ML20069M681

Evaluation of Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) Steam Generator Tube Wall Degradation.

ML20069M681
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	02/24/1994
From:	MPR ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20069M635	List: 3F0494-09, Forwards Refuel 9 Insp Plan for OTSGs & Documents That Serve as Technical Basis for Overall Disposition Strategy of Low signal-to-noises ML20069M654 ML20069M673 ML20069M681 ML20069M695 ML20069M709 ML20069M716 ML20069M724
References
NUDOCS 9406220094
Download: ML20069M681 (46)

Text

.

I i

1 1

Gi3MPR ASSOCiATESINC t

a sGiN EE75 l

l Information Contained herein may be Proprietary to Florida Power and MPR and Should be Protected i

l l

l l

l Evaluation of Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) l Steam Generator Tube Wall Degradation 1

l 1

February 24,1994

)

i Prepared for Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Energy Complex 15760 West Power Une Street Crystal River, Florida 34228-6708 9406220094 940419 PDR ADOCK 05000302 O PDR 320 ONG StGEET ALE X ANDQl A. VA 22314-3238 703 510-0200 fax 703 510-0224 w-

l l

CONTENTS-Eag _

Section 1 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1

Background

1 ; Purpose l

21 2

SUMMARY

3-1 l 3 DISCUSSION l 3-1 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.121 Requirements 3 Allowable Tube Wall Degradation L 4-1 4 REFERENCES -

MPR Calculation 102-071-HWM2," Allowable Tube Wall APPENDIX A Degradation for 1.5 in. Axial Length,360* Defects" l

MPR Calculation 102-071-HWM1," Allowable Tube Wall

! APPENDIX B Degradation for Axial, Slot-type Defects" l

l l

1 l

1 i

ii i

t i

4 4

MMPR ASSOCI ATE S INC ENGI NEERS Section 1 l

INTRODUCTION  ;

l l

BACKGROUND NRC Regulatory Guide 1.121 (Reference 1) describes a method for determining allowable limits for degradation of steam generator tubing. Tubes with degradation beyond these limits are required to be removed from service by the installation of plugs at each end of the tube (or modified to be acceptable for further sersice by the installation of suitable sleeves which meet Regulatory Guide 1.121 requirements).

As part of the technical justification for continued safe operation, structural adequacy of the tubing can be demonstrated by showing that tube degradation will not' exceed 1 Regulatory Guide 1.121 allowables at any time during plant operation. This report calculates maximum allowable degradation. Suitable NDT conservative plugging / sleeving criteria and operating experience of CR-3 and other similar plants can then be used to ensure tube degradation will not exceed the allowable degradation determined herein.

To further ensure tubing structural adequacy during plant operating periods between NDT inspections, an administrative limit is imposed at CR-3 requiring shutdown for a leak rate of 0.3 gpm per steam generator. For CR-3, which has not had major tube degradation, this leak rate limit is considered to provide reasonable assurance of tubing structural adequacy as well as being practical, e.g., in terms of detectability. CR-3 experience and other work supports this.

PURPOSFJSCOPE The purpose of this report is to address all of the structural requirements in Regulatory Guide 1.121 by conservatively considering any possible defect configuration and location which could occur in the secondary side of the steam generator tubing at CR-3. (About 3% lower defect allowables, in terms of through-wall penetration, per Figure 1 only would be calculated for defects on the primary system side of the tubing).

Method All possible configurations of defects are covered herein based on evaluations of the following:

1-1

l Maximum axial tube stresses (which tend to part the tube, CA especia circumferential defect). The limiting axial tube load in this case is due and is 2641 lbs tension (per Reference 2). Nota load.

Maximum tube hoop stresses (which tend to burst the tube especially a defect with substantial axial length). The limiting load (i.e., pressure) in t per Regulatory Guide 1.121 (which includes substantial margin a normal operating pressure difference which results in a value of 4050 ps Reference 4).

The above two cases are considered separately, because of the following:

• Stresses are produced in the axial direction only by axial loads and in the ho direction only by pressure loads.

• Even when the axial and pressure loads occur simultaneously, the resulting stre are principal stresses, and there is no intermediate direction which woull greater stress. Hence, failure would be expected to occur whenever  !

stresses exceeded the critical value.

The worst case defect location 1 for the bounding analyses in this report is a defel located in a peripheral tube. A peripheral tube sees the maximum axial tube strel due to axial differential expansion between the tubes and the vessel (as a res tubesheet stiffness being greater at the periphery), during a LOCA. The elevatio location of the defect has no effect on the tube burst analyses herein since taken for support from e.g., a support plate or tubesheet in resisting tube bu axial defect.

The configuration of the defect can be either symmetrical or nonsymmetr tube axis because the primary stresses of concern (axial stress As due to differen expansion effects during a LOCA) are not affected b supports without the need for any bending moment capability of the t (i.e., a plastic hinge can be assumed at the defect).

I Notably, no ECT detectable tube imperfections are considered accep plugging / stabilizing or sleeving) at the top support plate or the bottom tubesheet for certain tubes adjacent to the open lane (considered susceptible to vibration / fatigue), because of the potential for fatigue in these areas (s 1-2

To reduce the complexity of the analysis, all defects will be considered as planer defects, with no credit taken for ligaments between micro cracks (see Figure 5). Based on operating experience thus far, the extent and rate of occurrence of defects at CR-3 are sufficiently small that such a conservative and simplifying approach can be taken at this time.

l l

l l

I l

I 1-3 l

100 ,

j Extrapolation l l g .

t .

l l  !  !

e  !. ,

. i g

6 i

)

l' l' i 80 I e

.g ,

e l

iB . I 8 i

n. I

= 1 I I

$ 7 70 E~

I -

it i

l 60 0 l l h j Acceptable Provided Requirements j i of Figure 2 are also Met. l l

l So  ;

l e  ! <

l 0  ;  ;  ;  ;

i l

I 0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Axial Length of Defect (Inches) l Figure 1. Allowable Tube Wall Penetration l

For Axial Slot Type Defects (Axial Cracks)

EMPIt r.102 -071 -C3 3

02 / t S/94 (re6)

360 270 ,

I

'8

'i8 m

9

@^

o ' l 180 E

e- l 3 Acceptable Provided Requirements y of Figure 1 are also Met.

90 l

O  ;  ;  ;

i i i i i  ; i 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Penetration of Degradation

(%)

Figure 2. Maximum Allowable Penetration Versus Arc Length for 34.1 % Maximum Allowable Area of Degradation MMPR lU?d'.'&

MMPR ASSOCI ATES INC ENG NEE 7S Section 2

SUMMARY

The maximum allowable tube wall degradation determined herein is summarized in Tables 2-1 for " probable" material properties and 2-2 for Code minimum material j properties . For the intended purpose of determining the maximum allowable tube j degradation per Regulatory Guide 1.121, we consider use of the " probable" tubing material properties (i.e., per a 95% probability of occurrence at a 95% confidence level, per Reference 2), as appropriate, rather than ASME Code minimums. Accordingly, we .

consider the maximum allowable degradation as shown in Table 2-1 to be appropriate and conservative. l The results in Table 2-1 are presented graphically in Figure 1 (for axial slot-type defects) j and in Figure 2 (for circumferential defects) which covers the effects of are length of the, defect as well as penetration. Based on tube burst test data in Reference 5, the analysis '

in this report for axial slot-type defects is reasonable and conservative for other axial defects of interest as well (e.g., any substantial size uniform wastage or elliptical wastage l defect). The circumferential defects analyzed herein apply for defects up to 360 of arc l length and are limited to an axial height of 1.5-in. To be acceptable per Regulatory i Guide 1.121, a defect must be within allowables of both Figure 1 and Figure 2, since different configurations of defects are limited by different criteria.

2-1 l

i Table 2-1 Allowable Steam Generator Tube Wall Degradation for Various Degradation Configurations (For Probable Tubing Material Properties)

Allowable Tube Walt Degradation Configuration Type of Degradation

1. Circumferential (up to 1.5 in. 34.1% of tube cross sectional area (see axiallength and 360 are length) Figure 2)

See Figure 1

2. Axial slot-type Less than 0.25 in. long ' See Figure 1 a.

0.50 in. long 65.6% Penetration b.

c. 1.5 in, long 60.3% Penetration 22

l l

Table 2-2  !

Allowable Steam Generator Tube Wall Degradation for I

Various Degradation Configurations (For ASME Code Minimum Tubing Material Properties)

{

. l l Configuration Type of Degradation Allowable Tube Wall Degradation j

1. Circumferential (up to 1.5 in. 23.0% of tube cross sectional area axial length and 360* are length) l l

2. Axial slot type l

a. 0.25 in. long 86.3% Penetration

b. 0.50 in. long 611% Penetration

c. 1.5 in. long 53.8% Penetration  !

l I

1 l

2-3 L - - - - - _ . . - . _

a 9

1 IBMPR ASSOCI ATE S INC ENGiNEE1S Section 3 DISCUSSION 1

NRC REGUIATORY GUIDE 1.121 REQUIREMENTS Regulatory Guide 1.121 provides requirements for evaluating the allowable wall

. degradation of steam generator tubing, beyond which the defective tubing must be removed from service. As stated, the Regulatory Guide requires the consideration of 1 three factors: (1) the wall thickness required to sustain the imposed loadings under

normal and accident conditions; (2) an allowance for further degradation during operation until the next inservice inspection; and (3) the crack size permitted to meet the primary-to-secondary leakage limit allowed by the plant's technical specifications.

. Section C of Regulatory Guide 1.121 provides the specific structural requirements which.

must be satisfied fer degraded steam generator tubing for normal operation and accident j conditions. Most of these requirements can be bound by a reduced set of requirements

, at the end of this section; and, others are shown to be not pertinent as follows:

i' For normal operation, the requirements from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.121 are:

J From Section C.2., " Minimum Acceptable Wall Thickness," l

" Tubes with detected part through wall cracks should not be stressed during the full range of normal reactor operation beyond the elastic range of the

] tube material" (C.2.a.(1)). ,

. 1 f *

' Tubes with part through-wall cracks, wastage, or combinations of these

should have a factor of safety against failure by bursting under normal operating conditions of not less than three at any tube location" (C.2.a(2)).

l "The margin of safety against tube rupture under normal operating i l

l conditions should be not less than three at any tube location where defects l .

have been detected" (C.2.a(4)).

31

1 l

I 1

• "Any increase in the primary-to-secondary leakage rate should be gradual to provide time for corrective action to be taken" (C.2.a(5)).

CR-3-Experience at CR-3 and at other similar plants has demonstrated this requirement to be met; accordingly, this requirement is not included in the reduced set of requirements at l the end of this section.  ;

i

• "An additional thickness degradation allowance should be added to the minimum acceptable tube wall thickness to establish the operational tube  !

l thickness acceptable for continued service. An imperfection that reduces the remaining tube wall thickness to less than the sum of the minimum acceptable wall thickness plus the operational degradation allowance is 1 designated as an unacceptable defect. A tube containing this imperfection has exceeded the tube wall thickness limit for continued service and should be plugged before operation of the steam generator is resumed"(C.2.b).

CR-3-This requirement is addressed by the current practice at CR-3 of sufficient NDT examinations and sleeving or plugging (and stabilizing) for any actual indicated degradation (irrespective of tube wall penetration) for tube locations where experience (at CR-3 and others) indicates sufficiently rapid degradation should be expected i (e.g., for certain tubes adjacent the open lane with degradation at the top support plate or at the bottom of the top tubesheet). Also, experience (at CR-3 and others) is used to ensure degradation between NDT examinations will not exceed structural allowables.

Finally, an evaluation of fatigue is discussed in the CR-3 comments for Regulatory Guide 1.121 Section C.3 as follows, i

From Section C.3," Analytical and Loading Criteria Applicable to Tubes with either Part )

Thru-wall or Thru wall Cracks and Wastage,"

. 1

" Loadings associated with normal plant conditions, including start up,  ;

I operation in power range, hot standby, and cooldown, as well as all anticipated transients (e.g., loss of electricalload, loss of offsite power) that are included in the design specifications for the plant, should not produce a primary membrane stress in excess of the yield stress of the tube material at operating temperature" (C.3.a.(1)).

'The margin between the maximum internal pressure to be contained by the tubes during normal plant conditions and the pressure that would be required to burst the tubes should remain consistent with the margin incorporated in the design rules of Section III of the ASME Code" (C.3.a.(2)).

3-2

4

1. 3lhy /////to

':~'$ ' l^ " #8#' IMAGE EVALUATION //j',f/'/ I%

$r$* [, * ,q, k///7 TEST TARGET -(MT-3)

+f  %,,ff;*

I.O  : lD M l;l2 M l,l ll l1 1.25  ! l.4 1.6 l

l-2x 4 150mm >

d 6" -

/

/4%

4 I .;,

//

PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION 8kb

'O W

h 770 BASKET ROAD yt,b ry P.O. BOX 338 WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 'W(

(716) 265 1600

,; b hp /g ~

" k '# IMAGE EVALUATION g $ f*

/// /

J},f' sp k//77 'L'"

' TEST TARGET (MT-3)

& /g gf?

g,,,+ s l

I.0 L=m

" 2 L2g l.l l N lllll1R ll il =1.8

=

1.25 1.4 I l.6 l

4 150mm >

d -

6" >

b

$ ?+/i e,

9

/

A*b (f !

gAes

^

PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION 't>

O 770 BASKET ROAD ftf> -- (t, -

P.O. BOX 338 WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 Y, (716) 265-1600

f bb

'h ", 'N IMAGE EVALUATION

/////fo

'/j/ # ' "U~o Q, k//f7 J' 47/* TEST TARGET (MT-3)

+g/ %QfJ I.0 1a e

' lll RH 1.1 1 ' lM l.8

==

l.25 1.4 1.6 l 4 150mm >

d 6" >

fl

• 4' '

w$? s,,%/

O PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION 770 BASKET ROA9 P.O. BOA 338 WEBSTER, NEW YORK I4580 s /+

O d{@

8 t-g (716) 265-1600

__-__-_____l

A

& 4 K, :n "g 0

':.; $. W IMAGE EVALUATION , 3 TEST TARGET (MT-3) / J' C 4

/ lll/ r f

l l

l l

1.0 ij M

E4 l.l C ~ lllllB \

1.25 1.4 1.6 l

4 150mm >

< 6" >

3>

4*. %,%//

• gG

// ++

C4, PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION b tv h 770 BASKET ROAD kb  ;,t P.O. BOX 338 . ,

WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580  %

(716) 265-1600

+

'The fatigue effects of cyclic loading forces should be considered in determining the minimum tube wall thickness. The transients considered in the original design of the steam generator tubes should be included in the fatigue analysis of degraded tubes corresponding to the minimum tube wall thickness established. The magnitude and frequency of the temperature and pressure trai. ;ents should be based on the estimated number of cycles anticipated during normal operation for the maximum servir:e interval expected between tube inspection periods. Notch effects resulting from tube thinning should be taken into account in the fatigue evaluation" (C.3.b(2)).

CR-3-This requirement is addressed by the current practice at CR-3 of sufficient NDT examinations and sleeving or plugging (and stabilizing) for any actual indicated degradation (irrespective of tube wall penetration) for tube locations where experience (at CR-3 and others) indicates sufficiently rapid degradation should be expected (e.g., for certain tubes adjacent the open lane with degradation at the top support plate or at the bottom of the top tubesheet). Also, experience (at CR-3 and others)is used to ensure degradation due to fatigue between NDT examinations will not exceed structural allowables.

In essence, crack growth between tube inspections due to either corrosion or fatigue has not been a problem at CR-3 or other once-through steam generators ( OTSGs) with the exceptions of fatigue defects in certain tubes adjacent to the open tube lane near the upper tubesheet and a small number of other lucidents where the cause of the degradation has been found and resolved. Since the appropriate " lane" tubes at CR-3 are plugged or sleeved irrespective of size of degradation and since operating experience indicates no significant growth of other degradation, crack growth between inspections is not significant for CR-3. For completeness; however, a fatigue evaluation has been performed for this report.

Specifically, crack growth due to fatigue is evaluated herein for a worst-case circumferential crack based on a 100% through-wall defect per Figure 2. For this evaluation, the controlling cyclic loads are due to startup/ shutdown / operation with little effect from tube vibration (see Reference 6). Based on calculations used for Reference 6 and assuming design basis loads, a crack growth rate of only about .9 of are length per startup/ shutdown / operation load cycle (up to 1107-lb tube tension) is predicted even for the above worst-case crack size per Figure 2. We understand that subsequent to Reference 6, the above design basis load has been increased 3-3

slightly; therefore, a somewhat greater than (.9 / cycle) would be calculated. However, the actual expected tube load cycle (more like half the design basis load cycle) would result in essentially no crack growth. Accordingly, such crack growth due to fatigue is not significant since the number of cycles between inspections is not large; and, only small growth rates if any are indicated.

Crack growth due to fatigue between inspections for axial cracks (per Figure 1) can also be evaluated in a similar manner as for circumferential cracks discussed above. Specifically, a worst-case axial crack (maximum length of 1.5 in. per Figure 1) would grow only about .006% through wall per startup/ shutdown / operation cycle.

Accordingly, such crack growth due to fatigue is not significant since the number of cycles between inspections is not large; and, only small growth rates if any are indicated.

Accordingly, and in overall summary, degradation and crack growth due to corrosion or fatigue between inspections is small (if any) and not significant for CR-3 (based on evaluations herein and operating' experience thus far).

=

'The maximum permissible length of the largest single crack should be such that the internal pressure required to cause crack propagation and tube rupture is at least three times greater than the normal operating pressure.

The length and geometry of the largest permissible crack size should be determined analytically either by tests or by refined finite element or fracture mechanics techniques. The material stress-strain characteristics at temperature, fracture toughness, stress intensity factors, and material flow properties should be considered in making this determination" (C.3.d(1)).

'The primary-to-secondary leakage rate limit under normal operating pressure is set forth in the plant technical specifications and should be less than the leakage rate determined theoretically or experimentally from the largest single permissible longitudinal crack. This would ensure orderly plant shutdown and allow sufficient time for remedial action if the crack size increases beyond the permissible limits during service" (C.3.d(3)).

CR-3-This requirement is addressed by an administrative limit requiring shutdown for a leak rate of 0.3 gpm per steam generator.

For CR-3, which has not had major tube degradation, this leak rate limit is considered to provide reasonable assurance of tubing structural adequacy as well as being practical, e.g., in terms of detectability. CR-3 experience and other work supports this.

3-4

1 Crack opening displacements and resulting leakages have been analyzed in a number of cases, including for OTSGs such as at CR-3 (see Reference 6). However, experience has shown that sometimes ,

even substantial tube defects do not exhibit much leakage (apparently due to tight cracks being stopped up with magnetite).

Accordingly, CR-3 uses an administrative leakage acceptance criteria mentioned above based on engineering judgment and satisfactory past operating experience.

" Conservative analytical models should be used to establish the minimum acceptable tube wall thickness generally applicable to those areas of tube 3 length where tube degradation is most likely to occur in service due to cracking, wastage, intergranular attack, and the mechanisms of fatigue, vibration, and flow-induced loadings. The wall thickness should be such that sufficient tube wall will remain to meet the design limits specified by Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for Class 1 components, as well as the following criteria and loading conditions" (C.3.a.).

CR-3-This requirement is interpreted as being covered by other requirements in Regulatory Guide 1.121 as discussed herein. The only conflict is per requirement C.3.a(1) which limits to yield stress versus a lower limit per Section III of the ASME Code. In this case we consider the stated Regulatory Guide limit per C.3.a.(1) of yield stress to be appropriate and note that others have done the same.

For accident conditions, the requirements from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.121 are:

From Section C.2, " Minimum Acceptable Wall Thickness,"

+

"If through wall cracks with a specified leakage limit occur either on a tube wall with normal thickness or in regions previously thinned by wastage, they should not propagate and result in tube rupture under postulated accident conditions" (C.2.a(3)).

"The margin of safety against tube failure under postulated accidents, such as a LOCA, steam line break, or feedwater line break concurrent with the SSE, should be consistent with the margin of safety determined by the stress limits specified in NB-3225 of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code" (C.2.a(6)).

From Section C 3,"Analyticalloading criteria applicable to tubes with either part through-wall or through-wall cracks and wastage,"

3-5

- " Loadings associated with a LOCA or a steam line break, either inside or outside the containment and concurrent with the SSE, should be accommodated with the margin determined by the stress limits specified in NB-3225 of Section III of the ASME Code and by the ultimate tube burst strength determined experimentally at the operating temperature" (C.3.a.(3)).

• "The stress calculations of the thinned tubes should consider all the stresses and tube deformations imposed on the tube bundle during the most adverse loadings of the postulated accident conditions. The dynamic loads should be obtained from the modal analysis of the steam generator and its support structure. All major hydrodynamic and flow-induced forces should be considered in this analysis" (C.3.b.(1)).

• "The combination of loading conditions for the postulated accident conditions should include, but not be limited to, the following sources:

- Impulse loads due to rarefaction waves during blowdown,

- Loads due to fluid friction from mass fluid accelerations,

- Imads due to the centrifugal force on U-bend and other bend regions caused by high velocity fluid motion,

- Seismic loads,

- Transient pressure load differentials" (C.3.c).

- " Adequate margin should be provided between the loadings associatec. sith a large steam line break or a LOCA concurrent with an SSE and the loading required to initiate propagation of the largest permissible longitudinal crack resulting in tube rupture. The loadings associated with the postulated accident conditions should include the transient hydraulic and dynamic loads listed in C.3.c." (C.3.d.(2)).

The pertinent NRC Regulatory Guide 1.121 tube structural requirements as stated above can be reduced to the following set of requirements:

For Normal Operation:

• The tube stress intensity should be less than the tube material yield stress.

• The tube burst pressure should be greater than three times the normal operating pressure difference across the tube wall. This is the limiting 3-6

requirement for normal operating conditions (see calculation in Appendix B); the results of this limit are shown in Figure 1.

For Accident Conditions:

• The tube burst stress should be greater than the pressure difference across the tube wall.

The tube stress intensity should be less than the lesser of 2.4 times the design stress intensity (S m ) or 0.7 times the ultimate stress. The 0.7 ultimate stress requirement is the limiting requirement for accident conditions (see calculation in Appendix A); the results of this limit are shown in Figure 2.

ALLOWABLE TUBE WALL DEGRADATION Based on the evaluations and calculations herein, the allowable tube wall degradation for various types of degradation of the CR-3 steam generator tubing was determined. The results of the evaluations are summarized in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 and in Figures 1 and 2, based on the calculations presented in Appendices A and B.

3-7

Gi5MPR A S SO CI AT E S IN C EN 3 net iG Section 4 REFERENCES 1.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.121," Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes," August,1976.

2.

" Determination of Minimum Required Tube Wall Thickness for 177-FA Once-Through Steam Generators," Babcock & Wilcox, No.10146. April,1980.

3.

" Review and Update of OTSG Tube Loads, Task 1 Summary," Babcock & Wilcox No. 51-1202303-00, February 28,1991.

4. " Crystal River Unit 3 Tube Pull Project Summary Report," Attachment 1 to Florida Power Corporation letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Document Control Desk, dated July 29,1993.

5. PNL-2684 (NUREG/CR-0277), " Steam Generator Tube Integrity Program -

Battelle Pacific Annual Progress Report for January 1 - December 31,1977,"

Northwest Laboratory, August,1978.

6.

" Assessment of TMI-1 Plant Safety for Return to Service after Steam Generator Repair Topical Report 008, Rev.3, August 19,1983.

i 4-1

j 1

Axial Load Due to LOCA

,/

C7

}//// ///k  %

i I

i Asymmetric Defect Support (Lateral Displacement, and Therefore , Plates Secondary Bending Stresses, are .

Limited Since Defect Area will Displace Laterally Only Until Centroid of { i

}

Non-Defected Portion Aligns with Applied Loads, at q of Support Plate Holes)

I t

l'N N \ N '

'N N 'N1 x

@s Axial Load Due to LOCA Figure 3. Schematic Load Diagram with Asymmetric Defect Between Supports MMPR

0'0,'.' Ysi>

Axial Lead Due to LOCA Minor Reactive Load Due to Asymmetric Defect l

n# Tube Support

^

C

)\D \ YN \N a Minor Reactive Shear Loads Tube - s

, / \

i r

, i

\ l ak e '

/

W Primary Loads Through

Non-Defected Region Minor Reactive Load Loads Within Defect Region Due to Asymmetric ,

[ ' lN y Schematic showing tube parted Defect i iu for clarity to illustrate load system

~

b l (or other  %'

Support) x j

Minor Reactive Load Due to Asymmetric Defect

/

/I i

,/ -

l Axial Load Reacted by Tubesheet Weld Figure 4. Free Body Schematic Load Diagram for Asymmetric Defect at Top of Tubesheet (or at a Support)

MMPR F* ?O2 07'.oi 02 /95 /94 (98)

j I

l l  ;

l I

I I i I

I I  !.

I i  ! l  !

! I l I I l

i '

i I l l 1

I i l i i  !  ! I-i t 1- l l

i( p e Note Ugaments I Pl t

l I 7 aner Defect Region Degraded Bounds Actual (entire region

! Between I  !

l l[ Micro Cracks 3 l

I

~

of tube assumed missing) i ,

i i  !

l I I l 1 I l

I I l  !

I ,

I I

! I l i I I l

! I l I l I 1 l ,

i i  ; l PLANER DEFECT (for analysis purposes)

Figure 5. Illustration of Planer Defect Used in Analysis to Conservatively Bound Actual Degraded Region EMPR f- C2-0 7' - 05 02 /24/ 94 ;98J

WMPR A SSOCI ATE S INC F ',O NEE 13 Appendix A MPR Calculation 102-071-IIWM2,

" Allowable Tube Walt Degradation for 1.5 in. Axial Length,360 Defects"

l MPR Associates, Inc.

A exa dr a, VA 2314 I

CALCULATION TITLE PAGE Client Page 1 of \M h n. c n P e e a re.

Project Task No.

C O.N S % u G \N et1. V O tt 3 3 T % n G E 6 Ci?.h t o R. IO 2-on l l

Title -

Calculation No.

N'b CW A GLE \ t'bq W A LL. D1:: Cats.Dh't(c6 veR ~ D' ' ~ ' 2 l

\ ,5 w. my.thu L

• co tw , 3GCP b uw%w l Preparer /Date Checker /Date Reviewer /Date Rev. No.

NOMCDORDY d. 2 4/lC C H mHL C)

A. 7N1fc M u'GK 1 -- \ ut o q I- ; 7 - q y l-'7-14 l

l l

I l

MPR Associates, Inc.

320 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 RECORD OF REVISIONS Prepared By Checked By Calculation No.

107-c 11 -wa M ;;

NO NC CON A 2me c. LM- 1 Deseription Revision O C3 MC. W b, L \ L 6 0 tiz:

1

l MPR Associates, Inc.

32o ki"o s'<e e' PR Alexandria, VA 22314 Checked By Calculation No. Prepared By Page M7.- B'1 \ - M\SM 2, M O Me Dn.DY M. 2cuct d uS 3 S o-un.x _

'E As C. %ue o ch ttd0 D E t%O.w tat S, 7Mu Nutc4 Abut 45 Lt O E GQ AC %N\ OO V CM. C Ct. 0 0 \% 3 GWh*4 G E O MTh'i cit M O '4 E5 vcDQ

\,5 %. As+ s LEG G'u , 140 ' j C.s et c.e u v-un.so~t wu os v t en s ,

EELtC dc Nut L \s s7sG G R % L E % M E s.3 -~ ,

D % c:_wy e.c vm s oQ C _ o D D b @ l b T Q T W o L L c 4 t d C.

\SG.C En%ctrx-:NLf Sit LC C~~ OM A L ttuttS 9Et L OtCD E \ . \ ? \ '.

C b o a n.t- x t o o :

A.hn. Gen.mhu

). T u W 7 0iL V S T R.E b b \ c 7 E O SN ty SRocud GE Gbb

'T siNQ i u"'~w M N-t Gtt.tN L '/WLD STO.ESS,

• ?_,Tuv 7064 %CDb7 O h ESSOILY S 4 0 0 L D tb b'"

G R M R 1 M 't. 7WhO 3% 'U-(v. O Ch e G L O? t h ht Q C.

pQ t sLcn.s D Wesn.m3 c.4 4 c.n. css r\4v rOthist se Act. .

3,50\~~L %C 0-tD E07 (%QC\"":(CO$.'

), 'Tur 70 bE 4Gh b 1 \t h '6 S S O h. T L u c o 'Q b E GQ %W 4D ' a h Q i t4 4 > t t. G S S. O D. T D\Yf-%h%0

• b C OtO % m-i, X T O "b % 4%Lt. TOCL 747 AC CJ D E.07.

MPR Associates, Inc.

320 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Prepared By Checked By Calculation No.

.5" IQ7. - C'1 \- MQ H ~L HNO Mt C co CY 4. 2tvu (%L a.Tww ,ce,y s--nsss sc scss ex succue oa 'B5s twW TMD L.W Lh t% CL D9 2..M 'A 7 9 4 C E 5 \. Q O E -" D.05 b. S

\ c t m a s s t -f ( b h c rt. Q . 7 y t u m e u tt,.s A r a L- n x gs, new ew 1.w se s,not-am.1- s sm ss ss weenzssed

\d-wE V-Os uo ciO G c_4 Ltc ukTto d . T u E 9 En.'. \0% d'I O AD.LM47E Q.b BOT,

- T a h ,4 t,

~

o G--b tDE D\h E :un. - O,C,7 5s+L Dcv.2 5 mss 3-M)

- 'Tob a G, u h s.s_ Tas.c v cz bs - O.O':5Msa.(EC5.7_'Tvsst':h)

- To 64 to n d--: qn t tu - \ otcat t gob (Sta \C&(C.cv.5) c>psn.ro.ac, on.assem o \ vesuots - n seess (m.v.t ec.s-3Y k C e t Ot Ot 90,,3 bbO T'L4 D\Y9*J1.t442 - 2.G7 2. %s (EEC ,'?. 3 P C. . Co- G ')

N sw t v en e_w to xo bu ,

~

- % ett. vu o n m A u op %PSt \C Q - \"2. 66std (\l4V.M)

-- von _ wee.ttso, - z.es s se,. (n.m H van. t-et.Q ven c.com w etses Toesoc pn.epse.tses:

70Q LiMtt S.\.

Tu r A ch t. s n.e s s se, ,

gr -

R

MPR Associates, Inc.

MPR 320 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 )

Prepared By Checked By Calculation No. Page G In-cu -we z we memov A 2mLA  !

Q MD\TT g

(

%= wwwu von _e.rs oc we%w, w>  !

l

\

kQ= U.EMh\d\OG (QGDE9EC"tD 70M 3 caw mm%w n.wimu s,n.ssssd ,as ,etw C>0 E T o PRE SSuh_E ( S, q - O\ o-q Q % EPLE ,

9 gO 9 Q G b b GItT \O b \Ys MCDG @ D\ b Co= PnBSSOnX co7stdv 70tSE,PSW Tsa,W 9 P PLh wei%M Sa hM 3

.=== bQ, ,N D \ b Ps= 2.2. 5 0 c>E m ( Q.E v . 2., w c . G - S 3 po= 9 0 0 9'Sm ( U e v . 7 , P G , G -3 )

Tuw To thw 57 n e bS tcT BCS\74 iS i S = Tg - Tg u s w :; tud. r we c tM.m eth tc%w LTn*S*> \b Po '"'" M wth t t9\b LCHQAch7\cd C,\4 ES 'TMT LMtOEbi G'ittu \CN'"M.

MPR Associates. Inc.

320 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 l Checked By Calculation No. Prepared By 7

H M '-. CARD 7 A, hc,. l. %(,

107 -Q1 \ -Msc H z.

Aa 1 A l I

Tut Nis;to s 7n.s s.:s von. \c c oio et Goo (bE \G'b) Pr r c,oo%% ,e corrm,u, ,sens,oad w, l l

Sy=. z.7 A V-s s ( sss h p. 3, s es.w T.-a.O

$*{ q

\? 5 5' D.q=

17,0,6 0 - i s 15 1

b n, =. O . 0 %77 t.O 1

1 T

1 h =. (O.G7 5 - (0.G15-7 .o'b9)t) i he= 0. Q G S \ '.4 TVG Q E n.c.,C O*'t D T Ce U hD h \.esh W ,

O E ._, Di D GS\ -D .DH.~i} , g gg , p,q pg ho O. OG11 Foo. L u t, A . *2 .

C O WA "f %A M hD64 T 9%QD-t-4%7 %Q \ \ $"t* Nsir G . C d 'i' A D

[ bot : b I ';> D. ES> L0 D.% \%

3

l MPR Associates, Inc.

320 King Street MP- Alexandria, VA 22314 l

j Checked By Calculation No.

Prepared By ~m P

E MQ H.e C002.DY d, 2tu e o bed

\ Q 7.,- CA , - MQM1 p e=. s 0 2 s o b w e s o p s, u n s, , w s, a s,x m enemne % nu-t= 1 y o n. y t.-h t oO E, --O bi Q G S \ 2.E S hsWO0 G'A 7\ATA (b A

go Q Q 7 A 5 c t't. C, G . 6 ~2. 6 4 4 ,v O M s 4 . t c rb E O ( 7 R 3G OD- \ ,5 to , s.o c G D4TBcJt , "I W W DM A E C E 4 OLb G . 9/'15 tc' s C EO ic. T Otb4 c_b.O B'E. O S CD S 'O G \i A 5 t w u n vt D

• M 4- A W. f-r4 \c.sc e, LS Q P, t to ,

E n.o m F t t,o r x \ 7 e r E7 s e w a c o . 6 ,-- u E Auso e > b.T wbus o t cb er.m A7.so c W, b4Mo _=

Q '2., C Y> R C x 0 7 So

~G r n.twuosco w % s s_ s s 3B pt.ac.co, .

Lt n Ecphtro p 3 % s M a C N.,o E ss Mo 5% %G "6 E't C E C O

h. C SQ L- .T Q FOG M ME C N v vt h.t GCX.

t %A C:l 7 E E7 BC WW Quxis RT U b-- Q,5 L .S % 9

-~0%s0GA0D7A9 0oOG MsO s wtso u O L7 \K M T'

%Mn.TES. . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ -

MPR Associates, Inc.

PR 32o xima street Alexandria, VA 22314 I Prepared By Checked By Calculation No. Page MNOMe %ttOY A 2pg L 9

\D7_- 07 \- uta3M7 Fct.e% Tut u 3 ov Tbsyset.m em \ , mE 49 tot.n or

\3 tm t M N t 4 57EESb V on. t%E i T S T S C T C 06 \*O C \ % ,

(%h= 43,4 \/-E i Fnes T m e t s r_ - 3 . a. e s t t. w e n e c t.v 3 , , u n ecc e w.s o s so % ut ,ss m w stat'sb ss, Dk% 5 ED \C b \

ss

% Q c e n a s n e c o ct.s e n.s w N w ( c G w N s._t

)

seg an s e t.;-t 9 et.coonw s.com., vo www eew ,z STns ss ,

TukT R440 \C.ED W >, s.L t%,

-O

= Y\,G whatsc7 (5 5.H. F v.ntert ho ED nsamemmo ')

50 R b \M.\7 6.\ ,

VDR w% hte tos m., , ue 9 atsa,0nx e wren.mtw E O-.QOLS TRW m sO by tc h,y b \ b ? Gl? Q5\ (b4t- Ph%tACER us,m m e,w a,essss ,mbw-o sese= m ,

secoctsd keess vert. \ %e %,2ye maaneuw e,c,. n,;.es.my o W 3 'a s t b C G n t h 7 M t 7 st 4 c t D q v g r e ,a a c c o n ( w s , 4 , 1 ,

MPR Associates, Inc.

A exa dr a, VA 2314 Prepared By Checked By Calculation No. Page \C)

I Cit.- O 1 b R O M 7 \-4Q Mc C0ft.OY 4 2.u r L w/

70n. L\M\i G . '2. .

Yuqi thN.\th\_. -t O Q::q S tR.C5b W ,

g =. D L -

(57x oonusrvrtsbT5 SO Tvv t,N end Gn n.wdin,t. s n u s.,ss, Tg~ 22 SD* 9DD_ @ c sts W M . tro.1 w w w s.c t A % =rt u tv T 7- po.tann. t we e:,ve.cadxvt e n motets, w t u t. O Ec.CtcN*ct.W oc t%)4B,Obt OC

% C" 40 tu-t h L D9 E.R A9'\ O G 9 G C L'oC Wb M q :.-\ 6'l 6 *Pbj \S c60 W h.N W":W v.)

Y7 T O Ib'G %~~RE sb \O't EG E."'Y \ s ,

3 *::". T4-Tg (,Db Dt!;.c.M bkoscMw4 Chvt.oLWtc0 von. \_.sm r % \ woon , m s e ._

- z e,y i .e \ 5 75

- e e n g s o n r w c o w c 3 .< u ,,.

4 O. b k n.Q t L T s t n.E LS (4 : e cn.e,:.w.)

YMt D.us. O Q Ab L.E b'T D G b b \ b T M E' C'v~ b b t O. O G- >

. JM -- E .

3. \ css =.55,9\(s\(547.TatrT.:\.?

O c G. t v , "\ h 1 I;

9  % ee.p g g

. ow Ru . K ')

%r RtQ OmAC) T2.w wx ta to G An th \ s ,

4. n, --

7 GMi 5 5,%3% ~ \6'lb 1

A n =. O,c M 9 6 te

MPR Associates, Inc.

MPR 320 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Prepared By Checked By Calculation No. Page A. 2.ev e , 6 /- II ID7 - Q'l l- MG M '2. 1-\ Q H e C ,o n.Q y

'T u r PEntgo t D tGUMOPNNog \co, k e ~ N O.

= O,0GS t - O,0% 86. \oc = 2 3,0 p en.cso t he o.oc o st hg eb o c w w N G oN)E ,7 u4 M o t7 R G b' h'W E TAE 70%; $ 7 0.t h b TL.G . \ .~!.1 L M s7 \ b 'T ub t.

\c7tc%\iN ? o n AC c cec ~t Cocbsno0b bM ou t D Pc7 L.E S S 'T u h S 7 .N % Tut deb \GG57EEbb \ c 7 t c b \-~ Y .

Ti:,9 GMLCL v scCs N t LCQ ADLT 7GDE Q 4. bt-

23. O Pert c q:.c c ,

CE C3 rat > b'D OG \s EcR %e ONt C \~2.- $ 706\4 G DC2.OQBD %W5*

Een \ \Ms t 4. \.

pger q qvansoc.m F 3 0G.G-S,"G' A C '0 4 ' ' '5 'D  :

5 9 R W 5 5 A-T G Q Q

• 9 45 3 H .~/ R.5 1 . T s.K W RG QQCDD n.t u p.sctc G k- R E A \s ,

\7 5 5

% q =. -

3M ,2.0 0 - 1512'T Aq- 0.03P25sc*  !

l

MPR Associates, Inc.

320 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Calculation No. Prepared By Checked By I D~2 - M \ - H LO M 'Z, M MC Dh.by d. 2& cc d %l lg

~Ttac Nusea htt.4 04GC?hch;tc4 \S, N o' hn. O, O G 'M- c .c%5 , g ag _. Sq,g p,qqqm  ;

Se O.OGS\ )

EQ Q. L \ n t t. S.E.

Fn_m.-1 Rz w n.etwa e.x 2. ,9 c. G- s, ma x w c .e n u o s ,.1-r-,=

5 7 ti t L b C N 't u t C U. O u n 3 'i c h ,s 3 G \ b 3 kh)ut-gO S Z.S kS i 7 sA E 4.O505,T %D 'Q tQ O\0.C 9 EM4%4\4G W Abb \S 3

• 3E* = 39,M PCRC.t.c;(G\.G Pe.h.q,tc ;

A 929, eeG.nwe m se,d) 1 Ok b\M t*T. D, \ ,

'Tus d.t_t.co m u eEGrthtteo eeouc orGtektas l

1. h kMk I a bk \ D # e EtrL\sust D ,7 .

F n.e % Q.sv e x ote 2., >G.G-6, tur m ueekduw i i

l b -'"I? E L 6 \b, l 0.7 \%Den .3= G 5.0 Y-.s \

1 l

l

l MPR Associates, Inc.

320 King Street WMPR Alexandria, VA 22314 Checked By Prepared By Page Calculation No.

Mb3 McCon.cy d 2u, c.k.. c/- ,

\3 l D?.- C7 \ - MtO H ? , ,

\4 @ QqQ QthD D EDMbIdidb neb \S j l

D\ n =

Gs, coo-1516 ,

An = D.OM\G t[  !

%v, 95.ne.s c t c tGnwcNMsoc \ s ,

h e-hg = Q,0G%\-O.CN\G 4 0 0 =. 38. I %nuc t l

l Ao D.6GSt Gk-swd oc Nuw % dove, tut wobt G.C b" Rt t.7W T 2.G \.\~2. } LM \i \ b TuA7 74% TG D E b7QE.hh \47%40EMY p on. (L C.C c sc T C.GQD \7ituS S%00cD %t LESb 7 0 h0 D,7*NME QL7sah74 btGE.Gb.7WW A b.Lo W D babT 7 0 Th T w h s t. D EGhhDD7\ou \ b '3M . l .t>%ntDOT .

l2T ^" s'e'$t i GillMPR Alexandria, VA 22314 Calculation No. Prepared By Checked By Page IO7.- Q'11- MQ H, 2, \4 td M e C o n. m M,2 hee b I \bi n.evan.mem. . ,

l. Q QRT.Ch \ C Q.- 0 7,"T'"1 (9 0 \ - 7 Co %M) , b"Cnh 64 C E d%U h7 0R.

Tee,n \c tmeu t r Wmetws - Acce% Pn.osn.ess Rtoon:T Sw ooxn.w \ ,o Ot ex ess n. 3 \ , \% 71, G wi s e sse %s.w s s.

QDit t%ct si \ ABCO PsicQ.\ES , SOG.Ob r \S% ,

2. M.O - \ o MG ," Detsn.wa h : toc ev 'Ktu tuss M Routteo Tog g. Oxsw %wz.cm v on. vv1 -v h Ne s-Dn.acsw S i c u t-t Gt uen.4 te%',' Qabase + Qtsts::,w , h ons \%%Q, 3, h bb45 S EC N \tc E , \S M ED( T\,0 4 , D \N thtOQ '\ , bDT%@'tXS, M. E+O Mo e_st'.htL Nc.Acesete E S. Detes et A t 5 \- \7 0003 -c d,

" Rt.Ni:r.,0 AcO OQ DhW Qv @bG 706V \ o MD b I Thbsc k CNNb [ E1 k bbb hse e S. C.n.M 6 t 4 t R w a rt V c t , S E c A u h e s t 'r TA o n, e t t,s s.

R.s oo n. t , Th%t s '-\-9 ,

Gi3MPR

^559CI ATE S INC s t. a >.e ,s Appendix B MPR Calculation 102-071-IIWM1,

" Allowable Tube Wall Degradation for Axial, Slot type Defects" s

4 0

4

l MPR Associates, Inc. I 320 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 CALCULATION TITLE PAGE j i

Client

1. 9*

Fuonsc A 9ecth 1

Project Task No.

O RN L t b t- GWWn G cN t 3 % rmm G,gowwog l 07 - 071 l Tit Calculation No.

p,, q,c g eggq p,cp tec gey,,_ o gg.g a g g g N gn u ,Svo t- Pr64 D M N Preparer /Date Checker /Date Reviewer /Date Rev. No.

\'\1'SH /, j 7, q y /-/ 7- 9 Y l

l 9

MPR Associates, Inc. I 320 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 j RECORD OF REVISIONS ,

Checked By f Calculation No. Prepared By ""

• lO7 -Crit- M G M \ M G Mt D n.by A2uukJ a Revision Description O Q C2.sGM A u \550 s l

i

I MPR Associates, Inc.

1 320 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Calculation No. Prepared By Checked By 9*

\ QT -o1 \- MsO M \ M W'H.c C.cG.tv d he&LJ 3 Lo u awxt. e  ;

l bl(b Q ,% y c Q L b"T.( O O D T "E E TT M\ O E h 7  % b 'M # b 5 70I6% W % Lu D EGi?DrDh'T\CO WOt"1. C E O 0%7 h 5"T \t4 H Gei.f2.b. ton.xc % % Von. P,N.\ht , Sto7 -tv r3W 3 Oc ~t b i bt -

D \ h M M %n \ c sN:\ N r WD O Estc. TIS . Tu E t? 9Qo t'h t C:::,

1 l

52 % M ea.N O t G Q W Ib b % A dD ALLOk,O hDLE W A( b DEGD%DM\.Q von. tcLE w h t%n.\h t. \a s 9: \ uth t u %7 02.t sstr.S, o c.

1 0 \7 h "T COD Lt) k kQT u m,- = nere centow D 's % V trr b -- n % , ( % %\) W 4 L L. h4.) (*/o t )b bwh

%" sm t so ,cesce  %.s 9~2. ,9 ,0040 9 8 . ~2

'17." L'o' Bo ,o ts 3 co o, i S7. 9 , CD \ \ 1 G 5,Co

\'I ? L'o7 Ero ,oi51 53.B 47,9 . O t 3 5' coo.3

l MPR Associates, Inc.

1 320 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Cbecked By Page Prepared By M Calculation No.

M t.O M e O c n. b -r 4, 2 u cc k /-

lo L-o'T \ - \-4 son t otrenume l

%cr pan. cost o9 xats c N uc.ouNtso o m w o f

7 9 7 h u v o c '.:.Cys 4 v.3 4 vL bSfGC2.4Cb7.\oQ WC t. \

C n_v s-er, t Q.wavs. @ r$) G os 1 5 57tr-s G E cw n.N terz ,

D ' O 'T ~E'l D D g D o' b iE>E -

"'" \3 Gs4 5 VCD. AN\D L 3 g gg p g (O \ tO \i\ h D *

%s e l

qg I

ss.c ,5 a u scu. e s n t von. ,c En s vo sn a r,stw u  !

b h

• F*% %e .k Q l

OSA 0 cm E.C) H . T9 \.b O b. t b \ b C.cO & Rs.t.M AP Q L\c.J.r3 y q. \

,aw to wv s cu:ee w do: m o u, q;e te ao s- so vean.

Q (7\M N't q S rO t S.S SE rav,tQ

\ Q ~~ ME b N 4C 4 f t\ A \

C CL Q 0 s t 'S T ME' 74b7 %C:) 70C::b\cG A0C 7\-\D' 57%>M GtcBet.4-tott M0b\dCs.

Bo Pt. O . Co ? E 4 * .CG+c .

D OPLL7 9 ct.3 GEcitt C2'B 6 0(.: t S TabGG bb5 5 uced s O 7 \ GottE 2 % og TR.474ttbc c e \.

\% %v%%mW O C2'2. 5 ic . Y . CM 0 (S CL 0 c M 2> 7 c hid Ca 2E\L

@ GJ' t., E EV E.PL%0c t 2. , T 4Qs.tr 3 - H ), 7\G Gti %

MPR Associates, Inc.

320 King Street j Alexandria, VA 22314 Checked By l Calculation No. Prepared By Page I t 01-o71-s-uw t we McQ,oct.e7 4 2 a, m y /,

s uow,3tbvtes e so c.uudsc G" bWt -v \' 3 7 tt A NCi m t.t u r s.

% %"2. \[s\ ", \) l," 4GO \\lg" SL.Q7-iMQE DTTh~th .

10 -

9 N

8 -

\ g a

= x m 'Is sw, M 7 -

E W

N'N %\ o l

r H 5 -

g(n o

$ ___.________w______

\

l l

S3 - N g,j o UNDEFECTED g o 1/4" SLOT *s 2 -

a 1/2" SLOT a 1 1/2" SLOT 3

0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 O 10 20 30 M AXIMUM DEGR AD ATION (% WALL)

FIGURE 28. Burst Pressures for 0.625 x 0.034 in. EDM Slots Weto m w = twe d u m c,et w v art 4 b o n % 7 c>tvEwe n.w QF M O60 PS1 (V O.ow \"P.E 7 BRM c.A 7 , ppGt G- Q 7wc h tuo4 A t ut d ucs m W te a wo D g e. g gseta G w t us.

7 % % c.v 0 is,S L A R R*

3

q MMPR  %"a;a'"e':P'"-

Alexandria, VA 22314 Calculation No. Prepared By Checked By 1 Cb L-O'11- MOM \ MU Mc CONDY A, 2Sn 6) G OuGtmchNwa R.r.:.H4t 4W G \dAwu Dusec.r ble um.s.b (ale a w4 b c')

% " s t_ e, 75t*

e ii .oos1

' l c." s t.e t G Tr 37 , eto 9

\ N7 SLc7 b3 3'I , D \? G htsss ww usn.c.csr ocemon t tea vert. austu

" bug.% t P rt e,L s.c rt. q o k- t p. \b Dnc9 tbtb M %Gort.t 7 9, Dh T% \ b -- EO.i':: 7)Cbb T, TM G' GuitST PO.Gl"SSR4 iS ThCoM\

A w3 0 "T 4.c n.tv orW (t ot o L ci \ b C.e d E i;;'Cte \V t ,

Y D.O M YAS LG b OC E%t 4tiaW3 C E \ ,7 %E 70 D\b1Cd Q SDD 70%, TMW D Ch b'T 7 EL t b M bb % 4 M t.D.P Cs4 G L"t \u NM4 Sws d5 cv SS ,92 \c.b t . YRom 7N%ut I - \. 2. et-4 k E W Et't.5 0 C*ili 3 F O h. \4 cob %b bDD k E 6 \Co 7'O fb ud Q ,

,wc NLes C. cow wuss som o se, u- A t v, s -ness ss, %C3v.st.

Erl.ow R%itC,h.bidcv~d(94WG-5{7wygc::okuOL7w.hw s,n.c.d er tuu C n.ucs t'.bxon,\,se, ss 97.,9 x.ds, S t ce_e wort A G wso Bott.L, t on.%.sc tt.t-,Tu w w Nuw ,asesuo u 5 W OO LQ %; \ Q N GCt.LT \. V P tLO CcO.'Titc h L '* o -u v 4

SCC E t4 tn.b3 c ":Es* M

l MPR Associates, Inc.

MPR 320 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 l Calculation No. Prepared By Checked By i U

i D7 - D 1\ ~ WO M \ MW WCon.e't A. 2pe. LJ 7 w o h a c o uxs e.w s u S sn. t % , t u u N1 9 s At.a sa c, u n.,us.

7%s t.v O E SS M NuGT b G\Q%,t.1 \d M MT:i, \DCL%C %DtaO G n euw e m s sesos.rse ven. ,a c.cew Mtetsoa oQ 4c9:cht M b t%RtNL OLtsst tv 67 RT LSE b T% t*. b t:s~ % D6067D D W h b 6 N u\C.JL*3 tW>Eh kW.E QWtu \c 7RW 9:Q utou3\.3 G t 4%LW ,

O s.T s u t w c Q % csez5b W Avu D E 9 E C. 7 b t t7 t.%b (R5 b (Olc toht.LD (\ 0) i

%" sue t so \ 3,1 ,csose 92A t l 95 ,ooso

\ l t." s uc r Eo 39,9 , O GG

%7 ,9 34.9 . O\\1

\ 'Iz" s t_o, %Q 9 G,7 . o\s 1 4tA 39 1 . et3s

MPR Associates, Inc.

320 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 .

l Checked By Prepared By Calculation No.

A, 2,w ,1 (,._, "#g 107.-o7i-wa yi wic hQrtcy T2.wem. = Ot.ws. .

l. b30\"LE G } C.G - D7 77 @QL- 2G% M) , E-t %,hm bEGM'LMCh

' Toc 5% \cissn.m Roun.ws AceQwu hogn.ew Re%ct.T 9 At'm t.

dv.o c kEt M i 7 O DEC EMbn 3 \,\%77," Ghm s's4

\dQili % v3% 67 h btbc c B* ton t't: b , SCGCLM \DD .

\ TgGA 2 . G Ab.3 - l O \MG " Wat Mt.e 14 WNtod CO WU' * '.0 M 1?.qct M.t.S 6-cpm 3

LObsu Tw sc.u.c n b tecrt.

\9 ~l-V 4 Dcc C -7H nocc.a b EQ t h,%'t. cri t,, D WD(otM. &VO \bC-QV , k9RAL \S ED ,

'o . N s M E S e c. - c o bC , \%%% Ec ns ec , C N t ssoa i, h.COEO DitE S ,

H. C M.Mb7hu Q W utt. U Q ( T. 3 E s c (n y $ A c ts t-( N c t. Ly ss t

\~2 v.p en.x ,'T A m e M -9.

1 l

t l l l l

l l

l APPENDIX C MPR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 1

l t