Steam Generator In Situ Pressure Test Guidelines, Revision 3 · Steam Generator In Situ Pressure...

Steam Generator In Situ PressureTest Guidelines, Revision 31014983

(Non-Proprietary Version)

Final Report, August 2007

EPRI Project ManagerH. Cothron

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 - USA

800.313.3774 - 650.855.2121 • [email protected] • www.epd.com

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS ANACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCHINSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THEORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, ORSIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESSFOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (11) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON ORINTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUALPROPERTY, OR (111) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'SCIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVEHAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOURSELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

AREVA NP, an AREVA and Siemens Company

Westinghouse Electric Company

NOTE

For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistancee-mail [email protected].

Center at 800.313.3774 or

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER.. SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITYare registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright © 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

CITATIONS

This report was prepared by

AREVA NP, an AREVA and Siemens CompanyP.O. Box 10935Lynchburg, VA 24506

Principal InvestigatorJ. Begley

Westinghouse Electric CompanyP. 0. Box 355Pittsburgh, PA 15230

Principal InvestigatorT. Pitterle

And the Engineering and Regulatory Issues Resolution Group, In Situ Guidelines Subcommittee

Members of the Subcommittee:Joe Mathew, Chairman, Omaha Public Power DistrictJohn Arhar, Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyBrent Dunn, Dominion GenerationDan Meatheany, EntergyBill Moore, Southern NuclearDan Sicking, South Texas Project

This report describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

This report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:

Steam Generator In Situ Pressure Test Guidelines, Revision 3. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 20071014983.

iii

REPORT SUMMARY

Information in this document provides guidance for the performance of in situ pressure testing ofsteam generator tubes. In situ pressure testing refers to hydrostatic pressure tests performed oninstalled tubing in the field. Such testing is considered a direct means of evaluating tubestructure and leakage integrity. In situ pressure testing can be used to support conditionmonitoring of steam generator tube integrity.

This is a required document for a steam generator program developed in accordance with NEI97-06 and is reviewed for update every two years.

BackgroundDegradation of steam generator tubing can lead to a decrease in the load bearing capacity of thetubes and may compromise pressure boundary leak tightness. When such degradation is foundduring steam generator inspections, evaluations are performed to ensure that required structuralmargins are maintained and that leakage, if it occurs during normal operation or during designbasis accident events, remains within allowable limits. Structural integrity and leak rateevaluations may be based on in situ proof and/or leak testing of tubing sections with eddy currentindications of degradation. Since this testing allows for the direct measurement of structural andleakage conditions, the results provide a key element in the assessment of steam generator tubingstructure and leakage integrity.

Objectives" To document standard approaches and to provide requirements for the performance of in situ

pressurization tests and the application of this test data. This document summarizes industrypractices used successfully in the field via a recommended test protocol. Standardization willpromote industry-wide consistency in test performance and the application of the results.

• To supplement the condition monitoring process as required by NEI 97-06, Steam GeneratorProgram Guidelines and described in the EPRI Steam Generator Integrity AssessmentGuidelines.

Results

This document includes information regarding tooling qualification, testing procedures, and theselection of tubes for testing. Appendices of this document provide details for a statisticalapproach for a selection of tubes for testing and supporting data for technical sections. Two U.S.steam generator vendors contributed to this document. Additionally, a number of utilitypersonnel who have used in situ pressure testing provided information in support of thedocument.

A!

EPRI Perspective

Condition monitoring of steam generator tubing during a plant outage is a requirement of NEI97-06. The application of in situ pressure test results is a useful tool in satisfying therequirements of condition monitoring of steam generator tube integrity. The publication of thisdocument represents the best industry practices to date, and later revisions are expected asexperience is gained through the use of this document.

KeywordsNuclear steam generatorsPressure testsCondition monitoring

1A

ABSTRACT

A group of industry experts in structural and leakage integrity of steam generator tubingdeveloped guidance for integrity verification by in situ pressure test. This document, togetherwith the EPRI Steam Generator Integrity Assessment Guidelines [2], provide the tools forcompliance with program elements contained in NEI 97-06, Steam Generator ProgramGuidelines [1]. This document contains requirements and guidance on test objectives, testconditions, post-test requirements, procedural specifications, and degradation form screeningcriteria for proof and leak testing. This revision has included the guidance in Interim GuidanceLetter SMGP-IG-04-002, Interim Guidance on EPRI SG In Situ Pressure Test Guidelines,Revision 2, Chapter 10.

vii

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTIO N .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Purpose ..................................................................... ............................................... 1-2

2 PROOF AND LEAK TEST O BJECTIVES ............................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Required Test Objectives ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Optional Test Objectives ............................................................................................ 2-2

3 COM PLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Managem ent Responsibilities .................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 Specific Management Responsibilities ............................. 3-2

3.3 Engineering Responsibilities ...................................................................................... 3-2

3.4 NDE Considerations .................................................................................................. 3-3

4 SCREENING PARAMETERS/TUBE SELECTION .......................................................... 4-1

4.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Nom enclature ............................................................................................................ 4-2

4.3 General Requirem ents ................................................................................................ 4-3

4.4 Guidance on Tube Selection for Proof Testing ........................................................... 4-3

4.4.1 Guidance on Tube Selection When Sizing Capabilities are Quantified .............. 4-3

4.4.1.1 Axial Defects ..................................................... ; ......................................... 4-4

4.4.1.2 Circumferential defects ................................................................................ 4-6

4.4.1.3 Volumetric defects ............................................ ........................................... 4-7

4.4.2 Guidance on Tube Selection for When Sizing Capabilities are notQuantified ...................................................................................................................... 4-9

4.4.2.1 Axial Defects ............................................................................................. 4-10

4.4.2.2 Circumferential Cracks .............................................................................. 4-11

4.4.3 Alternative Screening Methodology for Proof and Leak Testing ....................... 4-12

ix

4.5 Leak test screening criteria for techniques with and without quantified sizingtechniques ........................................................................................ 4-12

4.6 Mixed Mode Defects - Guidelines for Selecting Flaws for Proof and LeakTesting ............................................................................................ 4-174.7 Test Results................................................................................ 4-18

5 IN SITU TEST DEFINITIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS ........................................... 5-1

5.1 Definitions................................................................................ ... 5-1

5.1.1 Design Basis Accident Conditions Test Pressures ........................... ..... 5-1

5.1.2 Elevated Test Pressure .............................................................. 5-2

5.1.3 Intermediate Leak Test Pressure.................................................... 5-1

5.1.4 Intermediate Proof Test Pressure .................................................... 5-2

5.1.5 LeakTest .............................................................................. 5-2

5.1.6 Normal Operating Differential Pressure............................................ 5-2

5.1.7 Proof Test Pressure.................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.1.8 Proof Test ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.1.9g Quantified Sizing ..................................................................... 5-3

5.1 .10 Test Pressures ......................................................................... 5-3

5.2 Test Pressure Adjustments ................................................................. 5-3

5.2.1 Temperature Correction .............................................................. 5-2

5.2.2 Instrumentation Uncertainty Correction............................................. 5-3

5.2.3 Locked Tube Correction.............................................................. 5-3

5.2.4 Head Loss Correction ................................................................ 5-3

5.2.5 Leak Rate Correction................................................................. 5-4

5.2.6 Material Properties ................................................................... 5-4

5.2.7 Bladder Corrections .................................................................. 5-4

6 TEST PROCEDURE................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Procedural Requirements.................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Post-Test Actions ........................................................................... 6-4

7 DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING.......................................................... 7-1

8 EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND TOOL QUALIFICATION ........... 8-1

8.1 Equipment Specifications................................................................... 8-1

8.2 Tool Qualification ........................................................................... 8-2

X

8.3 Additional Considerations .......................................................................................... 8-3

9 ADJUSTMENTS OF IN SITU PRESSURE TESTING AND LEAK RATEPARAMETERS ....................................................................................................................... 9-1

9 .1 Intro d u ctio n ................................................................................................................ 9 -1

9.2 Adjustments for Temperature Effects ......................................................................... 9-1

9.3 Adjustments for Non-Pressure Loads for Circumferential Degradation ....................... 9-2

9.3.1 Structural Integrity .............................................................................................. 9-2

9.3.2 Leakage Integrity ................................................................................................ 9-4

9.4 Adjustment of In Situ Measured Leak Rates .............................................................. 9-5

9.4.1 Circumferential Cracks ................................................................................... 9-7

9.4.2 Axial Cracks ....................................................................................................... 9-8

9.5 Example In Situ Adjustments ................................................................................... 9-10

10 REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 10-1

11 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 11-1

A APPENDIX A: STATISTICAL APPROACH TO IN SITU TEST SELECTION ................. A-1

A .1 Intro d u ctio n ............................................................................................................... A -1

A.2 Tube Selection for Proof Testing ............................................................................ A-1

A.3 Tube Selection for Leakage Testing ......................................................................... A-5

A.4 In Situ Candidate Selection .................................................................................. A-5

B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL BASIS FOR VOLTAGE AS SCREENING PARAMETER ...... B-1

B.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... B-1

B.2 Summary of Voltage Screening Values ................................................................. B-1

B.3 Methods for Developing Voltage Screening Values ................................................... B-6

B.3.1 Approach .......................................................................................................... B-6

B.3.2 Voltage Screening Parameters from Prior In Situ Test and/or DestructiveExam Results ................................................................................................................ B-6

B.3.3 Maximum Depth versus Voltage Correlation .................................................... B-7

B.3.4 Lower Bound Voltages for Screening Indications for Pressure Testing ............. B-8

B.3.5 Probe and Voltage Normalization Requirements .............................................. B-9

B.4 Voltage Parameters for Axial PW SCC Indications ................................................. B-10

B.4.1 Database ................................................................................................... B-10

B.4.2 Maximum Depth to +Point Voltage Correlation and Parameters .................. B-10

xi

B.4.3 Voltage Screening Parameters from Prior In Situ Test Results ................... B-i 1

B.4.3.1 Axial PWSCC in Hardroll Expansion Transitions .................................. B-11

B.4.3.2 Axial PWSCC in Explosive and Hydraulic Expansion Transitions ......... B-i 1

B.4.3.3 Axial PWSCC at Dented TSP and Eggcrate Intersections ........................ B-12

B.4.3.4 Axial PWSCC in U-Bends .................................................................... B-12

B .4 .4 S um m ary .................................................................................................. . . B -13

B.5 Voltage Parameters for Axial ODSCC Indications ................................................... B-28

B .5 .1 D ata ba se ........................................................................................................ B -2 8

B.5.2 Maximum Depth to +Point Voltage Correlation and Parameters ..................... B-28

B.5.3 Voltage Screening Parameters from Prior In Situ Test Results ....................... B-28

B.5.3.1 Axial ODSCC at Eggcrate Intersections ................................................... B-28

B.5.3.2 Freespan Axial ODSCC in Westinghouse SGs ........................................ B-29

B.5.3.3 Freespan Axial ODSCC in CE SGs .......................................................... B-30

B.5.3.4 Freespan Axial ODSCC in OTSGs ........................................................... B-30

B .5.3.5 Axial O DSC C in D ings ............................................................................. B-31

B.5.3.6 OTSG SG Freespan and Tubesheet Volumetric OD Indications(P robable O D IG A ) ................................................................................................. B -3 1

B.5.3.7 Axial ODSCC in Sludge Pile .................................................................... B-32

B.5.3.8 Axial ODSCC in Hardroll and Explosive Expansion Transitions ............... B-32

B.5.3.9 Axial ODSCC in U-Bends ......................................................................... B-32

B.5.3.10. Axial ODSCC at OTSG Tube Supports ................................................. B-32

B .5 .4 S um m ary ........................................................................................................ B -33

B.6 Voltage Parameters for Circumferential PWSCC Indications .................................. B-69

B .6 .1 D ata base ........................................................................................................ B -6 9



B.6.3.1 Circumferential PWSCC in Explosive Expansions .................................... B-69

B.6.3.2 Circumferential PWSCC in Hardroll Expansions ...................................... B-70

B.6.3.3 Circumferential PWSCC in U-Bends ........................................................ B-70

B .6 .4 S um m ary ........................................................................................................ B -7 1

B.7 Voltage Parameters for Circumferential ODSCC Indications ................................... b-77

B.7.1 Database ................................................ B-77



B.7.3.1 Circumferential ODSCC in Hardroll Expansions ....................................... B-78

xii

B.7.3.2 Circumferential ODSCC in Explosive Expansions .................................... B-79

B.7.3.3 Circumferential ODSCC in U-Bends ......................................................... B-80

B .7 .4 S um m a ry ........................................................................................................ B -80

B.8 Volumetric Indications ....................................... .... B-91

B .8 .1 A pproa ch ........................................................................................................ B -9 1

B .8 .2 P ittin g ............................................................................................................. B -9 1

B .8.3 C old Leg T hinning .......................................................................................... B-91

B.8.4 Wear at TSP Intersections and AVB/Straps .................................................... B-92

B .8 .5 S um m ary ........................................................................................................ B -93

B.9 Maximum Depth and +Point Voltage Data ............................................................. B-110

B.10 Voltage Ratios Between Coils and Tube Sizes ............................................. B-124

B .10 .1 O bjectives ................................................................................................ B -124

B.10.2 Ratio of +Point to 115 PC Voltages for Various Tube Sizes ................. B-124

B.10.3 Ratios +Point Voltages Between Westinghouse and CE SG Sizes ..... B-125

B. 10.4 Ratios of +Point Voltages between Westinghouse SG Sizes ..................... B-126

B.10.5 Voltage Dependence on Throughwall Notch Length and Width ................. B-126

B.10.6 Voltage Ratios for OTSG Volumetric Indications ...................................... B-126

C APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL BASIS FOR IN SITU PRESSURE TEST SCREENING

PARAMETERS WHEN NDE SIZING IS NOT QUANTIFIED ....................... C-1

C .1 Introd uction ................................................................................................... . . C -1

C.2 General Methods for Ranking and Selection of Indications for In SituP ressure T esting ................................................................................................................ C -2

C .2.1 Issues to be A ddressed .................................................................................... C-2

C.2.2 Ranking and Selection of Indications for Pressure Testing ............................... C-3

C .3 Initial Screening Param eters ................................................................................ C-4

C.3.1 Throughwall Length as Initial Screen for Pressure Testing ............................... C-4

C.3.2 Requirements for Calculating Throughwall Length Limits ................................. C-4

C.3.3 Lower Bound Voltage Screening Values for Pressure Testing ............ C-5

C.4 Calculation of Ranking Factors .......................................................................... C-5

C.4.1 NDE Sizing Uncertainty Considerations ....................................................... C-5

C.4.2 Calculation of Relative Ranking Factors ...................................................... C-5

C .4.2.1 A xial Indications ......................................................................................... C -6

C .4.2.2 C ircum ferential Indications ......................................................................... C-6

C .4.3 V alidation of M ethods ....................................................................................... C -7

xiii

C.4.4 Consistency in Analyses for Indications being Evaluated and PreviouslyTested Indications ......................................................................................................... C-7

C.5 Selection of Indications for In Situ Testing With or Without Prior Test Results ...... C-7

C.5.1 Combined Ranking of New Indications and Prior Test Results ......................... C-7

C.5.2 Selection of Indications for Testing ................................................................... C-8

C.6 Expansion of In Situ Test Sample Size when One or More Indications Failthe P ressure T e st ............................................................................................................... C -8

C.6.1 Applicability of In Situ Testing Expansion Guidelines .................................... C-8

C.6.2 Expansion Guidelines ................................................................................... C-8

C.7 Methods Validation for Selection of Indications for In Situ Testing .................... C-9

C.7.1 Relative Burst Pressure Ranking Sensitivity to NDE Uncertainties ............... C-9

C.7.2 Axial PW SCC NDE Sizing Evaluation for In Situ Testing ................................ C-10

C.7.3 Axial ODSCC NDE Sizing Evaluation for In Situ Testing ........................... C-11

C.7.4 Circumferential ODSCC NDE Sizing Evaluation for In Situ Testing ................ C-12

C.7.4.1 Explosive Expansions .............................................................................. C-12

C.7.4.2 Hardroll Expansions Data from EPRI Circumferential Crack Report ......... C-12

C.7.4.3 Analysis using data from ETSS 21410.1, Rev. 0 .................................. C-14

C.7.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................... C-14

C.8 Example Rankings Based Upon Available In Situ and Destructive Exam TestR e s u lts ........................................................................................................................... C -3 1

C.8.1 Hardroll Circumferential ODSCC .................................................................... C-31

C.8.2 Axial ODSCC at Eggcrate Intersections ......................................................... C-32

C.9 Technical Basis for Applying Maximum/Average Depth Ratio ............................. C-38

D APPENDIX D - INDICATIONS EXEMPT FROM IN SITU TESTING ................................... D-1

D .1 Intro d u ctio n .......................................................................................................... D -1

D.2 Tubesheet Region ................................................................................................ D-2

D.2.1 Proof Testing .............................................. D-2

D.2.2 Leak Testing ..................................................................................................... D-2

D.3 Drilled Tubes Support Plate (TSP) Region ........................................................... D-3

D.3.1 Proof Testing .................................................................................................... D-3

D.3.2 Leak Testing ..................................................................................................... D-4

D.4 Leak Limiting Sleeves .......................................................................................... D-5

D .5 T ube E nd s ............................................................................................................ D -5

D .6 T ube P lug s ........................................................................................................... D -5

D .7 P ittin g ................................................................................................................... D -5

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1 In situ Proof Test Flowchart for Axial, Circumferential, and Volumetric Flaws ....... 4-19

Figure 4-2 In situ Leak Test Flowchart for Axial, Circumferential, and Volumetric Flaws ........ 4-20

Figure 9-1 Calculated and Measured Leak Rates (at Room Temperature Density) forAxial Cracks in Alloy 600 Tubing at Normal Operating Conditions .................................. 9-14

Figure 9-2 Calculated and Measured Leak Rates (at Room Temperature Dentity) forAxial Cracks in Alloy 600 Tubing at SLB Conditions ....................................................... 9-15

Figure A-1 Through-wall Axial Crack ...................................................................................... A-2

Figure A-2 Condition Monitoring Throughwall Crack Burst Acceptance Limit .......................... A-8

Figure B-1 Axial PWSCC: Maximum Depth Versus Maximum +Point Volts ........................ B-26

Figure B-2 Axial PWSCC: Destructive Exam Max. Depth as Funtion of Max +Point Volts .... B-27

Figure B-3 Axial ODSCC All Data ........................................................................................ B-66

Figure B-4 Axial ODSCC CE Data ....................................................................................... B-67

Figure B-5 Westinghouse Axial ODSCC Data ...................................................................... B-67

Figure B-6 W SG Axial ODSCC ........................................................................................... B-68

Figure B-7 Circ. Dent & Explosive Exp. ODSCC ................................................................... B-89

Figure B-8 Circ. Dent & Explosive Exp. ODSCC: Destructive Exam .................................... B-89

Figure B-9 Circ. Hardroll ODSCC ......................................... B-90

Figure B-10 Circ. Hardroll ODSCC: Pulled Tube Destructive Exam ..................................... B-90

F ig ure B -11 P itting ............................................................................................................. B -106

Figure B-12 Cold Leg Thinning ...................................................................................... B-107

Figure B-13 Wear at Tube Supports and AVB/Straps ................................................... B-108

Figure B-1 4 Wear at Tube Supports and AVB/Straps ........................................................ B-1 09

Figure C-1 Axial PWSCC Maximum to Average Depth Ratio - Burst Effective Data ............ C-38

Figure C-2 Axial ODSCC Maximum to Average Depth Ratio - Burst Effective AverageD e p th .................................................................. .............................. ........................... C -3 9

Xv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1 Degradation Specific Voltage Values ..................................................................... 4-14

Table 9-1 Ratio of Flow Strength at Room Temperature to Flow Strength at ElevatedT e m pe ra ture ................................................................................................................. 9-12

Table 9-2 Saturated Liquid Density ........................................................................................ 9-13

Table A-1 TW Axial Cracks Analysis Input Data Length, Normalized Bursh Relation &Strength U ncertainty Inform ation ..................................................................................... A-6

Table A-2 Monte Carlo Analysis of Throughwall Cracks in SG Tubes - Sample ResultsFirst Thirteen Simulations, Indicated length = 0.500" ...................................................... A-7

Table B-1 Summary of Voltage Threshold Parameters for Leak Testing (Note:extensive changes not marked as changes) .................................................................... B-2

Table B-2 Axial PWSCC in Hardroll Expansion Transitions: +Point Threshold VoltageEvaluation DE Data from Tube Exam Reports, NDE from EPRI SGDD Databaseand W estinghouse In Situ Test Records ....................................................................... B-14

Table B-3 Explosive and Hydraulic Expansion Axial PWSCC: +Point Threshold VoltageEvaluation Data from EPRI SGDD Database, 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100%E D M A x ia l S lot .............................................................................................................. B -17

Table B-4 Axial PWSCC at Dented TSP and Eggcrate Intersections: +Point ThresholdVoltage Evaluation Data from EPRI SCDD Database and [8], 300 kHz, Volts Cal20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot ..................................................................................... B-19

Table B-5 U-Bend Axial PWSCC: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation - Data fromEPRI SGDD Database, 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot .................... B-24

Table B-6 Eggcrate Axial ODSCC CE SG's: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation -Data from EPRI SGDD Database and Supplemental ANO-2 Analyses, Volts Cal20V for 100% ED M Axial Slot ........................................................................................ B-34

Table B-7 Freespan Axial ODSCC in Westinghouse SGs: +Point Threshold VoltageEvaluation - Data from EPRI SGDD Database and [16], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for100% E D M A xial S lot ................................................. I .................................................. B -38

Table B-8 Freespan Axial ODSCC in CE SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database and Pulled Tube Data from Westinghouse Files) .... B-42

Table B-9 Freespan Axial ODSCC OTSG SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation (InSitu and NDE Data from Framatome and Pulled Tube Data from [19] ) ......................... B-47

Table B-10 Ding Axial ODSCC: +Point Voltage Evaluation (DE Data from WestinghouseReport SG-99-03-005; Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses OTSG Data (5/8"O D ) from Fram atom e ) .................................................................................................. B-54

Table B-11 OTSG SG Freespan and Tubesheet Volumetric OD Indications (ProbableOD IGA): +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation (In Situ and NDE Data fromF ra m ato m e ) ................................................................................................................. B -57

xvii

Introduction

Table B-1 2 Sludge Pile Axial ODSCC W and CE SGs: +Point Threshold VoltageEvaluation (Data from EPRI SGDD Database [8] and Westinghouse Files, 300kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot) ............................................................... B-62

Table B-13 Expansion Transition and U-bend Axial ODSCC: +Point Threshold Voltage(Data from EPRI SGDD Database [8], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM AxialS lo t) .............................................................................................................................. B -6 5

Table B-14 OTSG Axial OD Indications at Tube Supports: +Point Threshold VoltageEvaluation (In Situ and NDE Data from Framatome ) .................................................... B-66

Table B-15 Explosive Expansion Circumferential PWSCC: +Point Threshold VoltageEvaluation (Data from EPRI SGDD Database [8] and [11], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20Vfor 100% E D M A xial S lot) .............................................................................................. B-72

Table B-16 U-Bend Circumferential PWSCC Westinghouse SGs: +Point ThresholdVoltage Evaluation (Data from EPRI SGDD Database [8], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20Vfor 100% E D M A xial S lot) .............................................................................................. B-73

Table B-1 7 Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: +Point Threshold VoltageEvaluation (Data from EPRI TR-107197-P2, Table G-1 1 and EPRI SGDDD a ta b a se ) ..................................................................................................................... B -8 1

Table B-18 Explosive Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: +Point Threshold VoltageEvaluation (Data from EPRI SGDD Database and [11], Volts Cal 20V for 100%E D M A xia l S lo t) ............................................................................................................. B -8 7

Table B-19 Pitting: Bobbin Coil Voltage Threshold Evaluation (DE Data from EPRIETSS 96005.2, Rev. 5; Bobbin Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses) ....................... B-94

Table B-20 Bobbin Coil Cold Leg Thinning: 7/8" Tube Diameter, 0.050" Wall(Westinghouse DE and NDE Data from [20]; Bobbin Voltages with Sludge in TSPC re v ice s ) ...................................................................................................................... B -9 6

Table B-21 Bobbin Coil Wear at AVB/Straps and Tube Supports (DE Data from EPRIETSS 96004.1, Rev. 7; Differential Bobbin Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses ).. B-1 00

Table B-22 Bobbin Coil Wear at AVB/Straps and Tube Supports (DE Data from EPRIETSS 96004.2, Rev. 7; Absolute Bobbin Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses) ........ B103

Table B-23 Axial PWSCC Database for Maximum Depth and +Point Volts .................... B-110

Table B-24 Axial ODSCC Database for Maximum Depth and +Point Volts ........................ B-1 14Table B-25 Circumferential ODSCC +Point Maximum Volts and Destructive Exam Data .. B-122Table B-26 Ratios of +Point Voltages Between Tube Sizes and Ratios of +Point to 115

Pancake Coil Voltages for Various Tube Sizes ...................................................... B-127

Table B-27 Ratio of +Point to 115 Pancake Voltages as Functions of Length and Depth... B-128

Table B-28 115 PC and +Point Voltage Dependence on Notch Width (7/8" DiameterT ube, N otch 100% TW ) .............................................................................................. 129

Table B-29 OTSG 080 PC, 115 PC and +Point Voltage Dependence on Depth forVolumetric Indications (5/8" Diameter Tube, ASME Cal Std Holes) ............................. B-129

Table B-30 Summary of +Point Voltage Ratios Between Tube Sizes and Pancake Coils ... B-130Table C-1 Relative Burst Pressure Ranking Sensitivity to NDE Uncertainties .................. C-15Table C-2 Axial PWSCC at Dented Eggcrate Intersections: Methods Evaluation for In

Situ Test Selection Data from [22]. +Point Data for 600 mil coil, 0.4 ips, 300 kHz,Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot .................................................................... C-16

XVi"l

Introduction

Table C-3 Axial PWSCC at Dented Eggcrate Intersections: Methods EvaluationAssuming In Situ Test Failure Data from [22]. +Point Data for 600 mil coil, 0.4 ips,300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot .......................................................... C-17

Table C-4 Axial ODSCC at Eggcrate Intersections: Methods Evaluation for In Situ TestSelection Data from EPRI SGDD Database and Sizing Performed for ANO-2 1/99and 11/99 O utages ........................................................................................................ C -19

Table C-5 Explosive Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: Methods Evaluation for In SituTest Selection Data from EPRI Report TR-107197-P2 [11] ........................................ C-22

Table C-6 Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: Methods Evaluation for In SituTesting with Burst Test Failure Data from EPRI Report TR-107197-P2 [11] ................ C-24

Table C-7 Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: Methods Evaluation for In SituTesting with No Burst Test Failure Data from EPRI Report TR-107197-P2 [11] .......... C-27

Table C-8 Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: In Situ Evaluation Based onETSS Data Pulled Tube Data from EPRI ETSS 21410.1, Rev. 0 .................................. C-30

Table C-9 Circumferential ODSCC Pulled Tube, Lab and In Situ Leak Test Data Datafrom EPRI TR-107197-P2, Table G-11, EPRI SGDD Database and ETSS 21410.1,R e v . 0 ........................................................................................................................... C -3 3

xix

IINTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Degradation of steam generator tubing can lead to decreases in load bearing capacity and maycompromise pressure boundary leak tightness. When such degradation is observed, evaluationsare performed to ensure that required structural margins are maintained and that leak rates,should leakage occur, will remain within allowable limits. Structural integrity and leak rateevaluations may be based on one or more of the following elements:" Non-destructive examination (NDE) results, such as eddy current, plus analytical/semi-

empirical calculations of burst pressures and leak rates

" Laboratory burst and leak tests of pulled tubes with service-induced degradation

" In situ leak and/or proof testing of sections of tubing with eddy current indications ofdegradation

Historically, some combination of the first two elements, inspection plus analysis and pulled tubeexaminations has formed the basis for structural integrity and leak rate evaluations. Testing oftubes removed from the steam generator provides an informative option with some uncertaintydue to tube damage from the pulling operation. However, pulled tube examinations areexpensive in terms of time, money and radiation exposure. Using eddy current inspection resultsto characterize the geometry of tube degradation coupled with analytical/semi-empiricalcalculations of burst pressures and leak rates is an economic, reliable option, but consideration ofthe uncertainties in sizing degraded regions can lead to overly conservative assessments of theseverity of the detected degradation.

Since 1993, in situ pressure testing has been widely used in support of structural integrity andleak rate evaluations. In situ pressure testing refers to hydrostatic pressure tests performed oninstalled tubing in the field. The purpose of these tests is to demonstrate that the selected tubessatisfy specified structural and accident-induced leak rate performance criteria. For example, insitu testing has been used by many utilities to verify structural margins in instances where flawNDE parameters have approached or exceeded minimum structural integrity threshold values(reduced for uncertainty). In situ pressure testing may be required to support the conditionmonitoring and operational assessment requirements of NEI 97-06, Steam Generator ProgramGuidelines [1].

The benefits of direct evaluation of the strength and leak rate properties of degraded sections oftubing can be realized with in situ testing. In situ testing allows for the measurement ofstructural and leakage margin without the inherent cost, schedule and potential uncertaintiesassociated with pulling tubes for laboratory testing. For example, there has been documented

1-1

Introduction

evidence that the tube pulling operation can further degrade the flaw of interest (particularly ifthe flaw is circumferential in orientation) thereby introducing suspect leak and burst information.Additionally, pulled tube activities and subsequent laboratory time typically do not provide realtime information to the user. As such, in situ testing has become a key element in the conditionmonitoring and operational assessment process.

The scope of this guideline includes tooling qualification, testing procedures, and informationregarding the documentation and analysis of test results. This document also provides detailedprotocols for the selection of tubes with various forms of degradation for in situ testing. Finally,the in situ testing guidelines, presented herein, are intended to complement the EPRI guidelinesfor laboratory burst and leak rate testing of steam generator tubing [3]. As such, the field testdata may be used to support existing and future burst and leakage correlations.

1.2 Purpose

This document provides guidance and requirements for: (1) the conduct of in situ pressurizationtests (2) the selection of steam generator tubes for structural integrity verification (3) theselection of tubes for in situ leak testing when leakage is present or has the potential to developduring normal operating or accident conditions and (4) engineering assessment of in situ resultsincluding necessary adjustments to relate room temperature test data with operating and accidentconditions.

The information from in situ pressure testing is intended to support condition monitoring andoperational assessments as required by NEI 97-06 [1] and described in the EPRI SteamGenerator Integrity Assessment Guidelines [2]. The guidance provided in this document isexperience-based, in that the protocol and desired output are achievable with availabletechnology.

Utilities may deviate from specific requirements of this document by providing a documentedtechnical justification in accordance with the Steam Generator Management ProgramAdministrative Procedures [4] for each deviation.

1-2

2PROOF AND LEAK TEST OBJECTIVES

NEI 97-06, Steam Generator Program Guidelines [1], requires that the utility assess tubeintegrity after each steam generator inspection. The purpose of the assessment is to ensure thatthe performance criteria for structural and leakage integrity have been met for the previousoperating period (e.g., condition monitoring) and will continue to be met for the next operatingperiod (e.g., operational assessment). Meeting the structural limit criteria generally involvesdemonstrating that the burst pressure for the degraded tube meets a specified value containing adefined safety margin. In situ pressure testing to demonstrate structural integrity is referred to inthis document as "proof testing." Satisfying leakage criteria requires demonstrating that the totalleakage from all tubes with flaws meets the licensing basis limits for accident leakage. This istypically at a lower pressure than the proof test. In situ pressure testing to demonstrate leakageintegrity is referred to in this document as "leak testing."

For damage mechanisms with alternate repair criteria approved by the NRC, this document maynot apply. For example, Generic Letter 95-05 Alternate Repair Criteria includes a methodologyfor structural and leakage assessments.

The pressure and leak test objectives in Section 2.1 form the bases for the guidance contained inthis document for the selection of tubes for in situ testing. Threshold NDE parameters arecalculated to bound estimates of NDE uncertainties

2.1 Required Test Objectives

* Demonstrate structural integrity at end-of-cycle (EOC) satisfies the structural performancecriteria in NEI 97-06 [1] (e.g., no burst at 3NODP) in support of the condition monitoringassessment.

" Demonstrate acceptable leakage integrity at EOC as required by the accident induced leakageperformance criteria of NEI 97-06 [1], and in accordance with all applicable design basesassumptions, and site dose assessments.

2-1

PROOF AND LEAK TEST OBJECTIVES

2.2 Optional Test Objectives" Provide data to support a relationship between NDE data, proof test results, and calculated

structural thresholds for use in condition monitoring and operational assessments.

" Establish an upper limit NDE threshold for indications that could exhibit large leak ratesduring postulated accident conditions.

" Obtain leak rate test data to support structural evaluations in cases where tube geometry doesnot support proof testing. Extrapolated leakage data combined with NDE results may

characterize flaws as meeting structural requirements.

* Determine whether a relationship exists between indications that exceed the NDE basedstructural limit and potential outlier leakage behavior.

* Obtain test data to support predictions of SLB leak rates from NDE data to be applied tocondition monitoring and operational assessments.

Obtain test data to demonstrate the leakage performance of leak limiting repairs.

2-2

3COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 Introduction

The objective of this section is to identify organizational responsibilities for assuring that in situtesting activities achieve their full potential to enhance steam generator reliability.

Each utility shall assume responsibility for all those planned and systematic actions, such as insitu testing, necessary to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system, or component willperform satisfactorily in service. Planning and execution of these steam generator programelements, wholly or in part, may be delegated to others, such as contractors or consultants, butthe ultimate responsibility rests with the utility. The authority and duties of persons andorganizations planning and performing in situ testing shall be clearly established.

3.2 Management Responsibilities

It is important that utility management understand the objectives and value of in situ testing as adirect means of demonstrating compliance with the structural and leakage integrity performancecriteria contained in NEI 97-06 [1 ]. As such, this guideline provides the methodology for theselection of tubes to be tested, the conduct of testing and the documentation and interpretation ofthe test results. A standardized approach is designed to provide the following outcome:

" Assure accurate assessment of steam generator tube integrity

* Maximize the availability of the unit by verifying appropriate operating intervals

" Provide a direct means of demonstrating regulatory compliance

" Provide basis for immediate availability of the unit

3-1

COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES

3.2.1 Specific Management Responsibilities

Nuclear station management is responsible for providing sufficient resources and attention tosteam generator in situ pressure testing. Specific management responsibilities shall include thefollowing:

* Establish a strong statement of policy that includes full support of the implementation of thisguideline.

* Develop a knowledgeable steam generator engineering organization with sufficientresponsibility, authority and resources to implement this guideline.

* Support degradation assessment and outage planning which may include sufficient time andresources for the conduct of in situ testing.

" Provide independent and knowledgeable auditing organizations to periodically verifycompliance with procedural implementation and application of test results.

3.3 Engineering Responsibilities

The responsibilities of the steam generator engineering organization include the planning,directing, and evaluation of in situ testing. Responsibilities shall include, but are not limited to,the following:

* Implement the EPRI Steam Generator In Situ Pressure Test Guidelines

* Generate a technical justification for any deviation to this guideline in accordance withSteam Generator Management Program Administrative Procedures [4].

* Establish plant-specific threshold values for screening indications for in situ testingaddressing plant specific integrity limits. Refer to the EPRI Steam Generator IntegrityAssessment Guidelines [2] and EPRI Steam Generator Degradation Specific Flaw Handbook[5] for guidance in developing threshold values. Voltage threshold values for screeningflaws for leakage are provided in Section 4.5.

" Verify tooling used to conduct the testing is qualified for the stated test objectives (Section8).

" Use a utility approved procedure for the conduct of in situ testing (Section 6).

* Document the selection or exclusion of tubes for testing.

* Provide appropriate oversight of the testing organization.

" Verify test results and identify any requirements for additional tests.

* Report any failures as required by NEI 97-06 [1].

" Assess test results for condition monitoring and operational assessment.

" Ensure data is included in the EPRI Steam Generator Degradation Database (Section 7).

* Report to EPRI E&R IRG within 15 days when in situ tests result in leakage or burst.

3-2

COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES

3.4 NDE Considerations

Supplemental NDE considerations may be useful in supporting engineering evaluations of testresults. These include:

" Consider conducting supplemental diagnostic NDE, as necessary, to characterize the criticalflaw parameters. For example, ECT Rotating Pancake and/or Plus Point Probe may beconsidered to further characterize the flaw, including the peak and average depth ofpenetration, peak voltage, total length and width, through-wall length (if applicable), andeffective length above the threshold length recommended for testing.

* Consider using other NDE techniques (such as ultrasonics, liquid penetrant) to furthercharacterize the flaw profile particularly the through-wall length/area.

" Consider NDE data evaluation by sizing analysts in addition to the production analysts. Theuse of sizing analysts will provide added assurance that the NDE uncertainty numbersapplied to the screening criteria are not encroached upon.

* Consider post testing NDE, including visual inspections, to evaluate changes in flawcharacteristics.

3-3

4SCREENING PARAMETERS/TUBE SELECTION

4.1 Purpose

The purpose of the in situ test screening is to identify indications requiring testing to assess thecapability of the steam generator tubing to meet structural and leakage performance criteria.

Section 4 provides screening criteria for in situ leak testing and proof testing under severaldifferent scenarios:

" Screening criteria for proof testing when sizing capabilities are fully quantified. Quantifiedsizing is used in this document to refer to a sizing technique where uncertainties are knownand documented for all necessary screening values. This sizing is typically performed by asmall subset of the production analysts who are specifically trained. Where theseuncertainties are not documented, where uncertainties are so large that eddy current valuesare unreliable, or where detailed sizing is not performed, Section 4.4.2 provides aconservative ranking that can be used.

* A ranking methodology for proof testing indications when sizing capabilities are not fullyquantified. The basis for this methodology is included in Appendix C.

* Screening criteria for leak testing. This screen has steps that are applicable to techniqueswith and without quantified sizing techniques. Appendix B provides the basis fordevelopment of voltage screening threshold values. These thresholds only consider pressureloading. For circumferential degradation, utilities shall validate these threshold values forapplicability at their plant in light of reference [6].

* Alternative selection criteria for proof testing when sizing capabilities are fully quantifiedusing a statistical approach (Appendix A).

" Screening methodology for mixed mode flaws.

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 are flow charts depicting Section 4 screening.

Appendix D identifies indications and situations that are exempt from in situ testing (e.g.,location of the flaw in surrounding support structures, physical limitations of the in situ testequipment due to the location of the flaw).

4-1

SCREENING PARAMETERS/TUBE SELECTION

4.2 Nomenclature

The terminology used in this section is defined as follows:

AD Average depth, % through-wall depth for an axial crack at the effective lengthof the crack. The effective depth and length of an axial crack are the valuesconsistent with segments of a partial depth crack that lead to the minimumestimate of the burst pressure (Flaw Handbook, [5])

ADTHR-P Average depth threshold for proof testing which is a function of length (L) and% through-wall for an axial crack.

ARF Axial Ranking Factor - A relative burst pressure used for ranking axial flawswithout quantified sizing techniques.

CRF Circumferential Ranking Factor - A relative percent degraded area used forranking circumferential flaws without quantified sizing techniques.

PDA Percent degraded area, integrated over 360 degrees for a circumferential crack.

PDATHR-P Percent degraded area threshold for proof testing circumferential crack.

L Total indicated crack length for an axial crack or axial length of volumetricflaw, inches.

LSTR Structural length for a 100% through-wall axial crack, inches.

LMIN Minimum through-wall crack length that could result in leakage at SLBcondition for an axial crack, inches.

CA Crack angle, the circumferential extent of a circumferential crack, degrees.

CATWSL Structural limit crack angle for a 100% through-wall circumferential crack,degrees.

CAMIN Minimum through-wall crack angle that could result in leakage at SLBcondition for a circumferential crack, degrees.

CE Circumferential Extent of a volumetric indication, degrees.

MD Maximum indication depth, % through-wall.

MDTHR-L Maximum depth threshold for leakage testing, % through-wall.

MDTHR-P Maximum depth threshold for proof testing, % through-wall.

VM Maximum indicated voltage for proof test screening, volts. Voltage calibrationsshall be performed per the requirements of Section B.3.5.

VCRIT Critical voltage for significant SLB leakage, volts.

VTHR-L Minimum voltage threshold for leak testing, volts.

4-2


4.3 General Requirements

4.4 Guidance on Tube Selection for Proof Testing

4.4.1 Guidance on Tube Selection When Sizing Capabilities are Quantified

4-3


4.4.1.1 Axial Defects

4-4


4-5


4.4.1.2 Circumferential Defects

4-6


4.4.1.3 Volumetric Defects

4-7


4-8


4.4.2 Guidance on Tube Selection for When Sizing Capabilities are notQuantified

4-9


4.4.2.1 Axial Defects

4-10


4.4.2.2 Circumferential Cracks

4-11


4.4.3 Alternative Screening Methodology for Proof and Leak Testing

4.5 Leak test screening criteria for techniques with and withoutquantified sizing techniques

4-12


4-13


Table 4-1Degradation Specific Voltage Values

4-14


Table 4-1 (continued)Degradation Specific Voltage Values

4-15


Table 4-1 (continued)Degradation Specific Voltage Values

4-16


4.6 Mixed Mode Defects - Guidelines for Selecting Flaws for Proof andLeak .Testing

4-17


4.7 Test Results

4-18


Figure 4-1In situ Proof Test Flowchart for Axial, Circumferential, and Volumetric Flaws

4-19


Figure 4-2In situ Leak Test Flowchart for Axial, Circumferential, and Volumetric Flaws

4-20

5IN SITU TEST DEFINITIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Design Basis Accident Conditions Test Pressure

5.1.2 Elevated Test Pressure

5.1.3 Intermediate Leak Test Pressure

5.1.4 Intermediate Proof Test Pressure

5.1.5 Lesk Test

5-1

IN SITU TEST DEFINITIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS

5.1.6 Normal Operating Differential Pressure

5.1.7 Proof Test Pressure

5.1.8 Proof Test

5.1.9 Quantified Sizing

5.1.10 Test Pressures

5.2 Test Pressure Adjustments

5.2.1 Temperature Correction

5-2

IN SITU TEST DEFINITIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS

5.2.2 Instrumentation Uncertainty Correction

5.2.3 Locked Tube Correction

5.2.4 Head Loss Correction

5-3

" IN SITU TEST DEFINITIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS

5.2.5 Leak Rate Correction

5.2.6 Material Properties

5.2.7 Bladder Corrections

5-4

6TEST PROCEDURE

6.1 Procedural Requirements

In situ testing shall be conducted in accordance with a utility approved procedure. Theprocedure shall follow the technical and qualification requirements expressed in Section 8. Sincethe test results are used to support tube integrity assessments, the test apparatus, instrumentationand procedures shall comply with all the requirements of 1OCFR50 Appendix B. The criteria forthe selection or omission of candidate tubes shall be documented. The minimum reportingrequirements shall include the information identified in Section 7.

The test procedure shall provide a test record identifying hold points, tooling, tube number,location, type of degradation to be tested, and the intended test sequence. The followinginformation contains the recommended sequence (at ambient temperature) for each test.

The steps outlined below shall be specified in the test procedures and include plant specific testpressures. These steps are not considered all inclusive and alternative plans may be acceptabledepending on the test objectives (e.g., only leak testing may be necessary for indicationsrestricted from burst - See Appendix D). Contingency plans are included in this guidance toaddress the event that measured leak rates exceed test system capacity, or excessive leakageterminates structural integrity pressure testing. In these cases a comparison of pressures, leakrate pressure differentials and tooling response provides a check to ensure that the full benefit ofin situ testing will be realized.

6-1

TEST PROCEDURE

6-2

TEST PROCEDURE

6-3

TEST PROCEDURE

6.2 Post-Test Actions

6-4

7DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING

In addition to utility specific technical specification reporting requirements, NEI 97-06 [1]contains additional reporting requirements if the condition of the steam generator tubes does notmeet the specified performance criteria. Consequently, verified evidence of a tube(s) failing tomeet the test objectives supporting the structural and leakage performance criteria shall bedocumented and reported to the NRC as required.

Data obtained from in situ testing shall be entered into the EPRI Steam Generator DegradationDatabase (SGDD) [10].

If in situ test results in leakage or burst, test results shall be reported to the EPRI E&R IRGwithin 15 days. This will result in a review of the databases used as bases for voltage screeningvalues.

The application of the review process for screening indications shall be documented to provideevidence of the review.

In situ screening criteria developed in accordance with Section 4 shall be documented. Asummary of the plant's test objectives and selection bases used in performing in situ testing shallbe documented.

Qualification of the in situ pressure test equipment shall be documented.

7-1

8EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ANDTOOL QUALIFICATION

8.1 Equipment Specifications

In situ tooling systems can pressurize either the full length of the steam generator tube or somesmaller length containing the degraded region. In either case, system performance shall beevaluated. System performance is influenced by the tooling capabilities, test objectives,conditions in the field environment and procedural adherence. Based on lessons learned, thefollowing is a list of equipment specifications.

8-1

EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONREQUIREMENTS AND TOOL QUALIFICATION

8.2 Tool Qualification

8-2

EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND TOOL QUALIFICATION

8.3 Additional Considerations

8-3

EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONREQUIREMENTS AND TOOL QUALIFICATION

8-4

9ADJUSTMENTS OF IN SITU PRESSURE TESTING ANDLEAK RATE PARAMETERS

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Adjustments for Temperature Effects

9-1

ADJUSTMENTS OF IN SITU PRESSURE TESTING AND LEAK RATE PARAMETERS

9.3 Adjustments for Non-Pressure Loads for Circumferential Degradation

9.3.1 Structural Integrity

9-2


9-3


9.3.2 Leakage Integrity

9-4


9.4 Adjustment of In Situ Measured Leak Rates

9-5


9-6


9.4.1 Circumferential Cracks

9-7


9.4.2 Axial Cracks

9-8


Leak Rate Verification

9-9


9.5 Example In Situ Adjustments

9-10


9-11


Table 9-1Ratio of Flow Strength at Room Temperature to Flow Strength at Elevated Temperature

9-12


Table 9-2Saturated Liquid Density

9-13


Figure 9-1Calculated and Measured Leak Rates (at Room Temperature Density) for Axial Cracks inAlloy 600 Tubing at Normal Operating Conditions

9-14


Figure 9-2Calculated and Measured Leak Rates (at Room Temperature Density) for Axial Cracks inAlloy 600 Tubing at SLB Conditions

9-15

10REQUIREMENTS

10-1

REQUIREMENTS

10-2

REQUIREMENTS

10-3

REQUIREMENTS

10-4

REQUIREMENTS

10-5

REQUIREMENTS

10-6

REQUIREMENTS

10-7

11REFERENCES

[1] NEI 97-06 R2, Steam Generator Program Guidelines, May 2005.

[2] 1012987, EPRI Steam Generator Integrity Assessment Guidelines, July 2006.

[3] 1006783, EPRI Steam Generator Tubing Burst Testing and Leak Rate Testing Guidelines,December 2002.

[4] 1011274, EPRI Steam Generator Management Program Administrative Procedure,Revision 2,

[5] 1001191, EPRI Steam Generator Degradation Specific Flaw Handbook, January 2001.

[6] 1014660, EPRI, Effect of Bending Loads on Leakage Integrity of Steam Generator Tubes,January 2007.

[7] TR-107197, EPRI, Depth Based Structural Analysis Methods for Steam GeneratorCircumferential Indications, December 1997.

[8] WCAP-15574, Rev 1., Westinghouse non-proprietary Class 3 report, "Depth-Based SGTube Repair for Axial PWSCC at Dented TSP Intersections - Alternate Burst PressureCalculation," (ADAMS accession numbers ML013250021 and ML013250033).

[9] 1001441, EPRI Effect of Pressurization Rate in Degraded Steam Generator Tubing BurstPressure, March 2001.

[10] 1009310, EPRI, Steam Generator Degradation Database June 2001.

[11] 1009541, EPRI, Impacts of the Structural Integrity Performance Criterion on SteamGenerator Tube Integrity, December 2004

[12] NRC Information Notice 97-79.

[13] NP-6301-D, EPRI, Ductile Fracture Handbook, June 1989.

[14] 1011456, EPRI, Steam Generator Tubing Outside Diameter Stress Corrosion Cracking atTube Support Plates Database for Alternate repair Limits, January 2005.

[15] TR-105505, EPRI Burst Pressure Correlation for Steam Generator Tubes with Through-Wall Axial Cracks, January 1998.

[16] SG-99-04-00 1, Farley-]: Final Cycle 16 Freespan ODSCC Operational Assessment,Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, April 20, 1999.

[17] NP-6864-L - Rev. 2, EPRI PWR Steam Generator Tube Repair Limits: Technical SupportDocument for Expansion Zone PWSCC in Roll Transitions, January 1991.

[18] SG-00-05-008, Indian Point-2 U-bend PWSCC Condition Monitoring and Cycle 15Operational Assessment, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, May 30, 2000.

11-1

Appendix A: Statistical Approach to In Situ Test Selection

[19] 97-8TC5-OCNET-R1, Oconee Unit 2 Steam Generator Tube Examination, WestinghouseSTC Report, July 15, 1997.

[20] SG-SGDA-02-41, Cold Leg Thinning Database for Tube Integrity Assessments and NDEDepth Sizing, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, October 31, 2002.

[21] TR 107161, Summary EPRI information available as "Appendix G Generic NDEInformation for Condition Monitoring and Operational Assessments, Harris, D. H. paper,"Capabilities of Eddy Current Data Analysts to Detect and Characterize Defects in SteamGenerator Tubes," 1996.

[22] SG-99-11-003, San Onofre SG Program for Qualification of Bobbin Detection and +PointDepth sizing for Axial PWSCC at Dented Eggcrate Intersections, Westinghouse ElectricCompany LLC, November 1999.

[23] NRC NUREG/CR-6511

[24] NRC Generic Letter 95-05

[25] NRC NUREG/CR-5117

11-2

AAPPENDIX A: STATISTICAL APPROACH TO IN SITUTEST SELECTION

A.1 Introduction

The information contained in this appendix offers a more automated candidate selection processas opposed to the sequential process defined in Section 4. The approach described is based ondefining the structural and leakage capacity of detected flaws in terms of NDE measurements,such that, by considering the appropriate uncertainties, the likelihood of meeting the NEI 97-06[1] performance criteria is computed using confidence levels in accordance with the SteamGenerator Integrity Assessment Guidelines [2].

As indicated in the EPRI Steam Generator Integrity Assessment Guideline [2], an evaluationstrategy can be employed that permits candidate selection using various means of combining theuncertainties associated with determining structural and leakage capacity of a flawed steamgenerator tube. The scope of this appendix is to provide an example for this process.

While [2] specifies three (3) strategies for combining uncertainties evaluated statistically, therebyproviding a high confidence that the tube candidates selected or omitted for testing areappropriate.

A.2 Tube Selection for Proof Testing

A-1


Figure A-1Through-wall Axial Crack

A-2


A-3


A-4


A.3 Tube Selection for Leakage Testing

A.4 In Situ Candidate Selection

A-5


Table A ITW Axial Cracks Analysis Input Data- Length, Normalized Burst Relation & Strength Uncertainty Information

A-6

Insert Appropriate Auto Text License Entry. If license is copyright, please delete


Table A 2Monte Carlo Analysis of Throughwall Cracks in SG Tubes - Sample ResultsFirst Thirteen Simulations, Indicated Length = 0.500"

A-7

Appendix A.: Statistical Approach to In Situ Test Selection

Figure A-2Condition Monitoring Throughwall Crack Burst Acceptance Limit.

A-8

I

BAPPENDIX B: TECHNICAL BASIS FOR VOLTAGE ASSCREENING PARAMETER

B.1 Introduction

B.2 Summary of Voltage Screening Values

B-1

Appendix B: Technical Basis for Voltage as Screening Parameter

Table B-1Summary of Voltage Threshold Parameters for Leak Testing(Note: extensive changes not marked as changes)

B-2


Table B-1 (continued)Summary of Voltage Threshold Parameters for Leak Testing(Note: extensive changes not marked as changes)

B-3



B-4



B-5


B.3 Methods for Developing Voltage Screening Values

B.3.1 Approach

B.3.2 Voltage Screening Parameters from Prior In Situ Test and/or DestructiveExam Results

B-6

Appendix B: Technical Basis for Voltage as Screening.Parameter

B.3.3 Maximum Depth versus Voltage Correlation

B-7


B.3.4 Lower Bound Voltages for Screening Indications for Pressure Testing

B-8


B.3.5 Probe and Voltage Normalization Requirements

B-9


B.4 Voltage Parameters for Axial PWSCC Indications

8.4.1 Database

8.4.2 Maximum Depth to +Point Voltage Correlation and Parameters

B-10


B.4.3 Voltage Screening Parameters from Prior In Situ Test Results

B.4.3.1 Axial PWSCC in Hardroll Expansion Transitions

B.4.3.2 Axial PWSCC in Explosive and Hydraulic Expansion Transitions

B-1I


B.4.3.3

B.4.3.4

Axial PWSCC at Dented TSP and Eggcrate Intersections

Axial PWSCC in U-Bends

B-12


B.4.4 Summary

B-13


Table B-2Axial PWSCC in Hardroll Expansion Transitions: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation DE Data from Tube Exam Reports, NDEfrom EPRI SGDD Database and Westinghouse In Situ Test Records

B-14


Table B-2 (continued)Axial PWSCC in Hardroll Expansion Transitions: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation DE Data from Tube Exam Reports, NDEfrom EPRI SGDD Database and Westinghouse In Situ Test Records

B-15


Table B-2 (continued)Axial PWSCC in Hardroll Expansion Transitions: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation DE Data from Tube Exam Reports, NDEfrom EPRI SGDD Database and Westinghouse In Situ Test Records

B-16


Table B-3Explosive and Hydraulic Expansion Axial PWSCC: +Point Threshold Voltage EvaluationData from EPRI SGDD Database, 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot

B-17


Table B-3 (continued)Explosive and Hydraulic Expansion Axial PWSCC: +Point Threshold Voltage EvaluationData from EPRI SGDD Database, 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot

B-18


Table B-4Axial PWSCC at Dented TSP and Eggcrate Intersections: +Point Threshold Voltage EvaluationData from EPRI SCDD Database and [10], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot

B-19


Table B-4 (continued)Axial PWSCC at Dented TSP and Eggcrate Intersections: +Point Threshold Voltage EvaluationData from EPRI SCDD Database and [10], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot

B-20



B-21



B-22



B-23


Table B-5U-Bend Axial PWSCC: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database, 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-24


Table B-5 (continued)U-Bend Axial PWSCC: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database, 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-25


Figure B-1Axial PWSCC: Maximum Depth Versus Maximum +Point Volts

B-26


Figure B-2Axial PWSCC: Maximum Depth Versus Maximum +Point Volts

B-27


B.5 Voltage Parameters for Axial ODSCC Indications

B.5.1 Database

B.5.2 Maximum Depth to +Point Voltage Correlation and Parameters


B.5.3.1 Axial ODSCC at Eggcrate Intersections

B-28


B.5.3.2 Freespan Axial ODSCC in Westinghouse SGs

B-29


B.5.3.3

B.5.3.4

Freespan Axial ODSCC in CE SGs

Freespan Axial ODSCC in OTSGs

B-30


B.5.3.5

B.5.3.6

Axial ODSCC in Dings

OTSG SG Freespan and Tubesheet Volumetric OD Indications (ProbableOD IGA)

B-31


B.5,3.7 Axial ODSCC in Sludge Pile

B.5.3.8 Axial ODSCC in Hardroll and Explosive Expansion Transitions

B.5.3.9 Axial ODSCC in U-Bends

B.5.3.10. Axial ODSCC at OTSG Tube Supports

B-32


B.5.4 Summary

B-33


Table B-6Eggcrate Axial ODSCC CE SG's: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database and Supplemental ANO-2 Analyses, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-34


Table B-6 (continued)Eggcrate Axial ODSCC CE SG's: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database and Supplemental ANO-2 Analyses, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-35



B-36



B-37


Table B-7Freespan Axial ODSCC in Westinghouse SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database and [16], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-38


Table B-7 (continued)Freespan Axial ODSCC in Westinghouse SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database and [16], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-39



B-40



B-41


Table B-8Freespan Axial ODSCC in CE SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database and Pulled Tube Data from Westinghouse Files)

B-42


Table B-8 (continued)Freespan Axial ODSCC in CE SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database and Pulled Tube Data from Westinghouse Files)

B-43



B-44



B-45



B-46


Table B-9Freespan Axial ODSCC OTSG SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(In Situ and NDE Data from Framatome and Pulled Tube Data from [19] ).

B-47


Table B-9 (continued)Freespan Axial ODSCC OTSG SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(In Situ and NDE Data from Framatome and Pulled Tube Data from [19] ).

B-48



B-49



B-50



B-51



B-52


Table B-9 (continued)Freespan Axial ODSCC OTSG SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(In Situ and NDE Data from Framatome and Pulled Tube Data from [19]).

B-53


Table B-10Ding Axial ODSCC: +Point Voltage Evaluation(DE Data from Westinghouse Report SG-99-03-005; Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses OTSG Data (5/8" OD) fromFramatome)

B-54


Table B-10 (continued)Ding Axial ODSCC: +Point Voltage Evaluation(DE Data from Westinghouse Report SG-99-03-005; Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses OTSG Data (5/8" OD) fromFramatome)

B-55


Table B-10 (continued)Ding Axial ODSCC: +Point Voltage Evaluation(DE Data from Westinghouse Report SG-99-03-005; Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses OTSG Data (5/8" OD) fromFramatome )

B-56


Table B-1IOTSG SG Freespan and Tubesheet Volumetric OD Indications (Probable OD IGA): +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(In Situ and NDE Data from Framatome)

B-57


Table B-11 (continued)OTSG SG Freespan and Tubesheet Volumetric OD Indications (Probable OD IGA): +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(In Situ and NDE Data from Framatome )

B-58



B-59


Table B-11 (continued)OTSG SG Freespan and Tubesheet Volumetric OD Indications (Probable OD IGA): +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(In Situ and NDE Data from Framatome)

B-60



B-61


Table B-12Sludge Pile Axial ODSCC W and CE SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database [10] and Westinghouse Files, 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-62


Table B-12 (continued)Sludge Pile Axial ODSCC W and CE SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database [10] and Westinghouse Files, 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-63


Table B-12 (continued)Sludge Pile Axial ODSCC W and CE SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database [10] and Westinghouse Files, 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-64


Table B-13Expansion Transition and U-bend Axial ODSCC: +Point Threshold Voltage(Data from EPRI SGDD Database [10], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-65


Table B-14OTSG Axial OD Indications at Tube Supports: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(In Situ and NDE Data from Framatome)

Figure B-3Axial ODSCC All Data

B-66


Figure B-4Axial ODSCC CE Data

Figure B-5Westinghouse Axial ODSCC Data

B-67


Figure B-6W SG Axial ODSCC

B-68


B.6 Voltage Parameters for Circumferential PWSCC Indications

B.6.1 Database



B.6.3.1 Circumferential PWSCC in Explosive Expansions

B-69


B.6.3.2

B.6.3.3

Circumferential PWSCC in Hardroll Expansions

Circumferential PWSCC in U-Bends

B-70


B.6.4 Summary

B-71

Appendix B. Technical Basis for Voltage as Screening Parameter

Table B-15Explosive Expansion Circumferential PWSCC: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database [81 and [T], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-72


Table B-16U-Bend Circumferential PWSCC Westinghouse SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database [10], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-73


Table B-16 (continued)U-Bend Circumferential PWSCC Westinghouse SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database [10], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot),

B-74


Table B-16 (continued)U-Bend Circumferential PWSCC Westinghouse SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database [10], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-75


Table B-16 (continued)U-Bend Circumferential PWSCC Westinghouse SGs: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database [10], 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-76


B.7 Voltage Parameters for Circumferential ODSCC Indications

B.7.1 Database


B-77



B.7.3.1 Circumferential ODSCC in Hardroll Expansions

B-78

Appendix B.: Technical Basis for Voltage as Screening Parameter

B.7.3.2 Circumferential ODSCC in Explosive Expansions

B-79


B.7.3.3 Circumferential ODSCC in U-Bends

B.7.4 Summary

B-80


Table B-17Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI TR-1 07197-P2, Table G-11 and EPRI SGDD Database)

B-81


Table B-17 (continued)Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI TR-107197-P2, Table G-11 and EPRI SGDD Database)

B-82



B-83



B-84



B-85



B-86


Table B-18Explosive Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database and [7], Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-87


Table B-18 (continued)Explosive Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: +Point Threshold Voltage Evaluation(Data from EPRI SGDD Database and [7], Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot)

B-88


Figure B-7Circ. Dent & Explosive Exp. ODSCC

Figure B-8Circ. Dent & Explosive Exp. ODSCC: Destructive Exam

B-89


Figure B-9Circ. Hardroll ODSCC

Figure B-10Circ. Hardroll ODSCC: Pulled Tube Destructive Exam

B-90


B.8 Volumetric Indications

B.8.1 Approach

B.8.2 Pitting

B.8.3 Cold Leg Thinning

B-91


B.8.4 Wear at TSP Intersections and AVBIStraps

B-92


B.8.5 Summary

B-93


Table B-19Pitting: Bobbin Coil Voltage Threshold Evaluation(DE Data from EPRI ETSS 96005.2, Rev. 5; Bobbin Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses)

B-94


Table B-19 (continued)Pitting: Bobbin Coil Voltage Threshold Evaluation(DE Data from EPRI ETSS 96005.2, Rev. 5; Bobbin Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses)

B-95


Table B-20Bobbin Coil Cold Leg Thinning: 7/8" Tube Diameter, 0.050" Wall(Westinghouse DE and NDE Data from [20]; Bobbin Voltages with Sludge in TSP Crevices)

B-96


Table B-20 (continued)Bobbin Coil Cold Leg Thinning: 718" Tube Diameter, 0.050" Wall(Westinghouse DE and NDE Data from [20]; Bobbin Voltages with Sludge in TSP Crevices)

B-97


Table B-20 (continued)Bobbin Coil Cold Leg Thinning: 7/8" Tube Diameter, 0.050" Wall(Westinghouse DE and NDE Data from [20]; Bobbin Voltages with Sludge in TSP Crevices)

B-98


Table B-20 (continued)Bobbin Coil Cold Leg Thinning: 7/8" Tube Diameter, 0.050" Wall(Westinghouse DE and NDE Data from [20]; Bobbin Voltages with Sludge in TSP Crevices)

B-99


Table B-21Bobbin Coil Wear at AVBlStraps and Tube Supports (DE Data from EPRI ETSS 96004.1,Rev. 7; Differential Bobbin Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses)

B-100


Table B-21 (continued)Bobbin Coil Wear at AVBlStraps and Tube Supports (DE Data from EPRI ETSS 96004.1,Rev. 7; Differential Bobbin Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses)

B-1O1


Table B-21 (continued)Bobbin Coil Wear at AVBIStraps and Tube Supports (DE Data from EPRI ETSS 96004.1,Rev. 7; Differential Bobbin Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses)

B-102


Table B-22Bobbin Coil Wear at AVBlStraps and Tube Supports (DE Data from EPRI ETSS 96004.2,Rev. 7; Absolute Bobbin Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses)

B-103


Table B-22 (continued)Bobbin Coil Wear at AVB/Straps and Tube Supports (DE Data from EPRI ETSS 96004.2,Rev. 7; Absolute Bobbin Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses)

B-104


Table B-22 (continued)Bobbin Coil Wear at AVBIStraps and Tube Supports (DE Data from EPRI ETSS 96004.2,Rev. 7; Absolute Bobbin Voltages from Westinghouse Analyses)

B-105

Appendix B: Technical Basis for Voltage as Screening Parameter'

Figure B-11Pitting

B-106


Figure B-12Cold Leg Thinning

B-107


Figure B-13Wear at Tube Supports and AVBlStraps

B-108


Figure B-14Wear at Tube Supports and AVBIStraps

B-109


B.9 Maximum Depth and +Point Voltage Data

Table B-23Axial PWSCC Database for Maximum Depth and +Point Volts

B-110


Table B-23 (continued)Axial PWSCC Database for Maximum Depth and +Point Volts

B-111



B-112



B-113

Appendix B. Technical B-sis for Voltage as Screening Parameter


Table B-24Axial ODSCC Database for Maximum Depth and +Point Volts

B-i 14


Table B-24 (continued)Axial ODSCC Database for Maximum Depth and +Point Volts

B- 115



B-116



B-117



B-118



B-119



B-120



B-121



Table B-25Circumferential ODSCC +Point Maximum Volts and Destructive Exam Data

B-122


Table B-25 (continued)Circumferential ODSCC +Point Maximum Volts and Destructive Exam Data

B-123


B.1O Voltage Ratios Between Coils and Tube Sizes

B. 10.1 Objectives

B.10.2 Ratio of +Point to 115 PC Voltages for Various Tube Sizes

B-124


B. 10.3 Ratios +Point Voltages Between Westinghouse and CE SG Sizes

B-125


B.10.4 Ratios of +Point Voltages between Westinghouse SG Sizes

B.10.5 Voltage Dependence on Throughwall Notch Length and Width

B.10.6 Voltage Ratios for OTSG Volumetric Indications

B-126


Table B-26Ratios of +Point Voltages Between Tube Sizes and Ratios of +Point to 115 Pancake Coil Voltages for Various Tube Sizes

B-127


Table B-27Ratio of +Point to 115 Pancake Voltages as Functions of Length and Depth

B-128


Table B-28115 PC and +Point Voltage Dependence on Notch Width(718" Diameter Tube, Notch 100% TW)

Table B-29OTSG 080 PC, 115 PC and +Point Voltage Dependence on Depth for Volumetric Indications(518" Diameter Tube, ASME Cal Std Holes)

B-129


Table B-30Summary of +Point Voltage Ratios Between Tube Sizes and Pancake Coils

B-130

CAPPENDIX C: TECHNICAL BASIS FOR IN SITUPRESSURE TEST SCREENING PARAMETERS WHENNDE SIZING IS NOT QUANTIFIED

C.1 Introduction

This appendix was prepared to address three issues related to the selection of tubes for in situpressure testing when no adequately quantified correlation exists between eddy currentparameters and the actual size of the flaw. The three issues are ranking of indications for in situpressure testing, determination of the number of ranked indications that could require testing,and expansion of the sample size when one or more tubes fail the in situ pressure test. The goalis to identify all degradation capable of challenging structural integrity, and that any challengesto integrity are adequately evaluated. In situ proof testing is a tool used to supplement the NDEevaluation of the tubes.

The recommended approach of this report for pressure testing ranking is based upon rankingfactors defined in Section C.4 that apply relative predicted burst pressures, but the absolute valueof the burst pressure is not used for tube selection. The testing requirements of this report arebased upon testing indications ranked higher than any indication that failed prior pressure testingplus a defined number of indications ranked below any indication that failed. The indicationrankings include prior in situ and pulled tube indications merged with the new indications beingevaluated for in situ testing. Indications are initially screened based upon throughwall lengthlimits and a lower bound maximum voltage, and only indications exceeding these limits arefurther evaluated for in situ testing. Analyses are provided to support the validity of themethods. These analyses include a demonstration that the relative ranking factors or burstpressures are not strongly dependent upon NDE sizing uncertainties. The methods evaluationsinclude examples demonstrating the adequacy of the number of indications recommended fortesting based on applying the methods against data with known burst pressures from pulled tubesor in situ tests.

The guidelines of this report are intended primarily for axial and circumferential crackindications. The EPRI ETSSs for volumetric indications generally result in satisfying techniquerequirements for a sizing correlation. Analyst variability uncertainties for bobbin coil sizing ofmost volumetric indications have been developed by Harris [21]. Since the technique andanalyst variability uncertainties can be combined to satisfy the requirements for sizingindications, the requirements for selection of indications for in situ testing based upon quantifiedsizing uncertainties can be applied for volumetric indications.

C-1

Appendix C: Technical Basis for In Situ Pressure Test Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing is Not Quantified

Section C.2 describes the general methods for ranking and selection of indications for pressuretesting. The initial throughwall length and lower bound voltage screening parameters aredescribed in Section C.3. Section C.4 discusses the requirements for calculating ranking factors.The selection of the number of ranked indications for testing is developed in Section C.5, andSection C.6 defines the expansion of the sample size when one or more indications fail thepressure test. Evaluations performed to validate the methods for selection of indications fortesting are given in Section C.7. Example applications of the methods are provided in SectionC.8. Section C.9 provides evaluations of destructive examination data to support the use ofmaximum to average depth ratios for axial indications.

C.2 General Methods for Ranking and Selection of Indications for In SituPressure Testing

C.2.1 Issues to be Addressed

The following three issues are to be addressed to support selection of indications for in situpressure testing.

1. Ranking of indications for in situ pressure testing where NDE uncertainties are notadequately quantified or the correlation coefficient does not establish a high degree ofstatistical confidence that a correlation exists between the measured size and the actual sizeof the flaw.

An adequately quantified correlation for NDE uncertainties requires both technique andanalyst variability uncertainties to be included in the NDE uncertainties. An adequatecorrelation can be obtained by combining separately determined technique and analystvariability uncertainties or by testing of NDE analysts, which then includes bothuncertainties. A statistically acceptable correlation must satisfy the correlationcoefficient requirements of theEPRI SG Integrity Assessment Guidelines [2]. Theranking and selection requirements of this document apply when the requirements foran adequate correlation are not satisfied.

2. Determination of the number of ranked indications that could require testing.

3. Expansion of the in situ testing sample size for the case where one or more tubes fail the insitu test.

* For the pressure testing requirements, failure is defined as the burst of the specimenprior to demonstrating the required burst pressure (i.e., 3APNO).

C-2

Appendix C.- Technical Basis for In Situ Pressure Test Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing is Not Quantified

C.2.2 Ranking and Selection of Indications for Pressure Testing

C-3

f


C.3 Initial Screening Parameters

C.3.1 Throughwall Length as Initial Screen for Pressure Testing

C.3.2 Requirements for Calculating Throughwall Length Limits

C-4


C.3.3 Lower Bound Voltage Screening Values for Pressure Testing

C.4 Calculation of Ranking Factors

C.4.1 NDE Sizing Uncertainty Considerations

C.4.2 Calculation of Relative Ranking Factors

C-5


C.4.2.1

C.4.2.2

Axial Indications

Circumferential Indications

C-6


C.4.3 Validation of Methods

C.4.4 Consistency in Analyses for Indications being Evaluated and PreviouslyTested Indications

C.5 Selection of Indications for In Situ Testing With or Without Prior Test

Results

C.5.1 Combined Ranking of New Indications and Prior Test Results

C-7


C.5.2 Selection of Indications for Testing

C.6 Expansion of In Situ Test Sample Size when One or More IndicationsFail the Pressure Test

C.6.1 Applicability of In Situ Testing Expansion Guidelines

C.6.2 Expansion Guidelines

C-8

Appendix C." Technical Basis for In Situ Pressure Test Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing is Not Quantified

C.7 Methods Validation for Selection of Indications for In Situ Testing

C. 7.1 Relative Burst Pressure Ranking Sensitivity to NDE Uncertainties

C-9


C.7.2 Axial PWSCC NDE Sizing Evaluation for In Situ Testing

C-10

Appendix C. Technical Basis for In Situ Pressure Test Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing is Not Quantified

C.7.3 Axial ODSCC NDE Sizing Evaluation for In Situ Testing

C-1I


C. 7.4 Circumferential ODSCC NDE Sizing Evaluation for In Situ Testing

C.7.4.1 Explosive Expansions

C.7.4.2 Hardroll Expansions Data from EPRI Circumferential Crack Report

C-12


C-13


C.7.4.3 Analysis using data from ETSS 21410.1, Rev. 0.

C.7.5 Conclusions

C-14

Appendix C.: Technical Basis for In Situ Pressure Test Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing is Not Quantified

Table C-1Relative Burst Pressure Ranking Sensitivity to NDE Uncertainties

C-15


Table C-2Axial PWSCC at Dented Eggcrate Intersections: Methods Evaluation for In Situ TestSelectionData from [22]. +Point Data for 600 mil coil, 0.4 ips, 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot

C-16


Table C-3Axial PWSCC at Dented Eggcrate Intersections: Methods Evaluation Assuming In Situ Test FailureData from [22]. +Point Data for 600 mil coil, 0.4 ips, 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot

C-17

Appendix C: Technical Basis for In Situ Pressure Test Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing is Not .Quantified

Table C-3 (continued)Axial PWSCC at Dented Eggcrate Intersections: Methods Evaluation Assuming In Situ Test FailureData from [221. +Point Data for 600 mil coil, 0.4 ips, 300 kHz, Volts Cal 20V for 100% EDM Axial Slot

C-18


Table C-4Axial ODSCC at Eggcrate Intersections: Methods Evaluation for In Situ Test SelectionData from EPRI SGDD Database and Sizing Performed for ANO-2 1199 and 11199 Outages

C-19


Table C-4 (continued)Axial ODSCC at Eggcrate Intersections: Methods Evaluation for In Situ Test SelectionData from EPRI SGDD Database and Sizing Performed for ANO-2 1/99 and 11/99 Outages

C-20


Table C-4 (continued)Axial ODSCC at Eggcrate Intersections: Methods Evaluation for In Situ Test SelectionData from EPRI SGDD Database and Sizing Performed for ANO-2 1/99 and 11/99 Outages

C-21

Appendix C." Technical Basis for In Situ-Pressure Test Screening Parameters WhenNDE Sizihg is Not Quantified

Table C-5Explosive Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: Methods Evaluation for In Situ Test SelectionData from EPRI Report TR-107197-P2 [7]

C-22


Table C-5 (continued)Explosive Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: Methods Evaluation for In Situ Test Selection

Data from EPRI Report TR-107197-P2 [7]

C-23

Appendix C: Technical Basis for Ifi Situ PressureTest Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing is Not Quantified

Table C-6Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: Methods Evaluation for In Situ Testing with Burst Test FailureData from EPRI Report TR-107197-P2 [7]

C-24


Table C-6 (continued)Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: Methods Evaluation for In Situ Testing with Burst Test FailureData from EPRI Report TR-107197-P2 [7]

C-25

Appendix C: Technical Basis-for In Situ Pressure Test Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing-is Not Quantified

Table C-6 (continued)Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: Methods Evaluation for In Situ Testing with Burst Test FailureData from EPRI Report TR-107197-P2 [7]

C-26


Table C-7Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: Methods Evaluation for In Situ Testing with No Burst Test FailureData from EPRI Report TR-107197-P2 [7]

C-27

Apfpendix-C: Technical Basis for InSitu Pressure Test Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing is Not Quantified

Table C-7 (continued)Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: Methods Evaluation for In Situ Testing with No Burst Test FailureData from EPRI Report TR-107197-P2 [7]

C-28


Table C-7 (continued)Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: Methods Evaluation for In Situ Testing with No Burst Test FailureData from EPRI Report TR-107197-P2 [7]

C-29

Appendix C:- Technical Basis for In Situ Pressure-Test Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing is Not Quantified

Table C-8Hardroll Expansion Circumferential ODSCC: In Situ Evaluation Based on ETSS DataPulled Tube Data from EPRI ETSS 21410.1, Rev. 0

C-30

Appendix C.- Technical Basis for In Situ Pressure Test Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing is Not Quantified

C.8 Example Rankings Based Upon Available In Situ and DestructiveExam Test Results

C.8.1 Hardroll Circumferential ODSCC

C-31


C.8.2 Axial ODSCC at Eggcrate Intersections

C-32

Appendix C: Technical Basis for In Situ Pressure Test Screening Parameters When NDE.Sizing is Not Quantified

Table C-9Circumferential ODSCC Pulled Tube, Lab and In Situ Leak Test DataData from EPRI TR-107197-P2, Table G-11, EPRI SGDD Database and ETSS 21410.1, Rev. 0

C-33

Appendix C: Technical Basis for In Situ Pressure Test Screening Parameters WheWNDE Sizing is Not Quantified

Table C-9 (continued)Circumferential ODSCC Pulled Tube, Lab and In Situ Leak Test DataData from EPRI TR-107197-P2, Table G-11, EPRI SGDD Database and ETSS 21410.1, Rev. 0

C-34



C-35



C-36

Appendix C.: Technical Basis for In Situ Pressure Test Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing is Not Quantified


C-37

Appendix C.° Technical Basis for In Situ Pressure Test Screening Parameters When NDE Sizing is Not Quantified

C.9 Technical Basis for Applying MaximumlAverage Depth Ratio

Figure C-1Axial PWSCC Maximum to Average Depth Ratio - Burst Effective Data

C-38


Figure C-2Axial ODSCC Maximum to Average Depth Ratio - Burst Effective Average Depth

C-39

DAPPENDIX D - INDICATIONS EXEMPT FROM IN SITUTESTING

D.1 Introduction

The purpose of this appendix is to identify indications that are exempt from in situ testingbecause either the conduct of the test can not achieve the objectives, or integrity is inherentlysatisfied.

In order to comply with NEI 97-06 [1] requirements of assuring that the as-found tube conditioncomplies with structural and leakage integrity requirements, this guideline requires that the userdemonstrate that the test is capable of producing the stress state at the flawed section of tubingwhich is equivalent to, or a conservative bound of, the actual stress state during normal operationand postulated accident conditions multiplied by the appropriate factor of safety. In certain cases,this objective cannot be satisfied wholly through the conduct of in situ testing. For example:

D-I

Appendix D - Indications Exempt from In Situ Testing

D.2 Tubesheet Region

D.2.1 Proof Testing

D.2.2 Leak Testing

D-2


D.3 Drilled Tubes Support Plate (TSP) Region

D.3.1 Proof Testing

D-3


D.3.2 Leak Testing

D-4


D.4 Leak Limiting Sleeves

D.5 Tube Ends

D.6 Tube Plugs

D.7 Pitting

D-5


D-6

Steam Generator In Situ Pressure Test Guidelines, Revision 3 · Steam Generator In Situ Pressure...

Documents

Transcript of Steam Generator In Situ Pressure Test Guidelines, Revision 3 · Steam Generator In Situ Pressure...