheconsequences ofamalfunction ofequipment important tosafetypreviously evaluated intheFSARbeinn~sed?Maythepossibility ofamalfunction ofequipment important tosafetydifferent than,anyalreadyevaluated intheFSARbecreated?Willthemarginofsafetyasdefinedinthebasestoanytechnical specification bereduced?PAGE1OF7 | |||
'h SECL-87-229 Iftheanswerstoanyoftheabovequestions areun)mown,indicateunder5)R12%RESandexplainbelow.Iftheanswertoanyoftheabovequestions in4)cannotbeansweredinthenegative, basedonwrittensafetyevaluation, thechangecannotbeapprovedwithoutanapplication forlicenseamen(:hnent submitted totheNRCpursuantto10CFR50.59. | |||
5)REMARKS:None'Ihefollowing mamarizes thejustification uponthewrittensafetyevaluation, | |||
(*)foranswersgiveninPartBoftheSafetyEvaluation CheckList:SeeattachedSafetyEvaluation. | |||
(*)Reference todocument(s) containing writtensafetyevaluation: | |||
Section:PagesTables:Figures:Reasonfor/Description ofChange:NonePreparedby(NuclearSafety):MATIHENS Ccordinated withEngineer(e):NIESCNR.+Ccord(hated GroupManager(e):KEATING kPNuclearSafetycroupNanager:NNIsrC.Date.S~)~~~~Date:~~~87te:PAGE2OF7 SECL-87-229 NS-RCS~/L-87-450 PAGE3OF7D.C.COOKUIGT2ZDOSEMECHANICAL PIIJGSTEAMGENER%)Rf22SAHH'YEVAIIJATION | |||
'Ihisevaluation isprovidedtoact]ressthesafetyimpactofanobjectfoundlodgedinatubeonthehotlegsideofsteamgenerator 422ofD.C.CookUnit2.'Iheitemhasbeenidentified asamechanical plugoriginally installed inthehotlegtubeendofanothertubeinthesamesteamgenerator. | |||
1hisevaluation considers theeffectofdisengagement oftheplugfrcanthetubeinwhichitwasoriginally installed, theeffectoftheplugonthetubeinwhichitbecamelodgedandtheimpactoftheplugonthehotlegchannelheadccarponents whiletheplugwasmobileandnotlodgedinanytube.Duringtherec~t100%eddycurrentprogramatD.C.CookUnitg2,aforeignobjectwasreportedtobelodgedinthehotlegofsteamgenerator 522.'leobjectwaslocatedapproximately 0.75inchesabovethetubeendofRear3Column5.'Xheforeignobjectwasreportedtoberoundanditappearedtocloselyfillthetubeinnerdiameter(ID).Afterprelimir~ | |||
attemptsweremadetodislodgeandrezmvetheforeignobject,anattemptwasmadebysitepersonnel todrivetheobjectfurtherintothetube.i%iswasintendedtoallerenougha~toinstallamech-mical plugbehindit.Finallytheforeignobjectwassuccessfully rawvedbyinitially drillingapilothole,followedbydrillinga3/8incha~holethroughthematerial, inserting aslidehairandthenpullingitfreefromthetubeID.Onceremved,theforeignobjectwasidentified asaWestinghouse mechanical plugthathadlodgedinthetubeendinaninvert~position. | |||
Athoroughreviewofvideotapesofthetubesheet inthehotlegofsteamgenerator 422showedthatthetubeendatRow40Column39wasmissingamechanical plug.'ibistubeendwasdocun~ted ashavingbeenpluggedintheApril,1986outage,wasdetexnuned tobeopenandwastheapparentsourceofthemechanical plugfoundinR3-C5.Toinvestigate thepossiblecauseoftheplugmovingfromthetubeendintowhichithadbeeninstalled, theremovedmechanical plugandthetubeendatR40-C39werevisuallyandmechanically inspected including theexpandeddiameters andthem~ndertranslation. | |||
Visualexamination oftheplugbyexperienced meclmnical pluggingandqualityassurance personnel revealedthattheplugexhibited scratches onthesurfaceaswellasthepluglandshadbeenrounded SECXr87-229'S-RCS~/L-87-450 PAGE4OF7off.,'IhetubeID(R40~9)inthee1evation rangewheretheplugisdesignedtoseal,wasmeasureat0.5inchintervals attwoazimtuths. | |||
Therecordeddiameters areconsistent withthencaninalroll.exparded diameters forsteamgenerators with7/8inchdiametertubing.%hetubeendwasvisuallyexaminedtocheckforanycircumferential indentations thatareoccasionally leftinthetubeIDafterasuccessful installation andsubsecpent | |||
~ncnralandnonewereevident.%hetubeerdinwhichtheplugbecamelodged(R3-C5)wasinspected inaccord-mce withtheproperacceptance criteriaasspecified intheprocedure formechanical pluggingofsteamgenerator tubes.Itwasevaluated asacoeptable formeclmnical plugging. | |||
WehotlegtubeendatR40C39wasa1soevaluated asacceptable forinstallation ofanewplug.Botherdsofthetubeinwhichtheplughadbeccalodged(R3-C5)weremechanically pluggedandthetubevznovedfromserviceasaprecautionary measure.%hehotlegtubeendofR40-C39,thatwasmissingthemechmicalplugwasalsomchtanically plugged.theprocessparameters forthesepluggingoperations werewitnessed, verified'arxlrecorded. | |||
%hecondition forwhichtheR40-C39tubehadbeenpluggedintheApril1986outagewasaneddycurrent.irdication termedasqau~l.Suchanirdication isasignalinthetubesheet regionwhosetraceat400KHziscomplexandphaseangleunclear,butwhosepresencerepresents change.Kheseirdications havebeenhistorically pmventocompromise tubewallintegrity ifthetuberemainsinserviceandthushavebeenclassified astubedegradation. | |||
IntheD.C.CookUnit2steamgenerators theseirdications areassociated withdegradation ontheoutsidesurfaceofthetubeinthetubetotubesheet crevice.'Ihecorrosion resistance ofasteamgenerator tubepluggedonthecoldlegonlywasevaluated. | |||
Generalformsofcorrosion aretypically enviroranentally ard/ormaterially controlled. | |||
Mostsecond-uy sideinitiated tubingcorrosion foundinrecirculating steamgenerators hasoccurredinlocalized regions(mostcananonly crevices) ofasteamgenerator tubeinwhichdissolved chemicalspeciescanbeconcentrated tolevelsfargreaterthanthoseinthebulkprimaryorsecondary fluid.Heattr<msferisnecessary suchthattheavailable superheat (localwalltemperature minusfluidsaturation temperature) isincreased comparedtovaluesassociated withconventional nucleateboilirgprocesses astheyexistonthetubesurface.'Iheelevatedtemperatures providethedrivingforceforpromoting chemicalconcentration i.e.,thepotential fortheformation ofalocallyconcentrated soluti.on canbecorrelated withtheexpectedavailable superheat withintheregion.Astheprimlyfluidwithinatubepluggedonthecoldlegonlywouldbeat SECXr87-229NS-RCS~/L-87-450 PAGE5OF7approximately secondary sidebulkfluidsaturation temperature andinasubcooled state,noheattransferwouldbeexpectedacrossthetubesurfaceandanylocalized tubedegradation including continuing degradation atthesiteofthepreviously locatededdycurrentsignalwouldbeexpecttobeminhnal.'Ihesafetyimpactofoperation oftubeR40-C39withwhatisnormallyapluggable indication ismitigated bythegeometryoftheregion.%hetubetotubesheet creviceisthespacebetweenthetubesheet andtheunexparxled tubesandisontheorderofafewmills.Tubeplugginglimitsare,established inpartbasedonpredicted performance ofadegradedtubeunderpostulated faultedconditions, specifically steamlinebreakconditions. | |||
Forindications inthetubesheet creviceregion,tuberuptureisnotpossibleduetothepresenceofthetubesheet aroundthetubewhichwouldcontainthemnrementofthetubewallrequiredtoeffectabursttubecondition. | |||
'lherefore, intheeventofapostulated steamlinebreakwiththemechanical plug,missingfmmoneendoftheR40-C39tubeandthepreviously observededdycurrentindication wouldnotbeexpectedtoresultinprimarytosecorxtey leakageinexcessofthatusedforaccidentanalyses. | |||
'Iheeffectofplantoperation onplugintegrity foruptooneyearwiththesteamgenerator tubepluggedononlythecoldlegsidehasbeenevaluated. | |||
'Ihemechanical plugwasdesignedtoacxxzmnodate thedesignconditions specified forthesteamgenerator. | |||
'lhedesignconditions enveloptheapproximate 10psipressuredifferential whichoccursacrossthechannelheadinatubewhichhasbeenpluggedonthecoldlegonlybutnotonthehotleg.'Ihedesignverification p~msimulated thesteamgenerator serviceconditions ofter~rature andpressureaswellasthermalcyclingassociated withthevariousplantconditions. | |||
'Ihedesignverification progranfortheexpandedmeat~calplugdemonstrated pressurebourxho~integrity undersimulated faultedcondition loadingsinadditiontootherplantops~tingconditions. | |||
%hedesignoftheSeries51steamgenerators atD.C.CookUnit2includesasmallextension ofthetubeendpastthebottomofthetubesheet surface.Aforeignobjectramvedframthechannelheadduringapreviousoutagehadresultedinsomedeformation ofthetubeends.Noneofthetubeendsoftheothertubeshadarestriction thatwouldpreventinsertion ofaneddycurrentprobearxlthetubeendshadnoapparentadditional damageduetothelooseplug.%hetubetotubesheet weldsarepartially shieldedfromimpactofanobjectofthesizeofamechanical plugandtheweldshadnoapgm~tdamage.thecladdingofthechannelheadandthetubesheet alsoshowednoapp-~tdamage.'Lhetubes,channelheadandtubesheet | |||
: cladding, weldmetalandthemechanical plugareallcarposedofveryductilematerial. | |||
Reputedimpactoftheplugonthecladding, tubeends,andtubetotubesheet weldwouldnotbeexpecttocause SECL-87-229 NS-RCS~/L-87-450 PAGE6OF7crackirgorsmallpiecestobreaklooseframthesurfacesimpactedbythelooseplug.Evaluations ofmeresignificant deformation oftubeendsinathersteamgenexators ofsimilardesignhaveshownthatdeformation ofthetubeerdwillnotsignificantly degradethestructural integrity ofthetubeorthetubetottd~sheet weldorcauseasignificant increaseintherestriction toflawthroughthesteamgenerator | |||
'lhemechanical pluglandouterdiameters approximate thetubeinnerdiameters intheseatingareaofR40~9.Inorderforthemechanical plugtohavep~~sealirg,theplugshouldhavebeenlargerthanthetubeIDtoallawforaninterference fit.Dherewasnovisuallydicmernible evidenceontheIDofthetubeatR40-C39thattheplughadapositiveinterference fit,withthetube,althoughitisnotmardatory tohavethisforapraperlyinstalled plug.Insametubeerdsthatareapproximately ashardasthepluglands,however,therearenointerference marksandplugsaresuccessfully installed. | |||
'lheestimateoftheactualtranslation oftheexparderintherepavedmechanical plugwouldindicatethatinsufficient | |||
~~nsionhadoccurred. | |||
'Iheestimated expardertranslation distancedidnotmeetthepzocech.xe installation minirttum reguixement. | |||
%hepossibile ananelies inthetube-to-tubesheet jointcontributing tothedisengagement ofthemechanical plugwerereviewed. | |||
%heavality,notapernoranyotherproblem(suchasalackofrollexpansion intheplugsealingarea),whichwouldirdicatethattheconfiguration ofthetubejointcontributed totheasinstalled condition ofthemechanical plug.Basedonthefirdirgsoftheinvestigation outlinedaboveithasbeenconcluded thatsuccessful installation pamneters formectmu.cal plugwerenotachievedanditwaseventually displaced fmmthetubeerdduringtheoperating periodpreyingthediscovery ofthemisplaced plug.RelevantWestinghouse logbooks,datasheets,notesardprol.xxiures werereviewedindetailframtheApril,1986outageinanattend%toidentifyapotential areatoaccauntfortheasinstalled cordition oftheplug.%hejobsitecoordinator, shiftsupervisors andotherkeypeL~nnelwerequeriedtoattempttoidentifyacausative factor'.Inallcasestherewasnothingidentified. | |||
BasedonpriorWestinghouse mcpmience ofvirtually 100%su~fulinstallations overaneightyearperiodofover25,000previousaedmnical pluginstallations, coupledwithotherinstallation datacollected onsurveillance reportsfromalargepercentage ofmechanical plug | |||
~87-229NS-EKS~/L-87-450 PAGE7OF7installations duringtheApril,1986progmn,thejudcpnent hasbeenmadethattheprobability that.theothermechanical plugsinstalled atD.C.CookVnit42duringtheApril,1986outagewereinstalled correctly approximates 1004.CONCWSIONS Onthebasisoftheinvestigation andevaluation asoutlinedabove,ithasbeenconcluded thatthemechanical pluglodgedinthehotlegofsteamgenerator 422inR3-C5isthesamemechanical plugthatwasoriginally installed intheR40~9inthesamelegofthesamesteamgenerator duringthe4/86outage.Duetotheconditions ofthefluidinthepartially pluggedtube,significant. | |||
additional orcontinuing corrosion wouldnotbeexpectedtooccur.Operation ofthesteamgenerator withoneplugintheR40~9tubeisnotexp~tohaveresultedinacondition whichwouldhavecausedprimarytosecordary leakageintheeventofapostulated steamlinebreakinexcessofthatassumedforaccidentanalyses. | |||
Theintegrity oftheplugonthecoldlegofthetubeframwhichthehotlegsideplugwasdisplaced, wasmaintained undernormaloperating andpostulated accidentcondition loadings. | |||
Theimpactofthelooseplugpriortobeel.'ming lodgedintubeR3-C5causednoapparentdamagetothetubeendsorothersurfacesinthechannelhead.Theapparentcauseoftheasinstalled condition ofthesubjectmechanical plugistheteritunation oftheinstallation processpriortoreachingsuccessful installation parameters. | |||
Therefore thedisplacement ofamechanical plugframthehotlegendoftubeR40-C39,theimpactofthelooseplugonthechannelheadsurfaces, andthesubsequent lodgingoftheplugintubeR3~didnotresultinthepossibility ofapreviously unanalyzed accidentorincreasetheabilityofapreviously analyzedaccident. | |||
Themarginofsafetywasnotreduced.Basedontheinformation outlinedabove,theloosepluginthehotlegofD.C.Cooksteamgenerator f22didnotresultinanunrevised safetyegestionasdefinedinthecriteriaof10CFR50.59.}} |
Revision as of 09:29, 29 June 2018
ML17325A125 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Cook |
Issue date: | 05/18/1987 |
From: | AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORP. |
To: | |
Shared Package | |
ML17325A124 | List: |
References | |
NUDOCS 8706020169 | |
Download: ML17325A125 (62) | |
Text
INDIANA6MICHIGANELECTRICCOMPANYDONALDC.COOKNUCLEARPLANTUNIT2STEAMGENERATOR TUBEINTEGRITY
-APRIL1987AnAssessment oftheNextOperating IntervalLengthAttachment 1toAEP:NRC:0936J Preparedby:AmericanElectricPowerServiceCorporation OneRiverside PlazaColumbus, Ohio43216May18,1987870bOCR050003ib0201b9870522pDRADPDR8i TABLEOFCONTENTSLISTOFABBREVIATIONS LISTOFTABLESANDFIGURESREFERENCE SUBMITTALS
1.0INTRODUCTION
1.1ReportObjectives 1.2Operating Experience Overview1.2.11~2.2Background MostRecentOperating Period2.0CONDITXON OFTUBEBUNDLES2.1SteamGenerator Inspection andTubePlugging-March19872.1.12.1.2EddyCurrentAnalysisCriteria/Tube PluggingCriteria6EddyCurrentInspection Results-------72.2TubeDegradation GrowthRateEvaluation 2.2.12.2.22'.3TubePluggingComparison 9GrowthRateDetermination 10Probabilistic ModelVerification
ll3.0EVALUATION OFOPERATION THROUGHTHEENDOFFUELCYCLE6123.1USNRCRegulatory Guide1.121Basis123.1.13.1.2F1.3MinimumAllowable WallDetermination
---12LeakBeforeBreakVerification
14EddyCurrentTestingUncertainty
153.2Operating IntervalJustification
-SafetyAssessment 154.0OPERATING INTERVALDETERMINATION 4.1Operational Considerations 4.2TubeBundleCondition Projection
5.0CONCLUSION
S 16161718 LISTOFABBREVIATIONS ASMEDIEC,ECTEFPDEFPMgpdgpmIGMECoIGA/SCCMWt-hrNDDR.G.RxxCxxSGxxSLB/FLBAmericanSocietyofMechanical Engineers Distorted indication Eddycurrent,eddycurrenttestingEffective fullpowerdayEffective fullpowermonthGallonsperdayGallonsperminuteIndiana&MichiganElectricCompanyIntergranular attack/stress corrosion crackingKilohertz
- Megawatt, thermalMegawatthours,thermalNodetectable degradation USNRCRegulatory GuideRowandcolumndesignation ofsteamgenerator tubeSteamGenerator No.21,22,23,or24SteamlinebreakorfeedlinebreakaccidentscenarioSQRSuSquirrelUltimatetensilestressTWUDSThrough-wall penetration Undefined signal LISTOFTABLESANDFIGURESTable1Table2ListofTablesIndications ofHotLegSecondary SideCorrosion-March1987A.Including onlythemostsignificant indication pertube.B.Including multipleindications pertube.TubesPluggedDuetoIGA/SCC-GeneralComparison Table3Table4Table5Table6TubesPluggedDuetoIGA/SCC,Compensated forChangesinAnalysisandPluggingCriteria-Comparison byLocationCook2SteamGenerator Tubing-MinimumAcceptable WallRequirements A.Tubesheet creviceandtubesheet surfaceregions.B.Tubesupportplateintersections.
Cook2SteamGenerator Tubing-Allowable WallLossDetermination Operating IntervalJustification
-Remainder ofFuelCycle6-R.G.1.121BasisListofFiuresFigure1Figure2Figure3SG21Tubesheet Map:March1987SG22Tubesheet Map:March1987SG23Tubesheet Map:March1987ECInspection Results-ECInspection Results-ECInspection Results-Figure4SG24Tubesheet Map:ECInspection Results-March1987 ListofFiuresCont'dFigure5SGs21,22,23,and24:ECInspection Results-March1987;Indications ofIGA/SCCvs.Generator Elevations Figure6SGComposite:
"Start-of-Interval TubeBundleCondition
-July1986"comparedto"End-of-Interval TubeBundleCondition
-March1987Figure7Figure8Figure9Comparison ofModelPrediction toActualECInspection Results,Tubesheet CreviceRegionComparison ofModelPrediction toActualECInspection Results,Tubesheet SurfaceRegionComparison ofModelPrediction toActualECInspection Results,TubeSupportPlateIntersections Figure10FigurellFigure12A.Fullrange,0to1004TW.B.Blowupof40to100%TWrange.Projected End-of-Interval Condition, Tubesheet CreviceRegionProjected End-of-Interval Condition, Tubesheet SurfaceRegionProjected End-of-Interval Condition, TubeSupportPlateIntersections REFERENCE SUBMITTALS AEP:NRC:0936G, lettertoMr.HaroldR.Denton,NRR-USNRC, "SteamGenerator TubeLeakandReturntoPowerOperation,"
datedApril9,1987.AEP:NRC:0936E, lettertoMr.HaroldR.Denton,NRR-USNRC, "SteamGenerator TubeIntegrity,"
datedNovember24'986;transmittal ofWCAP-11329 (proprietary version)andWCAP-11330 (non-proprietary version).
AEP:NRC:0936C, lettertoMr.HaroldR.Denton,NRR-USNRC, "SteamGenerator TubeIntegrity
-InterimStatusReport,"datedFebruary7,1986;transmittal ofWCAP-11055 (Proprietary version)andWCAP-11056 (non-proprietary version).
AEP:NRC:0936A, lettertoMr.HaroldR.Denton,NRR-USNRC, "SteamGenerator TubePlugging-InterimStatusReport,"datedOctober10,1985.
STEAMGENERATOR TUBEINTEGRITY
-APRIL1987AnAssessment oftheNextOperating IntervalLength
1.0INTRODUCTION
1.1ReortObectivesReference Submittal 1addressed thecourseofactiontakenasaresultoftheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnit2(Cook2)steamgenerator tubeleakwhichoccurredonMarch3,1987.Theletterdocumented thepreliminary tubeinspection results,addressed restoration oftubebundleintegrity tothesamelevelasatthebeginning ofthepreviousoperating period,andpresented qualitative justification forreturntopowerandoperation forastaff-recommended initialperiodofthreemonths.Thepurposeofthisfollow-up reportistoprovideamorecompleteevaluation ofrecentevents,andtopresentquantitative justification foranoperating intervalinexcessoftheinitialthreemonths.Historically, assessment ofanoperating intervalbetweensteamgenerator tubeinspections hasconsidered onlythesafetyissuesofUSNRCRegulatory Guide1.121.Suchanassessment waspresented forCook2tojustifyoperation throughtheentirecurrentfuelcycle(Reference Submittal 2).However,evenminorsteamgenerator tubeleakage,althoughnotasafetyissueandinfactallowable uptothelimitsetbytheplantTechnical Specifications, isundesirable frombothregulatory andoperating perspectives.
Inrecognition ofthisfact,determination ofthenextoperating intervalwillfocusonminimizing thepotential foraforcedoutageduetoexcessive steamgenerator leakage.ThesafetyissuesofR.G.1.121willofcoursebeagainmetbythismoreconservative approach.
1.20eratinExerienceOverviewl.2.1Background Cook2incorporates anuclearsteamsupplysystemmanufac-turedbyWestinghouse, andislicensedfor3411MWt.Initialcriticality occurredonMarch10,1978.Theunitis D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936J Attachment 1currently operating initssixthfuelcycle;at,theendofMarch1987,about5.7effective fullpoweryearsofoperation havebeenaccrued.Cook2hasfourWestinghouse Series51steamgenerators.
Adescription ofsignificant featuresandareviewofthetypesoftubedegradation experienced priortoNovember1983arecontained inReference Submittal 3.Alloftheearlytubedegradation wasunrelated tosecondary sidecorrosion.
Thefirstsignificant indication ofsecondary sidetubecorrosion intheCook2steamgenerators occurredinNovember1983,whentheunitwasremovedfromserviceduetosteamgenerator tubeleakage.Detailsofthatandsubsequent eventshavebeendiscussed intwomeetingswiththestaff(December 4,1985andSeptember 16,1986)andaredocumented inReference Submittals 2,3,and4.Forconvenience, however,following isachronology ofsignifi-cantsteamgenerator eventsuptoMarch1987.oNovember7,1983ForcedOutae-firststeamgenerator tubeleakduetosecondary sidecorrosion.
Leakrateof0.29gpmLeakidentified inSG21,TubeR16C40ECTof1225tubesintwosteamgenerators Pluggedthreetubes,allduetoindications ofsecondary sidecorrosion Restarted onNovember22,1983oMarch10,1984RefuelinOutae100percentECTineachsteamgenerator seventubesamplesremovedforanalysis; confirmed intergranular corrosion intubesheet regionPlugged402tubes,68ofwhichwereduetoindications ofsecondary sidecorrosion Restarted onJuly7,1984 D.C.CookUnit2AEP'NRC0936JAttachment 1oJuly15,1985ForcedOutae-steamgenerator tubeleakLeakrateof0.22gpmLeakidentified inSG23,TubeR16C56ECTof25tubesinSG23Pluggedtwotubes,bothduetoindications ofsecondary sidecorrosion Attempted restartonAugust2,1985oAugust2,1985ForcedOutae-steamgenerator tubeleakduringstart-upLeakratemeasurements notpossibleLeaksidentified inSG23,TubesR7C28andR14C70ECTof1500tubesinSG23Plugged35tubes,allduetosecondary sidecorrosion Initiated boricacidtreatment program(30percentpowersoakandon-lineaddition)
Restarted onAugust22,1985oAugust23,1985ForcedOutae-steamgenerator tubeleakduring30percentpowersoakLeakrateof0.2gpmLeaksidentified inSG22,TubeR14C41andSG24,TubeR19C52100percentECTinSGs21,22,and24;ECTofalltubesinSG23nottestedduringAugust2,outageFirstECindications notedathotlegtubesupportplateintersections Fivetubesamplesremovedforanalysis; confirmed intergran-ularcorrosion attubesupportplateintersections D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936J Attachment 1Plugged110tubes,104ofwhichwereduetosecondary sidecorrosion Decidedtoadministratively limitunitpowertoabout,80percentRestarted onOctober23,1985oDecember4,1985Presentation toNRCStaffJustified continued operation untilscheduled refueling outage,approximately 90effective fullpowerdaysfromtheOctober23restartoFebruary28,1986RefuelinOutaeMinorsteamgenerator leakage,about0.04gpm,attimeofshutdownLeakidentified inSG22,R16C45ECTinaccordance withTechnical Specification surveillance requirements oninitialsampleof550tubes;classification ofSGs22and24asC-3requiredexpansion ofprogramtoalltubesineachsteamgenerator Plugged151tubes,149ofwhichwereduetosecondary sidecorrosion Boricacidtreatment programcontinued (creviceflushing, 30percentpowersoak,andon-lineaddition)
RestartonJuly7,1986Unitpoweragainadministratively limitedtoabout80percentoSeptember 16,1986Presentation toNRCStaffJustified continued operation throughentirefuelcyclewithoutshutdownforsteamgenerator surveillance-D.C.CookUnit2AEPNRC0936JAttachment 1InformedstaffofintenttoreplaceCook2steamgenerators 1.2.2MostRecentOperating PeriodCook2beganoperation inFuelCycle6onJuly7,1986.Thermalpoweroutput,throughout thecyclehasagainbeenadministratively limited-typically to80percent,althoughtherehavebeenbriefperiodsofoperation at90percentinordertoperformcertaintestsandtomeethighsystem'loaddemandduringthesummerpeakperiod.Thermalgeneration
.throughtheendofMarch1987hasbeen14,990,974 MWt-hrs,orabout183EFPDs.Onebriefoutageunrelated tosteamgenerator tubedegrada-tionoccurredearlyinCycle6.Following that,Cook2rancontinuously foraperiodof226calendardaysuntilbeingremovedfromserviceonMarch3,1987duetoanindicated primary-to-secondary leakinSG22.Themeasuredleakratewas0.247gpm,wellbelowtheTechnical Specification leakratelimitof500gpd(0.347gpm).TheleakingtubeinSG22wasidentified byhydrostatic testingasTubeR28C53,andwassubsequently confirmed byeddycurrenttestingtohaveathrough-wall defectinthehotlegtubesheet creviceabout3.7inchesbelowthetubesheet surface.Thisdefectistypicalofthesecondary sideIGA/SCCpreviously identified intheCook2steamgenerators.
Toverifytubeintegrity priortoreturning toservice,aneddycurrentinspection programconsistent withtherequirements ofTechnical Specification 3/4.4.5wasperformed.
Testingresultsarepresented anddiscussed inSection2.0ofthisreport.Afterrestoring tubebundleintegrity bypluggingdefective tubes,theunit,returnedtoserviceonApril21,1987.BeforechangingtoMode3,creviceflushingwithboricacid(1000-2000 ppmboron)wasperformed; a32-hoursoakatabout30percentpowerwithboricacid(50ppmboron)wasconducted; on-lineadditionofboricacid(5-10ppmboron)willcontinueduringpoweroperation.
Unitthermalpowerwillagainbeadministratively limitedtoabout80percent,althoughbriefperiodsofhigherpoweroperation maybenecessary fortestingortomeetsystemloaddemand.
D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936Z Attachment 12.0CONDITION OFTUBEBUNDLES2.1SteamGenerator InsectionandTubePluin-March1987Althoughnotmandatory sincetheTechnical Specification leakratelimitwasnotexceededpriortoshutdown, IGMECoelectedtoverifythecondition oftheCook2steamgenerator tubebundlesbyperforming aneddycurrentinspection consistent withtherequirements ofTechnical Specification 3/4.4.5.TestingresultsofaninitialsampleofaboutsixpercentofthetubesineachofSGs22and24necessitated expanding theinspection topotentially affectedareasofalltubesineachsteamgenerator.
2.1.1EddyCurrentAnalysisCriteria/Tube PluggingCriteriaThecriteriausedtoanalyzeeddycurrentdataduringtheMarch1987inspection werethesameasthoseusedduringtheMay1986inspection.
Thesecriteriaweredeveloped fromacorrelation offieldbobbincoileddycurrentdatawithmetallography resultsoftubesamplesremovedin1984and1985,andarediscussed indetailinReference Submittals 2and3.Forconvenience, following isabriefsummaryofpertinent eddycurrentsignalclassifications:
oClearIndication reortedinercentthrouh-wallenetration or4TW-Asignalwithanunequivocal phaseanglemeasurable at400kHz,confirmed at100kHz;industrypracticeistouseathreshold voltage,usuallyabout1volt,todiscriminate betweenreportable andnon-reportable clearin'dications; asaconservatism, however,allclearindications, regard-lessofvoltage,werereportedfordisposition duringtheMay1986andMarch1987inspections.
oDistorted Indication DI-Asignalvisibleat400kHzbelievedbytheinterpreter torepresent tubedegrada-tion,butwithanunquantifiable phaseangle;expectedcorrelation inmixedfrequencies orothersinglefre-quenciesisnotnecessarily present.Qindication inthetubesheet creviceregionwhosesignaltraceat400kHziscomplexwithanunquantifiable phaseangle;theseindications havehistorically beenshowntocompromise tubewallintegrity.
D.C.CookUnit2AEPNRC09367Attachment 1oUndefined SinalUDS-Ananomalous signal,notnecessarily indicative oftubedegradation, but.whichtheinterpreter believesshouldbenotedforconsidera-tionanddisposition.
oNoDetectable DeradationNDD-Asignalwithnoevidenceoftubewalldegradation; eitherthereisnodegradation oritisbelowthedetection threshold.
TubepluggingcriteriausedduringtheMarch1987inspection werebasically thesameasthoseusedduringtheMay1986inspection, althoughanadditional conservatism wasincorporated forindications attubesupportplateintersections, asnotedbelow.Development andrationale forthesecriteriaarecontained inReference Submittal 2.Forconvenience, following isabriefsummaryofthepluggingcriteriaimplemented forsecondary sidecorrosion ineachofthethreeareasofconcern:oTubesheet crevicereionhotle-Allclearindications, DIs,SQRs,andUDSsinthetubesheet creviceregion(fromthetubesheet rolltransition tothesecondary faceofthetubesheet) wereconsidered pluggable, regardless ofvoltageorphaseangle.oTubesheet surfacereionhotle-Allclearindications, DIs,andUDSsinthetubesheet surfaceregion(fromthesecondary faceofthetubesheet uptoabout6inchesintothefreespanoftubing)wereconsidered pluggable, regardless ofvoltageorphaseangle.oTubesuortlateintersection hotle-Clearindications meetingathreshold voltageof1.75voltsandhavinganindicated through-wall penetration of>40percentwereconsidered pluggable.
Inaddition, someindications notmeetingthevoltagethreshold werepluggedonphaseanglealonebased'nrecommendations ofthedatainterpreter.
Thisrepresents anaddedconservatism overthecriteriausedinMay1986.ITheTechnical Specification pluggingcriteriaof>40percentthrough-wall penetration wasappliedtoallotherareasofthesteamgenerator tubing.2.1.2EddyCurrentInspection ResultsSummaries ofpertinent hotlegeddycurrentindications, bytypeandlocation, aregiveninTables1-Aand1-B.
D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:09368 Attachment 1Quantities inTable1-Arepresent individual tubes;fortubeswithmultipleindications, onlytheindication deemedmostsevereislisted.Pluggingcriteriaareillustrated bytheboundarylinedrawninthetable.The107tubesinsidetheboundarywereremovedfromservicebyplugging.
Inaddition, threetubeswerepluggedduetoreasonsunrelated tosecondary sidecorrosion (twobecauseeddycurrenttestingcouldnotbeperformed andoneasaprecautionary measureduetoaDIatthetubesheet rolltransition).
InTable1-B,allindications havebeentabulated.
ThelargertotalcomparedtoTable1-Areflectsthefactthatsometubeshavemultipleindications, particularly at.tubesupportplateintersections.
Thistotalpopulation ofindications isusedinlaterdegradation growthrateevaluations.
Figures1,2,3,and4aretubesheet mapsforeachCook2steamgenerator showingthelocationandextentofwalldegradation inthesteamgenerator tubing.Indications plottedarethosecontained inTablel-A.Figure5graphically depictsthedataofTable1-Bforeachsteamgenerator.
Figure6isacomposite forallfoursteamgenerators, andgivesagraphical comparison oftotalindications reportedduringtheMarch1987inspection tothetotalindications leftinservicefollowing the1986inspection.
Thisprovidesanoverviewoftubedegradation progression duringthepastoperating period.2.2TubeDeradationGrowthRateEvaluation Theobjectives ofthissectionaretodetermine ifthetubedegradation observedduringthemostrecentoperating intervalisconsistent withaveragegrowthratespreviously developed, andtoattempttoidentifycharacteristics ofthestatistical distribution ofpreviousgrowthratedatawhichcouldbeusedintheevaluation offutureoperating intervals.
Threepastoperating intervals areofinterestinthissection,andforconvenience arereferredtoas84-85,85-86,and86-87.Pertinent, factorsineachintervalareasfollows:
D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936Z Attachment 1IntervalDurationEFPDsBoricNominalAcid?Power84-857/07/84to7/15/85291.2No100485-8610/23/85to2/28/8685.0Yes86-877/07/86to3/03/87183.1Yes804804Thegeneral,averagegrowthratesincurrentuseweredeveloped afterthe85-86interval, andarebasedonapplyingidentical analysiscriteriatothe1985and1986inspection data;specifics ofthismethodology arediscussed inSection2.2.2.The85-86intervalprovidedauniqueopportunity todevelopagrowthratemethodology, becausemanytubesleftinserviceafterthe1985inspection wouldhavebeenpluggedhadthelateranalysisandpluggingcriteriabeeninuseatthetime.Thevalidityoftheexistinggeneralgrowthratemethodology willbeexaminedin,twoways.First,tubeplugginghistorywillbereviewedtoseeiftherecentpluggingisconsistent withpluggingexperience duringtheearlierinterval.
Thiscomparison cannotdemonstrate thatthemethodology isvalid,butcanbeusedtoshowthatthemethodology isnotnecessarily invalid.Second,thepopulation ofindications fromtherecentinspection willbeevaluated toseeifitstatistically fitsthedistribution ofthe85-86intervalgrowthratedata.2.2.1TubePluggingComparison Abroadindicator oftubedegradation growthrateisthetubepluggingrequiredattheendofeachoperating inter-val,asshowninItem1ofTable2.'Anobviousfallacywiththisgrosscomparison isthatitdoesnotaccountfordif-ferentoperating intervallengthsorforchangesindataanalysisandpluggingcriteria.
Accounting foroperating intervals of9.7,2.8,and6.1EFPMsforthe84-85,85-86,and86-87intervals, respectively, yieldsthecomparison showninItem2ofTable2.Furthercompensation forchangesinanalysisandpluggingcriteriaresultsinthemoremeaningful comparison giveninItem3.Thislastcomparison reflectsthe107tubespluggedattheendofthe85-86intervalwhichwouldhavebeenpluggedattheendofthe84-85intervalifthelatercriteriahadbeenapplied,andthe10tubespluggedattheendofthe86-87interval'hichneednothavebeenplugged.(Theselatter10tubes D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936ZAttachment 110hadsupport,plateindications belowthe1.75voltthreshold forplugging, butwerepluggedasanaddedconservatism basedonrecommendations ofthedatainterpreter).
ReviewofTable2showsthatthecompensated tubepluggingrateduringthe86-87intervalcloselymatchesthat.ofthe85-86interval(15.9vs.14.8tubes/EFPM),
whichindicates thatthegeneraltubedegradation growthrateobservedinthe86-87intervalisconsistent withthat.observedinthe85-86interval.
Thisisanexpectedresultsincepowerlevelandchemistry parameters wereconsistent duringeachinterval.
Sincethegrowthratemethodology incorporates different generalgrowthratesforthetubesheet creviceregion,tubesheet surfaceregion,andtubesupportplateinter-sections, aslightlymorerefinedtestistoevaluatetubepluggingratesateachofthesethreeareas.Table3providesacomparison ofthecompensated tubepluggingrateforeachareaduringthe85-86and86-87intervals.
Reviewofthetableshowsthatthetubepluggingrateineachareaisfairlyconsistent forthetwointervals, andfurthersuggeststhatthegrowthratemetholodogy isvalid.Fromareviewoftubeplugginghistory,itcanbeconcluded thatthepluggingrequiredinMarch1987isconsistent withthepreviousoperating period.Therefore, thenumerical degradation growthratedatadeveloped duringthatpriorperiodmaybevalidforassessing thenextoperating interval.
2.2.2GrowthRateDetermination Quantitative generalgrowthrateshavebeenevaluated afterpastoperating intervals forthethreeareasofinterest.
Thedetermination oftheaveragegrowthrateforeachareahasbeenmadebycomparing eddycurrentinspection resultsbeforeandafteranoperating interval.
Tubeswithoutevidenceofdegradation orwithverylow,non-quantifiable degradation havebeenexcludedfromthecalculations.
Thus,thegrowthratesdetermined reflectthegeneral,averagedegradation growthrateoftubesundergoing observable degradation
-nottheentiretubebundle.Severalmethodsfordetermining numerical growthrateshavebeenused.Themostobjective andreliableisadirectcomparison ofclearindications fromoneintervaltothenext("4TW-4TW"Method).Theothermethodsareregardedaslessdependable sincetheyutilizeassumptions oninitialconditions.
Theyareuseful,however,becausetheyallowacomparison tothe"~TW-4TW"Methodresultsandbecausetheyprovidealargersamplesize.Asreportedinprior' D.C.CookUnit:2AEP:NRC:0936J Attachment 1submittals, thealternate methodsandthe"4TW-4TW"Methodyieldconsistent results.Asnotedearlier,the85-86intervalprovidedauniqueopportunity toassessgrowthratesusingthe"4TW-4TW"Method.Becauseofnewanalysisandpluggingcriteriathatevolvedafterthe1985outage(fromtubesamplesremovedduringthe1985outage),anumberofnow-pluggable indica-tionswereleftinserviceandgivenanopportunity togrowduringthe85-86operating interval.
Comparison ofthereevaluated 1985datawiththe1986dataresultedindevelopment ofthegeneralgrowthratemethodology described inReference Submittal 2,andsummarized belowforconvenience:
85-86IntervalIGASCCGrowthRatesLocationMeanGrowthRateSampleSizeTubesheet CreviceRegionTubesheet SurfaceRegion1.600.821918TubeSupportPlateInter-sections0.6638Theabilitytodetermine newgrowthratesduringthe86-87intervalforthetubesheet creviceandtubesheet surfaceregionsusingthe"<TW-~TW"Methodhasbeeneffectively eliminated becauseofpluggingcriteriawhichremovedallpreviousindications fromservice.Thusthepopulation'f 4TWsfromthisoperating intervalrepresents theextremeingrowthratepossibilities, i.e.tubesclassified previously asNDDwhichgrewtohigh4TWs.Inessence,allthatcanbeobservedisthetailofthestatistical distribution ofgrowthrates.Iftheextremesofthepopulation canbeshowntofitthedistribution ofthepreviousgrowthratedata,theassumption canthenbemadethatthedistribution asawholehasnotchangedandaprobabilistic growthratemodeldeveloped fromthe85-86intervaldatawillbevalid.2.2.3Probabilistic ModelVerification Toevaluatetheextremesintubeconditions observedinthemost.recentoperating interval1)astart-of-interval tubecondition probability distribution wasdetermined, 2)thegrowthrateprobability distribution fromthe85-86interval D.C.CookUnit2AEP'NRC0936ZAttachment 112wasassumed,3)thetwodistributions werecombinedtodefineanhypothetical end-of-interval tubebundlecondition, and4)thehypothetical condition wasthencomparedtotheMarch1987inspection resultstoconfirmthemodel.Thestart-of-interval tubecondition probability distribu-tionwasestablished fromthe1986inspection resultsandtheprobability ofdetection/non-detection forvariousindication sizes.Non-quantifiable indications (DIs,SQRs,andUDSs)wereincludedinthepopulation inanappropriate 4TWsizerangebasedondetection threshold andothereddycurrentinformation independent of"sizing"parameters whichweredeveloped fromcorrelation ofprevioustubesampleanalysisandeddycurrentdata(seeReference Submittal 3,WCAP-11055, Figure4.1andReference Submittal 2,WCAP-11329, Figure2.2.4).Theendresultsoftheabove-described comparison areshowninFigure7forthetubesheet creviceregion,Figure8forthetubesheet surfaceregion,andFigures9-Aand9-Bfortubesupportplateintersections.
Inthetubesheet surfaceregionandattubesupportplateintersections, themodeldatawasfitwitha"bestestimate" curve.Inthetubesheet creviceregion,themodeldatawasfitwithamoreconserva-tive"over-prediction" curveinrecognition ofthefactthatcrevicecorrosion hasbeenthelimitingfactorforcontinued operation.
Reviewofthesefiguresshowsverygoodagreement betweenthemodel'sprediction andtheactualinspection results.Fromthisitisconcluded thatgrowthratedatafromthe85-86intervalisvalidforassessing thelengthofthenextoperating interval.
3.0 EVALUATION
OFOPERATION THROUGHTHEENDOFFUELCYCLE63~1USNRCReulatorGuide1.121Basis3.l.1MinimumAllowable WallDetermination Minimumwallrequirements fortheCook2steamgenerator tubingwerecalculated inaccordance withthecriteriaofR.G.1.121,entitled"BasesforPluggingDegradedPWRSteamGenerator Tubes".Confirmation thattherecommendations oftheguidearemetintheCook2steamgenerators wasdemonstrated inReference Submittals 2and3,andisrestatedhereforconvenience.
D.C.CookUnit2AEPNRC0936ZAttachment 113Thebasicrecommendations ofR.G.1.121areoutlinedbelow.I.Allowable minimumwalldetermination perthefollowing:
Fornormalplantoperation, primarytubestressesarelimitedsuchthatamarginofsafetyof3isprovidedagainstexceeding theultimatetensilestressofthetubematerial, andtheyieldstrengthofthematerialisnotexceeded, considering normalandupsetcondition loadings.
2.Foraccidentcondition
- loadings, therequirements ofparagraph NB-3225ofSectionIIIoftheASMECodearetobemet.Inaddition, itmustbedemonstrated thattheappliedloadsarelessthantheburststrengthofthetubesatoperating temperature asdetermined bytesting.3.Foralldesigntransients, thecumulative fatigueusagefactormustbelessthanunity.II.Leak-Before-Break Verification, i.e.,thatasinglethrough-wall crackwithaspecified leakagelimit(Technical Specification leakratelimit)duringnormaloperation wouldnot;propagate andresultintuberuptureduringpostulated accidentcondition loadings.
Inestabishingthesafelimitingcondition ofoperation ofatubeintermsofitsremaining wallthickness, theeffectsofloadingsduringbothnormaloperation andpostulated accidentconditions mustbeevaluated.
ItemI.3isaddressed indetailinbothReference Submittals 2and3.Briefly,fromtheviewpoint offatigueandrelatedimplications ofcracking, thecausesofcrackingareaccounted forintheverification ofleak-before-break.
Inthecalculation oftubeminimumwall,threedistinctareasoftubedegradation withintheCook2steamgenerators wereaddressed:
thetubesheet creviceregion,thetubesheet.
surfaceregion,andthetubesupportplateintersections.
Basedonpreviousmetallography, tubeminimumwalldetermination forlocalized tubedegradation occurring inthetubesheet creviceoratthetopofthetubesheet assumed:
D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC0936JAttachment 1142~Tubedegradation tobecharacterized aseithermultipleSCCorIGA/SCC(intergranular SCCcombinedwithshallower, morewidelyspreadIGA).Tubewalldegradation canbeevaluated asequivalent thinning(asaresultofIGA)withasuperimposed crack.3.Theaxialextentoftheequivalent thinnedlengthoftubedegradation is1.5inches.Also,theIGA(equivalent thinning) wasuniformaroundthetubecircumference.
- Likewise, thetubeminimumwalldetermination forthe'localized tubedegradation occurring atthetubesupportplateelevations assumed:1.Tubedegradation tobemultipleSCC,withindividual cracks0.1to0.2inchinaxialextent.2.Partialthrough-wall crackingcanbeevaluated assingleandmultiplecracks.3~Astubesupportplatedegradation wasconfinedtothethickness ofthetubesupportplate,themaximummacrocrack lengthisequaltothesupportplatethickness, or0.75inch.4.Link-upofmultipleSCCisimprobable atpostulated accidentcondition pressuredifferential asreflected inthetubespecimenbursttests.Resultsofthesecalculations areprovidedinTable4foreachoftheaboveareasoftubedegradation.
- Moreover, Table5providesasummaryofminimumwalldetermination forthethreeregionsoflocalized tubedegradation occurring intheD.C.CookUnit2steamgenerators.
Ineachcase,thelimitingcriterion fordetermining theallowable wallreduction istheR.G.1.121criterion fornormaloperation thatrequiresamarginofsafetyof3againstexceeding theultimatetensilestressofthematerial.
3.1.2Leak-Before-Break Verification Theleak-before-break rationale istolimittheallowable primary-to-secondary leakrateduringoperation suchthattheassociated cracklengthwhichTechnical Specification leakageoccursisthecriticalcracklengthcorresponding totubemaximumnormalthroughlessthanburst.atthe D.C.CookUnit2AEPNRC0936JAttachment 115maximumpostulated pressurecondition loading(SLB/FLB)
.Again,Reference Submittals 2and3showonthebasisofnormaloperation thatunstablecrackgrowthinatubeisnotexpectedtooccurinthetubesheet crevice,topofthetubesheet, ortubesupportplateintersections oftheCook2steamgenerators intheunlikelyeventofalimitingaccident.
Itisdemonstrated thatgrowthofpartialthrough-wall cracksexhibitalimitedaspectratio.Thischaracteristic resultsincrackextension through-wall priortoreachingtheSLB/FLBcriticalcracklength.3.2IGMECo'sutilization ofaprimary-to-secondary leakmonitoring, policywhichemphasizes bothabsoluteleakratemeasurement andrateofchange,andwhichincludestheinitiation ofactionpriortoreachingtheTechnical Specification limit,yieldsadditional safetymargin.3.1.3EddyCurrentTestingUncertainty Comparison ofinsitueddycurrentinspection resultswithlaboratory destructive analysisoftubesamplesremovedfromtheCook2steamgenerators hasprovidedagoodbasisfordetermining theeddycurrent.testinguncertainty associated withtheparticular tubedegradation experienced.
onCook2.Fortubesamplesinwhichmetallography revealedtubewallpenetration tobeatleast40percentthrough-wall, theinsitueddycurrenttestsyieldamaximumunder-prediction of16percent.Aswallpenetration getsdeeper,theeddycurrenttestsmorecloselypredicttheactualdepthofpenetration (seeReference Submittal 3,Figure4-3).Tobeconservative, a16percenteddycurrenttestinguncertainty isusedtoevaluateoperating intervallength.0eratinIntervalJustification
-SafetAssessment Theinfluence oftheoperating environment mayaffectsomeofthetubesinthesteamgenerator andresultinlocalized walldegradation.
Aspartofapreventive programtodetecttubedegradation, in-service inspection usingeddycurrenttechniques wasperformed.
Affectedtubeswitharemaining wallthickness greaterthantheminimumrequiredwallthickness areacceptable forcontinued service,providededdycurrentmeasurement uncertainty isaccounted forandanoperational allowance forcontinued degradation untilthenextscheduled inspection isconsidered.
Table6summarizes theprojected safetymarginsforlocallydegradedsteamgenerator tubing,bytubeelevation, uponcompletion ofCycle6operation ofCook2(about240EFPDsor8.0EFPMsfromstart-uponApril21,1987).Itisdemonstrated fromasafetyperspective that,operating intervalmarginexistsat D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936J Attachment 116allthreetubeareasinquestionwithrespecttotubeminimumallowable wall.Thesemarginsarebasedonthemaximumpermissible walllosscalculated inaccordance withR.G.1.121criteria, aneddycurrenttestinguncertainty of16percent,andthegeneraldegradation growthratesdescribed inSection2.2.2.Whiletheaboveevaluation demonstrates thattherecommenda-tionsofR.G.1.121aremetforanoperating intervalof8.0EFPMs,theincidence ofprimary-to-secondary leakageduringthatintervalisnotprecluded.
I&MECohasconservatively chosentoestablish anoperating intervalwhichminimizes thepotential forforcedoutagesduetosteamgenerator tubeleaks.4.0OPERATING INTERVALDETERMINATION 4.10erational Considerations Asnotedearlier,anoperating intervalbetweensteamgenerator inspections willbeselectedsuchthatthepotential foraforcedoutageduetosteamgenerator leakageisminimized.
However,becauseofthehighcostandhighoccupational radiation exposureassociated withsteamgenerator inspections, theoperating intervalshouldbeaslongaspossibletominimizethenumberofintermediate inspections requiredpriortoreplacement oftheCook2steamgenerators.
The.selectedintervalshouldalsobeconsistent withfuelcycleconsiderations, andshouldofferIGMECosomeflexibility forscheduling basedonsystemloadrequirements.
Atstart-uponApril21,1987,Cook2hadabout240EFPDsoffuelremaining inCycle6.Sincetherecenttubeleakoccurredafteronly183EFPDsofoperation, theneedforanintermediate inspection isapparent.
Anobviousintervaltolookatwouldbethemid-point oftheremaining fuel,orabout120EFPDs.At80percentpower,theearliestthiscouldoccurismid-September 1987,whichwouldnotconflictwiththescheduled Cook1refueling
,andshouldbeafterthesummerpeakloadperiod.However,choosingtheexactmid-point oftheremaining fuelaffordsIGMEConoflexibility astowhentoremovetheunitfromservice;alateshutdownwouldviolatethejustified intervalandanearlyshutdownwouldmakethesecondintervallongerthanjustified.
Anallowance ofaboutthreeweeksshouldbeaddedtoprovidethisneededscheduling flexibility.
Therefore, anoperating intervalof140EFPDs,or4.7-EFPMs, D.C.CookUnit2AEP'NRC'0936Z Attachment 117isacceptable fromanoperational perspective.
Thepotential forsteamgenerator leakageduringthisintervalisassessedinSection4.2.4.2TubeBundleCondition Pro'ection Duringthemostrecentoperating
- interval, asteamgenerator tubeleakofsufficient magnitude toinitiateunitshutdownoccurredsoonerthanexpectedbasedonthepriorsafetyanalysiswhichjustified operation throughCycle6.AlthoughtheleakwasbelowTechnical Specification limitsandwaswellwithinoperatorcontrolcapabilities topreventanoff-siteradiation release,theelementofsignificant currentinterestiswhytheleakoccurredinsuchashorttimeframe.Xnanefforttoaddressthisconcern,severalpossibilities wereidentified.
Eachpossibility, alongwithitsassociated responserelativetoselecting thenextoperating intervalandanevaluation ofitslikelihood ofbeingtrue,isoutlinedbelow:higherthanduringpreviousperiods.~Resonse-Usethehighermeangrowthratestoadjusttheoperating intervaltocomplywithsafetyanalysisconsiderations.
Evaluation
-Littleornoevidencecouldbefoundtosupportthispossibility; asdescribed inSection2.2,growthratesareconsistent withthe85-86interval.
generaldz.stributions ofgrowthratesandinitialconditions, andistherefore arandomevent.~Resonse-Maintaintheprioroperating intervaljusti-fication, andaccommodate leakagefromanyadditional "outliers" throughleakratemonitoring andmaintenance shutdowns asrequired.
Evaluation
-Someevidencesupporting thispossibility isfoundinthefactthatthereisalownumberofveryhighlevelindications separated fromthemaindistri-butionofindications.
combining theextremesofthegeneraldistributions ofgrowthratesandinitialconditions.
D.C.CookUnit2AEPNRC0936JAttachment 118~Resonse-Adjusttheoperating intervaltoreducethepotential forleakagebyconsidering thestatistical distribution ofthegrowthratedata.Evaluation
-Evidenceinsupportofthispossi-bilitywasdeveloped throughaprobabilistic modelcombining start-of-interval tubeconditions andgrowthrates,asdescribed inSection2.2.3.Theresultsoftheevaluation havelargelyeliminated thefirstpossibility.
Whilethesecondandthirdcasesarestillpossible, thepresentinformation favorsthethird.Therefore, undertheassumption thatextremedegradation conditions areafunctionofoperating intervalandnotarandomoccurrence, itseemsprudenttoadjusttheoperating intervaltominimizethepotential forleakage.Consistent withtheSection4.1discussion ofreasonable operating intervallengths,anoperating intervalof4.7EFPMswasconsidered.
Toassessthereduction inpotential forleakage,theprobabilistic modeldescribed inSection2.2.3wasappliedinthesamemannerasusedtoassessgrowthrate.Theanalysisincludednewstart-of-interval conditions resulting fromtheMarch1987inspection andplugging, andusedthegrowthratedistribution derivedfromthe85-86interval.
Theprojected end-of-interval conditions forthetubesheet creviceregion,tubesheet surfaceregion,andtubesupportplateintersections areshowninFigures10,ll,and12.Sincetheend-of-interval projections shownoappreciable numberoftubesatextremewallpenetrations, suchasmightresultinleakage,the4.7EFPMintervalisconsidered appropriate.
5.0CONCLUSION
S Thefollowing conclusions havebeendrawnfromreviewandevaluation oftheMarch1987Cook2steamgenerator tubeleakeventandsubsequent eddycurrentinspection results:oTheleakwastypicalofpreviousIGA/SCCdegradation experienced intheCook2steamgenerators.
Anadequateunderstanding ofthisdegradation mechanism hasbeenacquiredthroughpreviousmetallographic examination andbursttestingoftubesamples,sonofurtherdestructive testingisnecessary.
oTherecentoveralleddycurrentinspection resultsand D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936J Attachment 119thenumberofpluggable indications areconsistent withexperience intheprioroperating
- interval, andcanbeusedtoshowthat.thegeneral,averagedegradation growthratemethodology developed fromthe85-86operating intervalisstillvalid.oAR.G.1.121safetyevaluation basedontubestructural limitsfortheCook2steamgenerator tubing,generaltubedegradation growthrates,andaconservative eddycurrentuncertainty margincouldbeusedtojustifyoperation throughtheremaining 8.0EFPMsofCycle6.However,thereisadistinctprobability ofatubeleakoccurring duringthatinterval.
oAprobabilistic gr'owthratemodeldeveloped fromthegeneralgrowthratedatabasecanbeusedtopredictextremeconditions ofthetubebundlesfollowing aspecified operating interval.
Determination ofanoperating intervalbasedonextremeratherthangeneraltubeconditions shouldgreatlyreducetheprobability ofaprimary-to-secondary steamgenerator tubeleakduringthatinterval, althoughthepossibility ofarandom(outlier) eventcannotbeprecluded.
Selection ofaconservative operating intervalbasedonextremetubeconditions shouldalsoincludeoperational considerations toreasonably limittheeconomicpenal-tiesandincreased personnel radiation exposureassociated withmorefrequentsteamgenerator inspec-tions.Anoperating intervalofabout4.7EFPMsmeasuredfromthereturn-to-power inApril1987appearsmostappropriate whenconsidering bothextremetubeconditions andremaining fuelinthecurrentfuelcycle.IGMECowillremoveCook2fromservicewithinthatintervaltoverifyandrestoreasnecessary theintegrity ofthesteamgenerator tubebundles.Thesubsequent operating intervalwouldendattheCycle7refueling outage.oSelection ofoperating intervals beyondCycle6shouldconsideroperating experience duringthenexttwointervals, theresultsofthenexttwotubeinspection
- programs, lengthofthenextfuelcycle,andscheduling ofthesteamgenerator replacement outage.I&MECorecognizes thatexcessive steamgenerator tubeleakageresulting inunscheduled shutdowns isnotacceptable onacontinuing basis,andhasadoptedaconservative.
D.C.CookUnit.2AEP:NRC:0936J Attachment 120approachtoselecting thenextoperating intervalwhichshouldgreatlyreducetheprobability ofaforcedshutdownduetoleakage.Previously instituted remedialmeasures(e.g.-bettersecondary waterchemistry, boricacidtreatment, andadministrative powerreduction) willbecontinued during.theinterval.
Intheunlikelyeventthattheincidence ofextremewallpenetration isarandomeventandisnotpredicted bytheforegoing probabilistic
- analysis, thenIGMECo'sleakratemonitoring programandtheTechnical Specification leakratelimitwillensureleak-before-break conditions andthatanorderlyshutdowncanbeaffected.
IGMECo'sadministrative policyofshuttingdownbeforereachingtheactualleakratelimitaddsadditional margintoleak-before-break considerations.
Table1Indications ofHotLeSecondarSideCorrosion
-March1987A.Including onlythemostsignificant indication pertube,totalforall4SGs.Location<404>404DIUDSSQRTotalTubesheet Crevice64255Tubesheet Surface1931TubeSupportPlatesTotal15182159433615042630716B.Including multipleindications pertube,totalforall4SGs.Location<404>40<DIUDSSQRTotalTubesheet CreviceTubesheet Surface196425531TubeSupportPlatesTotal16192383035851042869955 Table2TubesPluedDuetoIGASCC-GeneralComarison0eratinInterval84-8585-8686-872~3~Tubespluggedduetosecondary sideIGA/SCC(totaltubes)Tubespluggedduetosecondary sideIGA/SCC(tubes/EFPM)
Tubespluggedduetosecondary sideIGA/SCC,compensated forchangesinanalysisandpluggingcriteria(tubes/EFPM) 14114.525.514952.714.810717.515.9Table3TubesPluedDuetoIGASCCComensatedforChanesinAnalsisandPluinCriteria-ComarisonbLocationLocation0eratinInterval85-8686-87Tubesheet Crevice(tubes/EFPM)
Tubesheet Surface(tubes/EFPM)
TubeSupportPlateIntersections (tubes/EFPM) 10.92.81~114.89.05.11.815.9 Table4Cook2SteamGenerator TubinMinimumAccetableWallReirementsA.Tubesheet creviceandtubesheet surfaceregions.CriteriaCondition MinimumWallinchesyieldASMECodeSu/3normalfaultednormal0.0150.0170.019B.Tubesupportplateintersections.
CriteriaCondition MinimumWallinchesyieldASMECodeSu/3normalfaultednormal0.0120.0130.015Table5Cook2SteamGenerator TubinAllowable WallLossDetermination LocationGeometric Condition BasisAllowable Wall~LossTubesheet CreviceRegionAxialextent>1.5inchesSu/362Tubesheet SurfaceRegionAxialextent>1.5inchesSu/362TubeSupportPlateIntersections Axialextent<0.75inchesSu/370 Table60eratinIntervalJustification Remainder ofFuelCcle6-R.G.1.121BasisItemAllowable tubewallloss(>)ECTuncertainty (4).Growth(4/EFPM)Projected growth(+o/8'EFPM)Plugginglevelrequired(4)Tubesheet Crevice62*161.612.833.2Tubesheet Surface62160.826.639.4TubeSupportPlates70*160.665.348.7Plugginglevelimplemented
(%)AllAll40.0*Tubeburstwithinthetubesheet creviceregionorattubesupportplateintersections isconsidered tobeincredible.
ECINSPECTION RESuLTS-MARCHf987SECONDARY SIDECORROSION, HOTLEGPLANT:DCCOOKUNIT20~PLUGGASLE INOICATIONS.
TSCREVICE(2)w~teN-PLUGGASLE INOICATIOHS.
TSPS092)GENERATOR:
2i0~PLUGGABLE IHOICATIOHS.
TSSURFACE(T)TOTALTUBES:3388OUTOFSERVICE(N):
f42v~PLUGGASLE IHOICATIOHS.
TSPo(5)TOTALTUSESASSIGNER209~~aoOJJ~~JJJ25C/lD~~~++~20IIVAd'DCll~J4~JJJJ~JJJ~JJ~JTJJ~joO~4~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o5IIrgNAHNAYIIIP.INLET(NotLog)IIIIICOLUHHSIIIIIIR88oFigure1I ECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCHl987SECONDARY SIDECORROSION, HOTLEGPLANT:DCCOOKUNIT2GENERATOR:
22TOTALTUBES:3388OUTOFSERVICE(B):2lOo-pLUBBABLE ZNorcAnoNB.
TscREvrcEtao)ksNOIR.USSABLE ZNOZCATZONS.
TSPs(2fB)0~PLUSSABLE ZNOZCATZONS.
TSSURFACEBO)T>PLUSSABLE ZNOZCATZONS.
TSPs0)70TALTUBEsAssrsNEo:
247k00~~JkJkkkkkJkkkkJ~JkJJ~kkJkJkkJkSkJJJ~~k~~~~~~s~~~~4~~~k~~~~0~JksJJoJSJk20V-XOJkkkkkJ0okkk~J~JkSk~ks4kos~kkk0kkkJ0~J0J0J000~J~~~~~~s~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~s~k~~~sJJk~~~~kkJ~~~~~~~~~~~~J~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~s~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~IIgIII8RZtLETtNotLay)IIIII=IIIIIIIIIt88800RR-880COLUNNSNOZZLEFigure2 ECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCH1987SECONDARY SIDECORROSION, HOTLEGPLANT:DCCOOKUNIT2GENERATOR 23TOTALTUBES'388 OUTOFSERVICE(0):2100~PUNSABLEINOICATIOHS.
TSCREVICE(27)NNRVISSABLE IINICATIONS, TSPOt64)0~PLUSBA))LE IHOICATIONS, TSENFACE(9)v~PLU66ABLE INOICATIONS, TSPs(1)TOTALTLNESASSISNEL121J~~J~JJ~~ssr~~00~0r0~J~J0~~J0~ss~rrr~os~~~0~~~~r44or00~~~~0~JIQR20V10r~~r~~~~00~~~r~~rr~~~~r~~~r~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~srr~r~~~~~JJ~re~IIgNAWAYIIIm8RI%ETOhtLsg)IIIIIIIIIIIIII)'38m)800R888880c-COLUMNSHOZZLEFigure3 ECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCH1987SECONDARY SIDECORROSION, HOTLEGPLANT:OCCOOKUNIT2CI~PLUSSABLE Z)QICATZOMS, TSCREVICE(8)A~~U68ABLEINOZCATZONS, TSPr(Zfd)GENERATOR 24TOTALTUBES:3388OUTOFSERVICE(s)'010~PLUBSASLE I)NICATIONS, TSSNFACE(8)T~PLUSSABLE IHOZCATZNBL TSPs(1i)TOTALT(NESASSZSNE(k f39AA~AAA~~~A~AAAVAAAAAAATA~AAAAAAAA~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~s~r~~~~s~~~~~20V~~s~ArAss~4A~~4s~~ArA4~sLO8s~ssburrsburrs~s~rsr'~~~r~~~~~rer~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~rs~~srsss~r~~~~~rsvpIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII888P888$8))88888)IANNAYI)LET(HotLoO)COL(NNSFigure4 OCCOOKUHIT2SteamGenerator I2fECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCHi987cvCaOCCOOKUIIIT2SteamGenetator:
22ECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCHi98700to8H820HI"0Ha2HTM4TSiH~aHsHSH~~~sHTHTRHTSHtHSHSH~OHeHVHGENERATOR ELKVATZONS 4R0088HIt.0OI20HI-0HD2HTlOI'tmfHCHtkHsHSH~~~sHTHTRHTSH4HaHSM~sH4MVHGENERATOR ELEVATZONS
>40%TW~DZ<<40KTW~UDSSQRQ>40%TW+DZQ<<40KTWQUDSQSQROCCOOKUIIIT2SteamGenetstoaI23ECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCHi987OCCOOKUNIT2SteamGenetstot':24ECINSPECTION RESULTS-MARCHi98700to8H10000oI8HCOO820HI-0HD2HVlOITSIH4HeHaHatt~~~OH7HTEHT4HCHRHSH~sHOHvHGENERATOR ELEVATZONS 20HI-0HD2HTIHTSfHfHsttSH5H~~~eH7HTCHTSHkHsttaHAHsHOHVHGENERATOR ELKVATZONS
%40XTW~DZ<<40KTW~UDSggSQR>40%TW~DZ<<40%TW~UDSSQRFigure DCCOOKUNIT2SteamGenerator:
00START-OF-INTERVAL TUBEBUNDLECONDITION
-JUL198640000N8HQ.0NZ0HI"00ZH350300250200150100ao0TMHTS-1H1H-2H2H3HSH4H4H-5HSH-SH6H7HTEHTSH1H2HSH4HSHSH7HGENERATOR ELEVATIONS
>40KTW+DI<40KTW+UDSDCCOOKUNIT2SteamGenerator
- 00END-OF-INTERVAL TUBEBUNDLECONDITION
-MARCH198740000N8HU0NZ0Hl-0H0ZHSSO900250200150100500THHTs-1H1H-2H2H-SH9H-4H4H-aHSH-SHSH-7HTSHTSH1H2HSH4HSHSH7HGENERATOR ELEVATIONS>40XTW+DI<40KTW+UDSFigure6 40C0~rfg)30O~IH200Inspection Model1005060708090100TubeWallPenetration,10KIntervalsFigure7Comparison ofModelPrediction toActualECInspection Results,Tubesheet CreviceRegion i6Co14U12HiO8O6z2'~Y'Inspection Model405060708090iooTubeWallPenetration,iOXIntervalsFigure8Comparison ofModelPrediction toActualECInspection Results,Tubesheet SurfaceRegion (o500C04003000200z~Inspection Model0iO2030405060708090100TubeWallPenetration, KOXIntervalsFigure9-AComparison ofModelPrediction toActualECInspection Results,TubeSupportPlateIntersections FullRange,0toKOOKTW 25C0~He20U~HC150c1054'Inspection Model405060708090100TubeWallPenetration, 10KIntervals Figure9-BComparison ofModelPredictiontoActualECInspection Results,TubeSupportPlateIntersectionsBlowupof40to100KTWRange
10010EDz.01TubeWallPenetration,5%IntervalsFigure10PredictedEnd-of-Interva1Condition, Tubesheet CreviceRegion 10010*Sr.14TubeWallPenetration, 5XIntervals Figure11Predicted End-of-Interval Condition, Tubesheet SurfaceRegion 100TubeWallPenetration,5XIntervals Figure12Predicted End-of-Interva1Condition, TubeSupportPlateIntersections 03 Attachment 2toAEP:NRC:0936J SteamGenerator ManwayCoverClosureRepairsMarch-April 1987 h
D.C.CookUnit2AEP'NRC:0936j'ttachment 21ESTEAMGENERATOR MANWAYCOVERCLOSUREREPAIRSMarch-April 1987Eachsteamgenerator channelheadhalf(hotlegandcoldleg)hasa16-inchmanway;designoftheboltedclosureisshowninFigure1.Whenopeningthemanwaystoperformtubeinspections following theMarch1987steamgenerator tubeleak,difficulty inremovingtheboltsonbothlegsofSGs22and23wasencountered.
Therewasevidenceofgallingundertheboltheadatsomelocations, andanobservation wasmadethatinsufficient threadlubricant mayhavebeenusedduringthepreviousinstallation.
FiveboltsonSG23couldnotberemovedbyde-torquing andweredrilledout.TheboltsonSGs21and24wereremovedwithoutdifficulty.
ActionstakenbyI&MECoasaresultoftheboltremovalproblemincluded:
oAdesignchange(RFC)toallowuseofhardenedsteelwashersundertheboltheadswasapproved.
Thischangeisintendedtoprovideamoreuniformfrictionfactorunderthehead,andtherefore introduce moreuniformbolttension.oThenewly-approved washersandnewmanwaycoverboltswereprocuredforuseinre-installing themanwaycovers.oWestinghouse washiredtoinspectandgaugetheboltholes.A"go/notgo"gaugewasusedtodetermine theacceptability oftheholepitchdiameter.
Thegaugetolerances werethoseofanewholeandweretherefore veryconservative.
ResultsoftheboltholegaugingprogramonSGs22and23wereasfollows:oSG22-Fiveholesonthehotlegandfiveholesonthecoldleghadoversizepitchdiameters andrequiredrepair.oSSZZ-Thirteenholesonthehotlegandeightholesonthecoldleghadoversizepitchdiameters andrequiredrepair
D.C.CookUnit2AEP:NRC:0936J'ttachment 2Eventhough:nodifficulty wasexperienced onSGs21and24,themanway.coverboltholesonthosetwosteamgenerators weregaugedasanaddedprecaution.
Resultsofthatinspection areasfollows:oSG21-Allsixteenholesonbothhotandcoldlegswereslightlyoversizeandcouldnotbedispositioned byWestinghouse.
Znalllikelihood, theholeswereacceptable andacompleteanalysiswouldhavealloweddisposition oftheminthe"as-found" condition.
However,duetotheinherentdifficulty inmeasuring insitufemalethreadparameters (e.g.-threadform,threadangle,andactualpitchdiameter),
sufficient datatodoacompleteanalysiscouldnotbereadilyacquired, soitwasdecidedtorepairthesealso.oSG24-Allholeswereacceptable.
Twomethodsoffemalethreadrepairareincommonuse:replacement oftheexistingthreadswithaHeli-coil andinstallation ofathreadedinsert.TheHeli-coil methodwasselectedfortheUnit2repairs,withthethreadedinsertmethodheldasaback-upintheeventtheHeli-coil technique wasunsuccessful onaparticular hole.Westinghouse providedasafetyevaluation andinstallation procedure foreachmethod;anRFCtoallowtheuseofeitherwasapproved.
However,useofthreadedinsertswasnotnecessary.
TheHeli-coil repairtechnique consistsofdrillingtheexistingboltholeabout1/8inchoverthenominalsizetoremovetheoldthread,threading theresultant holewithanappropriate sizedthreadtap,andthenscrewinginastainless steelHeli-coil (tradenameforahelicalthreadwhoseoutersurfacemateswiththenewly-tapped holethreadsandwhoseinnersurfaceformsfemalethreadsforthebolthole).Thenewholeacceptsthesamesizedboltasbefore,andactuallyhas"better"threads(closertolerances, moreexactthreadform,and-inthiscase-bettermaterial).
Heli-coils areconsidered apermanent repair.TheHeli-coil repairsweremadetoallaffectedboltholesasnotedabove,andthemanwaycoverswereputinplace-usingwashersandnewbolts-withoutfurtherincident.
Weareevaluating thecauseofthisproblemandwewillinformtheNRCoftheresultsofthisevaluation whenitiscompleted Dia.ofCover26.75D~23bcFigure1PrimaryManveyArrangement GasketDia.16.~~Dia.18.1350.25--"16Bolts1-7/8in,Gasket:I.D.16.0625.O.D.=18.0625 Attachment 3toAEP:NRC:0936J Westinghouse NuclearSafetyEvaluation ofLooseMechanical PluginSteamGenerator 22 SECLr87-229CustomerReference No(s).Westinghouse Reference No(s).~NS-RCS~L-87-450WJ%TEAHOUSE NUCLEARSAFETYEVAIIJATION CKXZIZST1)NUCLZARPRATE(S)D.C.COOKUNIT22)CKKKLESTAPPIZCABIZ TO:IlXSEMESCALPIDGPH'MIGENERATOR 22(SubjectofChange)3)Ihesafetyevaluation oftherevisedprocedure, designchangeormodification requiredby10CFR50.59 hasbeenpreparedtotheextentrequiredandisattached.
Ifasafetyevaluation isnotre@~orisimxmplete foranyreason,explainonPage2.PartsAandBofthisSafetyEvaluation CheckListaretobecompleted onlyonthebasisofthesafetyevaluation performed.
CHECKIZST-PARDA(3.1)YesNoXAchangetotheplantasdescribed intheFSAR?(3.2)'esNoXAc1mngetoprocedures asdescribed intheFSAR?(3.3)YesNoXAtestorexperiment notdescribed intheFSAR?(3.4)YesNoXAchangetotheplanttechnical specifications (Appendix AtotheOperating License)?
4)CHECKIZST-PARPB(Justification forPartBanswersmustbe'included onpage2.)(4.1)YesNoX(4.2)YesNoX(4.3)YesNoX(4.4)YesNoX(4.5)YesNoX(4.6)YesNoX(4.7)YesNoXWilltheprobability ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated intheFSARbeincreased?
Willtheconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated intheFSARbeincreased?
Maythepossibility ofanaccidentwhichisdifferent thananyalreadyevaluated intheFSARbecreated?Willtheprobability ofamalfunction ofequipment important tosafetypreviously evaluated intheFSARbeincreased?
Willtheconsequences ofamalfunction ofequipment important tosafetypreviously evaluated intheFSARbeinn~sed?Maythepossibility ofamalfunction ofequipment important tosafetydifferent than,anyalreadyevaluated intheFSARbecreated?Willthemarginofsafetyasdefinedinthebasestoanytechnical specification bereduced?PAGE1OF7
'h SECL-87-229 Iftheanswerstoanyoftheabovequestions areun)mown,indicateunder5)R12%RESandexplainbelow.Iftheanswertoanyoftheabovequestions in4)cannotbeansweredinthenegative, basedonwrittensafetyevaluation, thechangecannotbeapprovedwithoutanapplication forlicenseamen(:hnent submitted totheNRCpursuantto10CFR50.59.
5)REMARKS:None'Ihefollowing mamarizes thejustification uponthewrittensafetyevaluation,
(*)foranswersgiveninPartBoftheSafetyEvaluation CheckList:SeeattachedSafetyEvaluation.
(*)Reference todocument(s) containing writtensafetyevaluation:
Section:PagesTables:Figures:Reasonfor/Description ofChange:NonePreparedby(NuclearSafety):MATIHENS Ccordinated withEngineer(e):NIESCNR.+Ccord(hated GroupManager(e):KEATING kPNuclearSafetycroupNanager:NNIsrC.Date.S~)~~~~Date:~~~87te:PAGE2OF7 SECL-87-229 NS-RCS~/L-87-450 PAGE3OF7D.C.COOKUIGT2ZDOSEMECHANICAL PIIJGSTEAMGENER%)Rf22SAHH'YEVAIIJATION
'Ihisevaluation isprovidedtoact]ressthesafetyimpactofanobjectfoundlodgedinatubeonthehotlegsideofsteamgenerator 422ofD.C.CookUnit2.'Iheitemhasbeenidentified asamechanical plugoriginally installed inthehotlegtubeendofanothertubeinthesamesteamgenerator.
1hisevaluation considers theeffectofdisengagement oftheplugfrcanthetubeinwhichitwasoriginally installed, theeffectoftheplugonthetubeinwhichitbecamelodgedandtheimpactoftheplugonthehotlegchannelheadccarponents whiletheplugwasmobileandnotlodgedinanytube.Duringtherec~t100%eddycurrentprogramatD.C.CookUnitg2,aforeignobjectwasreportedtobelodgedinthehotlegofsteamgenerator 522.'leobjectwaslocatedapproximately 0.75inchesabovethetubeendofRear3Column5.'Xheforeignobjectwasreportedtoberoundanditappearedtocloselyfillthetubeinnerdiameter(ID).Afterprelimir~
attemptsweremadetodislodgeandrezmvetheforeignobject,anattemptwasmadebysitepersonnel todrivetheobjectfurtherintothetube.i%iswasintendedtoallerenougha~toinstallamech-mical plugbehindit.Finallytheforeignobjectwassuccessfully rawvedbyinitially drillingapilothole,followedbydrillinga3/8incha~holethroughthematerial, inserting aslidehairandthenpullingitfreefromthetubeID.Onceremved,theforeignobjectwasidentified asaWestinghouse mechanical plugthathadlodgedinthetubeendinaninvert~position.
Athoroughreviewofvideotapesofthetubesheet inthehotlegofsteamgenerator 422showedthatthetubeendatRow40Column39wasmissingamechanical plug.'ibistubeendwasdocun~ted ashavingbeenpluggedintheApril,1986outage,wasdetexnuned tobeopenandwastheapparentsourceofthemechanical plugfoundinR3-C5.Toinvestigate thepossiblecauseoftheplugmovingfromthetubeendintowhichithadbeeninstalled, theremovedmechanical plugandthetubeendatR40-C39werevisuallyandmechanically inspected including theexpandeddiameters andthem~ndertranslation.
Visualexamination oftheplugbyexperienced meclmnical pluggingandqualityassurance personnel revealedthattheplugexhibited scratches onthesurfaceaswellasthepluglandshadbeenrounded SECXr87-229'S-RCS~/L-87-450 PAGE4OF7off.,'IhetubeID(R40~9)inthee1evation rangewheretheplugisdesignedtoseal,wasmeasureat0.5inchintervals attwoazimtuths.
Therecordeddiameters areconsistent withthencaninalroll.exparded diameters forsteamgenerators with7/8inchdiametertubing.%hetubeendwasvisuallyexaminedtocheckforanycircumferential indentations thatareoccasionally leftinthetubeIDafterasuccessful installation andsubsecpent
~ncnralandnonewereevident.%hetubeerdinwhichtheplugbecamelodged(R3-C5)wasinspected inaccord-mce withtheproperacceptance criteriaasspecified intheprocedure formechanical pluggingofsteamgenerator tubes.Itwasevaluated asacoeptable formeclmnical plugging.
WehotlegtubeendatR40C39wasa1soevaluated asacceptable forinstallation ofanewplug.Botherdsofthetubeinwhichtheplughadbeccalodged(R3-C5)weremechanically pluggedandthetubevznovedfromserviceasaprecautionary measure.%hehotlegtubeendofR40-C39,thatwasmissingthemechmicalplugwasalsomchtanically plugged.theprocessparameters forthesepluggingoperations werewitnessed, verified'arxlrecorded.
%hecondition forwhichtheR40-C39tubehadbeenpluggedintheApril1986outagewasaneddycurrent.irdication termedasqau~l.Suchanirdication isasignalinthetubesheet regionwhosetraceat400KHziscomplexandphaseangleunclear,butwhosepresencerepresents change.Kheseirdications havebeenhistorically pmventocompromise tubewallintegrity ifthetuberemainsinserviceandthushavebeenclassified astubedegradation.
IntheD.C.CookUnit2steamgenerators theseirdications areassociated withdegradation ontheoutsidesurfaceofthetubeinthetubetotubesheet crevice.'Ihecorrosion resistance ofasteamgenerator tubepluggedonthecoldlegonlywasevaluated.
Generalformsofcorrosion aretypically enviroranentally ard/ormaterially controlled.
Mostsecond-uy sideinitiated tubingcorrosion foundinrecirculating steamgenerators hasoccurredinlocalized regions(mostcananonly crevices) ofasteamgenerator tubeinwhichdissolved chemicalspeciescanbeconcentrated tolevelsfargreaterthanthoseinthebulkprimaryorsecondary fluid.Heattr<msferisnecessary suchthattheavailable superheat (localwalltemperature minusfluidsaturation temperature) isincreased comparedtovaluesassociated withconventional nucleateboilirgprocesses astheyexistonthetubesurface.'Iheelevatedtemperatures providethedrivingforceforpromoting chemicalconcentration i.e.,thepotential fortheformation ofalocallyconcentrated soluti.on canbecorrelated withtheexpectedavailable superheat withintheregion.Astheprimlyfluidwithinatubepluggedonthecoldlegonlywouldbeat SECXr87-229NS-RCS~/L-87-450 PAGE5OF7approximately secondary sidebulkfluidsaturation temperature andinasubcooled state,noheattransferwouldbeexpectedacrossthetubesurfaceandanylocalized tubedegradation including continuing degradation atthesiteofthepreviously locatededdycurrentsignalwouldbeexpecttobeminhnal.'Ihesafetyimpactofoperation oftubeR40-C39withwhatisnormallyapluggable indication ismitigated bythegeometryoftheregion.%hetubetotubesheet creviceisthespacebetweenthetubesheet andtheunexparxled tubesandisontheorderofafewmills.Tubeplugginglimitsare,established inpartbasedonpredicted performance ofadegradedtubeunderpostulated faultedconditions, specifically steamlinebreakconditions.
Forindications inthetubesheet creviceregion,tuberuptureisnotpossibleduetothepresenceofthetubesheet aroundthetubewhichwouldcontainthemnrementofthetubewallrequiredtoeffectabursttubecondition.
'lherefore, intheeventofapostulated steamlinebreakwiththemechanical plug,missingfmmoneendoftheR40-C39tubeandthepreviously observededdycurrentindication wouldnotbeexpectedtoresultinprimarytosecorxtey leakageinexcessofthatusedforaccidentanalyses.
'Iheeffectofplantoperation onplugintegrity foruptooneyearwiththesteamgenerator tubepluggedononlythecoldlegsidehasbeenevaluated.
'Ihemechanical plugwasdesignedtoacxxzmnodate thedesignconditions specified forthesteamgenerator.
'lhedesignconditions enveloptheapproximate 10psipressuredifferential whichoccursacrossthechannelheadinatubewhichhasbeenpluggedonthecoldlegonlybutnotonthehotleg.'Ihedesignverification p~msimulated thesteamgenerator serviceconditions ofter~rature andpressureaswellasthermalcyclingassociated withthevariousplantconditions.
'Ihedesignverification progranfortheexpandedmeat~calplugdemonstrated pressurebourxho~integrity undersimulated faultedcondition loadingsinadditiontootherplantops~tingconditions.
%hedesignoftheSeries51steamgenerators atD.C.CookUnit2includesasmallextension ofthetubeendpastthebottomofthetubesheet surface.Aforeignobjectramvedframthechannelheadduringapreviousoutagehadresultedinsomedeformation ofthetubeends.Noneofthetubeendsoftheothertubeshadarestriction thatwouldpreventinsertion ofaneddycurrentprobearxlthetubeendshadnoapparentadditional damageduetothelooseplug.%hetubetotubesheet weldsarepartially shieldedfromimpactofanobjectofthesizeofamechanical plugandtheweldshadnoapgm~tdamage.thecladdingofthechannelheadandthetubesheet alsoshowednoapp-~tdamage.'Lhetubes,channelheadandtubesheet
- cladding, weldmetalandthemechanical plugareallcarposedofveryductilematerial.
Reputedimpactoftheplugonthecladding, tubeends,andtubetotubesheet weldwouldnotbeexpecttocause SECL-87-229 NS-RCS~/L-87-450 PAGE6OF7crackirgorsmallpiecestobreaklooseframthesurfacesimpactedbythelooseplug.Evaluations ofmeresignificant deformation oftubeendsinathersteamgenexators ofsimilardesignhaveshownthatdeformation ofthetubeerdwillnotsignificantly degradethestructural integrity ofthetubeorthetubetottd~sheet weldorcauseasignificant increaseintherestriction toflawthroughthesteamgenerator
'lhemechanical pluglandouterdiameters approximate thetubeinnerdiameters intheseatingareaofR40~9.Inorderforthemechanical plugtohavep~~sealirg,theplugshouldhavebeenlargerthanthetubeIDtoallawforaninterference fit.Dherewasnovisuallydicmernible evidenceontheIDofthetubeatR40-C39thattheplughadapositiveinterference fit,withthetube,althoughitisnotmardatory tohavethisforapraperlyinstalled plug.Insametubeerdsthatareapproximately ashardasthepluglands,however,therearenointerference marksandplugsaresuccessfully installed.
'lheestimateoftheactualtranslation oftheexparderintherepavedmechanical plugwouldindicatethatinsufficient
~~nsionhadoccurred.
'Iheestimated expardertranslation distancedidnotmeetthepzocech.xe installation minirttum reguixement.
%hepossibile ananelies inthetube-to-tubesheet jointcontributing tothedisengagement ofthemechanical plugwerereviewed.
%heavality,notapernoranyotherproblem(suchasalackofrollexpansion intheplugsealingarea),whichwouldirdicatethattheconfiguration ofthetubejointcontributed totheasinstalled condition ofthemechanical plug.Basedonthefirdirgsoftheinvestigation outlinedaboveithasbeenconcluded thatsuccessful installation pamneters formectmu.cal plugwerenotachievedanditwaseventually displaced fmmthetubeerdduringtheoperating periodpreyingthediscovery ofthemisplaced plug.RelevantWestinghouse logbooks,datasheets,notesardprol.xxiures werereviewedindetailframtheApril,1986outageinanattend%toidentifyapotential areatoaccauntfortheasinstalled cordition oftheplug.%hejobsitecoordinator, shiftsupervisors andotherkeypeL~nnelwerequeriedtoattempttoidentifyacausative factor'.Inallcasestherewasnothingidentified.
BasedonpriorWestinghouse mcpmience ofvirtually 100%su~fulinstallations overaneightyearperiodofover25,000previousaedmnical pluginstallations, coupledwithotherinstallation datacollected onsurveillance reportsfromalargepercentage ofmechanical plug
~87-229NS-EKS~/L-87-450 PAGE7OF7installations duringtheApril,1986progmn,thejudcpnent hasbeenmadethattheprobability that.theothermechanical plugsinstalled atD.C.CookVnit42duringtheApril,1986outagewereinstalled correctly approximates 1004.CONCWSIONS Onthebasisoftheinvestigation andevaluation asoutlinedabove,ithasbeenconcluded thatthemechanical pluglodgedinthehotlegofsteamgenerator 422inR3-C5isthesamemechanical plugthatwasoriginally installed intheR40~9inthesamelegofthesamesteamgenerator duringthe4/86outage.Duetotheconditions ofthefluidinthepartially pluggedtube,significant.
additional orcontinuing corrosion wouldnotbeexpectedtooccur.Operation ofthesteamgenerator withoneplugintheR40~9tubeisnotexp~tohaveresultedinacondition whichwouldhavecausedprimarytosecordary leakageintheeventofapostulated steamlinebreakinexcessofthatassumedforaccidentanalyses.
Theintegrity oftheplugonthecoldlegofthetubeframwhichthehotlegsideplugwasdisplaced, wasmaintained undernormaloperating andpostulated accidentcondition loadings.
Theimpactofthelooseplugpriortobeel.'ming lodgedintubeR3-C5causednoapparentdamagetothetubeendsorothersurfacesinthechannelhead.Theapparentcauseoftheasinstalled condition ofthesubjectmechanical plugistheteritunation oftheinstallation processpriortoreachingsuccessful installation parameters.
Therefore thedisplacement ofamechanical plugframthehotlegendoftubeR40-C39,theimpactofthelooseplugonthechannelheadsurfaces, andthesubsequent lodgingoftheplugintubeR3~didnotresultinthepossibility ofapreviously unanalyzed accidentorincreasetheabilityofapreviously analyzedaccident.
Themarginofsafetywasnotreduced.Basedontheinformation outlinedabove,theloosepluginthehotlegofD.C.Cooksteamgenerator f22didnotresultinanunrevised safetyegestionasdefinedinthecriteriaof10CFR50.59.