Text

Areva Calculation #32-9200249-000, Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 Pzr Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary
	ML13078A300
Person / Time
Site:
Issue date:	03/05/2013
From:	Mahmoud S; AREVA NP
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML130780374	List: DCL-13-021, Performance Demonstration Initiative (POI) Program Alternatives and Their Bases with Respect to ASME Code Section Xi, Appendix Viii Supplement 11 Requirements; ML13078A291; ML13078A292; ML13078A293; ML13078A294; ML13078A297;
References
	DCL-13-021 32-9200249-000
	Download: ML13078A300 (57)
	v • d • e

Enclosures 3 and 4 contain Proprietary Information - Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 Enclosure 6 PG&E Letter DCL-13-021 AREVA Calculation #32-9200249-000, "Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 Pzr Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary" Enclosures 3 and 4 contain Proprietary Information When separated from Enclosures 3 and 4, this document is decontrolled .

0402-01-F01 (Rev. 017, 11/19/12)

A CALCULATION

SUMMARY

SHEET (CSS)

AREVA Document No. 32 - 9200249 - 000 Safety Related : ~ Yes D No Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis -

Title Non Proprietary PURPOSE AND

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS:

AREVA NP Inc. proprietary information in the document are removed and their locations are indicated by pairs of braces "[ ]". This document is the non-proprietary version of AREVA Document 32-9199805-000.

Purpose The purpose of this document is to analyze the acceptability of indications detected or assumed to exist based on the results of the 2013 seventeenth refueling outage (2R17) inservice inspection that are considered rejectable in the overlaid Pressurizer (PZR) Safety and Spray Nozzles of Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Unit 2. The reported rejectable indications are evaluated per the ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3514. In addition, the planar indications or the occluded zones requiring postulation of planar flaws are evaluated per ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3600.

Summary and Conclusion This document performed flaw evaluations for indications found in DCPP Unit 2 PZR Safety Nozzles A, and NDE occlusion zones in PZR Safety Nozzles Band C and PZR Spray Nozzle. The conclusion of the flaw evaluations show that the indications in PZR Safety Nozzle A and NDE occlusion regions in PZR Safety Nozzles Band C and PZR Spray Nozzle meet the flaw acceptance standards of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IW8-3514. A" indications and postulated flaws in the NDE occlusion zones for a" nozzles meet the ASME B&PV Code Section XI,IWB-3640.

THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS ASSUMPTIONS THAT SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING COMPUTER CODES HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS DOCUMENT: VERIFIED PRIOR TO USE CODENERSION/REV CODENERSION/REV DYES AREVACGC 5.0

~ NO Page 1 of 56

A 0402-01-F01 (Rev. 017 1 11/19/12)

ARf!VA Document No. 32..9200249-00Cl Diablo Canyon Power Pl,ant Unit 2 PZR$~fety and Spray No?:zle$ Plcmar FIC)w An~lysis .... Non Proprietary Review Methodi IZI Design Review (Detailed Check) o Alternate Calculation Si9ru~tureJ3,IQck

, P/RIA ':

Nam~and Title and ,P~ge,$J$~ctiQn$

(pr~hted or iypeti)" LPJLR ,'Date , "PtE)patedlReyiewedJ~pproyed ,

Samel'H Mahmoud p 3- 5-\3 All Pi'lnciplil Erigmt)¢r

$Uy~ster J NQrO~lha

'Eogi1i~el' IV R 3\ ;113 All Tim:M W~'geli '

ObitMan~gel' A ¥s-,f All Note: P/RlAp~sign&tes Pl'~p~l'et (P), Reyiewel' (R), Ap:prover (A);

LP/LR des'lgnates Lead Ptcpai'et(LP), Lead ReyieWer (LR)

Project lVIanager Approval of Customer References (N/A if notappUcable)

Name title (printed or typed) (printed or typed) Signature Date N/A Mentoring 'Information (not required per 0402.;01)

Name fiti'e' 'Mentott6: "

(p,rlote.d or typed) (prlnt~d or typeq) (P/R) Signature N/A N/A Page 2

A AREVA 0402-01-F01 (Rev. 017,11/19/12)

Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Record of Revision Revision Pages/Sections/Paragraphs No. Changed Brief Description / Change Authorization 000 All Original Release Page 3

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table of Contents Page SIGNATURE BLOCK ....................... .. .... .... ... .......................... .. ............. .. .... ................................. ............ 2 RECORD OF REVISION .................... ... ........................ .. ... .. ............... ...... .... ............................................ 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ....................................................... ................... ................... ........ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................. .... .............................................................................. 9

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................... ..... ................................................................................................. 10 2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGy ................................................................................................. 10 2.1 Indications Shapes and Locations ........... ......... ... .. .......................... ............................. .. .... .. ......... 10 2.1.1 PZR Safety Nozzle A Inspection ....................................... ............................................... 11 2.1.2 PZR Safety Nozzle B Inspection ...................................................................................... 14 2.1.3 PZR Safety Nozzle C Inspection ........................................................ ...... ........ .. .......... ... 15 2.1.4 PZR Spray Nozzle Inspection ....... .. ................................... .............. .. .... .. ........................ 16 2.2 Summary of Indications ....... ...................................................... .. ................. .................................. 18 2.3 Postulated Flaw Shapes for Fracture Mechanics Evaluation ...... .. .. ............................................... 18 2.3.1 PZR Safety Nozzle A Indicatio'n..... ........ .......................... ...................... :......... ................ 18 2.3.2 PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE Occlusion Area - Circumferential Flaw ................................ 19 2.3.3 PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE Occlusion Area - Axial Flaw ................................................ 20 2.3.4 PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE Occlusion Area - Circumferential Flaw ................................ 21 2.3.5 PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE Occlusion Area - Axial Flaw ................................................ 22 2.3.6 PZR Spray Nozzle Occlusion Area - Circumferential and Axial Flaws ........................... 23 2.4 Geometry ........................................................................................................................................ 25 2.5 Applied Stress Intensity Factor Calculation ........................................ ............... .. .... ................ ....... 27 2.6 Applied Stresses ... ..... ............. .. .. .... .. ....... .......... ........................ .. .... ......... ............... .......... ............ 27 2.6.1 Residual Stress in Welds ............................................... .. .............................. .............. .... 27 2.6.2 Sustained Stresses due to Piping Loads and System Pressure ..................................... 27 2.6.3 Transient Stresses ....... .. .................................................. .............................................. .. 29 2.7 Methodology for Flaw Growth Analyses ........................................... ...................... ....................... . 32 2.8 Fatigue Crack Growth (CG) Rates .. ........ .... ................................... .. ....... .. ............... .... .............. .... 33 2.8.1 Alloy 600 CG Rates in Air .................................................. ................ ........ ...................... 33 2.8.2 Alloy 600 CG Rates in PWR Environment.. ..... ...... ..... .... .. ............................................... 33 Page 4

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table of Contents (continued)

Page 2.8.3 Alloy 52 and 52M ............................................................................................................. 34 2.9 Fatigue Crack Growth for Low-Alloy Steel Material ....................... .................. ......................... .. .... 34 2.10 Methodology for Establishing Acceptance Flaw Sizes ........... ...... .................................................. 36 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 39 3.1 Unverified Assumptions ........ ...................... .... ....... .... ....... ....................... ....... .......... ...................... 39 3.2 Justified Assumptions ........................................................................ ........................................ .. ... 39 3.3 Modeling Simplification .. ........................................................................................................ ......... 39 4.0 COMPUTER USAGE ................................... .. ............................................................................. 40 4.1 Computer Software and Hardware ............ ... ............. .. .. ....... .......................................................... 40 4.2 Computer Files ..... :........................................ ... ..... ............ .. .......................................................... . 40 5.0 RESULTS OF INDICATIONS ANALySES ................................................................................. .41 5.1 PZR Safety Nozzle A Indications ................................................................................................... 41 5.1.1 PZR Safety Nozzle A Circumferential Flaw Growth Analysis .......................................... 41 5.1.2 PZR Safety Nozzle A Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation .................................. 41 5.2 PZR Safety Nozzle 8 NDE Occlusion Zone .................. .... ............................................................. 42 5.2.1 PZR Safety Nozzle 8 Circumferential Flaw Growth Analysis ................ ...... .................... 42 5.2.2 PZR Safety Nozzle 8 Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation .................................. 43 5.2.3 PZR Safety Nozzle 8 Axial Flaw Growth Analysis .......................................................... 44 5.2.4 PZR Safety Nozzle 8 Axial Final Flaw Size Evaluation .. .. .................................. .. ...... .... . 45 5.3 PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE Occlusion Zone .......... .. ...................... .. ............................................... 47 5.3.1 PZR Safety Nozzle C Circumferential Flaw Growth Analysis .... ...................................... 47 5.3.2 PZR Safety Nozzle C Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation .................................. 47 5.3.3 PZR Safety Nozzle C Axial Flaw Growth Analysis ...... .... ............................................. .. . 48 5.3.4 PZR Safety Nozzle C Axial Final Flaw Size Evaluation .. .............................................. .. 49 5.4 PZR Spray Nozzle NDE Occlusion Zone ............................. ............ ......................................... .. .. . 50 5.4.1 PZR Spray Nozzle Circumferential Flaw Growth Analysis ............................ .... .. ............ 50 5.4.2 PZR Spray Nozzle Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation ...................................... 51 5.4.3 Spray Nozzle Axial Flaw Growth Analysis ................ .. .... .. .. .:........................................... 52 5.4.4 Spray Nozzle Axial Final Flaw Size Evaluation ............... ................................................ 53 6.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION ..... ......................................... ..... .... ......................................... 54 Page 5

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table of Contents (continued)

Page

7.0 REFERENCES

... ...................... ... .... .. .......................................................................................... 55 Page 6

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary List of Tables Page Table 2-1: PZR Safety Nozzle A - IWB 3514 Acceptance Examination .... .. .......................... .. .. .. .... ...... 13 Table 2-2: PZR Safety Nozzle B -IWB 3514 Acceptance Examination .... ................. .................... ... .... 15 Table 2-3: PZR Safety Nozzle C -IWB 3514 Acceptance Examination ..................................... ........ .. 16 Table 2-4: PZR Spray Nozzle -IWB 3514 Acceptance Examination ........ .. ......................... .. .......... .. ... 18 Table 2-5: Summary of Indications .................... ........................ .. .............. .. ............................. .. .... .. ..... 18 Table 2-6: Safety Nozzle FSWOL Dimensions (Design) ......... .... .............. .. ................................ .. ... ..... 25 Table 2-7: Spray Nozzle FSWOL Dimensions (Design) ........... .. .. ............ .... ................................... .. .... 26 Table 2-8: PZR Safety Nozzle Sustained Loads at the Safe End .. ............ .. .. .. ........................... .... .. ... .. 28 Table 2-9: PZR Safety Nozzle Sustained Loads at the Nozzle .. .. ................. ..................................... .... 28 Table 2-10: PZR Spray Nozzle Sustained Loads at the Safe End ...... ....... .... .................................... .... 29 Table 2-11: Operating Transients for PZR Safety Nozzle ......... ...... ........... .. .................. ................. ...... . 30 Table 2-12: PZR Safety Nozzle Seismic (DE) loads at the Safe End ........ ... ............................... .... .. .... 30 Table 2-13: PZR Safety Nozzle Seismic (DE) loads at the Nozzle ............ .. .... ................................... ... 31 Table 2-14: Operating Transients for PZR Spray Nozzle ......... .... .. ... .. ... .. .... ... .... .. .. .................... ...... .... 31 Table 2-15: PZR Spray Nozzle Seismic (DE) loads at the Safe End .. ....... .. ................................ .. .. .. ... . 32 Table 2-16: PZR Safety Nozzle Loading Conditions for Primary Bending Stress, Ob, at Safe End .. .. .. .. 37 Table 2-17: PZR Safety Nozzle Loading Conditions for Primary Bending Stress, Ob, at Nozzle .... ...... . 37 Table 2-18: PZR Spray Nozzle Loading Conditions for Primary Bending Stress, Ob, at Safe End .. .... .. 38 Table 4-1: Computer Files for Crack Growth Evaluation .......... ...... .... .. .... .. ......................................... .. 40 Table 5-1: PZR Safety Nozzle A Circumferential Flaw Growth - Summary .. ................................. .. ..... .. 41 Table 5-2: PZR Safety Nozzle A Circumferential Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis ......................... .. .. .. 41 Table 5-3: PZR Nozzle A Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation ....... .. .................................... .. .. .. 42 Table 5-4: PZR Safety Nozzle B Circumferential Flaw Growth - Summary .. ................................ .. .. ... .. .43 Table 5-5: PZR Safety Nozzle B Circumferential Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis ......................... .. ... .43 Table 5-6: PZR Safety Nozzle B Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation ............................... .. ...... .44 Table 5-7: PZR Safety Nozzle B Axial Flaw Growth - Summary ...... .......... .. ......................................... .45 Table 5-8: PZR Safety Nozzle B Axial Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis .. .... ..................................... ... .45 Table 5-9: PZR Safety Nozzle B Axial Final Flaw Size Evaluation .. .......... ... ........................................ .46 Table 5-10: PZR Safety Nozzle C Circumferential Flaw Growth - Summary ............................ ..... ...... . ~ .47 Table 5-11: PZR Safety Nozzle C Circumferential Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis .................... ........ .47 Table 5-12: PZR Safety Nozzle C Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation ...................... .. .... ........ .48 Page 7

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Pr.oprietary List of Tables (continued)

Page Table 5-13: PZR Safety Nozzle C Axial Flaw Growth - Summary ......................................................... .49 Table 5-14: PZR Safety Nozzle C Axial Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis ..... ................ ....................... .49 Table 5-15: PZR Safety Nozzle C Axial Final Flaw Size Evaluation ...................................................... 50 Table 5-16: PZR Spray Nozzle Circumferential Flaw Growth - Summary .............................................. 51 Table 5-17: PZR Spray Nozzle Circumferential Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis ........ ......................... 51 Table 5-18: PZR Spray Nozzle Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation .... ............. ......................... 52 Table 5-19: Spray Nozzle Axial Flaw Growth - Summary ....................................................................... 53 Table 5-20: Spray Nozzle Axial Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis .......................................................... 53 Table 5-21: Spray Nozzle Axial Final Flaw Size Evaluation .............................. ................... ,................ 54 Page 8

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary List of Figures Page Figure 2-1: Illustration of Planar Projection of PZR Safety Nozzle A Indications ................................... 12 Figure 2-2: Illustration of Planar Projection of PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE Occlusion Zone .................. 14 Figure 2-3: Illustration of Planar Projection of PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE Occlusion Zone ............ ...... 16 Figure 2-4: Illustration of Planar Projection of PZR Spray Nozzle NDE Occlusion, Zone ....................... 17 Figure 2-5: PZR Safety Nozzle A Idealized Indication ........................................................................... 19 Figure 2-6: PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE Occlusion Area - Circumferential Direction ............................. 20 Figure 2-7: PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE Occlusion Area - Axial Direction .............................................. 21 Figure 2-8: PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE Occlusion Area - Circumferential Direction ................ .. ........... 22 Figure 2-9: PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE Occlusion Area - Axial Direction .... .................... .... .. ................ 23 Figure 2-10: PZR Spray Nozzle Occlusion Zone - Circumferential Flaw .............................................. 24 Figure 2-11: PZR Spray Nozzle Occlusion Zone - Axial Flaw ............................................................... 24 Figure 2-12: Safety Nozzle OM and SS Welds with Pathlines Superposed .................................... .. .... 25 Figure 2-13: Spray Nozzle OM and SS Welds with Pathlines Superposed ...................... .. ................... 26 Page 9

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary

1.0 INTRODUCTION

An inservice inspection of Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Unit 2 overlaid Pressurizer (PZR) Safety and Spray nozzles revealed the existence of rejectable indications in Safety Nozzle A. In PZR Safety Nozzles Band C and Spray Nozzle, an occlusion zone, where lack of non-destructive examination (NDE) coverage, was observed. The indications and occlusion areas are described in the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Design Input Transmittal (DIT) summarized in References [1]. Disposition of all reported laminar indications per the rules of the acceptance standards of ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2] are reported in Reference [3].

A majority of the indications (primarily laminar) were observed in the PZR safety and spray nozzles within the low alloy steel nozzles near the shoulder region of these nozzles. In safety nozzle A, where two indications are observed in the shoulder region, a planar flaw of 0.080-inches depth into the weld overlay is conservatively assumed. In safety nozzle C, acceptable laminar indications of 2-inches or less are observed in the middle of the weld overlay above the stainless steel safe-end and weld. In addition, postulated planar flaws are evaluated in the occluded zones under these laminar indications. The reported rejectable indications are evaluated per the ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3514. In addition, the planar indications or the occluded zones requiring postulation of planar flaws are evaluated per ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3600.

This document makes use of the rules in the Appendix C of ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2] to analyze the indications for the remainder of the plants life. All design input pertinent to completing the analysis of these indications is derived from the original documents, which were used to qualify the original designs of the safety and spray nozzle overlay. The original FSWOL design calculations involved sizing calculations [4,5], structural evaluation [6, 19], weld residual stress analysis [7, 17] and fracture mechanics analysis [9, 9]. The fracture mechanics analyses involved analyzing postulated ill-surface connected flaws that extend through 75% of the original nozzle thickness. The recent inservice inspection detected indications are much smaller than the flaws postulated during the original frac,ture mechanics qualification of the FSWOL design. Also, the indications are all embedded within the body of the nozzle and overlay; therefore, no primary water stress corrosion crack growth mechanism would occur. The only mechanism by which indications could grow is fatigue crack growth.

This document provides a description of the indications, postulated flaws, applicable fatigue crack growth laws, fatigue crack growth analysis, and finally the predicted final flaw sizes are evaluated in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3600.

2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY This analysis postulates both circumferential and axial sub-surface flaws which may propagate by fatigue crack growth through the body of the safety nozzles and FSWOL, governed by crack growth rates and applied stress intensity factor. It is noted that the original fracture mechanics qualification of the FSWOL design, which was performed in 2007, used 38 year of remaining service life. The current analysis will be performed maintaining the 38 year of remaining service life. Fatigue crack growth analysis will be performed for 38 years of service life.

Applied stresses include both transient and sustained normal operating loads. The analysis will determine the total amount of fatigue crack growth in 38 years. The predicted final flaw sizes are evaluated in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3600.

2.1 Indications Shapes and Locations Based on the Design Input Transmittal (DIT), References [1], the results of the PZR safety and spray nozzles inspection are summarized below.

Page 10

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary 2.1.1 PZR Safety Nozz le A Ins pection PZR Safety Nozzle A inspection detected 5 laminar flaw indications. The disposition of PZR Safety Nozzle A laminar flaws in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWA-3360 and IWB-3514 is provided in Reference [3]. Two of the indications in PZR Safety Nozzle A (indications 1 and lA) are measured to be 0.08 inch deep through the thickness and 16.3 inches long around the circumference. Indications 1 and 1A are located within the FSWOL volume with the first tip located at the interface between the FSWOL and the low alloy steel nozzle and the second tip extends 0.08 radially into the FSWOL. Figure 2-1 shows an illustration of the PZR Safety Nozzle A indications. As shown in Figure 2-1, indications 1 and 1A are outside the lSI examination volume code coverage box but within the ABCD inspection box. Per Reference [8], disposition of indications 1 and 1A can be performed using the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB 3514 [2] using the full thickness of the nozzle and the overlay. Table 2-1 shows that indications 1 and lA ofPZR Safety Nozzle A meet the acceptance standard of IWB-3514. The evaluation in Table 2-1 evaluates the indications as found.

Section 5.0 shows disposition of PZR Safety Nozzle A indications 1 and lA in accordance with acceptance rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3640 [2]. The results of the flaw evaluations in Section 5.0 provide flaw growth due fatigue. Flaw evaluation of the final flaw size is performed using the limit load analysis method of Appendix C of ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2].

Page 11

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary

/ D~:::oo 344 Ind. 1a Safety Nozzle "1\'

W1B*368 Overlay Indication Plot Indication FSWOL ~

Nozzle Figure 2-1: Illustration of Planar Projection of PZR Safety Nozzle A Indications.

Page 12

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 2-1 : PZR Safety Nozzle A - IWB 3514 Acceptance Examination Check Interpfor Flaw Size Half Flaw Size Flaw Length Thickness Flaw Depth Actual Actual Y =(S/t)/{a/t) = S/a Proximity a/I- a/I+ a/I Allowed Pass / Fail Nozzle *Indication 2a (in) a (in) I (in) t (in) S(in) a/I aft : Y =min(Y,l) O.4d ' 5 > O.4d 0.00 0.05 aft Safety A 0.08 0.04 16.3 1.61 0.6 0.0025 2.48% 15 1 0.016 Y t- 8.5 8.6 8.50 8.2% Pa ss Circ t+ : 8. 8.2 8.01 I i Check Interpfor Flaw Size Half Flaw Size FlawLength Thickness Flaw Depth Actual Actual Y =(S/t)/(a/t) = S/a Proximity a/I- ,a/I+ a/I Allowed Pass / Fa il Nozzle ' Indication 2a (in) a (in) I (in) t (in) 5 (in) a/I aft Y Y=mm(Y,l) O.4d 5> 0.4d 0.05 0.1 aft Safety A 1 0.08 0.04 0.4 1.61 0.6 0.1000 2.48% 15 1 0.016 Y t- 8.6 , 8.8 8.80 8.5% Pass Axial t+ 8.2 ' 8.3 8.30 I ; I Check Interpfor Flaw Size Half Flaw Size Flaw Length Thickness Flaw Depth Actual Actual Y =(S/t)/(a/t) = S/a Proximity a/I- a/I+ a/I Allowed Pass / Fail Nozzle i lndication < 2a (in) a (in) I (in) t (in) 5 (in) a/I aft Y =min(Y,l) O.4d S> O.4d 0.00 0.05 aft Safety A lA 0.08 0.04 16.3 1.61 0.52 0.0025 2.48% 13 I 1 0.016 Y t- 8.5 8.6 8.50 8.2% Pass Circ t+ 8 8.2 8.01 I , I I i Check Interpfor

FlawSize ' Half Flaw Size Flaw Length Thickness Flaw Depth Actual Actual Y =(S/t)/(a/t) = S/a Proximity a/I- a/I+ a/I Allowed . Pass / Fail Nozzle .Indication , 2a (in) a (in) I (in) t (in) S(in) a/I aft Y , Y =min(Y,l) O.4d 5> O.4d 0.05 0.10 aft Safety A lA 0.08 0.04 0.4 1.61 0.52 0.1000 2.48% 13 1 0.016 Y t- 8.6 8.8 8.80 8.5% Pass Axial t+ 8.2 ' 8.3 8.30 In Table 2-1 the first cohimn identifies the inspected nozzle and the second column identifies the label of the detected rejectable indication. The notations in Table 2-1 are described as the following: 2a is the measured flaw size and a is half the flaw size, I is the measured flaw length, t is overlaid nozzle thickness used for evaluation (FSWOL + underlying original material thicknesses), S is the distance of subsurface flaw measured from the OD of the FSWOL, all is the calculated flaw aspect ratio, alt is the actual flaw size to thickness ratio in percentage

(%).

The overlaid nozzle thickness and flaw dimensions are used to look up the allowable flaw depth to thickness ratio from ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Table IWB 3514-2 [2]. In order to use ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Table IWB 3514-2, Yis calculated in accordance with ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Table IWB 3514-2, which is given by Y=(SIt)I(alt)=Sla. From the foot notes of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Table IWB 3514-2 if Y> 1 then Y =1. It is necessary to examine the proximity rule to determine if the flaw can be treated as subsurface or surface flaw. Table 2-1 shows the proximity rule examination. To check the proximity rule, the quantity O.4d is calculated, where d is the half flaw depth of subsurface flaw as shown in ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Figure IWA -3310-1. If S is greater than O.4d then the flaw is treated as a subsurface flaw , else the flaw will be treated as surface flaw with depth 2d+S.

Once the flaw is characterized as either subsurface or surface flaw, the overlaid nozzle thickness and flaw dimensions are used to look up the allowable flaw depth to thickness ratio from ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Table IWB3514-2 [2]. To get the proper allowable flaw depth to thickness ratio, interpolation is necessary. For the thickness of interest, the thickness values that are just below and just above the thickness of interest are identified in ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Table IWB 3514-2. These thicknesses are labeled as f and t in Table 2-1. (is the thickness column in ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Table IWB 3514-2 for the thickness just below the thickness of interest and t is the thickness column in ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Table IWB 3514-2 for the thickness just above the thickness of interest. For the flaw aspect ratio (all) of interest, the flaw aspect ratio just above and just below the aspect ratio of interest are identified in ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Table IWB 3514-2. These aspect ratios are designated as at and ar. air is the ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Table IWB 3514-2 flaw aspect ratio just below the flaw aspect ratio (all) of interest and air is the ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Table IWB 3514-2 flaw aspect ratio just above the flaw aspect ratio (all) of interest. Therefore, for each pair of thickness and all, four pairs of allowable alt ratios are looked up from ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Table IWB 3514-2 [an allowable alt for each of (f, alt), (t, alt), (f, air), (t , air)].

The first interpolations is done on all which results in two interpolated values of allowable alt. The second interpolation is performed on t which results in the desired allowable alt.

Page 13

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary 2.1.2 PZR Safety Nozzle B Inspection PZR Safety Nozzle B inspection revealed three laminar flaws. The disposition of PZR Safety Nozzle B laminar flaws in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWA-3360 and IWB-3514 is performed in Reference [3]. PZR Safety Nozzle B inspection also shows an NDE occlusion zone where lack of NDE coverage exists. The occlusion area was characterized by the sketch shown in Figure 2-2. As seen in Figure 2-2, the PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE occlusion area is located near the left edge of the lSI examination volume code coverage box. However, the PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE occlusion zone is located entirely in the low alloy steel nozzle.

The planar dimensions of the bounding box of the occlusion area are 0.26 inch in the radial direction and 0.20 inch in the axial direction. Per Reference [8], disposition of postulated axial and circumferential flaws in PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE occlusion zone can be performed in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB 3514 [2] using the full thickness of the nozzle and overlay. Table 2-2 shows that both axial and circumferential postulated flaws in PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE occlusion zone meet the acceptance standard of IWB-3514. Table 2-2 evaluates the as found indications. Section 5.0 shows disposition of PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE occlusion zone indications postulated flaws in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3640 [2] acceptance rules. The results of the flaw evaluations in Section 5.0 provide flaw growth due to fatigue.

Flaw evaluation of the final flaw size is performed using the limit load analysis method of Appendix C of the ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2].

Pressurizer Flow ->

Indication FSWOL Figure 2-2: Illustration of Planar Projection of PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE Occlusion Zone Page 14

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 2-2: PZR Safety Nozzle B - IWB 3514 Acceptance Examination

. Check Interpfor

' Flaw Size ' Half Flaw Size ,Fla w Length Thickness Flaw Depth , Actual : Actual Y;(S/t)/(a/t); S/a Proximity a/I* , a/I+ a/I Allowed ' Pass / Fail Nozzle : Indication i 2a (in) a (in) j I (in) t (in) 5 (in) I a/I 1 aft Y ;min(Y,l) 1 O.4d 5> O.4d 0.00 . 0.05 ~Lt Safety B i. Circ ' 0.26 0.13 5.5 1.61 0.58 , 0.0236 ! 8.07% . 4.461538 j 1 ! 0.052 ; Y t- i 1 8.5 1 8.6 8.55 8 .3% Pass i t+ : 2 i 8: 8.2 8.09 I ; . Check ! Interp for

. I Flaw Size : Half Flaw Size : Flaw Length :Thickness ; Flaw Depth ' Actual Actual ;Y ;(5/t)/(a/t) ; S/a ' Prox~mity ; a/I:. ; a/I+ a/ I Allowed : Pass / Fail Nozzle ! Indication l . 2a (in) ' a (in) f' I (in) ., t (i'n) 1 . 5 (in) i ' a/I . ! .. aft . - ,. : Y ;min(Y,l) ! O.4d ( 5> O.4d 0.50 0.50 . aft .! .. .

Safety B ;Axial I 0.26 0.13 l 0.2 1.61 ! 0.58 0.6500 : 8.07% . 4.461538 ; 1 ; 0.052 } Y t- 10 10 10.00 9:6%' Pass

. I! i : ! ' t+ : 2 9.4 1 9.4 9.40 ,,,, I Note: for all > 0.5, all = 0.5 is used to lookup allowable alt from ASME B&P V Code Section Xl, Table IWB 3514-2.

2.1.3 PZR Safety Nozzle C Inspection PZR Safety Nozzle C inspection revealed two small laminar indications (indications #3 and #4 per Reference [1])

that were found to be acceptable per the inspection report. PZR Safety Nozzle C inspection shows an NDE occlusion area, similar to that shown in Safety Nozzle B. The observed NDE occlusion zone shows lack ofNDE coverage. The NDE occlusion zone of PZR Safety Nozzle C is characterized by the sketch shown in Figure 2-3.

The Safety Nozzle C NDE occlusion area is located in the FSWOL near the safe end to stainless steel weld (SSW). The planar dimensions of the bounding box of the occlusion area are 0.21 inch in the radial direction and 0.25 inch in the axial direction. The occlusion zone length in the circumferential direction is 2.0 inch. Per Reference [8], disposition of postulated axial and circumferential flaws in PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE occlusion zone is to be performed in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB 3514 [2] using the full thickness of the FSWOL and the underlying material. Table 2-3 shows that both axial and circumferential postulated flaws in PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE occlusion zone meet the acceptance standard of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3514 [2]. The flaws postulated in PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE occlusion zone are also evaluated using the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3640 [2]. The results of the flaw evaluations in Section 5.0 provide flaw growth due to fatigue. Flaw evaluation of the [mal flaw size is performed using the limit load analysis method of Appendix C of the ASME B&PV Code Section XI.

Page 15

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary "A"Oatum 316 55 Piping Flow ~

Indication FSWOl Figure 2-3: Illustration of Planar Projection of PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE Occlusion Zone Table 2-3: PZR Safety Nozzle C - IWB 3514 Acceptance Examination t I Check Interpfor j Flawsize ' Half Flaw Size :Flaw Length ,Thickness ! Flaw Depth , Actual Actual Y ;(S/t)/(a/t); S/a Proximity a/I- a/I+ a/I Allowed Pass / Fail Nozzle 'Indication I 2a (in) a (in) ! I (in) t (in) 5 (in) a/I aft Y ;min(Y,l) ! O.4d i S>O.4d 0.05 ' 0.10 aft SafetyC Circ 0.21 0.105 1.58 0.3 0.0525 6.65% 2.857143 1 ! 0.042 Y t- 8.6 , 8.8 8.61 8.4% Pass t+ 2 8.2 t 8.3 8.21 I Check Interp for l FlawSize . Half Flaw Size Flaw Length Thickness , Flaw Depth Actual Actual Y ;(S/t)/(a/t); S/a ! Proximity a/I: .. i a/I+. a/I Allowed Pass / Fail Nozzle -Indication ! 2a (in) a (in) I (in) t (in) i 5 (in) a/I aft Y ;min(Y,l) : 0.4d S>O.4d 0.40 0.50 aft SafetyC ' Axial 0.21 0.105 0.25 1.58 : 0.3 0.4200 6.65% . 2.857143 1 1 0.042 Y t- 9.71 9.8 9.72 9.4% Pass t+ 2 9.1 ! 9.3 9.14 2.1.4 PZR Spray Nozzle Inspection PZR Spray Nozzle inspection revealed one rejectable laminar indication. The disposition of PZR Spray Nozzle laminar flaws in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWA-3360 and IWB-3514 are performed in Reference [3]. PZR Spray Nozzle inspection revealed an NDE occlusion area, similar to that seen in Safety Nozzles Band C. The observed NDE occlusion zone shows lack of NDE coverage. The NDE occlusion zone of PZR Spray Nozzle is characterized by the sketch shown in Figure 2-4. The Spray Nozzle NDE occlusion Page 16

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary area is located outside the FSWOL in the safe end to pipe weld (SSW). The planar dimensions of the bounding box of the Spray Nozzle occlusion area are 0.15 inch in the radial direction and 0.31 inch in the axial direction.

The length of occlusion zone in the circumferential direction is 20.6 inch. As seen in Figure 2-4, the postulated flaws in the PZR Spray Nozzle occlusion zone are located in the lSI examination volume code coverage box but not within the volume of the FSWOL. Per Reference [8], disposition of postulated axial and circumferential flaws in PZR Spray Nozzle NDE occlusion zone is to be performed in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB 3514 [2] using the thickness of the FSWOL and the underlying material. Table 2-4 shows that both axial and circumferential postulated flaws in PZR Spray Nozzle NDE occlusion zone meet the acceptance standard of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3514 [2]. The flaws postulated in PZR Spray Nozzle NDE occlusion zone are also evaluated using the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3640 [2]. The results of the flaw evaluations in Section 5.0 provide flaw growth due to fatigue. Flaw evaluation of the final flaw size is performed using the limit load analysis method of Appendix C of the ASME B&PV Code Section XI.

Alloy 52

'Neld Overlay SA*50S Spray Nozzle

- - Pressur'---

1" 0.15" Indication FSWOI.:

Figure 2-4: Illustration of Planar Projection of PZR Spray Nozzle NDE Occlusion Zone Page 17

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 2-4: PZR Spray Nozzle -IWB 3514 Acceptance Examination Check Interpfor Flaw Size Half Flaw Size ,Flaw length Thickness Flaw Depth Actual Actual Y =(S/t)/(a/t) = S/a Proximity a/I- a/I+ a/I Allowed Pass / Fail Nozzle Indication 2a (in) a (in) I (in) t (in) 5 (in) a/I aft Y =min(Y,l) , O.4d S>O.4d 0.00, 0.05 aft Spray .Circ 0.15 0.075 20.6 1.1 0.51 0.003641 6.82% 6.8 1 0.03 Y t- 8.5 . 8.6 8.51 8.5% Pass t+ 2 8; 8.2 8.01 I Check Interpfor Flaw Size . Half Flaw Size : Flaw l.ength 'Thickness Flaw Depth Actual Actual Y =(S/t)/(a/t) = S/a Proxi mity al,l: -.i a/I+ a/I Allowed Pass / Fail Nozzle . Indi~ation ; 2a (in) a (in) I (in) t (in) 5 (in) a/I aft Y Y =min(Y,l); O.4d S>O.4d 0.20 ' 0.25 aft Spray Axial 0.15 0.075 0.31 1.1 0.51 0.241935 6.82% 6.8 1 0.03 Y t- 9.1 ' 9.2 9. 18 9.1% Pass H 2 : 8.6 ' 8.7 8.68 2.2 Summary of Indications This section provides a summary of all indications with planar characteristic and postulated planar flaws in the NDE occlusion zones. Table 2-5 shows all indications and the results of the IWB-3514 evaluation. As seen in Table 2-5, all the postulated flaws in PZR Safety Nozzles and Spray Nozzle meet the acceptance standard of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB 3514 [2].

Table 2-5: Summary of Indications Flaw Flaw Size Flaw Length Thickness Meet Nozzle Indication Direction (in) (in) (in) S IWB-3514 Safety A 1 eire 0.08 16.3 1.61 0.60 Yes Safety A 1 Axial 0.08 0.4 1.61 0.60 Yes Safety A 1A eire 0.08 16.3 1.61 0.52 Yes Safety A 1A Axial 0.08 0.4 1.61 0.52 Yes Safety B Occlusion eire 0.26 5.50 1.61 0.58 Yes Safety B Zone Axial 0.26 0.20 1.61 0.58 Yes Safetye Occlusion eire 0.21 2.00 1.58 0.3 Yes Safetye Zone Axial 0.21 0.25 1.58 0.3 Yes Spray Occlusion eire 0.15 20.60 1.10 0.51 Yes Spray Zone Axial 0.15 0.31 1.10 0.51 Yes 2.3 Postulated Flaw Shapes for Fracture Mechanics Evaluation 2.3.1 PZR Safety Nozzle A Indication For PZR safety nozzle A indications, the idealized flaw shape for fracture mechanics evaluation is shown in Figure 2-5. The flaw is assumed as full 3600 circumferential flaw that is embedded entirely in the FSWOL with one flaw tip located at the interface of the nozzle and the FSWOL and the other flaw tip extending 0.08 inch into the FSWOL.

Page 18

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Saf~ty and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Subsurface 360 0 FSWOL Nozzle Figure 2-5: PZR Safety Nozzle A Idealized Indication 2.3.2 PZR Safety Nozzle 8 NDE Occlusion Area - Circumferential Flaw For PZR safety nozzle B NDE occlusion area, the idealized circumferential flaw shape for fracture me'chanics evaluation is shown in Figure 2-6. The flaw is assumed as full 360 0 circumferential flaw that is embedded entirely in the low alloy steel nozzle with one flaw tip located at the interface between the nozzle and the FSWOL and the other flaw tip extending 0.26 inch into low alloy steel nozzle.

Page 19

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Subsurface 360 0 FSWOL Nozzle Figure 2-6: PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE Occlusion Area - Circumferential Direction 2.3.3 PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE Occlusion Area - Axial Flaw For PZR safety nozzle B NDE occlusion area, the idealized axial flaw shape for fracture mechanics evaluation is shown in Figure 2-7. The flaw is assumed as an axial slit that extends through the full length of the nozzle. The axial flaw is embedded entirely in the low alloy steel nozzle with one flaw tip located at the interface between the nozzle and the FSWOL and the other flaw tip extending 0.26 inch into low alloy steel nozzle. It should be noted that the appropriate length for the postulated axial flaw is 0.23 inch. However, the fracture mechanics solution uses a length that extends through the full length of the nozzle, which is a conservative assumption.

Page 20

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Flaw c

Axial Flaw Circumferential Flaw Figure 2-7: PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE Occlusion Area - Axial Direction 2.3.4 PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE Occlusion Area - Circumferential Flaw For PZR safety nozzle C NDE occlusion area circumferential direction postulated indication, the idealized flaw shape for fracture mechanics evaluation is shown in Figure 2-8. The flaw is assumed as full 360 0 circumferential flaw that is embedded entirely in the FSWOL. The depth of the postulated flaw is 0.21 inch.

Page 21

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Subsurface 360 0 Circumferential Flaw tNozzle Nozzle tOverlay Figure 2-8: PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE Occlusion Area - Circumferential Direction 2.3.5 PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE Occlusion Area - Axial Flaw For PZR safety nozzle C NDE occlusion area axial direction postulated indication, the idealized flaw shape for fracture mechanics evaluation is shown in Figure 2-9. The flaw is assumed as an axial slit that extends through the full length of the nozzle. The flaw is embedded entirely in the FSWOL. The flaw depth is 0.21 inch. It should be noted that the appropriate flaw length for the postulated flaw is 0.25 inch. However, the fracture mechanics solution uses a flaw length that extends through the full length of the nozzle, which is a conservative assumption.

Page 22

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Flaw c

Axial Flaw Circumferential Flaw Figure 2-9: PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE Occlusion Area - Axial Direction 2.3.6 PZR Spray Nozzle Occlusion Area - Circumferential and Axial Flaws For PZR Spray Nozzle, the NDE occlusion zone is inside the stainless steel weld (SSW) connecting the safe end to pipe spray line piping. The postulated flaws in the occlusion zone are in close proximity of the original FSWOL fracture mechanics qualification postulated flaws, which were assumed to be ID surface-connected flaws that extend through 75% of the SSW thickness. Therefore, the postulated flaws for the PZR Spray Nozzle occlusion zone are assumed to extend through the full thickness of the SSW. The postulated flaws are a full (360°) circumferential partial through-wall internal flaw in a cylinder as shown in Figure 2-10 and a semi-elliptical, inside surface connected axial flaw as shown in Figure 2-11 . The axial flaw geometry is assumed to have 2: 1 length to depth ratio. The postulated flaws will grow by fatigue in the FSWOL.

Page 23

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Original Weld FSWOL Figure 2-10: PZR Spray Nozzle Occlusion Zone - Circumferential Flaw Original Weld Postulated Semi-Elliptical Axial Flaw Figure 2-11: PZR Spray Nozzle Occlusion Zone - Axial Flaw Page 24

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary 2.4 Geometry The geometry parameters used in this document for the disposition of the observed indications are similar to the geometry parameters used in the original fracture mechanics qualification of the FSWOL designs described in Refer~nce [9] for the PZR Safety Nozzle and in Reference [10] for the PZR Spray Nozzle. The original fracture mechanics qualifications for both of the PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles [9, 10] postulated both axial and circumferential inner surface-connected flaws along the four pathlines (FPath1, FPath2, FPath3, FPath4) shown in Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13. Pertinent geometry parameters used in Reference [9] for analyzing the PZR Safety Nozzle, which were taken from References [11,12], are shown below in Table 2-6. The geometry parameters used in Reference [10] for analyzing the PZR Spray Nozzle, which were taken from References [13,14], are shown below in Table 2-7. For the current flaw dispositions, the PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles diameters and -

thickness are maintained as those used in References [9, 10]. It should be noted that the NDE inspection shows that the actual as-welded FSWOL thickness is greater than the minimum design FSWOL thickness used in References [9, 10]. Using the minimum design overlay thickness in the analysis of the flaw indications is conservative. The indications or NDE occlusion zone for PZR Safety Nozzles A and B are located close to FPathl (Figure 2-12) while the NDE occlusion zone for PZR Safety Nozzle C is close to Fpath3 (Figure 2-12). The indications or NDE occlusion zone for PZR Spray Nozzle is located at FPath4 (Figure 2-13).

Figure 2-12: Safety Nozzle DM and SS Welds with Pathlines Superposed Table 2-6: Safety Nozzle FSWOL Dimensions (Design)

Note that the actual as welded FSWOL thickness is greater than the design thickness. The design thickness was conservatively used in crack growth analysis and evaluation ofASME B&PV Code, IWB-3640 acceptance rules.

Page 25

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary FPathl FPath2 Figure 2-13: Spray Nozzle DM and SS Welds with Pathlines Superposed Table 2-7: Spray Nozzle FSWOL Dimensions (Design)

Note that the actual as welded FSWOL thickness is greater than the design thickness. The design thickness was conservatively used in crack growth analysis and evaluation ofASME B&PV Code, IWB-3640 acceptance rules.

Page 26

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary 2.5 Applied Stress Intensity Factor Calculation This document used AREVA CGC [15] to perform fatigue crack growth. AREVA CGC [15] uses the weight function method for calculating the stress intensity factor (SIF). Calculating SIF using the weight function method is a well-established fracture mechanics methodology, which AREVA has incorporated into AREVACGC. The technical basis for this implementation is given in Reference [16]. AREVACGC computes the SIF internally and perform the fatigue crack growth to calculate the final flaw size at the end of the given service life. Necessary inputs to AREVACGC include nozzle geometry, flaw shape, size, orientation, applied stress, transient cycles, and temperature. The fatigue crack growth rates for the material of interest (low alloy steel nozzle and Alloy 52 FSWOL) are implemented in AREVACGC and can be activated by choosing appropriate input flags.

2.6 Applied Stresses The categories of applied stresses that need to be considered are discussed in this section. As shown in Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13, the pathlines chosen to sample the state of residual and operational stresses for the original fracture mechanics evaluations of the PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles FSWOL were selected in the welds and butter regions. FPathl is the closest to the PZR Safety Nozzles A and B indications while FPath3 is the closest to the PZR Safety Nozzles C indications. FPath4 shown in Figure 2-13 is closest to the PZR Spray Nozzle indication.

2.6.1 Residual Stress in Welds The residual stress profiles through the thickness of the DM weld, SS weld, and FSWOL are obtained from an analysis performed for the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 PZR Safety Nozzles [7] and PZR Spray Nozzle [17] . Stresses were obtained over multiple pathlines through the thickness of the DM weld, SS weld, and FSWOL. The pathlines over which these stresses are obtained are shown in Figure 2-12 for PZR Safety Nozzle and in Figure 2-13 for PZR Spray Nozzle. Axial and hoop residual stresses are obtained over these pathlines. The residual stresses at shutdown conditions are combined with the transient stress results to obtain the combined stresses over each pathline. These results are used to perform the fatigue crack growth calculation. For indications postulated in Safety Nozzle C, the residual stresses sampled along pathline FPath3 provide reasonable estimation of the residual stresses. For the indications postulated in Safety Nozzles A and B, the closest pathline for which residual stresses are extracted is pathline FPath 1. However, upon reviewing the residual stress contour plots provided in Reference [7], it appears that the residual stresses in the region of interest is about 15-20 ksi higher than the residual stresses along pathline FPath 1. To be conservative in estimating the appropriate residual stresses for the indications postulated in PZR Safety Nozzles A and B, a stress value of 25 ksi was added to the residual stresses reported along pathline FPathl. For the PZR Spray Nozzle indications, the residual stresses along pathline FPath4 from Reference [17] are used.

2.6.2 Sustained Stresses due to Piping Loads and System Pressure 2.6.2.1 PZR Safety Nozzle Piping Loads The PZR Safety Nozzle Deadweight and Thermal loads applied at the safe end are obtained from the actual loads described in References [4,18]. They are given below:

Page 27

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 2-8: PZR Safety Nozzle Sustained Loads at the Safe End Note: The axial forces are aligned with the nozzle center line.

The loads applied at the safe end can be transferred conservatively to the cross section of interest along the nozzle.

The region of interest for PZR Safety Nozzles A and B is approximately 4.09" away from the safe end [11, 12].

The loads applied at the safe end can be transferred conservatively to the region of interest using a single moment arm of 4.09". The transferred results are listed in Table 2-9. The transferred loads in Table 2-9 will be also used to analyze the indications in PZR Safety Nozzle C, which results in added conservatism.

Table 2-9: PZR Safety Nozzle Sustained Loads at the Nozzle Note: The axial forces are aligned with the nozzle center line.

Per Reference [18] the upset pressure is 2,600 psi and the normal operating pressure is 2250 psia. Crack face pressure is not added to the sustained loads of the Safety Nozzles indications since all indications are treated as subsurface flaws.

2.6.2.2 PZR Spray Nozzle Piping Loads The PZR Spray Nozzle Deadweight and Thermal loads applied at the safe end are obtained from the actual loads described in References [5, 18]. They are given below:

Page 28

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 2-10 : PZR Spray Nozzle Sustained Loads at the Safe End Note: The axial forces are aligned with the nozzle center line.

Per Reference [18] the upset pressure is 2,600 psi and the normal operating pressure is 2250 psia. The normal operating pressure is applied as a sustained crack face pressure for fatigue crack growth calculations. Also, since the PZR Spray Nozzle indications are near the SSW, the loads in Table 2-10 are used without transformation.

2.6.3 Transient Stresses The cyclic operating stresses that are needed to calculate fatigue crack growth were obtained from a thermo elastic three-dimensional finite element analyses [6, 19]. These fatigue stresses were developed for each of the transients at a number of time points to capture the maximum and minimum stresses due to fluctuations in pressure and temperature. Per Reference [18], the number of Res design transients is established for 60 years of design life. Using the design transient cycle counts results in a conservative number of remaining plant cycles relative to the actual cycles of each transient that the plant has experienced during the period of operation up to the installation of the weld overlays.

Page 29

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary 2.6.3.1 PZR Safety Nozzle Transient Stresses Cyclic operating stresses for the PZR Safety Nozzles were generated in Reference [6] for the transients listed in Table 2-11. The PZR Safety Nozzles transient descriptions and cycle counts are given in Reference [6].

Table 2-11: Operating Transients for PZR Safety Nozzle Design Designation Transient Name Cycles Table 2-12: PZR Safety Nozzle Seismic (DE) loads at the Safe End Page 30

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 2-13: PZR Safety Nozzle Seismic (DE) loads at the Nozzle 2.6.3.2 PZR Spray Nozzle Transient Stresses Cyclic operating stresses for the PZR Spray Nozzle were generated in Reference [19] for the transients listed in Table 2-14. The PZR Safety Nozzles transient descriptions and cycle counts are given in Reference [19].

Table 2-14: Operating Transients for PZR Spray Nozzle Designation Transient Name Design Cycles Page 31

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Note (I): Leak Test is a substep of HU-LS.

Note (2): The heatup transient also includes [ ] spray actuations at a /). T of [ ]

OF arbitrarily and the Cooldown transient includes [ ] spray actuations at a /). T of

[ ] OF arbitrarily plus an additional [ ] spray actuation with a/). T of -405°F after the pressurizer pressure is below [ ] psia. Therefore, the maximum number of cycles for heatup transients is conservatively set as the sum of the heatup transient (

[ ] ) plus the [ ] occurrences of heatup spray activations, which equals

[ ] ,and the maximum number of cycles for cool down transients is conservatively set as the sum of the cooldown transient ( [ ] ) plus the [ ] occurrences of cooldown spray activations plus the [ ] additional occurrences of cooldown spray activations, which equals [ ] .

Note (3): An additional transient event due to seismic (DE) loads is also included for circumferential flaw analysis. The seismic stress conditions are taken to be the stresses of the transient condition with the highest Stress Intensity Factor of each path line plus /

minus the stresses due to DE loads (Table 2-15)

Table 2-15: PZR Spray Nozzle Seismic (DE) loads at the Safe End 2.7 Methodology for Flaw Growth Analyses For the crack growth analyses, the applied stress intensity factor is driven by axial stress for the 360° circumferential flaw, and by hoop stress for the axial flaw. The relevant sources of stress for fatigue crack growth analyses are given below.

3600 Circumferential Flaws Residual Axial Stress at Shutdown Fatigue Crack Growth Axial Stress from Transients Sustained Stress due to Pipe Loads (Deadweight and Thermal)

Page 32

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Axial Flaws Residual Hoop Stress at Shutdown Fatigue Crack Growth Hoop Stress from Transients Flaw growth is calculated in one-year increments. As stated earlier a service life of 38 years is used in the current analysis. The highest metal temperature at the inside nozzle surface during a transient is used to determine the fatigue crack growth rate for each path line.

2.8 Fatigue Crack Growth (CG) Rates 2.8.1 Alloy 600 CG Rates in Air Crack growth rates in air are used for subsurface flaws. Flaw growth due to cyclic loading is calculated using the fatigue crack growth model in Reference [20]. The crack growth rate (CGR) equation for Alloy 600 is given by where !1K is the stress intensity factor range in terms of MPav'm and da I dN is the crack growth rate in the units of m/cycle. The other parameters are defined as C A600 = 4.835x1 0-14 + 1.622x1 0-16 T -1.490x1 0-18 T2 + 4.355x1 0-21 T3

-2.2 SR = ( 1- 0.82Rratio )

n =4.1 T = metal temperature in degrees Celcius 2.8.2 Alloy 600 CG Rates in PWR Environment Crack growth rates in PWR environment are used for surface connected flaws. Flaw growth due to cyclic loading is calculated using the fatigue crack growth model in the NRC flaw evaluation guidelines for Alloy 600 in a PWR environment, References [21] and [22], which is based on work that was presented in Reference [20]. The crack growth rate equation for Alloy 600 is given by Page 33

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary where 11K is the stress intensity factor range in terms of MPa~m and da / dN is the crack growth rate in the units of m/cycle. The other parameters are defined as

-22 SR = ( 1- 0.82Rratio )

A = 4.4X10-7 n =4.1 T = metal temperature in degrees Celcius R - K min ratio - K max TR = rise time in seconds, limited to a maximum of 5000 seconds Reference [20], or set to 30 seconds per reference [22]

2.8.3 Alloy 52 and 52M In Reference [20], the available CGR data on Alloy 690 in air suggest that under similar loading conditions the CGR of Alloy 690 appears to be slightly higher than those of Alloy 600. However, the difference most likely is an artifact of a smaller database for Alloy 690. There are no data available for Alloy 52 and 52M in air. Before any data become available, a multiplier of 2 is applied for the crack growth rate of Alloy 52 and 52M upon those of Alloy 600.

da ) _ 2 x ( da )

(

dN A52/52M dN A600 2.9 Fatigue Crack Growth for Low-Alloy Steel Material ASME B&PV Code Section XI provides fatigue crack growth for Low-Alloy Steel in air and primary water environments [2]. The formulation used for fatigue crack growth of low-Alloy steel material is provided in Article A-4000 of the Appendix A of Reference [2]. The fatigue crack growth rate da/dN of the material is characterized in terms of the range of applied stress intensity factor 11K]. The growth rate equation is da = C (11K )n dN 0 I .

Page 34

A

.A REVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary where n is the slope of the log (da/dN) versus loge M J) and Co is a scaling constant depending on the environment and the R ratio.

Based on ASME B&PV Code Section XI , Article A-4300 [2], R =KminlKmax.

3 07 ForO::; R < 1, 11K, = Kmax - K min , and S = 25.72 * (2.88 - Rr .

For- 2::; R < 0, 11K, = Kmax , and S = 1.

For R < -2, 11K, = (1- R)Kmax /3, and S = 1.

The scaling constant CO produces fatigue crack growth rates in units of in.lcycle where 11K, is in units of ksifiii Reference fatigue crack growth behavior of material exposed to light-water reactor environments is given by the above rate equation with Co and n given by whichever of the following results in the higher fatigue crack growth rate da/dN: (1) the fatigue in air environment; (2) either of the following, as applicable.

First of all, determine the knee point of 11K, based on the R ratio (R =KminlKmax if Kmin>O; R=O ifKmin::; 0).

11K/nee = 17.74 (0::; R::; 0.25) ,

11K/nee = 17.74[(3.75R + 0.06)/(26.9R - 5.725)]°*25 (0.25 < R < 0.65) and 11K, knee = 12.04 (0.65::; R ::; 1.0) 12 For low 11K, that 11K, ::; !1K, knee, n = 5.95 and Co = 1.02 x 10- S , where S is given by 1;0 (0::; R::; 0.25)

S = 26.9R - 5.725 (0.25 < R < 0.65) 111.76 (0.65 ::; R < 1.0) 7 For high 11K, that 11K, > 11K, knee, n = 1.95 and Co = 1.01 x 10- S , where S is given by 1.0 (0::; R::; 0.25)

S = 3.75R + 0.06 (0.25 < R < 0.65) .

1 2.5 (0.65 ::; R < 1.0)

The above reference fatigue crack growth rate equations are intended for use when data from the actual product form are not available.

Page 35

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary 2.10 Methodology for Establishing Acceptance Flaw Sizes First a flaw growth analysis is performed to establish the end-of-evaluation-period flaw depth af and flaw length If.

Then the screening procedure in C-4000[2] is used to establish the failure mode and appropriate analysis methodology in determining the allowable flaw sizes. Per C-4000, flaws in austenitic weld metal or Ni-Cr-Fe weld metal should be evaluated using the austenitic piping flaw evaluation procedure given in C-5000[2] for non-flux welds and C-6000[2] for flux welds. The C-5000 procedure deals with ductile materials where the failure mode is that of plastic collapse at limit load while the C-6000 procedure addresses ductile materials which fracture by ductile flaw extension prior to reaching limit load.

The DM and SS welds in the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles are considered to be flux welds and the FSWOL is considered to be a non-flux weld. Because all indications are located either in the FSWOL or at its boundary, both postulated circumferential and axial flaws, allowable flaw sizes are determined from respective tables in C- 5000[2l Per Reference [18] the limiting load combinations for primary bending stress <Jb for the ASME B&PV Code Section XI Service Level conditions are as follows:

Service Level A (Normal) - DW Service Level B (Upset) - DW+OBE Service Level C (Emergency) - No Transient or Load specified for this condition Service Level D (Faulted) - DW + DDE + HOSGRI (conservatively summed)

For the PZR Safety Nozzle, the loads applied at the safe end can be transferred to the nozzle by the moment arm of 4.09" [11 ,12] and the results are listed in Table 2-16 and Table 2-17. For the PZR Spray Nozzle, the loads at the safe end are used. The PZR Spray Nozzle loads are listed in Table 2-18.

Page 36

A AREVA '

Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 2-16: PZR Safety Nozzle Loading Conditions for Primary Bending Stress, Ob, at Safe End

~M2 +M2 Note(1): The SRSS moment is defined as Y Z Table 2-17: PZR Safety Nozzle Loading Conditions for Primary Bending Stress, Ob, at Nozzle

~M2 +M2 Note(1): The SRSS moment is defined as Y Z Page 37

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 2-18: PZR Spray Nozzle Loading Conditions for Primary Bending Stress, Ob, at Safe End

~M2 +M2 Note(l): The SRSS moment is defined as Y z Page 38

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS This section discusses assumptions and modeling simplifications applicable to the present evaluation Diablo Canyon Unit 2 PZR Safety Nozzles indications.

3.1 Unverified Assumptions There are no assumptions that must be verified before the present analysis can be used to support the disposition of the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 PZR Safety Nozzles indications.

3.2 Justified Assumptions For the PZR Safety Nozzles A and B indications, the region of interest is located slightly away from the closest pathline (FPath 1) stresses readily available [6]. Therefore a value of 25 ksi was added to both the axial and hoop components of the residual stresses along pathline FPath 1. This is deemed to be a conservative estimation of the residual stresses in the region of interest for PZR Safety Nozzles A and B indications.

3.3 Modeling Simplification For fatigue flaw growth analysis of circumferential indications, all circumferential indications are treated as full 360 0 indications. For fatigue flaw growth analysis of axial indications, all axial indications are treated as axial slits that extends through the full length of the evaluated nozzle. Theses simplifying assumption results in conservative SIF estimate for both circumferential and axial indications.

Page 39

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary 4.0 COMPUTER USAGE 4.1 Computer Software and Hardware AREVACGC 5.0 was used in this document to compute fatigue crack growth. AREVACGC 5.0 installation was verified by running test cases 1 and 2 as documented below:

Computer program tested: AREVACGC 5.0.

Computer Hardware: Intel Core i7-2640M CPU @ 2.8 GHz Tag# 5VN5S 1

N arne of person running test: Samer Mahmoud

Date of test: 2127/2013.

Results of the test: Both test cases produced were acceptable 4.2 Computer Files Computer files of all analysis contained in this document are listed in Table 4-1. These files have been stored in COLDSTOR server within the directory [ ] ".

Table 4-1: Computer Files for Crack Growth Evaluation Page 40

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary 5.0 RESULTS OF INDICATIONS ANALYSES 5.1 PZR Safety Nozzle A Indications 5.1.1 PZR Safety Nozzle A Circumferential Flaw Growth Analysis The calculated flaw growth for PZR Safety Nozzle A indications was negligible. Table 5-1 shows a summary of the predicted crack growth as calculated by AREVACGC. Table 5-2 shows the contribution of each analyzed transient to the calculated fatigue crack growth.

Table 5-1: PZR Safety Nozzle A Circumferential Flaw Growth - Summary Initial Flaw Width (in) = O.OBOO Initial Flaw Center (in) = 1.1300 Final Flaw Width (in) = O.OBOO Final Flaw Center (in) = 1.1300 Growth towards Center (in) = B.4073E-OB Growth away from Center (in) = 3.4210E-OB Total Amount of Fatigue Crack Growth (in) = 1.1B2BE-07 Table 5-2: PZR Safety Nozzle A Circumferential Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis Trans . Growth (in) Percent 3.2B91 E-OB 27.B071 4.7577E-OB 40.2230 1.1017E-OB 9.313B 5.7562E-09 4.B665 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 1.237BE-OB 10.4645 5.9569E-09 5.0361 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 1.2960E-09 1.0956 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 1.4116E-09 1.1934 5.1.2 PZR Safety Nozzle A Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation As seen in Section 5.1.1, flaw growth is negligible. Table 5-3 shows evaluation of the final flaw depth with flaw acceptance standard from Appendix C of the ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2]. It is seen from Table 5-3 that the final flaw size is much smaller than the allowable flaw size. Therefore, the indications found in PZR Safety Nozzle A are acceptable for the remainder of the plants service life.

Page 41

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 5-3: PZR Nozzle A Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation Allowable Flaw Depths Normal Upset Faulted Reference.[2]

] [ ] [ ]

Service level maximum pressure, p, (psi)

Service level maximum temperature, T, (F)

Service level flow stress, Of =(Sy+Su)/2, (psi) ~

-1 ]

] [

[ ]

] [

[ ]

]

Total thickness, t, (inch) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Overlay outside diameter, Do, (inch) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Sectional area, A, (inch2) J ] [ ] [ ]

Moment of inertia, I, (inch4) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Section modulus, S (inch3)

Primary Bending Moment, Mb SRSS (in-Ibf)

Thermal Expansion Bending Moment, Me SRSS y ]

] [

[ ]

l li

[ ]

]

(in-Ibf) ~ ~~ ~ J- ]

Safety factor, SFm, 2.7 2.4 1.3 C-2621 Safety factor, SFb, 2.3 2.0 1.4 C-2621 Calculated primary membrane stress,

=

Om pD o/4t , (psi) ~ ] [ ] [ ] C-2500

=

Calculated primary bending stress, Ob Moment SRSS/S , (psi) ~ ] [ ] [ ] C-2500 '

Calculated secondary bending stress, Oe =

Moment SRSS/S, (psi) ~ ] [ ] [ ] C-2500 Final Flaw Depth, af, (in) 0.080 0.080 0.080 Final Flaw length, If , (in) 25.133 25.133 25.133 Calculated final flaw depth to thickness ratio, af It, J ] [ ] [ ]

Stress ratio, [Om + Ob] I Of ~ ] [ ] [ ] C-5311 Ratio of flaw length to pipe circumference ,

If I TT Do, Ratio of allowable flaw depth to thickness ,

J ] [ ] [ ] C-5311 Table C-aallow I t, 0.750 0.750 0.748 5310-1,2,4 Allowable flaw depth, aallow , (in) 1.095 1.095 1.092 5.2 PZR Safety Nozzle B NDE Occlusion Zone 5.2.1 PZR Safety Nozzle B Circumferential Flaw Growth Analysis The calculated flaw growth for the postulated circumferential flaw (representing NDE occlusion zone) in PZR Safety Nozzle B is found to be negligible. Table 5-4 shows a summary of the crack growth as calculated by AREVACGC. Table 5-5 shows the contribution of each analyzed transient to the calculated fatigue crack growth.

Page 42

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 5-4: PZR Safety Nozzle B Circumferential Flaw Growth - Summary Initial Flaw Width (in) = 0.2700 Initial Flaw Center (in) = 0.9550 Final Flaw Width (in) = 0.2700 Final Flaw Center (in) = 0.9550 Growth towards Center (in) = 1.3506E-05 Growth away from Center (in) = 3.2844E-06 Total Amount of Fatigue Crack Growth (in) = 1.6791 E-05 Table 5-5: PZR Safety Nozzle B Circumferential Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis' Trans. Growth (in) Percent 1.6383E-05 97.5725 2.2487E-07 1.3392 3.7190E-08 0.2215 1.9604E-08 0.1168 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 6.9646E-08 0.4148 3.6598E-08 0.2180 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 9.0028E-09 0.0536 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 1.0685E-08 0.0636 5.2.2 PZR Safety Nozzle B Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation As seen in Section 5.2.1, the crack growth for postulated circumferential flaw is negligible. Table 5-6 shows evaluation of the final flaw depth with flaw acceptance standard from Appendix C of the ASME B&PV Code Section XI, [2]. It is seen from Table 5-6 that the final flaw size is much smaller than the allowable flaw size.

Therefore, the indications found in PZR Safety Nozzle B are acceptable for the remainder of the plants service life.

Page 43

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 5-6: PZR Safety Nozzle B Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation Reference Allowable Flaw Depths Normal Upset Faulted [2]

Service level maximum pressure, p, (psi) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Service level maximum temperature, T, (F) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Service level flow stress, at = (Sy+Su)/2, (psi) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Total thickness, t , (inch) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Overlay outside diameter, Do, (inch) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Sectional area, A, (inch2) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Moment of inertia, I, (inch4) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Section modulus, S (inch3) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Primary Bending Moment, Mb SRSS (in-Ibf) ~ ] [ l ~ ]

Thermal Expansion Bending Moment, Me SRSS (in-Ibf)

Safety factor, SFm,

~

2.7

~ li 2.4

~~

1.3

]

C-2621 Safety factor, SFb, 2.3 2.0 1.4 C-2621 Calculated primary membrane stress , am =

pDo/4t , (psi) ~ ] [ ] [ ] C-2500 Calculated primary bending stress, ab = Moment SRSS/S , (psi) ~ ] [ ] [ ] C-2500 Calculated secondary bending stress, a e =

Moment SRSS/S , (psi) ~ ] [ ] [ ] C-2500 Final Flaw Depth, at, (in) 0.270 0.270 0.270 Final Flaw length, It , (in) 25.133 25.133 25.133 Calculated final flaw depth to thickness ratio, at

] [ ] [ ]

It, Stress ratio, [am + ab] I at Ratio of flaw length to pipe circumference, It I TT

=i ]

] [

[ ]

] [

[ ]

]

C-5311 Do, Ratio of allowable flaw depth to thickness, aallow I J C-5311 Table C-t, 0.750 0.750 0.748 5310-1,2,4 Allowable flaw depth, aallow , (in) 1.095 1.095 1.092 5.2.3 PZR Safety Nozzle B Axial Flaw Growth Analysis The calculated crack growth for postulated axial flaw (representing NDE occlusion region) in Safety Nozzle B is negligible. Table 5-7 shows a summary of the crack growth as calculated by AREVACGC. Table 5-8 shows the contribution of each analyzed transient to the calculated fatigue crack growth.

Page 44

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 5-7: PZR Safety Nozzle B Axial Flaw Growth - Summary Initial Flaw Width (in) = 0.2700*

Initial Flaw Center (in) = 0.9550 Final Flaw Width (in) = 0.2700 Final Flaw Center (in) = 0.9550 Growth towards Center (in) = 1.1582E-05 Growth away from Center (in) = 5.2705E-06 Total Amount of Fatigue Crack Growth (in) = 1.6853E-05

0.27 inch flaw size was used in the analysis. The actual flaw size is 0.26 inch. The analysis is conservative Table 5-8: PZR Safety Nozzle B Axial Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis Trans. Growth (in) Percent 1.5544E-05 92 .2361 8.7848E-07 5.2128 4.3991E-08 0.2610 4.1646E-08 0.2471 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 1.9026E-07 1.1289 1.3341 E-07 0:7916 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 2.0629E-08 0.1224 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 5.2.4 PZR Safety Nozzle B Axial Final Flaw Size Evaluation As seen in Section 5.2.3, there is virtually no flaw growth for the postulated axial flaw. Table 5-9 shows evaluation of the final flaw size with the flaw acceptance standard of Appendix C of the ASME B&PV Code Section XI. It is seen from Table 5-9 that the final flaw size is much smaller than the allowable flaw size.

Therefore, the indications found in PZR Safety Nozzle B are acceptable for the remainder of the plants service life.

Page 45

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 5-9: PZR Safety Nozzle B Axial Final Flaw Size Evaluation Allowable Flaw Depths Normal Upset Faulted Reference [2]

Service level maximum pressure, p, (psi) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Service level maximum temperature, T, (F) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Service level flow stress, Of= (Sy+Su)/2, (psi) J ] [ ] [ ]

Total thickness, t , (inch) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Overlay outside diameter, Do, (inch) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Inside diameter, Di, (inch) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Mean pipe radius, Rm (inch) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Final Flaw Depth, af , (in) 0.270* 0.270* 0.270*

Final flaw length, If (inch) 0.23 0.23 0.23 Nondimensional flaw length, If I (Rmt)O.5 J ] [ ] [ ] C-5410 Pipe hoop stress, Oh = pRm/t, (psi) J l ~ ~~ ] C-5410 Stress ratio, Oh I Of J ] [ ] [ ] C-5410 Allowable flaw depth to thickness ratio, aallow/t, 0.75 0.75 0.75 Table 5410-1 Final flaw depth to thickness ratio, af It, 0.1849 0.1849 0.1849

0.27 inchflaw size was used in the analysis. The actual flaw size is 0.26 inch. The analysis is conservative Page 46

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary 5.3 PZR Safety Nozzle C NDE Occlusion Zone 5.3.1 PZR Safety Nozzle C Circumferential Flaw Growth Analysis The calculated flaw growth for PZR Safety Nozzle C indications was negligible. Table 5-10 shows a,summary of the crack growth as calculated by AREVACGC. Table 5-11 shows the contribution of each analyzed transient to the calculated fatigue crack growth.

Table 5-10: PZR Safety Nozzle C Circumferential Flaw Growth - Summary Initial Flaw Width (in) = 0.2100 Initial Flaw Center (in) = 1.0310 Final Flaw Width (in) = 0.2113 Final Flaw Center (in) = 1.0305 Growth towards Center (in) = 1.1674E-03 Growth away from Center (in) = 1.2112E-04 Total Amount of Fatigue Crack Growth (in) = 1.2886E-03 Table 5-11: PZR Safety Nozzle C Circumferential Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis Trans. Growth (in) Percent 1.2878E-03 99.9419 4.5521E-07 0.0353 6.9296E-08 0.0054 4 .2220E-08 0.0033 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 8.7996E-08 0.0068 6.6894E-08 0.0052 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 1.4047E-08 0.0011 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 1.2970E-08 0.0010 5.3.2 PZR Safety Nozzle C Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation As seen in Section 5.3.1, there is virtually no flaw growth. Table 5-12 shows evaluation of the final flaw size with the flaw acceptance standard of Appendix C of the ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2]. It is seen from Table 5-12 that the final flaw size is much smaller than the allowable flaw size. Therefore, the indications found in PZR Safety Nozzle C are acceptable for the remainder of the plants service life.

Page 47

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 5-12: PZR Safety Nozzle C Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation Reference Allowable Flaw Depths Normal Upset Faulted [2]

Service level maximum pressure, p, (psi)

J ] [ ] [ ]

Service level maximum temperature, T, (F) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Service level flow stress, Of = (Sy+Su)/2, (psi)

J ] [ ] [ ]

Total thickness , t, (inch) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Overlay outside diameter, Do, (inch) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Sectional area, A, (inch2)

J ] [ ] [ ]

Moment of inertia, I, (inch4) J ] [ ] [ ]

Section modulus, S (inch3) J ] [ ] [ ]

Primary Bending Moment, Mb SRSS (in-Ibf) J ] [ l ~ ]

Thermal Expansion Bending Moment, Me SRSS (in-Ibf) J l J l ~ ]

Safety factor, SFm, 2.7 2.4 1.3 C-2621 Safety factor, SFb, 2.3 2.0 1.4 C-2621 Calculated primary membrane stress, am = pDo/4t ,

Calculated primary bending stress, Ob = Moment (psi) J ] [ ] [ ] C-2500 SRSS/S , (psi)

Calculated secondary bending stress, Oe = Moment J ] [ ] [ ] C-2500 SRSS/S, (psi)

J 0.211

] [

0.211

] [

0.211

] C-2500 Final Flaw Depth, af, (in)

Final Flaw length, If , (in) 25.133 25.133 25.133 Calculated final flaw depth to thickness ratio, af It, J ] [ ] [ ]

Stress ratio, [am + Ob ] I Of J ] [ ] [ ] C-5311 Ratio of flaw length to pipe circumference, If I Do, J TT ] [ ] [ ] C-5311 Table C-Ratio of allowable flaw depth to thickness, aallow I t, 0.750 0.750 0.748 5310-1,2,4 Allowable flaw depth, aallow , (in) 1.095 1.095 1.092 5.3.3 PZR Safety Nozzle C Axial Flaw Growth Analysis The calculated flaw growth for postulated axial flaw representing NDE occlusion zone in PZR Safety Nozzle C was small. Table 5-13 shows a summary of the crack growth as calculated by AREVACGC. Table 5-14 shows the contribution of each analyzed transient to the calculated fatigue crack growth.

Page 48

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 5-13: PZR Safety Nozzle C Axial Flaw Growth - Summary Initial Flaw Width (in) = 0.2100 Initial Flaw Center (in) = 1.0310 Final Flaw Width (in) = 0.2102 Final Flaw Center (in) = 1.0310 Growth towards Center (in) = 9.9282E-05 Growth away from Center (in) = 1.1137E-04 Total Amount of Fatigue Crack Growth (in) = 2.1065E-04 Table 5-14: PZR Safety Nozzle C Axial Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis Trans. Growth (in) Percent 2.0852E-04 98.9878 1.5578E-06 0.7395 7.5528E-08 0.0359 8.2739E-08 0.0393 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 1.9835E-07 0.0942 1.9071 E-07 0.0905 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 2.7081 E-08 0.0129

- - O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 5.3.4 PZR Safety Nozzle C Axial Final Flaw Size Evaluation As seen in Section 5.3.3, there is virtually no flaw growth. Table 5-15 shows evaluation of the final flaw size with the flaw acceptance standard of Appendix C of the ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2]. It is seen from Table 5-15 that the final flaw size is much smaller than the allowable flaw size. Therefore, the indications found in PZR Safety Nozzle C are acceptable for the remainder of the plants service life.

Page 49

A AREVA Document No. 32 -9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 5-15: PZR Safety Nozzle C Axial Final Flaw Size Evaluation Reference Allowable Flaw Depths Normal Upset Faulted [2]

Service level maximum pressure, p, (psi) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Service level maximum temperature, T, (F) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Service level flow stress, Of =(Sy+Su)/2, (psi) J ] [ ] [ ]

Total thickness, t , (inch) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Overlay outside diameter, Do, (inch) [

=-

] [ ] [ ]

Inside diameter, Di, (inch) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Mean pipe radius, Rm (inch)

Final Flaw Depth, af , (in)

J 0.210

] [

0.210

] [

0.210

]

Final flaw length, If (inch) 0.250 0.250 0.250 Nondimensional flaw length, If I (Rmt)O.5 J ] [ ] [ ] C-5410 Pipe hoop stress, Oh =pRm/t, (psi) l l ~ l ~ ] C-5410 Stress ratio, Oh I Of J ] [ ] [ ] C-5410 Allowable flaw depth to thickness ratio, Table aallow/t , 0.75 0.75 0.75 5410-1 Final flaw depth to thickness ratio, af I t, 0.1440 0.1440 0.1440 I, = (a,/ ai)

Ii 5.4 PZR Spray Nozzle NDE Occlusion Zone 5.4.1 PZR Spray Nozzle Circumferential Flaw Growth Analysis The calculated flaw growth for the postulated circumferential flaw (representing NDE occlusion region) in PZR Spray Nozzle is small. Table 5-16 shows a summary of the crack growth as calculated by AREVACGC. Table 5-17 shows the contribution of each analyzed transient to the calculated fatigue crack growth.

Page 50

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 5-16: PZR Spray Nozzle Circumferential Flaw Growth - Summary Initial Flaw Depth (in) = 0.5520 Initial alt ratio = 0.5923 Final Flaw Depth (in) = 0.5526 Final alt ratio = 0.5929 Total Amount of Fatigue Crack Growth (in) = 5.6910E-04 Table 5-17: PZR Spray Nozzle Circumferential Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis Trans. Growth (in) Percent 2.6470E-05 4.6512 4.8068E-06 0.8446 1.7591 E-04 30.9103 1.7539E-04 30.8195 9.2776E-05 16.3023 9.2675E-05 16.2846 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 1.0665E-06 0.1874 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 5.4.2 PZR Spray Nozzle Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation As seen in Section 5.4.1, the crack growth for the postulated circumferential flaw is small. Table 5-18 shows evaluation of the final flaw size with the flaw acceptance standard of Appendix C of the ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2]. It is seen from Table 5-18 that the final flaw size is smaller than the allowable flaw size.

Therefore, the indications found in PZR Spray Nozzle are acceptable for the remainder of the plants service life.

Page 51

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 5-18: PZR Spray Nozzle Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation Reference Allowable Flaw Depths Normal Upset Faulted [2]

Service level maximum pressure, p, (psi) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Service level maximum temperature, T, (F) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Service level flow stress, Of =(Sy+Su)/2, (psi) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Total thickness, t, (inch) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Overlay outside diameter, Do, (inch) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Sectional area, A, (inch2) ~ J [ ] [ ]

Moment of inertia, I, (inch4) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Section modulus, S (inch3) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Primary Bending Moment, Mb SRSS (in-Ibf) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Thermal Expansion Bending Moment, Me SRSS (in-Ibf) ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Safety factor, SFm, 2.7 2.4 1.3 C-2621 Safety factor, SFb, 2.3 2.0 1.4 C-2621 Calculated primary membrane stress,

=

am pDo/4t , (psi) ~ ] [ ] [ ] C-2500 Calculated primary bending stress, Ob =

Moment SRSS/S , (psi) ~ l ~ l ~ ] C-2500 Calculated secondary bending stress, Oe =

Moment SRSS/S, (psi) ~ l ~ l ~ ] C-2500 Final Flaw Depth, af, (in) 0.553 0.553 0.553 Final Flaw length, If , (in) 16.824 16.824 16.824 Calculated final flaw depth to thickness ratio, af It, ~ ] [ ] [ ]

Stress ratio, [am + Ob] I Of ~ ] [ ] [ ] C-5311 Ratio of flaw length to pipe circumference, If I TT Do, ~ ] [ ] [ ] C-5311 Ratio of allowable flaw depth to thickness, Table C-aallow I t, 0.750 0.750 0.750 5310-1,2,4 Allowable flaw depth, aallow , (in) 0.699 0.699 0.699 5.4.3 Spray Nozzle Axial Flaw Growth Analysis The calculated crack growth for postulated axial flaw (representing NDE occlusion region) in PZR Spray Nozzle is small. Table 5-19 shows a summary of the crack growth as calculated by AREVACGC. Table 5-20 shows the contribution of each analyzed transients to the calculated fatigue crack growth.

Page 52

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 5-19 : Spray Nozzle Axial Flaw Growth - Summary Initial Flaw Depth (in) = 0.5520 Initial alt ratio = 0.5923 Final Flaw Depth (in) = 0.5645 Final alt ratio = 0.6057 Total Amount of Fatigue Crack Growth (in) = 1.2527E-02 Table 5-20: Spray Nozzle Axial Flaw Growth - Detailed Analysis Trans.

- Growth (in) 2.6560E-04 Percent 2.1203 3.5134E-04 2.8046 5.2481E-04 4.1895 5.2041 E-04 4.1544 9.2847E-05 0.7412 9.1917E-05 0.7338 5.9120E-03 47.1946 9.1967E-06 0;0734 4.1169E-05 0.3286 4.1701 E-05 0.3329 4.6470E-03 37.0962 1.1095E-05 0.0886 4.6323E-06 0.0370 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 6 .3709E-06 0.0509 6.7911 E-06 0.0542 O.OOOOE+OO 0.0000 5.4.4 Spray Nozzle Axial Final Flaw Size Evaluation As seen in Section 5.4.3, there is virtually small flaw growth for the postulated axial flaw. Table 5-21 shows evaluation of the final flaw depth with flaw acceptance standard from Appendix C of the ASME B&PV Code Section XI. It is seen from Table 5-21 that the final flaw size is much smaller than the allowable flaw size.

Therefore, the indications found in PZR Safety Nozzle B are acceptable for the remainder of the plants service life.

Page 53

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary Table 5-21: Spray Nozzle Axial Final Flaw Size Evaluation Reference Allowable Flaw Depths Normal Upset Faulted [2]

Service level maximum pressure, p, (psi) J ] [ ] [

[

]

Service level maximum temperature, T, (F)

Service level flow stress, at = (Sy+Su)/2, J ] [ ]

(psi) J l ~ ] [ ]

Total thickness, t , (inch) J ] [ ] [ ]

Overlay outside diameter, Do, (inch) J ] [ ] [ ]

Inside diameter, Di, (inch) J ] [ ] [ ]

Mean pipe radius, Rm (inch) J- ] [ ] [ ]

Final Flaw Depth, at , (in) 0.565 0.565 0.565 Final flaw length, It (inch) 1.129 1.129 1.129 Nondimensional flaw length, It / (Rmt)O.5 J l ~ l J ] C-5410 Pipe hoop stress, ah =pRm/t, (psi) J l ~ ] [ ] C-5410 Stress ratio, ah / at J- ] [ ] [ ] C-5410 Allowable flaw depth to thickness ratio, Table aallow/t , 0.75 0.75 0.75 5410-1 Final flaw depth to thickness ratio, at/ t, 0.61 0.61 0.61 6.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION This document performed flaw evaluations for indications found in DCPP Unit 2 PZR Safety Nozzles A, and NDE occlusion zones in PZR Safety Nozzles Band C and PZR Spray Nozzle. The conclusion of the flaw evaluations shows that the indications in PZR Safety Nozzle A and NDE occlusion zones in PZR Safety Nozzle B and C and PZR Spray Nozzle meet the flaw acceptance standards of ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3514.

All indications and postulated flaws in the NDE occlusion zones for all nozzles meet the ASME B&PV Code Section XI, IWB-3640.

Page 54

A Document No. 32-9200249-000 AREVA Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary

7.0 REFERENCES

1. AREVA Document 38-9200149-000, (DCPP Unit 2 DIT-50540188-03-00), "DCPP Unit 2 Pressurizer Nozzle NDE Data."

2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components", 2004 Edition with Addenda through 2005.

3. AREVA Document 32-9199937-000, "DCPP Unit 2 Evaluation of Laminar Indications on Pressurizer Nozzles".

4. AREVA Document 32-9043545-001, "Diablo Canyon Unit 2, Pressurizer SafetylReliefNozzle Weld Overlay Sizing Calculation."

5. AREVA Document 32-9043546-001, "Diablo Canyon Unit 2, Pressurizer Spray Nozzle Weld Overlay Sizing Calculation."

6. AREVA Document 32-9049114-001, "Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/ReliefNozzle Weld Overlay Analysis."

7. AREVA Document 32-9049062-002, "Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer SafetylReliefNozzle Weld Overlay Residual Stress Analysis."

8. Diablo Canyon Unit 2 ASME Section XI Inservicelnspection Program Relief Request REP-1 U2, Docket No. 50-323, OL-DPR-82, ML070990060.

9. . AREVA Document 32-9049065-001, "The Diablo Canyon Unit 2 pressurizer SafetylReliefNozzle Weld Overlay Crack Growth Evaluation."

10. AREVA Document 32-9049064-001, "Diablo Canyon Unit 2 PZR Spray Nozzle Weld Overlay Crack Growth Evaluation."

11. AREVA Drawing 02-8019311 D-OO 1, "Diablo Canyon Pressurizer Safety & Relief Nozzle Weld Overlay Design Input."

12. AREVA Drawing 02-8018401 C-OO 1, "Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer SafetylRelief Nozzle Existing Configuration. "

13. AREVA Drawing 02-80 18400C-002, "Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Spray Nozzle Existing Configuration. "

14. AREVA Drawing 02-8019233D-001, "Diablo Canyon Pressurizer Spray Nozzle Weld Overlay Design Input."

15. AREVA Document 32-9055891-006, "Fatigue and PWSCC Crack Growth Evaluation Tool AREVACGC."

16. AREVA Document 32- 9052958-003, "Evaluation of stress intensity factors using the weight function method."

17. AREVA Document 32-9049061-003, "Diablo Canyon Unit 2 PZR Spray Nozzle Weld Overlay Residual Stress Analysis."

18. AREVA Document 38-9046469-002, "Design Input Transmittal- Diablo Canyon 2."

19. AREVA Document 32-9049112-001, "Pressurizer Spray Nozzle Weld Overlay Structural Analysis."

20. NUREG/CR-6721 , "Effects of Alloy Chemistry, Cold Work, and Water Chemistry on Corrosion Fatigue and Stress Corrosion Cracking of Nickel Alloys and Welds," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Argonne National Laboratory), April 2001.

Page 55

A AREVA Document No. 32-9200249-000 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary

21. NRC Letter from Richard Barrett, Director Division of Engineering, Office ofNRR to Alex Marion of Nuclear Energy Institute, "Flaw Evaluation Guidelines," April 11,2003, Accession Number ML030980322.

22. Enclosure 2 to Reference [21], "Appendix A: Evaluation of Flaws in PWR Reactor Vessel Upper Head Penetration Nozzles," Accession Number ML030980333.

Page 56

DCL-13-021, Areva Calculation 32-9200249-000, Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 Pzr Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

7.0 REFERENCES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

7.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

DCL-13-021, Areva Calculation 32-9200249-000, Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 Pzr Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis - Non Proprietary

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

7.0 REFERENCES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

7.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

Search