ML20129F943
| ML20129F943 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1996 |
| From: | Lynch M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9610290255 | |
| Download: ML20129F943 (34) | |
Text
, _ _ _ ._..-_-_--- --.--.--- .-_--.- --
s pnnog
{ g 4 UNITED STATES 6o-Vsy y j j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.o. 2088H001 vo- vrc.
- \ ...../
October 25, 1996 l LICENSEE: Connonwealth Edison Company (Comed) f FACILITIES: Braidwood Station, Unit I and Byron Station, Unit 1 i
SUBJECT:
SUMARY OF A MEETING DISCUSSING THE TECHNICAL BASIS FOR
, COMED'S PENDING PROPOSAL TO DELETE THE BRAIDWOOD 1 MID-CYCLE STEAM GENERATOR EDDY CURRENT INSPECTION - OCTOBER 4, 1996 A meeting was held in Rockville, Maryland, on October 4,1996, between members
, of the NRC staff and representatives of the Commonwealth Edison Company j (Comed, the licensee) regarding a proposal by Comed to delete a Braidwood, a
Unit 1 mid-cycle steam generator (SG) eddy current inspection (ECI). A list 1
of attendees is provided in Enclosure 1. A copy of the material discussed at
- the meeting is provided in Enclosure 2.
?
- The staff had approved in its letter dated May 22, 1996, a prior request by i Comed to defer a mid-cycle SG ECI from July 1996 to a date no later than
. October 15, 1996. This ECI was to be conducted to determine the extent and severity of circumferential outer diameter stress corrosion cracking (ODSCC) in the Braidwood 1 SG tubes in the roll transition zone at the top of the 1 tubesheet. The date scheduled by Comed for the start of this ECI was 2
October 11, 1996. Subsequent to the issuance of the staff's letter cited above, Comed proposed in its letter dated August 2, 1996, to delete this
- Braidwood 1 mid-cycle ECI, thereby allowing this unit to operate without
- interruption to the end of the present fuel cycle in March 1997.
j Two previous meetings on this pt oposal were held in August 1996 and a request i for additional information (RAI) aas sent to the licensee on September 9,
- 1996. The licensee submitted a complete response to this RAI on September 24, i 1996. The staff then issued a second RAI on this matter in its letter dated
! October 3, 1996. The purpose of the subject meeting was to discuss the j licensee's responses to both the first and second RAls cited above.
! The staff stated at the baginning of this meeting that it had not had
! sufficient time to review the licensee's submittal dated September 24, 1996, and reach a conclusion regarding .he acceptability of Comed's poposal of 1 August 2, 1996. This position was originally transmitted to Comed by telephone on September 30, 1996, and subsequently documented in the staff's I
- letter dated October 3, 1996. i
) At the conclusion of the subject meeting, the staff again stated that while it still could not reath any concle, ion regarding the acceptability of the i proposed deletion of the Braidwood 1 mid-cycle ECI, it believed that the A
~4eting was useful in that it assi:;ted additional members of the staff in understanding the technical scis of Comed's pending proposal.
[fDI I I
i l
9610290255 961025 PDR ADOCK 05000454 G PDR !
{
1 Commonwealth Edison Company l l
In response to a Comed proposal to delay the mid-October Braidwood 1 ECI by four to six weeks to allow the staff additional review time, the staff responded that it had no basis to conclude that it could reach a favorable decision within the proposed extension. The staff reiterated i.ts prior estimate that it would be able to issue a third RAI on the pending proposal i prior to October 25, 1996. 1 At the end of the meeting, Comed informed the staff that it planned to ::ubmit by October 18, 1996, a proposal to delete the Byron 1 mid-cycle ECI which is presently scheduled for September 1997. This proposal would be based on the same methodology and database sup)orting the August 2,1996, proposal for Braidwood 1. Comed also stated t1at for reasons of scheduling' reactor outages in an orderly manner, it would request the staff to provide a decision on this fcrthcoming proposal by the end of November 1996.
Subsequent to this meeting, Comed started the Braidwood I mid-cycle ECI on October 11, 1996.
Original signed by:
M. David Lynch, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. STN 50-456, STN 50-454
Enclosures:
- 1. Attendance Sheet
- 2. Meeting Agenda cc w/encls: see next page
'Hard Conv: Docket File PUBLIC PDIII-2 r/f OGC, 015B18 ACRS, T2E26 E-Mail: F. Miralia, FJM A. Thadani, ACT R. Zimmerman, RPZ J. Roe, JWR E. Adensam, EGAl R. Capra, RACI M. D. Lynch, MDL R. Assa, RRA G. Dick, GFD C. Moore, ACM E. Jordan, JKR P. Rush, PJR1 T. Sullivan, EJS K. Karwoski, KJK1 K. Wichman, KRW '
S. Coffin, SMCI B. McCabe, BCM R. Lanksbury, RDL .
DOCUMENT NAME: BRAID-BY\BB1004.MTS To,eenive e espy of this eseumont indlease in the 1,om: "C" = Copy without enclosures *E" = Copy with enclosures *N" = No copy ,
OFFICE P fBL h-1 T LA:PDIII-2 m D:PDIII-2 le l l l NAME Dk91GMarh CM00RE q#FL RCAPRA e DATE 10&f>MF C/ 10/R'//96 O 10/25/96 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY !
l
Byron /Braidwood Power Stations cc:
Ms. I. Johnson Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Acting Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Services 1907 Stratford Lane Commonwealth Edison Company Rockford, Illinois 61107 l Executive Towers West III 1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 George L. Edgar Downers Gro u , Illinois 60515 Morgan, Lewis and Bochius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Mr. William P. Poirier, Director Washington, DC 20036 Westinghouse Electric Corporation <
Energy Systems Business Unit Ms. Bridget Little Rorem !
Post Office Box 355, Bay 236 West Appleseed Coordinator Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 117 North Linden Street Essex, Illinois 60935 ,
Joseph Gallo Gallo & Ross Attorney General 1250 Eye St., N.W. 500 South Second Street Suite 302 Springfield, Illinois 62701 l Washington, DC 20005 !
EIS Review Coordine.or i Michael I. Miller, Esquire U.S. EnvironmentrJ Protection Agency Sidley and Austin 77 W. Jackson Blvd.
One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Illinois Department of Howard A. Learner Nuclear Safety Environmental law and Policy Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Center of the Midwest 1035 Outer Park Drive 203 North LaSalle Street Springfield, Illinois 62704 Suite 1390 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Commonwealth Edison Company Byron Station Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4450 North German Church Road Byron Resident Inspectors Office Byron, Illinois 61010 4448 North German Church Road Byron, Illinois 61010-9750 Kenneth Graesser, Site Vice President Byron Station Regional Administrator, Region III Commonwealth Edison Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4450 N. German Church Road 801 Warrenville Road Byron, Illinois 61010 Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Lorraine Creek Braidwood Resident Inspectors Office Rt. 1, Box 182 Rural Route #1, Box 79 ,
Manteno, Illinois 60950 Braceville, Illinois 60407 Chairman, Ogle County Board Mr. Ron Stephens Post Office Box 357 Illinois Emergency Services ;
Oregon, Illinois 61061 and Disaster Agency '
110 East Adams Street Springfield, Illinois 62706 I
l t !
l l
l Chairman Will County Board of Supervisors Will County Board Courthouse Joliet, Illinois 60434 Commonwealth Edison Company Braidwood Station Manager Rt. 1, Box 84 Braceville, Illinois 60407 Document Control Desk-Licensing Commonwealth Edison Company l 1400 Opus Place, Suite 400 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 Mr. H. G. Stanley 1 Site Vice President l Braidwood Station Commonwealth Edison Company RR 1, Box 84 l Bracemille, IL 60407 l l
i 1
ATTENDANCE
. October 10,1996 Name Affiliation Telephone Dave Lynch NRC/NRR/DRPW/PDill-2 (301) 415-3023 Phillip Rush NRC/NRR/DE/EMCB (301) 415-2790 Ted Sullivan NRC/NRR/DE/EMCB (301) 415-3266 Ken Karwoski NRC/NRR/DE/EMCB (301) 415-2754 Keith Wichman NRC/NRR/DE/EMCB (301) 415-2757 Stephanie M. Coffin NRC/NRR/DE/EMCB (301) 415-2778 Roman Gesior Comed (630) 663-7671 Denise Saccamondo Comed /NLD (630) 663-7283 Ron Gamble Sartrex (301) 468-6403 Bob Keating Westinghouse (417) 722-5086 i
i ENCLOSURE 1
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - __ ___2
i Braidwood Unit 1 Cycle Length Assessment .
I i
i i
October 4,1996 ,
ENCLOSURE 2 r
9 Meeting Objectives
- Obtain NRC Concurrence to Change Comed Commitment for Braidwood 1 Operation to March 29,1997 (Additional 165 Days > ,
500 F)
Summarize the Technical Basis for Braidwood 1 Full Cycle Operation I
i l
l Agenda Meeting Objectives -
John Blomgren
- Background -
John Blomgren
- Conclusions -
John Blomgren
- Key Points -
John Blomgren .
- Technical Basis for Braidwood 1 -
Roman Gesior Full Cycle Operation
- Conclusions -
John Blomgren
- Schedule - Roman Gesior ,
I
_-_-_--_-____-_-_-__---__---_-___n
Background
- Braidwood Meeting (5/14/96) and Subsequent Submittal
- Approval for Operation to October 15,1996 (296 Days > 500oF)
- Byron Meeting (6/20/96)
- Basis for Full Cycle Operation of 448.5 Days > 500oF
- Comed August 2,1996 Submittal for Braidwood 1
- Justification for Full Cycle Operation (461 Days > 500oF)
- Comed September 10,1996 Submittal for Braidwood 1
- Three Distribution Approaches (POD, Look-Back, EOC)
- Response to Several RAI Questions
- Comed September 17 Submittal
- Response to Additional RAI Questions t
- Comed September 25 Submittal
. - Response to All 31 RAI Questions
Conclusions
~
Braidwood 1 Can Operate Full Cycle And Meet Tube Integrity Requirements
- Braidwood 1 EOC Distributions Have Been Evaluated Using the Guidelines in GL 95-05
~ Probability of Burst < 10-2 Leak Rate < Site Allowable Limit (26.8 gpm)
Key Points Technical Approach Consistent With the Guidelines in GL 95-05
- Conditional Probability of Failure for the EOC Distribution <10-2 Leak Rate is Less Than the Site Allowable Limit at 95% Confidence Level
- Sensitivity Study Performed to Assess Variations Associated With EOC Distribution, Burst Correlation, and Leak Rate Methods Site Allowable Leak Rate to be Increased for Defense in Depth Consistent With Guidelines in GL 95-05 Evaluation Demonstrates Braidwood Can Operate One Full Cycle and Maintain Margins Consistent With GL 95-05
9 Technical Basis For Braidwood 1 Cycle Length Distributions and Input Assumptions
- Evaluation Procedure Sensitivity Study /Results .
t Normalization and Coil Size Factors ,
i
- Growth Rate Evaluation
- Conclusions t
i t
i i
e
Distributions and Input ~
Assumptions l
Three Approaches Considered
- Probability of Detection (POD) Approach
- Look-Back Approach
- End-of-Cycle (EOC) Approach
~
i
/
Maximum Voltage EOC Distributions: POD, Look-Back, EOC Approaches 300 +
- EOC Acoroach Fractions of Tubes @ >2.1 Volts ,
~
250 -
128 Rp'd BYN Ind's 1994 +
Analyst Uncertainty = 0.3 V BYN 95 & 96 Lbk Probe Wear = 0.06 1186 Ind's
, 200 -
.8 -
3 -
Look Back Anoroach
~
, 23 Rp'd BWD Ind,s,10/95 + 4 Deterministic 150 .
j ', BYN 95 & 96 Lbk + BYN Growth Structural Limit
- l -
~
', 1082 Ind's '
100 -
l '
- l ', POD Acoroach 50
~
' 23 Rp'd BWD Ind's,10/95 + ,
l , POD + BYN Growth
- l 4 ,
92 Ind's .
~*
O h - #- 'T - ' --" - ' ' - - > ' ' " > ' > _ ' ' ' > - >' >-
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Maximum VoRage, Vous ,
I
~
Average Voltage EOC Distributions: POD, Look Back, and EOC Approaches 350 EOC Acoroach Fractions of Tubes @ > 1.1 Volts 300 .
128 Rp'd BYN Ind's 1994 + Analyst Uncertainty = 0.32
- BYN 95 & 96 Lbk Probe Wear = 0.06
- 1186 Ind's 250 -
S 200 -
y : Look Back Anoroach ti;
, 23 Rp'd BWD Ind's 10/95 +
$150 f ,
'pl BYN 95 & 96 Lbk + BYN Growth 1082 Ind's POD Acoroach s 23 Rp'd BWD Ind's 10/95 + .
'UU '
POD + BYN Growth
, 92 ind's 50 - , -
- . , 4 Deterministic Structural Limit g .' -__ __. _ _ < _ . _
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Average Voltage, Volts ,
h Distribution for Braidwood 1 Evaluation
- EOC Approach Selected Based on:
- Represents EOC-6 at Byron 1
- Byron 1 Operating Time at EOC-6 > Braidwood 1 at EOC-6 ;
- Byron & Braidwood Have Same Operating Experience, and Stress, Temperature and Material Conditions
- Distribution has Been Evaluated Extensively, and Minimizes Uncertainty Associated With the NDE Parameter and Growth Rate i
I l
1
e Distribution for Braidwood 1 Evaluation i
POD Approach Not Selected Because it Does Not Fully Address the Possibility of Inspection Transients Look-Back Approach Not Selected Because it Represents Two Full .
Operating Cycles to EOC-7 at Braidwood 1. This is Unnecessarily Conservative and not Representative of Service Experience at Byron and Braidwood i
Evaluation Procedure Based on the Guidelines in GL-95-05 >
Distribution From EOC Approach
- Leak Rate Evaluation
- Maximum Voltage
- LogLogistic POL (95% Confidence Level)
- Leak Rate for all Voltages = 0.16 gpm (max from leak tests)
Burst Margin Evaluation
- Conditional Probability < 10-2
- Maximum and Average Voltages
- Extended Industry Data Base
- Log Burst Pressure Fit (Best Fit, Valid Correlation, Covers Required Voltage Range)
I
r l
t 1
Figure 16 (9/24/96): Probability of Leak vs. Maximum ECT Amplitude t (Commonwealth Edison Data) ;
1.0 I
~
- / i a Test Data '
08- --
T__ _ T
- .intic Curve
.-- 95% Conf. on pol Curve -
/
i
/
/
[!
0.8
! }
O.7 l l '
i /
1 ' I j 0.6 l o
- l [ j
,b 0.5 1 -
.- l D - _ .._ _. --
si i
=
0.4 ~
/
/ _ .-
0.3 l /
l j
0.2 t'
/ / -
[
,/ '
0.1 '
/
}
L _ a foe --c O.10 1.00 10.00 l Maximum ECT Amplitude (Volts) '
i fcomodrInt1 dst PoLNmer . . . . . - . . + - * * *
. = . . .
Figure 8c: Burst Pressure vs. Maximum ECT Amplitude (Commonwealth Edison Data, LTL Flow Stress)
I 1.0 10.0 o Test Data 9.0 - -c\
o 3
= NOp. Censored ,
i
\ Regression Curve s N3 8.0 \ s ----95% Prediction Bound N N :
xW
- In Situ Test Pressures
^ s su g 7.0) s 3 x N \
li 6.0
_ 'N, N e
" x' x' a 5~0
- g _ 'N \
40 - '
r x x '
- w. . . .
'--s N N x_
3.0 s,
- ,'fN 2.0 s
'_ _N-
_ m l.0 e u
!D %
0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Maximum ECT Amplitude (V)
Conclusions:
- 1. Log Burst preasure vs. maximum vots provides best fit of burst data
- 2. Correlation of data satisfies NRC GL 95-05 "p" test 5% requirement
. Figure 8d: Burst Pressure vs. Average ECT Amplitude -
(Commonwealth Edison Data, LTL Flow Stress) i 1.0 10.0 o
= o Test Data 9.0 - b' . NOp. Censored o\
\-- Regression Curve 8.0 ,
\ "\ ----95% Prediction Bound 9 7.0 %% \
. In Situ Test Pressures 6
E 60 g ' -, . . N 5'0 u
_ N 's ,
N N
~
Ei N
CD 4.0
.a . 's w N s
3.0
'. ., s. N s .
2.0 T' ..>x .
1.0
._ d --
. __ __7 1
0.0 .
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Average ECT Amplitude (V)
Conclusions:
- 1. Log Burst pressure vs. average volts provides best fit of burst data
- 2. Correlation of data satisfies NRC GL 95-05 "p" test 5% requirement
Results EOC Distribution Approach
- Leak Rate Circ Ind's: 19.0 (LogLogistic 95% Confidence Level)
TSP ODSCC: 6.99 Unfaulted S/Gs: 0.3 Total: 26.3 gpm Conditional Probability of Burst
- Maximum Voltage = 5.2E-5
- Average Voltage = 1.1E-4
g.
l Sensitivity Study
- Distributions
- POD, Look-Back, EOC Approaches -
Leak Rate
- Probabilistic (95% Confidence LogLogistic) ;
- Deterministic ;
Threshold = 1.29 Volts Leak Rate Above Threshold = 0.16 gpm (max from leak tests) l
- Conditional Probability of Tube Burst l
- Log Burst Pressure Fit (Best, Valid Fit)
- Linear Fit (Second Best, Valid Fit) l n
Sensitivity Study-Max Volts Results for Approach Maximum Volts POD Look-Back EOC
..(EOC-6)_ _ . _ _(EOC-7) , .(EOC-6) .
Conditional Burst Probability Log (Pb) Fit 2.0E-6 4.4E-5 [5[55I5"[5T5}
Linear (Pb) Fit 3.9E-3 Leak Rate (gpm)
LogLogistic (95% Confidence) 12.0 36.3 !!@f][i857"))
Deterministic 10.5 15.5 11.5
==
Conclusions:==
- 1. Using EOC Approach Meets Probability of Burst and Leak Requirements
- 2. All Approaches Provide Similar Leak Rate Results
Sensitivity Study-Avg Volts .
- ^
r Approach ,
Results for :
Average Volts POD Look-Back EOC i (EOC-6) (EOC-7) .
(EOC-6) 1 Probability of Burst Log (Pb) Fit (PW= 0.06) 2.5E-5 8.3E-5 1.1E-4 i Linear (Pb) Fit (PW=0.06) 1.1E-2 Log (Pb) Fit (PW=0.075)
~
l['35Ei5dfl s._ . . . ,
Conclusions:
Probability of Burst Requirements are Satisfied i
s e
idv _
0 o r
P -
3 ,
t
' n
- e m
. ' s
. s e
s s
. A
. , 1 e .
it n
,g 5 U )
i s ta ,
2 d o
5 7
sl o 0 yo .
w (
r -
l aV '
d ia t o
c ne s B r
a Ag o t l r F o o nra - f n V d o
it oe .
. ' , e )y c sl e ivs ~
H Uer r 0
2 W sA .,
T st o ncC oepe iv ed r -
it z g n %
asi
.o izeS e a 0 r la1 io l
. ' 0 Rm .
.o 1 m 5.C r
o0 nu .
n e o Ndh
., P i om t i o i
t e ant g s ax ~
a a8 e za
~
~
~
5 i z lt o0 o 6.iv d i
l a V(
a M r
l c/. 1 m s, .,
mtnilsP r eos r
ri l
, s N
o feCen f
i CU oo #
0,*
t D P C NC o l
o oR P eh o o c .2 V T w"08 R gc a a .
0 g 0 5" n
an t t a a 0Co .-
' 1 1 i0s t D D _.
1 0 ofr Ud .n 0 i .
l l l
?
o5 l C
io io C
c *1 f 1 a ad n V1 1
l l 0 5 0 . e t g D1 a5 a io io '
8 o
.%** C 1 .
C C 0 1 a d 1 P 90 0 0 t
l l
ie0r R 1 d h
c h
c o
en i n i n f r
o f r
o
- e .. .
V F f f o"0 r e e ?. o s8 u a 0 5 '
s o 0 r
8 1 n) n) o 7, g0 0 1 U15 U86 istc 0 0 0 n n '
ya e i8 g l
m m o0 o0 aF h F0 l o o i
s - is - 5 n Anfo t
r s s o 0 f a
f r
a e
r pe e ep r .
0 ni t s t
a t
a go el S
9o el S o g. . ' ioce s rep o D D R( R( s r e
r Cols g e
+ o - enh
- *o '
Riot t f
a a o r
. ei ioz
." nlat a
- - - ~ - . _ _ - .- - - - . - - - - 0 UmR r
. o O
1 N2.
5 0 5 0 5 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 m~ o>
d.2oZ 2Oa u ggj aE Oz g> Cn o o* g23>
Figure 20: Correlation of 20 Volt to 10 Volt Normalization Data, 0.115 inch /20V Coil Data Adjusted by 0.75 Factor, Average & Maximum Voltage 2.0
~
D U .
> e Data from 0.080 inch Coil 5 -
+ 1.5 o Data From 0.115 inch Coil (20 Volt Data Adjusted by 0.75)
@ _ Regression Line for Data from 0.080 and 0.115 Coils (Slope - 0.51) 5 -
+
j -
o j1.0 b
go
_ i
- E c O 8 r g o g*
o eE ,
S _
o o o
- 3 _o*J o.
E3 0
, g' o,' o y -
, e c o, ' 3
,U oo o O O 0.0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
O.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Voltage for 10 Volt Normalization,100% TWH, Volts
Conclusion:
Linear Regression Analysis of 0.080" and adjusted (0.75) 0.115" RPC Data Provides the Same Normalization Correction Factors, this Indicates that the Coil Size Correction Factor of 0.75 is Correct
Growth Rates EOC Approach Does Not Require Application of Growth Rates
- Distribution Best Characterizes Braidwood 1 EOC-6 by Using Well Established Byron 1 EOC-6 Distribution Short Interval Growth Rates are not Applied t
- Short Operating Period Growth Rates are not Representative of Actual Degradation Over a Full Operating Cycle
- No Significant Change in Byron 1 Distribution as would be Expected from Growth Rates for the Short Interval ,
i i
- ll l ,-l;f 1 i> '!llll m<.rg5= o Mwa= Eu 3c3 <o ** y5= o t 3h3 GE. ~aK5 o um r
- .I .ge8 o U 3g ob i
- .',.g 5 8 CmD S-8 E 8. - U=D Ie o mw i, ,1*
4 y ob, c
w -
"=
~
n e ~
u q .
=
e r
F o m-'
L * ,
oa .~
^
o.o* ' .g s
,V
.,j o
f- - -
, . a. '
s, I l,
' /-
g 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
- 8 t.
1 1 1
1 0- 0- 0- 0-0- 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 j 1 Eu y w 0 r: . : g ,o<- -
oohCm5a. w 3.E.a o = aR$ _5 meg,n" O81r: x2@ oE2,[g a$ f o 5G Oa1r= $o 0gg, S.!
. *g4 Fa mt~ awn 6 G,E9 3lg -$ ro 1lll ltl l li I(;i l; l ,I ,I\l l: ll; I ! ,l ,i ; : l! i ! l;i l !l . l\\!ll
Evaluation of Byron Average Voltage Growth for Three Operating Periods 0.4
94 to 95,344 Days (685) 0.35 - ,
94 to 96. 44E Days (72)
- 95 to 96,104 Days (181) 0.3 -- j{
0.25 -
- !\
,3 .
& .? :1 s a :i 5 0.2 -- ' ;\
k
- o. ' i. Y,i. -
0.15 - -
5 k: 1.,
f liv t-I:
t 0.1 -- j
{
' \
0.05 -- -
/ .
O NP' ^ ' ' ' ' '
~
, . t" .
DA P 8 2 8 8 8 R 8 8 % 8 8 ? 8 2 8 8 % 8 8 R 8 8 8 9 8 8 4 4 4 6 6 6 o 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 Average Volts Growth, detta Volts /EFPY
Conclusion:
Significant Difference in the Short Cycle Growth Rate Distribution Compared to the Growth Rate Distributions Obtained from Full Cycle Operation 10/3,96 T-3B ris
Byron Unit 1 1996 & 1995 Indications in Service Since 1994 0.3
- ----- 1995 Inds Present in 1994,344 Days (689) 1996 Inds Present in 1994,448 Days (75) 0.25 - -
0.2 -
I 0.15 - !
E :
- u. :
0.1 - I
'~.,
~
0.05 - : '.
..~~..
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Maximum Voltage, volts
Conclusions:
No Significant Difference in Size of Indications Present from 1994 - 1995 Compared to 1994 - l396. This Indicates that Full Cycle Growth Rates are Appropriate for a Full Operating Cycle VIRGRWTH.XLS
Byron Unit 1 1996 & 1995 Indications in Service Since 1994 0.3
1995 Irxfs Present in 1994,344 Days (689) 0.25 - , 1996 Irxfs Present in 1994. 448 Days (75)
.- ~.,
~.
0.2 -- -
5 '.
g .
s 0.15 -- '.
~ : '
- +
0.1 -
l .
l .
0.05 - -
~
g'.,
~
O : ; ---
--m 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 Average Voltage, volts
Conclusions:
No Significant Difference in Size of Indications Present from 1994 - 1995 Compared to 1994 - 1996. This Indicates that Full Cycle Growth Rates are Appropriate for a Full Operating Cycle VIRGRWTH.XLS ,
. _ _ _ - - . . _ - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - - _ - - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - -
Conclusions Braidwood 1 Can Operate Full Cycle And Meet Tube Integrity Requirements
- Braidwood 1 EOC Distribution Have Been Evaluated Using the Guidelines in GL 95-05 Probability of Burst < 10-2 Leak Rate < Site Allowable Limit (26.8 gpm) 0 l
Schedule Byron Unit 1 Extended Cycle -
October 18,1996 Length Assessment (600 Days)
Report .
6 NRC Approval of Byron Unit 1 -
November 15,199I Extended Cycle Length '
1 t