HNP-13-122, Relief Request I3R-13, Reactor Vessel Closure Head Nozzle 37, Lnservice Inspection Program- Third Ten-Year Interval Supporting Calculations

Relief Request I3R-13, Reactor Vessel Closure Head Nozzle 37, Lnservice Inspection Program- Third Ten-Year Interval Supporting Calculations

ML13330A996
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	11/25/2013
From:	Brewer H Duke Energy Progress
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
HNP-13-122
Download: ML13330A996 (157)

Text

H. Duncan Brewer DUKE Manager, Organizational Effectiveness ENERGY Harris NuclearPlant 541 3 Shearon Harris Rd New Hill NC 27562-9300 Enclosure 2 Contains Proprietary Information 919-362-2305 Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10CFR 2.390 10CFR50.55a November 25, 2013 Serial: HNP-13-122 ATTN : Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-400

Subject:

Relief Request I3R-13, Reactor Vessel Closure Head Nozzle 37, lnservice InspectionProgram- Third Ten-Year Interval Supporting Calculations Ladies and Gentlemen:

By letter dated November 22, 2013(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession Number ML13329A354), Duke Energy Progress, Inc. requested NRC approval of relief request I3R-13for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP) inservice inspection program, third ten-year interval, pursuant to 10 CFR50.55a(a)(3)(i). The enclosed calculations are provided in support of the NRCstaff review of the referenced relief request.

Summaries of these calculations were used as justification for the requested relief.

The calculations contain information considered proprietary to AREVA NP Inc. On behalf of AREVA, Duke Energy requests that the NRCwithhold the information in accordance with 10 CFR2.390per the enclosed affidavit for withholding proprietary information. Upon removal of the proprietary information, the balance of this letter and enclosures are decontrolled.

This document contains no new regulatory commitments . Please refer any questions regarding this submittal to John Caves at (919) 362-2406.

Sincerely,

/

1

/

/ /

H. Duncan Brewer

Enclosures:

1. Affidavit Supporting Withholding of Proprietary Information

2. Proprietary Calculations

3. Redacted/Non-Proprietary Calculations cc: Mr. J. D. Austin , NRCSr. Resident Inspector, HNP Mr. A Hon, NRC Project Manager, HNP Mr. V. M. McCree, NRC Regional Administrator, Region II

HNP-13-122 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-400 Relief Request I3R-13, Reactor Vessel Closure Head Nozzle 37 Inservice Inspection Program - Third Ten-Year Interval Supporting Calculations Enclosure 1 Affidavit Supporting Withholding of Proprietary Information

AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTHOFVIRGINIA )

) ss.

CITYOFLYNCHBURG )

1. My name is Gayle F. Elliott. Iam Manager, ProductLicensing, for AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA NP) and as such Iam authorized to execute this Affidavit.

2. Iam familiar with the criteria applied by AREVA NP to determine whether certain AREVA NPinformation is proprietary. Iam familiar with the policies established by AREVA NP to ensure the proper application of these criteria.

3. Iam familiar with the AREVA NP information contained in the documents 51-9176114-001, "CorrosionEvaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTBWeld Repair," 51-9176115-002, "PWSCCAssessment of the Alloy 600 Nozzle in the Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTBWeld Repair,"32-9176345-002, "ShearonHarris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomalyand 32-9176350-001, "Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis," each dated November 2013and referred to herein as "Documents." Informationcontained in these Documents has been classified by AREVA NP as proprietary in accordance with the policies established by AREVA NPfor the control and protection of proprietary and confidential information.

4. These Documents contain information of a proprietary and confidential nature and is of the type customarily held in confidence by AREVA NP and not made available to the public. Based on my experience, Iam aware that other companies regard information of the kind contained in these Documents as proprietary and confidential.

5. These Documents have been made available to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in confidence with the request that the information contained in these Documents be withheld from public disclosure. The request for withholding of proprietary information is made in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. The information for which withholding from disclosure is requested qualifies under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(4) "Tradesecrets and commercial or financial information."

6. The following criteria are customarily applied by AREVA NP to determine whether information should be classified as proprietary:

(a) The information reveals details of AREVA NP's research and development plans and programs or their results.

(b) Use of the information by a competitor would permit the competitor to significantly reduce its expenditures, in time or resources, to design, produce, or market a similar product or service.

(c) The information includes test data or analytical techniques concerning a process, methodology, or component, the application of which results in a competitive advantage for AREVA NP.

(d) The information reveals certain distinguishing aspects of a process, methodology, or component, the exclusive use of which provides a competitive advantage for AREVA NP in product optimization or marketability.

(e) The information is vital to a competitive advantage held by AREVA NP, would be helpful to competitors to AREVA NP, and would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of AREVA NP.

The information in these Documents is considered proprietary for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 6(c) and 6(d) above.

7. In accordance with AREVA NP's policies governing the protection and control of information, proprietary information contained in these Documents has been made available,

on a limitedbasis, to others outside AREVA NP onlyas required and under suitableagreement providing for nondisclosureand limited use of the information.

8. AREVA NP policyrequires that proprietary information be kept in a secured fileor area and distributed on a need-to-know basis.

9. The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

SUBSCRIBEDbefore me this day of , 2013.

Ella Carr-Payne NOTARYPUBLIC STATEOFVIRGINIA MYCOMMISSION EXPIRES 8/31/17 R

MY

Enclosure contains proprietary information Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390 HNP-13-122 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-400 Relief Request I3R-13, Reactor Vessel Closure Head Nozzle 37 Inservice Inspection Program - Third Ten-Year Interval Supporting Calculations Enclosure 2 Proprietary Calculations AREVA Calculation #32-9176345 Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly AREVA Calculation #32-9176350 Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis AREVA Calculation #51-9176114 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair AREVA Calculation #51-9176115 PWSCC Assessment of the Alloy 600 Nozzle in the Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair

HNP-13-122 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-400 Relief Request I3R-13, Reactor Vessel Closure Head Nozzle 37 Inservice Inspection Program - Third Ten-Year Interval Supporting Calculations Enclosure 3 Redacted/Non-Proprietary Calculations AREVA Calculation #32- 9215679 Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly AREVA Calculation #32- 9215680 Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis AREVA Calculation #51- 9215673 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair AREVA Calculation #51- 9215674 PWSCC Assessment of the Alloy 600 Nozzle in the Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair

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

PROPRIETARY CALCULATION

SUMMARY

SHEET (CSS)

Document No. 32 - 9215679 - 000 Safety Related: Yes No Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly Title (Non-Proprietary)

PURPOSE AND

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS:

AREVA NP Proprietary information in the document are indicated by pairs of brackets [ ].

The purpose of this analysis is to perform fracture mechanics evaluation of a postulated anomaly in the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 (HNP-1) Reactor Vessel Closure Head (RVCH) Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) / Core Exit Thermocouple (CET) Nozzle contingency modification. According to the design specification document, this anomaly is postulated to be a 0.1 inch flaw extending 360 degrees around the circumference at the triple point location where there is a confluence of three materials; the RVCH ferritic steel base metal, the SB-167 Alloy 600 nozzle and the Alloy 52M weld material. Several potential flaw propagation paths are considered in the flaw evaluations. Flaw acceptance is based on the ASME B&PV Code, 2001 with 2002 & 2003 Addenda,Section XI criteria for applied stress intensity factor (IWB-3612) and limit load (IWB-3642).

The results of the analyses demonstrate that the 0.10 inch weld anomaly is acceptable for a 40 year design life of the HNP-1 CRDM/CET Nozzle Repair. The minimum fracture toughness margins for flaw propagation Paths 3 through 6 have been shown to be acceptable as compared to the required margins of 10 for normal/upset conditions and 2 for emergency/faulted (and test) conditions per Section XI, IWB-3612 (Reference [2]). A limit load analysis was performed considering the ductile weld repair material along flaw propagation Path 1 & 2. The analysis showed that for the postulated circumferential flaw the minimum margin on allowable stress is 1.43. For the axial flaw the minimum margin on allowable flaw depth is 3.9. Fracture toughness margins have also been demonstrated for the postulated cylindrical flaws. Also for the cylindrical flaws it is shown that the applied shear stress at the remaining ligament is less than the allowable shear stress per NB-3227.2 [11].

AREVA NP INC. PROPRIETARY This document and any information contained herein is the property of AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA NP) and is to be considered proprietary and confidential and may not be reproduced or copied in whole or in part. This document shall not be furnished to others without the express written consent of AREVA NP and is not to be used in any way which is or may be detrimental to AREVA NP. This document and any copies that may have been made must be returned to AREVA NP upon request.

THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS ASSUMPTIONS THAT SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING COMPUTER CODES HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS DOCUMENT: VERIFIED PRIOR TO USE CODE/VERSION/REV CODE/VERSION/REV YES AREVACGC 5/0 NO Page 1 of 34

Controlled Document

/\ 0402-01-F01 (Rev. 01 7, 11/19/1 2)

Document No. 32-92 15679-000

/\ I ~ I ~ VI\

Shearon Harri s Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (N on-Proprietary)

Revi evv Meth od: [g) Design Revi ew (Detail ed Chec k) 0 Alternate Calculati on Signature Block P/R/A Name and Title and Pages/Sections (printed or typed) Signature LP/LR Date Prepared/Reviewed/Approved Pei-Yuan Cheng Engineer III ~-,~~~ p

. t(,h.5(rs ALL Silvester J. Noronha Principal Engineer frOw'~ R n!zs(t-, ALL Tim M. Wiger

\\!~;(:

Unit Manager ~%- A

~~

ALL Note: P/R/A designates Preparer (P), Reviewer (R), Approver (A);

LP/LR designates Lead Preparer (LP), Lead Reviewer (LR)

Project Manager Approval of Customer References (N/A if not applicable)

Name Title (printed or typed) (printed or typed) Signature Date N/A N/A N/A N/A Mentoring Information (not required per 0402-01)

Name Title Mentor to:

(printed or typed) (printed or typed) (P/R) Signature Date N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page2

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

Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Record of Revision Revision Pages/Sections/Paragraphs No. Changed Brief Description / Change Authorization 000 ALL Original Release. The corresponding proprietary version is in AREVA document 32-9176345-002.

Page 3

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Table of Contents Page SIGNATURE BLOCK ................................................................................................................................ 2 RECORD OF REVISION .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 7

1.0 INTRODUCTION

........................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 CRD Housing Penetration Modification............................................................................................ 8 1.2 Potential Weld Anomaly ................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Postulated Flaws .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) Solutions........................................................................................... 12 2.2 Fatigue Crack Growth Laws ........................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Fatigue Crack Growth Calculations................................................................................................ 14 2.4 Acceptance Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 15 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Unverified Assumption ................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Justified Assumption ...................................................................................................................... 15 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS ........................................................................................................................ 16 4.1 Geometry ........................................................................................................................................ 16 4.2 Material Strength ............................................................................................................................ 17 4.3 Fracture Toughness ....................................................................................................................... 18 4.3.1 Low Alloy Steel RV Head Material ................................................................................... 18 4.3.2 Alloy 52M Material ........................................................................................................... 18 4.4 Applied Stresses Intensity Factor Calculation ................................................................................ 18 4.4.1 Transient Stresses ........................................................................................................... 18 4.4.2 External Loads ................................................................................................................. 19 4.4.3 Residual Stresses ............................................................................................................ 19 5.0 CALCULATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 Circumferential Flaw for Paths 1 & 2.............................................................................................. 20 5.1.1 Circumferential Flaw Growth Analysis (Paths 1 & 2) ....................................................... 20 5.1.2 Flaw Evaluation for OD Circumferential Flaw (Paths 1 & 2) ............................................ 21 5.2 Axial Flaw for Paths 1 & 2 .............................................................................................................. 21 5.2.1 Axial Flaw Growth Analysis (Paths 1 & 2) ....................................................................... 21 5.2.2 Flaw Evaluation for OD Axial Flaw (Paths 1 & 2) ............................................................ 24 Page 4

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Table of Contents (continued)

Page 5.3 Cylindrical Flaw for Paths 3 - 6 ...................................................................................................... 24 5.3.1 Cylindrical Flaw Growth Analysis (Paths 3 - 6) ............................................................... 24 5.3.2 Fracture Toughness Margin for Cylindrical Flaw (Paths 3 - 6) ....................................... 27 6.0

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 28 6.1 Fatigue Crack Growth of Continuous External Circumferential Flaw ............................................. 28 6.2 Fatigue Crack Growth of Semi-Circular External Axial Flaw.......................................................... 28 6.3 Fatigue Crack Growth of Continuous Cylindrical Flaw along Paths 3 & 5 ..................................... 28 6.4 Fatigue Crack Growth of Continuous Cylindrical Flaw along Paths 4 & 6 ..................................... 29 7.0 COMPUTER USAGE .................................................................................................................. 31 7.1 Validation ........................................................................................................................................ 31 7.2 Computer Files ............................................................................................................................... 31

8.0 REFERENCES

............................................................................................................................ 32 APPENDIX A : VERIFICATION OF SIF FOR CYLINDRICAL FLAW ................................................................ A-1 Page 5

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

List of Tables Page Table 4-1: Material Strength .................................................................................................................. 17 Table 4-2: Load Combinations and Cycles ............................................................................................ 19 Table 5-1: Crack Growth for 360° Circumferential Flaw ........................................................................ 20 Table 5-2: Individual Transient Contribution to Crack Growth for 360° Circumferential Flaw ................ 20 Table 5-3: End of Life Evaluation for Continuous External Circumferential Flaw (Limit Load) .............. 21 Table 5-4: Crack Growth for Axial Flaw ................................................................................................. 22 Table 5-5: Individual Transient Contribution to Crack Growth for Axial Flaw......................................... 23 Table 5-6: End of Life Evaluation for External Axial Flaw (Limit Load) .................................................. 24 Table 5-7: First year Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 3 ................................................... 25 Table 5-8: First year Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 4 ................................................... 25 Table 5-9: First year Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 5 .................................................... 26 Table 5-10: First year Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 6 ................................................. 26 Table 5-11: Final Crack Depth for Cylindrical Flaw................................................................................ 27 Table 5-12: LEFM Margin for Cylindrical Flaw ....................................................................................... 27 Table7-1: Computer Files for Crack Growth Evaluation ........................................................................ 31 Page 6

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

List of Figures Page Figure 1-1: Illustration of Crack Propagation Paths ............................................................................... 11 Figure 2-1: OD, Partial Through-Wall, 360° Circumferential Flaw .......................................................... 12 Figure 2-2: OD, Partial Through-Wall, Semi-elliptical Axial Flaw ............................................................ 13 Page 7

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the Nuclear Power generation industry, SB-167 Alloy 600 Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM)/Core Exit Thermocouple (CET) nozzle penetrations in the reactor vessel closure head (RVCH) tends to develop leaks in the region of the partial penetration weld between the RVCH and the CRDM/CET nozzle. The flaws that lead to leakage are identified to be the result of Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC). Previous mitigation repair processes involved using manual grinding and welding. The manual repair of these CRDM nozzles defects may result in extensive radiation dose to the personnel due to the location and access limitations. Commissioned by the B&W Owners Group (BWOG), AREVA developed an automated repair process. Due to concerns that PWSCC initiated degradation or defects at the CRDM nozzle and/or Core Exit Thermocouple (CET) may have occurred at Shearon Harris 1, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, has contracted AREVA to adapt this repair for Shearon Harris 1 as a contingency. The specific nozzle penetration(s) to be modified shall be identified based on a visual, surface, and/or volumetric examination(s) for CRDM or CET nozzle penetration leakage. The full specification of the repair/modification design is described in Reference [1].

The purpose of this analysis is to perform fracture mechanics evaluation of a postulated anomaly in the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 (HNP-1) RVCH Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) /

Core Exit Thermocouple (CET) Nozzle contingency modification. According to the design specification document [1], this anomaly is postulated to be a 0.1 inch flaw extending 360 degrees around the circumference at the triple point location where there is a confluence of three materials; the RVCH ferritic steel base metal, the SB-167 Alloy 600 nozzle and the Alloy 52M weld material. Several potential flaw propagation paths are considered in the flaw evaluations. Flaw acceptance is based on the 2001 ASME B&PV Code with 2003 Addenda Section XI criteria [2] for applied stress intensity factor (IWB-3612) and limit load (IWB-3642).

1.1 CRD Housing Penetration Modification The CRDM/CET Nozzle modification is described by the design drawing [3]. This modification involves adding a new weld that will become a part of the pressure boundary. The major steps involved in the modification design are the following:

• Weld prep machining and NDE

• Welding of repair weld Page 8

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

• Machining/grinding and NDE During the welding process, a maximum 0.1 inch weld anomaly may form due to lack of fusion at the triple point. The anomaly is conservatively postulated to be a crack-like defect 360º around the circumference at the triple point location. The design specification document [1] provides additional details of the weld repair procedure. The purpose of the present fracture mechanics analysis is to provide justification, in accordance with Section XI of the ASME B&PV Code [2], for operating with the postulated weld anomaly at the triple point. Predictions of fatigue crack growth are based on a design life of 40 years.

1.2 Potential Weld Anomaly The anomaly could be located in the triple point region, the region is called a triple point since three materials intersect at this location. The materials are:

• The CRD housing material, SB-167 - Alloy 600 [1].

• The new weld filler material, ERNiCrFe7A, UNS N06054 [1].

• The RV closure head material, SA-533 Grade B Class 1 [1].

1.3 Postulated Flaws The triple point weld anomaly is postulated to be semi-circular in shape with an initial depth of 0.1, as indicated in [1]. It is further assumed that the anomaly extends 360° around the new repair weld. Three flaw types are postulated to simulate various orientations and propagation directions for the weld anomaly. A circumferential flaw and an axial flaw at the outside surface of the new weld would both propagate in the horizontal direction toward the inside surface of the new weld. A cylindrically oriented flaw along the interface between the weld and RV closure head would propagate downward between the two components. The horizontal and vertical flaw propagation directions are represented in Figure 1-1 [4] by separate paths for the downhill and uphill sides of the CRDM/CET Nozzle, as discussed below. For both these directions, fatigue crack growth will be calculated considering the most susceptible material for flaw propagation.

Horizontal Direction (Paths 1 and 2):

Flaw propagation is across the CRDM/CET Nozzle wall thickness from the OD to the ID of the CRDM/CET Nozzle housing. This is the shortest path through the component wall, passing through the new Alloy 52M weld material [1].

Page 9

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

For completeness, two types of flaws are postulated at the outside surface of the tube. A 360° continuous circumferential flaw, lying in a horizontal plane, is considered to be a conservative representation of crack-like defects that may exist in the weld anomaly. This flaw would be subjected to axial stresses in the tube. An axially oriented semi-circular outside surface flaw is also considered since it would lie in a plane that is normal to the higher circumferential stresses. Both of these flaws would propagate toward the inside surface of the tube.

Vertical Direction (Paths 3 through 6):

Flaw propagation is at the outside surface of the repair weld between the weld and the RVCH. A continuous surface flaw is postulated to lie along this cylindrical interface between the two materials.

This flaw, driven by radial stresses, may propagate along either the new Alloy 52M weld material or the SA-533B steel RVCH material. Flaws along Paths 3 and 4 are postulated in the weld and flaws along Paths 5 and 6 are postulated in the RVCH.

Page 10

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Figure 1-1: Illustration of Crack Propagation Paths 2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY This section presents several aspects of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and limit load analysis (used to address the ductile weld materials) that form the basis of the present flaw evaluations.

As discussed in Section 1.3, flaw evaluations are performed for the flaw propagation paths defined in Figure 1-1.

Page 11

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary) 2.1 Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) Solutions Three flaw types are postulated for the current evaluation of the weld anomaly defect at the triple point.

For paths 1 and 2 both 360° circumferential and axial surface flaws at the OD of the IDTB weld are postulated. The solutions for both types of flaws are available in the AREVACGC [5] code which implements the Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) evaluation for these types of flaws using the weight function method. AREVACGC performs the fatigue crack growth calculations. The schematics for both the 360° circumferential and axial flaws postulated at the OD of the IDTB weld are illustrated in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2, respectively.

For the vertical paths (3 through 6), a cylindrical flaw is postulated along the interface between the new repair weld and the RV head material. The potential for flaw propagation along this interface is likely if radial stresses are significant between the weld and head. This assessment utilizes an SIF solution for a continuous surface crack in a flat plate from Appendix A Section XI of the ASME B&PV Code [2]. Flat plate solutions are routinely used to evaluate flaws in cylindrical components such as the repair weld.

The flat plate solution is inherently conservative for this application since the added constraint provided by the cylindrical structure reduces the crack opening displacements. Crack growth analysis is performed considering propagation through the Alloy 52M weld metal or the low alloy steel RVCH material. To facilitate the calculation of the SIF for the cylindrical flaw, a visual basic code, KI_edge, was developed based on the theory in Appendix A Section XI of the ASME B&PV Code [2] Appendix A of this document provides verification of the KI_edge visual basic function against hand calculations.

Figure 2-1: OD, Partial Through-Wall, 360° Circumferential Flaw Page 12

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Figure 2-2: OD, Partial Through-Wall, Semi-elliptical Axial Flaw Flaw Propagation Path where, a = initial flaw depth l = 2c = flaw length t = wall thickness 2.2 Fatigue Crack Growth Laws Flaw growth due to fatigue is characterized by da

= C o (K I ) n dN where Co and n are constants that depend on the material and environmental conditions, KI is the range of applied stress intensity factor in terms of ksiin, and da/dN is the incremental flaw growth in terms of inches/cycle. For the embedded weld anomaly considered in the present analysis, it is appropriate to use crack growth rates for an air environment. Fatigue crack growth is also dependent on the ratio of the minimum to the maximum stress intensity factor; i.e.,

R = (K 1 )min /(K 1 )max SA-533 Grade B Low Alloy Steel Material (RVCH)

From Article A-4300 of the 2001 Edition with 2002 through 2003 Addenda of Section XI [2], the fatigue crack growth constants for flaws in an air environment are:

n = 3.07 Co = 1.99 x 10-10 S Page 13

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

S is a scaling parameter to account for the R ratio and is given by S = 25.72 (2.88 R) 3.07, where 0 R 1 and KI = Kmax Kmin. For R < 0, KI depends on the crack depth, a, and the flow stress, f. The flow stress is defined by f = 1/2(ys + ult), where ys is the yield strength and ult is the ultimate tensile strength. For 2 R 0 and Kmax Kmin 1.12 fa, S=1 and KI = Kmax. For R < 2 and Kmax Kmin 1.12 fa, S=1 and KI= (1 R) Kmax/3. For R < 0 and Kmax Kmin >1.12 fa, S = 1 and KI = Kmax Kmin.

Alloy 52M Weld Metal Flaw growth in the IDTB Weld (Alloy 52M) and/or Alloy CRDM/CET Nozzle due to cyclic loading is calculated using the fatigue crack growth model presented in NUREG/CR-6907 [6]. As per reference

[6] a multiplier of 2 is applied to the Alloy 600 crack growth rate. Crack growth analysis is then conducted on a cycle-by-cycle basis to the end of service life. The crack growth rate equation for Alloy 52M to be used is then given by:

da

= 2 C S R (K ) n dN where K is the stress intensity factor range in terms of MPam and da/dN is the crack growth rate in terms of m/cycle, and C = 4.835x10-14 + 1.622x10-16T - 1.490x10-18T2 + 4.355x10-21T3 SR = [1 - 0.82R]-2.2 T = degrees C R = Kmin / Kmax 2.3 Fatigue Crack Growth Calculations For the flaw types postulated along paths 1 and 2, the AREVACGC [5] EXCEL based program will be used to perform the fatigue crack growth calculation and estimate the final flaw size.

For the cylindrical flaw postulated along paths 3 through 6, crack growth was estimated using EXCEL spread sheets. Crack growth for paths 3 through 6 is calculated by incrementally adding crack growth for one year at the time. Crack growth for one year is the summation of crack growth due to all transients for one year. Crack growth is incrementally linked such that the crack growth contribution from one transient is used to update the crack depth for the subsequent transient.

Page 14

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary) 2.4 Acceptance Criteria For postulated axial and circumferential flaws in the Alloy 52M repair weld the acceptance criteria in IWB-3642 [2] is used. IWB-3642 [2] states that piping containing flaws exceeding the acceptance standards of IWB-3514.1 may be evaluated using analytical procedures described in Appendix C and is acceptable for continued service during the evaluated time period when the critical flaw parameters satisfy the criteria in Appendix C. According to C-4230 [2] for flaws in Ni-Cr-Fe weld metal, flaw evaluation procedures of C-4210 shall be used. Based on Figure C-4210-1 of Reference [2], for a flaw in austenitic/Ni-Cr-Fe weld material that uses non-flux welds, Section C-5000 [2] is to be used for flaw evaluation.

For the postulated cylindrical flaw in the low alloy steel RVCH material and in the Alloy 52M IDTB repair weld, IWB-3612 acceptance criteria of Section XI [2] is used. According to IWB-3612 a flaw is acceptable if the applied stress intensity factor for the flaw dimension af satisfy the following criteria.

(a) For normal and upset conditions:

KI < KIa /10 where KI = applied stress intensity factor for normal, upset, and test conditions for flaw dimension af.

KIa = fracture toughness based on crack arrest for the corresponding crack-tip temperature af = end-of-evaluation-period flaw depth (b) For emergency and faulted conditions:

KI < KIc /2 KIc = fracture toughness based on crack initiation for the corresponding crack-tip temperature 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS This section discusses assumptions and modeling simplifications applicable to the present evaluation.

3.1 Unverified Assumption This document contains no unverified assumptions.

3.2 Justified Assumption

1) The anomaly is postulated to include a crack-like defect, located at the triple-point location. For analytical purposes, a continuous circumferential flaw is located in the horizontal plane. Another continuous flaw is located in the cylindrical plane between the weld and RVCH.

Page 15

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

2) In the radial plane, the anomaly is assumed to include a quarter-circular crack-like defect. For analytical purposes, a semi-circular flaw is used to represent the radial cross-section of the anomaly.

3) In the interface of IDTB weld and RVCH bore, the anomaly is assumed to include a cylindrical-flaw like defect. For analytical purposes, a flaw in a semi-infinite plate is used to represent the radial cross-section of the anomaly.

4) Dimensions used for the analyses are based on nominal values. This is considered to be standard practice in stress analysis and fracture mechanics analysis.

5) The CRDM housing nozzles function as mechanical mounts for the CRDM. The CRDM are relatively tall, slender structures that may be subjected to seismic or other motions resulting in bending loads on the CRDM nozzle-to-head connection weld. However, mechanical loads from the CRDM are transmitted to the head through the interference fit region. The design feature effectively shields the CRDM nozzle-to-head connection weld from being subject to external loads. Therefore, external loads are not applicable to the CRDM/CET nozzle weld repair.

4.0 DESIGN INPUTS The region of interest for the present flaw evaluations is the triple point, where three different materials intersect. These materials are the CRDM/CET Nozzle material, the new IDTB repair weld material and the RVCH material. The HNP-1 CRDM/CET Nozzle is made from SB-167 Alloy 600 material to ASME specification [1]. The new weld, as noted in Section 1.2, is made from Alloy 52M [1]. The RVCH is fabricated from SA-533 Grade B Class 1 [1].

4.1 Geometry Pertinent geometry parameters used for flaw evaluations are provided below:

Paths 1 & 2 The following dimensions are used for evaluating the 360° circumferential flaw and axial flaw postulated along paths 1 & 2 Page 16

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Outside Diameter, Do = [ ] [3]

Inside Diameter, Di = [ ] [3]

Thickness, t = [ ]

Initial flaw depth, ai = 0.1 in [1]

Paths 3 through 6 The cylindrical flaws postulated along paths 3 through 6 propagate along the interface between the IDTB repair weld and the RV Closure head. The length of this interface at paths 3 and 5 are 0.5 inch and at paths 4 and 6 are 1.35 inches [3]. The initial flaw depth is postulated to be 0.1 inches [1].

4.2 Material Strength Reference [9] provides the material strength pertinent for the flaw evaluation assessment of the weld anomaly in this document. Table 4-1 lists the values of yield strength (y), ultimate strength (ult), and the flow strength (f), taken as the average of the ultimate and yield strengths.

Table 4-1: Material Strength Yield Ultimate Temperature Material Component Strength, y Strength, ult

(ºF)

(ksi) (ksi)

SA-533 Grade B RV Closure Class 1 Head Weld Filler Alloy 52M IDTB Weld Equivalent SB-166 Alloy 690 properties Interpolated values, The correct value for yield strength according to [7] is [ ] , however [ ]

gives conservative results.

Page 17

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary) 4.3 Fracture Toughness 4.3.1 Low Alloy Steel RV Head Material The RTNDT for the low alloy steel RVCH is [ ] [8], however a value of [ ] is conservatively used in this calculation. Fracture toughness curves for SA-533 Grade B Class 1 material is illustrated in Figure A-4200-1 of Reference [2]. At an operating temperature of about [ ] , the KIa fracture toughness values for this material is (using an assumed RTNDT of [ ] ) are above 200 ksiin. An upper bound value of 200 ksiin will be conservatively used for the present flaw evaluations.

4.3.2 Alloy 52M Material Brittle fracture is not a credible failure mechanism for ductile materials such as Alloy 52M, the failure mechanism for the Alloy 52M materials is limit load or ductile crack extension (EPFM). A value of 200 ksiin will be conservatively used for the fracture toughness of Alloy 52M. This will be used to evaluate the IWB-3612 acceptance criteria for the cylindrical flaw postulated in the repair weld since a limit load solution is not available in the ASME B&PV Code [2] for such a flaw.

4.4 Applied Stresses Intensity Factor Calculation As mentioned in Section 2.1, the weight function method implemented in AREVACGC [5] was used to calculate the SIF for the continuous OD circumferential and axial surface flaws. For the cylindrical flaw, the SIF solution given in Appendix A of the 2001 Edition of Section XI [2] was used to calculate the SIF solution.

4.4.1 Transient Stresses The cyclic operating stresses that are needed to calculate fatigue crack growth are obtained from a thermo-elastic finite element analysis [9]. These cyclic stresses are developed for all the transients at a number of time points to capture the maximum and minimum stresses due to fluctuations in pressure and temperature. Per References [9], the number of RCS design transients is established for 40 years of design life. Cyclic operating stresses were generated in Reference [9] for the transients listed in Reference [10]. The transients that have trivial contribution to fatigue are not considered per Reference

[9]. The transient cycle counts used in this calculation are obtained from Reference [10]. The operating transients are listed in Table 4-2.

Page 18

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Table 4-2: Load Combinations and Cycles Service Level Level A Level A Level A Level A Level A Level A Level A Level B Level B Level B Level B Level B Test Test 4.4.2 External Loads The CRDM housing nozzles function as mechanical mounts for the CRDM. The CRDM are relatively tall, slender structures that may be subjected to seismic or other motions resulting in bending loads on the CRDM nozzle-to-head connection weld. However, mechanical loads from the CRDM are transmitted to the head through the interference fit region. The design feature effectively shields the CRDM nozzle-to-head connection weld from being subject to external loads. Therefore, external loads are not applicable to the CRDM/CET nozzle weld repair.

4.4.3 Residual Stresses A three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite element analysis [4] was performed to simulate the sequence of steps involved in arriving at the configuration of the weld repair of CRDM/CET Nozzle in the RVCH of HNP-1. The residual stress analysis [4] simulated welding of the existing J-groove weld and butter; machining of the CRDM/CET nozzle and IDTB weld prep; welding of the IDTB weld repair with Alloy 52M and final machining. Operation at steady state temperature and pressure conditions and return to zero load conditions was also simulated after the completion of the weld simulation.

5.0 CALCULATIONS Assessment of a flaw like triple point anomaly in the HNP-1 CRDM/CET Nozzle repair was completed using three flaw types that were postulated to form in the vicinity of the triple point. For every postulated flaw type a crack growth analysis was conducted to determine the final flaw size after 40 years of operation. After the final flaw size is determined, the flaw is assessed to determine the safety margins and compliance with the flaw acceptance criteria outlined in Section 2.4.

Page 19

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary) 5.1 Circumferential Flaw for Paths 1 & 2 5.1.1 Circumferential Flaw Growth Analysis (Paths 1 & 2)

AREVACGC [5] was used to determine the final flaw depth due to fatigue crack growth. A summary of the final flaw depths is given in Table 5-1 for paths 1 & 2. Contribution of the individual transients to crack growth is given in Table 5-2.

Table 5-1: Crack Growth for 360° Circumferential Flaw Path Path1 Path2 Initial Flaw Depth (in) = 0.1000 0.1000 Initial a/t ratio = [ ] [ ]

Final Flaw Depth (in) = [ ] [ ]

Final a/t ratio = [ ] [ ]

Total Amount of Fatigue Crack Growth (in) = [ ] [ ]

Table 5-2: Individual Transient Contribution to Crack Growth for 360° Circumferential Flaw Page 20

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary) 5.1.2 Flaw Evaluation for OD Circumferential Flaw (Paths 1 & 2)

As mentioned in Section 2.4, Article C-5000 of Reference [2] contains the appropriate flaw evaluation procedure for the end of life OD circumferential flaw. Since the final flaw depth along path 2 (

[ ] ) is greater than for path 1 ( [ ] ), the final flaw depth for path 2 was used for the end of life flaw evaluation. Table 5-3 shows details of the end of life flaw evaluation analysis performed to assess the postulated continuous circumferential flaw. It is seen from Table 5-3 that the allowable stress is higher than the applied membrane stress by 1.43 times safety factor.

Table 5-3: End of Life Evaluation for Continuous External Circumferential Flaw (Limit Load)

Yield strength, y = [ ] ksi Ultimate strength, u = [ ] ksi Pressure, p = [ ] psi Outside Radius, Ro = [ ] in Inside Radius, Ri = [ ] in Mean Radius, Rm= [ ] in Thickness, t = [ ] in Final Flaw Depth, af = [ ] in Area of remaining ligament, A=((Ro-af )2- (Ri)2) = [ ] in2 External Load, Pexternal = [ ] lbs m=pDo/4t + Pexternal/A = [ ] ksi Flow strength, f = [ ] ksi Safety Factor, SFm = 2.7

= 3.141593 rad c

m =f/[1-(a/t)(/)-2/] = [ ] ksi

=arcsin[0.5(a/t)sin] = 0 rad c

St= m /SFm = [ ] ksi Margin, St/m = 1.43 5.2 Axial Flaw for Paths 1 & 2 5.2.1 Axial Flaw Growth Analysis (Paths 1 & 2)

AREVACGC [5] was used to determine the final flaw depth due to fatigue crack growth. For each path (1 & 2) crack growth was performed using depth location (radial) and surface location (axial) SIF. A summary of the final flaw depths is given in Table 5-4 for paths 1 & 2. Contribution of the individual transients to crack growth is given in Table 5-5.

Page 21

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Table 5-4: Crack Growth for Axial Flaw Radial Axial Path Path1 Path2 Path1 Path2 Initial Flaw Depth (in) = 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 Initial a/t ratio = [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Final Flaw Depth (in) = [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Final a/t ratio = [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Total Amount of Fatigue Crack Growth (in) = [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Page 22

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Table 5-5: Individual Transient Contribution to Crack Growth for Axial Flaw Page 23

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary) 5.2.2 Flaw Evaluation for OD Axial Flaw (Paths 1 & 2)

As mentioned in Section 2.4, Article C-5000 of Reference [2] contains the appropriate flaw evaluation procedure for the end of life OD axial flaw. As shown in Table 5-4 the maximum flaw depth is

[ ] for a flaw along path 2 considering an axial crack growth of [ ] . This flaw depth was used for the end of life flaw evaluation of the postulated OD axial flaw. Table 5-6 shows details of the end of life flaw evaluation of the postulated OD axial flaw. It is shown in Table 5-6, that both the final flaw depth and length, after 40 years of crack growth, are less than the allowable flaw depth and length.

Table 5-6: End of Life Evaluation for External Axial Flaw (Limit Load)

Yield strength, y= [ ] ksi Ultimate strength, u= [ ] ksi Flow strength, f= [ ] ksi Pressure, p= [ ] psi Outside Radius, Ro= [ ] in Inside Radius, Ri= [ ] in Mean Radius, Rm= [ ] in Thickness, t= [ ] in Final Flaw Depth, af= [ ] in Final Flaw Length, lf= [ ]

h=pRm/t= [ ] ksi 0.5 2 lallow=1.58(Rmt) [(f/h) -1] = 0.5

[ ] in 2 1/2 M2=[1+(1.61 / 4Rmt)lf )] = [ ]

Safety Factor, SFm= [ ]

Stress Ratio = SFm h/f= [ ]

Nondimensional Flaw Length, lf/Rmt= [ ]

Allowable a/t = [ ] TABLE C-5410-1 Reference [2]

Allowable Flaw Depth, aallow = [ ] > [ ]

Margin, aallow/af= 3.9 5.3 Cylindrical Flaw for Paths 3 - 6 5.3.1 Cylindrical Flaw Growth Analysis (Paths 3 - 6)

For the cylindrical flaws, crack growth was calculated in accordance with Section 2.3. Crack growth for first year is shown in Table 5-7 through Table 5-10 for paths 3 through 6, respectively. Final crack depths for the cylindrical flaws for all paths are shown in Table 5-11.

Page 24

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Table 5-7: First year Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 3 Table 5-8: First year Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 4 Page 25

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Table 5-9: First year Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 5 Table 5-10: First year Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 6 Page 26

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Table 5-11: Final Crack Depth for Cylindrical Flaw Crack Depth (in)

Path3 [ ]

Path4 [ ]

Path5 [ ]

Path6 [ ]

5.3.2 Fracture Toughness Margin for Cylindrical Flaw (Paths 3 - 6)

As mentioned in Section 2.4, for the postulated cylindrical flaw in the low alloy steel RV closure head material and in the IDTB weld (Alloy 52M), IWB-3612 acceptance criteria of Section XI [2] is used.

According to IWB-3612 a flaw is acceptable if the applied stress intensity factor for the flaw dimension af satisfy the criteria that KI < KIa /10 for normal/upset conditions and KI < KIc /2 for emergency/faulted conditions. To determine the fracture toughness margin, the maximum applied stress intensity factor for all time points is determined for each flaw path. The effective stress intensity factor is then determined based on the theory in Reference [2]. The temperature (T) is the minimum (limiting) temperature of each transient. The minimum temperatures of most limiting transients are shown along with corresponding KIas are shown in Table 5-12. In Table 5-12, it is shown that the calculated minimum LEFM margins are [ ] for service level A and B and [ ] for Test Conditions, and are thus higher than the required margin of 10 (Level A & B) and 2 (Level C & D), respectively.

Table 5-12: LEFM Margin for Cylindrical Flaw Path 3 (Weld)

Levels 4 (Weld)

A&B 5 (Head) 6 (Head) 3 (Weld) 4 (Weld)

Test 5 (Head) 6 (Head)

The shear stress at the remaining ligament is also calculated as follows:

Page 27

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

= (Paxial_H + Paxial_E)/(As)

Where Paxial_H = (/4)PDo2 = (/4) * [ ] [Ref. 10] * [ ] [Ref. 3] = [ ]

Paxial_E = [ ] [Ref. 10], where As = 2 x x [(L3,5 + L4,6)/2 x Do/2 ]

Where L3,5 is the remaining ligament of the IDTB weld/head interface after crack growth at path 3 or 5, and L4,6 is the remaining ligament at path 4 or 6. The maximum crack growth among cracks along paths 3 through 6 is for path 5 and the final flaw size in case of path 5 is [ . ] Thus the area of the remaining ligament (approximated as two trapezoids) is found as [

]

Thus the shear stress, = (Paxial_H + Paxial_E)/(As) = [ ] (ksi)

Per NB-3227.2 [11], the maximum allowable average primary shear stress in IDTB weld is 0.6Sm, which equals 13.98 ksi (with Sm equal to 23.3 ksi [9]). Therefore the remaining ligament of the IDTB weld has a lower shear stress than allowable shear stress.

6.0

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSION The flaw evaluation results for 40 years of fatigue crack growth are as follows.

6.1 Fatigue Crack Growth of Continuous External Circumferential Flaw a) Fatigue crack growth analysis:

Initial flaw size, ai = 0.1000 in.

Final flaw size, af = [ ] in.

b) End of Life (Limit load) analysis:

Margin, St/m= 1.43 6.2 Fatigue Crack Growth of Semi-Circular External Axial Flaw a) Fatigue crack growth analysis:

Initial flaw size, ai = 0.100 in.

Final flaw size, af = [ ] in.

b) End of Life (Limit load) analysis:

Margin, aallow/af= 3.9 6.3 Fatigue Crack Growth of Continuous Cylindrical Flaw along Paths 3 & 5 RVCH (Path 5)

Initial flaw size, ai = 0.1000 in.

Final flaw size, af = [ ] in.

Level A and B Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, KIeff = [ ]

Page 28

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Level A and B Fracture toughness KIa = [ ]

ksiin Level A and B Fracture toughness margin, KIa /KIeff = 4.69 > 10 Test Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, KIeff = [ ]

ksiin Test Fracture toughness KIC = [ ]

ksiin Test Fracture toughness margin, KIC / KIeff =1.50 > 2 CRDM Nozzle/RVCH IDTB Weld (Path 3)

Initial flaw size, ai = 0.1000 in.

Final flaw size, af = [ ] in.

Level A and B Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, KIeff = [ ]

Level A and B Fracture toughness KIa = [ ]

Level A and B Fracture toughness margin, KIa /KIeff = 8.31 > 10 Test Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, KIeff = [ ]

Test Fracture toughness KIC = [ ]

Test Fracture toughness margin, KIC / KIeff = 4.29 > 2 6.4 Fatigue Crack Growth of Continuous Cylindrical Flaw along Paths 4 & 6 RVCH (Path 6)

Initial flaw size, ai = 0.1000 in.

Final flaw size, af = [ ] in.

Level A and B Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, KIeff = [ ]

Level A and B Fracture toughness KIa = [ ]

Level A and B Fracture toughness margin, KIa /KIeff = 3.67 > 10 Test Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, KIeff = [ ]

Test Fracture toughness KIC = [ ]

Test Fracture toughness margin, KIC / KIeff = 8.53 > 2 CRDM Nozzle/RVCH IDTB Weld (Path 4)

Initial flaw size, ai = 0.1000 in.

Final flaw size, af = [ ] in.

Level A and B Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, KIeff = [ ]

Level A and B Fracture toughness KIa = [ ]

Level A and B Fracture toughness margin, KIa /KIeff = 10.92 > 10 Page 29

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Test Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, KIeff = [ ]

Test Fracture toughness KIC = [ ]

Test Fracture toughness margin, KIC / KIeff = 11.41 > 2 The results of the analysis demonstrate that a 0.10 inch weld anomaly is acceptable for a 40 year design life of the HNP-1 CRDM/CET RVCH weld repair. The minimum fracture toughness margins for flaw propagation Paths 3 through 6 have been shown to be acceptable as compared to the required margins of 10 for normal/upset conditions and 2 for emergency/faulted (and test) conditions per Section XI, IWB-3612 (Reference [2]). A limit load analysis was performed considering the ductile weld repair material along flaw propagation Paths 1 & 2. The analysis showed that for the postulated circumferential flaw the minimum margin on allowable stress is 1.43. For the axial flaw the minimum margin on allowable flaw depth is 3.9. Fracture toughness margins have been demonstrated for the postulated cylindrical flaws. Also for cylindrical flaws it is shown that the applied shear stress at the remaining ligament is less than the allowable shear stress per NB-3227.2 [11].

Page 30

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary) 7.0 COMPUTER USAGE 7.1 Validation 7.2 Computer Files Table7-1: Computer Files for Crack Growth Evaluation File Name Date Modified Checksum Description

[

[ ] 04/19/2012 59637

]

[

[ ] 04/14/2012 11300

]

[ ] 04/14/2012 43994 [ ]

[ ] 04/13/2012 25438 [ ]

[ ] 04/13/2012 46815 [ ]

[ ] 04/13/2012 10737 [ ]

[

[ ] 6/29/2010 17753

]

[ ] 1/6/2011 41940 [ ]

Page 31

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

8.0 REFERENCES

1. AREVA NP Document 08- 9172870-002, Design Specification, Shearon Harris RVCH CRDM and CET Nozzle Penetration Modification

2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 2001 Edition with 2003 Addenda, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components

3. AREVA NP Drawing 02-9175500E-005, Shearon Harris CRDM ID Temper Bead Weld Repair

4. AREVA NP Document 32-9176344-000, Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle Weld Residual Stress Analysis (Proprietary Document).

5. AREVA NP Document 32-9055891-006, Fatigue and PWSCC Crack Growth Evaluation Tool AREVACGC (Proprietary Document).

6. NUREG/CR-6907, Crack Growth Rates of Nickel Alloy Welds in a PWR Environment, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Argonne National Laboratory), May 2006.

7. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2001 Edition with 2003 Addenda,Section II, Part D, Materials Properties

8. AREVA NP Document 38-2200979-000, Shearon Harris - Proprietary Document

9. AREVA NP Document 32-9175220-003, Shearon Harris Unit 1 Contingency CRDM IDTB Weld Repair Analysis

10. AREVA NP Document 38-2201004-000, Shearon Harris Proprietary Document Transmittal - 4

11. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, 2001 Edition with 2003 Addenda Page 32

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

APPENDIX A: VERIFICATION OF SIF FOR CYLINDRICAL FLAW Page A-1

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215679-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly (Non-Proprietary)

Page A-2

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

PROPRIETARY CALCULATION

SUMMARY

SHEET (CSS)

Document No. 32 - 9215680 - 000 Safety Related: Yes No Title Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

PURPOSE AND

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS:

AREVA NP Proprietary information in the document are indicated by pairs of brackets [ ] .

Purpose The purpose of the present fracture mechanics analysis is to determine the suitability of leaving degraded J-groove weld and butter material in the Shearon Harris Unit 1 reactor vessel head following the repair of either a Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) nozzle or Core Exit Thermocouple (CET) nozzle by the ID temper bead (IDTB) weld procedure. It is postulated that a small flaw in the head would combine with a large stress corrosion crack in the weld and butter to form a radial corner flaw that would propagate into the low alloy steel head by fatigue crack growth under cyclic loading conditions.

Summary of Results Based on a combination of linear elastic and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics analysis of a postulated remaining flaw in the original Alloy 182 J-groove weld and butter material, a Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM or CET nozzle is considered to be acceptable for 30 years of operation following an IDTB weld repair. The controlling loading condition is a large loss of coolant accident, for which it was shown that with safety factors of 3 on primary loads and 1.5 on secondary loads that the applied J-integral (2.359 kips/in) was still less than the J-integral of the low alloy steel head material (2.474 kips/in) at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.

AREVA NP INC. PROPRIETARY This document and any information contained herein is the property of AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA NP) and is to be considered proprietary and confidential and may not be reproduced or copied in whole or in part. This document shall not be furnished to others without the express written consent of AREVA NP and is not to be used in any way which is or may be detrimental to AREVA NP. This document and any copies that may have been made must be returned to AREVA NP upon request.

THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS ASSUMPTIONS THAT SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING COMPUTER CODES HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS DOCUMENT: VERIFIED PRIOR TO USE CODE/VERSION/REV CODE/VERSION/REV YES ANSYS 12.1 NO Page 1 of 88

Controlled Document 0402-01 -F01 (Rev. 01 7, 11/1 9/1 2)

Document No. 32-92 15680-000 Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove We ld Analysis (NonProp rietary)

Review Meth od : [:gj Des ign Rev iew (Deta iled Check)

D Alternate Calculation Signature Block P/R/A Name and Title and Pages/Sections (printed or typed) Signature LP/LR Date Prepared/Reviewed/Approved Pei-Yuan Cheng Engineer III f~-~~<J p ty{--1/3 ALL Silvester J. Noronha Principal Engineer ?avv~ R nlz~ {l> ALL Tim M. Wiger Unit Manager ~..,-/~- A 'Yzs-;6 ALL

(""'}

Note: P/RIA designates Preparer (P), Reviewer (R), Approver (A);

LP/LR designates Lead Preparer (LP), Lead Reviewer (LR)

Proj ect Manager Approval of Customer References (N/A if not applicable)

Name Title (printed or typed) (printed or typed) Signature Date N/A N/A N/A N/A Mentoring Information (not required per 0402-01)

Name Title Mentor to:

(printed or typed) (printed or typed) (P/R) Signature Date N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 2

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

Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Record of Revision Revision Pages/Sections/Paragraphs No. Changed Brief Description / Change Authorization 000 All Original Release. The corresponding proprietary version is in AREVA document 32- 9176350-001.

Page 3

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table of Contents Page SIGNATURE BLOCK ................................................................................................................................ 2 RECORD OF REVISION .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 7

1.0 INTRODUCTION

........................................................................................................................... 8 2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 10 2.1 Stress Intensity Factor Solution ..................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Finite Element Crack Models ........................................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Stress Mapping ................................................................................................................ 12 2.1.3 Crack Growth Considerations .......................................................................................... 15 2.1.4 Plastic Zone Correction ................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics ................................................................................................. 16 2.3 Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics ................................................................................................ 17 2.3.1 Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................ 17 2.3.2 Limit Load Analysis .......................................................................................................... 17 2.3.3 Flaw Stability and Crack Driving Force ............................................................................ 18 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 20 3.1 Unverified Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 20 3.2 Justified Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 20 3.3 Modeling Simplifications ................................................................................................................. 20 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS ........................................................................................................................ 21 4.1 Materials ......................................................................................................................................... 21 4.1.1 Mechanical and Thermal Properties ................................................................................ 21 4.1.2 Toughness Properties ...................................................................................................... 23 4.1.3 Fracture Toughness ......................................................................................................... 23 4.1.4 J-integral Resistance Curve............................................................................................. 23 4.1.5 Fatigue Crack Growth Rate ............................................................................................. 25 4.2 Basic Geometry .............................................................................................................................. 26 4.3 Operating Transients ...................................................................................................................... 26 4.4 Applied Stresses ............................................................................................................................ 28 4.4.1 Residual Stresses ............................................................................................................ 28 4.4.2 Operating Stresses .......................................................................................................... 28 5.0 COMPUTER USAGE .................................................................................................................. 29 Page 4

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table of Contents (continued)

Page 5.1 Hardware/Software......................................................................................................................... 29 5.2 Installation/Validation Test ............................................................................................................. 29 5.3 Computer Files ............................................................................................................................... 31 6.0 CALCULATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 35 6.1 Initial Flaw Size .............................................................................................................................. 35 6.2 Fatigue Crack Growth .................................................................................................................... 35 6.3 LEFM Flaw Evaluations.................................................................................................................. 39 6.3.1 Normal and Upset Conditions .......................................................................................... 39 6.3.2 Faulted Conditions ........................................................................................................... 40 6.4 EPFM Flaw Evaluations ................................................................................................................. 41 6.4.1 Operating Conditions ....................................................................................................... 41 6.4.2 Low Temperature Conditions........................................................................................... 43 6.4.3 Faulted Conditions ........................................................................................................... 45 6.5 Limit Load Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 47 7.0

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS....................................................................... 48 7.1 Summary of Results ....................................................................................................................... 48 7.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 49

8.0 REFERENCES

............................................................................................................................ 49 APPENDIX A : DETAILED FLAW EVALUATIONS FOR UPHILL SIDE ............................................................. 51 APPENDIX B : DETAILED FLAW EVALUATIONS FOR DOWNHILL SIDE....................................................... 69 Page 5

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

List of Tables Page Table 1-1: Safety Factors for Flaw Acceptance ....................................................................................... 9 Table 4-1: Material Properties for Head ................................................................................................. 21 Table 4-2: Material Properties for Weld Metal ....................................................................................... 22 Table 4-3: Material Properties for Cladding ........................................................................................... 22 Table 4-4: Bounding Transients for Normal and Upset Conditions........................................................ 27 Table 4-5: Emergency and Faulted Condition Transients...................................................................... 27 Table 5-1: Test Case Results ................................................................................................................ 30 Table 6-1: LEFM Fracture Toughness Margins for Uphill Side .............................................................. 37 Table 6-2: LEFM Fracture Toughness Margins for Downhill Side ......................................................... 38 Page 6

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

List of Figures Page Figure 1-1: ID Temper Bead Weld Repair ............................................................................................... 8 Figure 2-1: Postulated Radial Flaw on Uphill Side................................................................................. 11 Figure 2-2: Postulated Radial Flaw on Downhill Side ............................................................................ 11 Figure 2-3: Finite Element Crack Model - Uphill Side ........................................................................... 13 Figure 2-4: Finite Element Crack Model - Downhill Side....................................................................... 14 Figure 4-1: Correlation of Coefficient, C, of Power Law with Charpy V-Notch Upper Shelf Energy ...... 24 Figure 4-2: Correlation of Exponent, m, of Power Law with Coefficient, C, and Flow Stress, o ........... 24 Page 7

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Due to the susceptibility of Alloy 600 partial penetration nozzles to primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC), the Progress Energy plans to inspect the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) and Core Exit Thermocouple (CET) nozzles in the Shearon Harris Unit 1 reactor vessel head. In the event that a repair is necessary, an ID temper bead weld repair procedure has been developed wherein the lower portion of the nozzle is removed by a boring procedure and the remaining portion is welded to the low alloy steel reactor vessel head above the original Alloy 82/182 J-groove attachment weld. The repair concept is illustrated in Figure 1-1, both with and without an overlap between the original J-groove weld and the new IDTB weld. The IDTB repair is more fully described by the design drawing [1]

and the technical requirements document [2]. Since a potential flaw in the J-groove weld cannot be sized by currently available non-destructive examination techniques, it is assumed that the as-left condition of the remaining J-groove weld includes degraded or cracked weld material extending through the entire J-groove weld and Alloy 82/182 butter material.

(a) With Weld Overlap (b) With Overlap Removed Figure 1-1: ID Temper Bead Weld Repair Page 8

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis Since it is known from the residual stress analysis of the Shearon Harris reactor vessel head outermost nozzle penetration [3] that the hoop stress in the J-groove weld is greater than the axial stress at the same location, the preferential direction for cracking would be axial, or radial relative to the nozzle. It is postulated that a radial crack in the Alloy 82/182 weld metal would propagate by PWSCC, through the weld and butter, to the interface with the low alloy steel head material, where it is fully expected that such a crack would then blunt, or arrest, as discussed in Reference [4]. Since the vertical distance along the bored surface between the inside corner of the remnant J-groove weld and the point where the butter meets the head is more than two inches, a crack extending from the corner of the weld to the low alloy steel head would be very deep. Although primary water stress corrosion cracking would not extend into the head, it is further postulated that a small fatigue initiated flaw forms in the low alloy steel head and combines with the stress corrosion crack in the weld to form a large radial corner flaw that would propagate into the head by fatigue crack growth under cyclic loading conditions. Linear-elastic (LEFM) and elastic-plastic (EPFM) fracture mechanics procedures are utilized to evaluate this worst case flaw in the original J-groove weld and butter.

Key features of the fracture mechanics analysis are:

• This analysis applies specifically to the CRDM nozzle penetrations in the Shearon Harris Unit 1 reactor vessel closure head. A J-integral resistance curve is developed based on the Charpy V-notch upper-shelf energy for the Shearon Harris Unit 1 head plate material.

• Flaw growth is calculated for a 30 year period of operation, corresponding to 20 18-month fuel cycles.

• Final flaw acceptance is based on the available fracture toughness and ductile tearing resistance of the RVCH material considering the safety factors listed in Table 1-1.

• Since the same design is used at Shearon Harris Unit 1 for both the CRDM and CET nozzles and the CET nozzles are located within the same outermost penetration circle as the CRDM nozzles, the analysis performed herein for the CRDM nozzles is also applicable to the CET nozzles.

Table 1-1: Safety Factors for Flaw Acceptance Linear-Elastic Fracture Mechanics Operating Condition Evaluation Method Fracture Toughness / KI Normal/Upset KIa fracture toughness 10 = 3.16 Emergency/Faulted KIc fracture toughness 2 = 1.41 Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Operating Condition Evaluation Method Primary Secondary Normal/Upset J/T based flaw stability 3.0 1.5 Normal/Upset J0.1 limited flaw extension 1.5 1.0 Emergency/Faulted J/T based flaw stability 1.5 1.0 Emergency/Faulted J0.1 limited flaw extension 1.5 1.0 Page 9

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY A radial flaw at the inside corner of non-radial head penetration is evaluated based on a combination of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM), as outlined below.

1. Postulate radial flaws in the J-groove weld, extending from the inside corner of the penetration to the interface between the butter and head, as shown in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 for the uphill and downhill sides of the penetration, respectively. Initial flaw size, ao, is arbitrarily characterized by the vertical distance along the uphill side penetration bore, from the inside surface of the cladding to the weld-to-butter/head interface, as shown Figure 2-1. For the constant depth J-groove design used for the Shearon Harris head, this same flaw depth is also used for the downhill side flaw evaluations.

2. Develop finite element models of the reactor vessel head in the vicinity of the outermost nozzle penetration, with crack tip elements along the interface between the Alloy 82/182 butter and the low alloy steel base metal. These models will be used to obtain stress intensity factors at various positions along the crack front for linearly superimposed residual and operating stresses.

3. Develop a mapping procedure to transfer stresses from an uncracked finite element stress model to the crack face of each crack model. This will enable stress intensity factors to be calculated for arbitrary stress distributions over the crack face utilizing the principle of superposition.

4. Calculate fatigue crack growth, in one year increments, for cyclic loading conditions using operational stresses from pressure and thermal loads. Since the stresses used in the fatigue crack growth analysis are the combined residual plus operating stresses, the effect of the residual stresses on fatigue crack growth is captured by the R ratio, or Kmin/Kmax. Starting from the stress intensity factor calculated by the finite element crack model for the initial flaw size, stress intensity factors are updated for each increment of crack growth by the square root of the flaw size.

5. Utilize the screening criteria of ASME Code Section XI, Appendix C to determine the failure mode and appropriate method of analysis (LEFM, EPFM, or limit load) for flaws in ferritic materials, considering the applied stress, temperature, and material toughness. For LEFM flaw evaluations, compare the stress intensity factor at the final flaw size to the available fracture toughness, with appropriate safety factors, as discussed in Section 2.2. When the material is more ductile and EPFM is the appropriate analysis method, evaluate flaw stability and crack driving force as described in Section 2.3. A limit load analysis would be performed to satisfy the primary stress limits of the ASME Code, as described in Section 2.3.2.

Page 10

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis Figure 2-1: Postulated Radial Flaw on Uphill Side Figure 2-2: Postulated Radial Flaw on Downhill Side Page 11

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 2.1 Stress Intensity Factor Solution Stress intensity factors for corner flaws at a non-radial nozzle penetration are best determined by finite element analysis using three-dimensional models with crack tip elements along the crack front.

Although loads can be applied to finite element crack models like any other structural model, the crack models were developed to serve as a flaw evaluation tool that could accept stresses from separate stress analyses. This strategy makes it possible, for example, to obtain pressure and thermal stresses from an independent thermal/structural analysis and then transfer these stresses to a crack model for flaw evaluations. Using the principle of superposition common to fracture mechanics analysis, the only stresses that need be considered for these flaw evaluations are the stresses on the crack face. A mapping procedure is developed to transfer stresses from a separate stress analysis to the crack face of the crack model.

2.1.1 Finite Element Crack Models Three-dimensional finite element models are developed for the reactor vessel head in the vicinity of the outermost nozzle penetration, by modeling a portion of the head, cladding, and butter with the ANSYS finite element computer program [5]. Since stresses increase with penetration angle, it is conservative to base the finite element models on the outermost nozzle penetration.

A three-dimensional finite element model is first constructed to represent an unflawed non-radial nozzle penetration in the reactor vessel head using the ANSYS SOLID186 20-node structural element.

Elements along the crack front are then replaced by a sub-model of crack tip elements along the interface between the Alloy 82/182 butter and the low alloy steel base metal. These elements consist of 20-node isoparametric elements that are collapsed to form a wedge with the appropriate mid-side nodes shifted to quarter-point locations to simulate the singularity at the crack tip. The final crack models are shown in Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 for the uphill and downhill sides of the nozzle, respectively.

Stress intensity factors will be obtained using the ANSYS CINT contour integral procedure at 17 positions along each crack front, as indicated in Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 for the two crack models.

Position 1 is located on the cladding surface, Position 3 at the cladding/base metal interface, Position 11 at the kink in the crack profile, and Position 17 is at the bored surface in the head.

2.1.2 Stress Mapping Stresses from the finite element stress model are mapped onto the crack faces of the uphill and downhill finite element crack models (Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4). An ANSYS scripting language instruction (macro) has been developed to query the residual and operating stress models for nodal locations associated with each crack face node of the crack model. The nodal stress from the stress model is then transferred to the corresponding node on the crack model.

Page 12

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis Figure 2-3: Finite Element Crack Model - Uphill Side Page 13

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis Figure 2-4: Finite Element Crack Model - Downhill Side Page 14

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 2.1.3 Crack Growth Considerations The fundamental expression for the crack tip stress intensity factor is K I = a Since each crack model is developed for a single flaw size, stress intensity factors are updated at each increment of crack growth by the square root of the flaw size; i.e.,

ai +1 K I (a i+1 ) = K I (a i ) ,

ai where a = flaw size i = increment of crack growth.

Since the stress intensity factor is directly proportional to the magnitude of the stress and both residual and operating stresses decrease in the direction of crack growth, this procedure produces conservative estimates of stress intensity factor as the crack extends into the head and stresses diminish over the expanding crack face.

2.1.4 Plastic Zone Correction The Irwin plasticity correction is used to account for a moderate amount of yielding at the crack tip. For plane strain conditions, this correction is 2

1 K I (a) ry = , [ Ref. 6, Eqn. (2.63) ]

6 y where K I (a ) = stress intensity factor based on the actual crack size, a y = material yield strength.

A stress intensity factor, K I (a e ) , is then calculated for an effective crack size, a e = a + ry ,

based on the same scaling technique utilized for crack growth; i.e, ae K I (a e ) = K I (a ) .

a Page 15

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 2.2 Linear Elastic Fracture MechanicsSection XI, Article IWB-3612 [11] requires that the applied stress intensity factor, KI, at the final flaw size be less than the available fracture toughness at the crack tip temperature, with appropriate safety factors, as outlined below.

Normal Conditions: K I < K Ia / 10 where KIa is the fracture toughness based on crack arrest.

Faulted Conditions: K I < K Ic / 2 where KIc is the fracture toughness based on crack initiation.

Section XI, Article IWB-3613 [11] provides alternate fracture toughness requirements for shell regions near structural discontinuities, such as nozzle penetrations, when the pressure does not exceed 20% of the design pressure and the temperature is not less than RTNDT + 60 °F. Within these operational limits a lower safety factor may be used to evaluate fracture toughness margin. For the Shearon Harris Unit 1 reactor vessel head, the design pressure is [ ] psig [13] and the fracture toughness reference temperature is [ ] [9]. Thus for pressures at or below [ ] psig and crack tip temperatures at or above [ ] the acceptance criterion for applied stress intensity factor is as follows:

At pressures [ ] psig and temperatures [ ]

K I < K Ia / 2 Page 16

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 2.3 Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) will be used as alterative acceptance criteria when the flaw related failure mechanism is unstable ductile tearing. This type of failure falls between rapid, non-ductile crack extension and plastic collapse. Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) would be used to assess the potential for non-ductile failure, whereas limit load analysis would be used to check for plastic collapse.

2.3.1 Screening Criteria Screening criteria for determining failure modes in ferritic materials may be found in Appendix C of Section XI. Although Appendix C, Article C-4221 [11] contains specific rules for evaluating flaws in Class 1 ferritic piping, its screening criteria may be adapted to other ferritic components, such as the reactor vessel head, as follows:

Let, Kr = KIapp / KIc Sr = max / f Then the appropriate method of analysis is determined by the following limits:

LEFM Regime: Kr / Sr 1.8 EPFM Regime: 1.8 > Kr / Sr 0.2 Limit Load Regime: 0.2 > Kr / Sr 2.3.2 Limit Load Analysis While in most instances the screening criteria identify EPFM as the appropriate method of analysis, there are cases where low stress intensity factors (Kr) relative to the applied stress (Sr) places the analysis in the limit load regime. Such cases are analyzed through consideration of the primary stress limits of ASME Code Section III as embodied in the equation in Article NB-3324 [7] for the minimum required thickness (tmin) of the spherical closure head, PR o t min = ,

2S m where P = design pressure, [ ] psig [13]

Ro = outside radius, [ ] [1]

Sm = design stress intensity, 26.7 ksi [12]

A conservative limit load analysis would be to limit the remaining net-section of the head after removal of the final volume of weld material (after fatigue crack growth) to the minimum required design thickness, tmin. This is equivalent to removing a uniform depth of material along the inner surface of the vessel to encompass the final flaw and comparing the remaining thickness to t min = 3.74 in.

Page 17

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 2.3.3 Flaw Stability and Crack Driving Force Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics analysis will be performed using a J-integral/tearing modulus (J-T) diagram to evaluate flaw stability under ductile tearing, where J is either the applied (Japp) or the material (Jmat) J-integral, and T is the tearing modulus, defined as (E/f2)(dJ/da). The crack driving force, as measured by Japp, is also checked against the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch (J0.1).

Consistent with industry practice for the evaluation of flaws in partial penetration welds used to attach nozzles to vessels, different safety factors will be utilized for primary and secondary loads. Flaw stability assessments for normal and upset conditions will consider a safety factor of 3 on the stress intensity factor due to primary (pressure) stresses and a safety factor of 1.5 for secondary (residual plus thermal) stresses. The crack driving force will be calculated using safety factors of 1.5 and 1 for primary and secondary stresses, respectively. For EPFM analysis of faulted conditions, safety factors of 1.5 and 1 will be used for flaw stability assessments and 1.5 and 1 for evaluations of crack driving force.

The general methodology for performing an EPFM analyses is outlined below.

Let E = E/(1-2)

Final flaw depth = a Total applied KI = KIapp KI due to pressure (primary) = KIp KI due to residual plus thermal (secondary) = KIs = KIapp - KIp Safety factor on primary loads = SFp Safety factor on secondary loads = SFs For small scale yielding at the crack tip, a plastic zone correction is used to calculate an effective flaw depth based on ae = a + [1/(6)] [ (KIp + KIs) / y ]2, which is used to update the stress intensity factors based on ae K 'Ip = K Ip a

ae and K 'Is = K Is .

a The applied J-integral is then calculated using the relationship Japp = (SFp*KIp + SFs*KIs)2/E.

Page 18

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis The final parameter needed to construct the J-T diagram is the tearing modulus. The applied tearing modulus, Tapp, is calculated by numerical differentiation for small increments of crack size (da) about the final crack size (a), according to E Japp (a + da) Japp (a da)

Tapp = .

2f 2(da)

Using the power law expression for the J-R curve, JR = C(a)m ,

the material tearing modulus, Tmat, can be expressed as Tmat = (E/f2)Cm(a)m-1.

Constructing the J-T diagram, J

Unstable Region Tapp Tmat Applied Instability Point Material Stable Region Tapp < Tmat T

flaw stability is demonstrated at an applied J-integral when the applied tearing modulus is less than the material tearing modulus. Alternately, the applied J-integral is less than the J-integral at the point of instability.

To complete the EPFM analysis, it must be shown that the applied J-integral is less than J0.1, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.

Page 19

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS This section discusses assumptions and modeling simplifications applicable to the present analysis.

3.1 Unverified Assumptions This analysis contains no assumptions that must be verified prior to use on safety-related work.

3.2 Justified Assumptions The austenitic cladding is assumed to be adequately represented by 18Cr-8Ni (Type 304) stainless steel material.

The size of the J-groove weld prep and the thickness of the buttering are based on nominal dimensions. This is considered to be standard practice in stress analysis and fracture mechanics analysis. It is conservatively assumed that the postulated flaw extends through the entire J-groove weld and butter.

3.3 Modeling Simplifications The finite element computer models used to generate residual stresses do not include the ID temper bead repair weld. This is deemed to be an appropriate modeling simplification since compressive stresses induced in the material adjacent to the repair weld would lower stresses on the uphill side of the J-groove weld (in close proximity to the repair weld) and have negligible effect on the downhill side of the J-groove weld (far removed from the repair weld).

Page 20

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS This section provides basic input data needed to perform a fatigue crack growth analysis and a flaw evaluation of the final flaw size.

4.1 Materials 4.1.1 Mechanical and Thermal Properties Table 4-1, Table 4-2, and Table 4-3 list the temperature dependent values of modulus of elasticity (E),

Poissons ratio (), and coefficient of thermal expansion () properties used in the finite element crack models. These properties are obtained from the ASME Code,Section II [8], except for Poissons ratio, where 0.3 is a typical value used in structural analysis. The flow stress in Table 4-1 is the average of the yield and ultimate strengths.

Component Material Head SA-533, Grade B Class 1 [Ref. 2, Par. 6.1.1]

Cladding use Type 304 stainless steel (SA-240)

J-groove weld filler Equivalent to Alloy 600, SB-167 [Ref. 2, Par. 6.1.5]

J-groove weld butter use Alloy 600, SB-167 Table 4-1: Material Properties for Head Component Head Material SA-533 Grade B Class 1 (Mn-1/2Mo-1/2Ni)

Temperature E (106 psi) (10-6 in./in./oF) y (ksi) u (ksi) f (ksi) 70 29.20 0.3 7.0 50.0 80.0 65.0 100 29.04 0.3 7.1 50.0 80.0 65.0 150 28.77 0.3 7.2 48.1 80.0 64.1 200 28.50 0.3 7.3 47.0 80.0 63.5 250 28.25 0.3 7.3 46.2 80.0 63.1 300 28.00 0.3 7.4 45.5 80.0 62.8 350 27.70 0.3 7.5 44.9 80.0 62.4 400 27.40 0.3 7.6 44.2 80.0 62.1 450 27.20 0.3 7.6 43.7 80.0 61.9 500 27.00 0.3 7.7 43.2 80.0 61.6 550 26.70 0.3 7.8 42.7 80.0 61.3 600 26.40 0.3 7.8 42.1 80.0 61.1 650 25.85 0.3 7.9 41.5 80.0 60.8 700 25.30 0.3 7.9 40.7 80.0 60.4 Page 21

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis Table 4-2: Material Properties for Weld Metal Component Weld Butter and Weld Filler Material Use Alloy 600, SB-167 (72Ni-15Cr-8Fe) - UNS N06600 Temperature E (106 psi) (10-6 in./in./oF) 70 31.00 0.3 6.8 100 30.82 0.3 6.9 150 30.51 0.3 7.0 200 30.20 0.3 7.1 250 30.00 0.3 7.2 300 29.80 0.3 7.3 350 29.65 0.3 7.4 400 29.50 0.3 7.5 450 29.25 0.3 7.6 500 29.00 0.3 7.6 550 28.85 0.3 7.7 600 28.70 0.3 7.8 650 28.45 0.3 7.8 700 28.20 0.3 7.9 Table 4-3: Material Properties for Cladding Component Cladding Material Use Type 304 Stainless Steel (18Cr-8Ni) 6 Temperature E (10 psi) (10-6 in./in./oF) 70 28.30 0.3 8.5 100 28.14 0.3 8.6 150 27.87 0.3 8.8 200 27.60 0.3 8.9 250 27.30 0.3 9.1 300 27.00 0.3 9.2 350 26.75 0.3 9.3 400 26.50 0.3 9.5 450 26.15 0.3 9.6 500 25.80 0.3 9.7 550 25.55 0.3 9.8 600 25.30 0.3 9.8 650 25.05 0.3 9.9 700 24.80 0.3 10.0 Page 22

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 4.1.2 Toughness Properties The reference temperature for nil-ductility transition for the SA-533 Grade B Class 1 plate material in the dome portion of the Shearon Harris reactor vessel closure head is reported as RTNDT = [ ] [9]

and the Charpy upper-shelf energy is [ ] [9] in the transverse (weak) direction. Based on the welding procedure qualification record [10] for the ID temperature bead weld, a temperature of +5 °F should be added to the RTNDT of the base material to account for embrittlement in the heat affected zone, so that the effective RTNDT is [ ] for flaw evaluations in the head.

4.1.3 Fracture Toughness From Article A-4200 of Section XI [11], the lower bound KIa fracture toughness for crack arrest can be expressed as KIa = 26.8 + 12.445 exp [ 0.0145 (T - RTNDT) ],

where T is the crack tip temperature, RTNDT is the reference nil-ductility temperature of the material, KIa is in units of ksiin, and T and RTNDT are in units of °F. In the present flaw evaluations, KIa is limited to a maximum value of 200 ksiin (upper-shelf fracture toughness). Using the above equation with an RTNDT of [ ] KIa equals 200 ksiin at a crack tip temperature of [ ].

A higher measure of fracture toughness is provided by the KIc fracture toughness for crack initiation, approximated in Article A-4200 of Section XI [11] by KIc = 33.2 + 20.734 exp [ 0.02 (T - RTNDT) ].

4.1.4 J-integral Resistance Curve The J-integral resistance (J-R) curve, needed for the EPFM method of analysis, is obtained from the following power law expression for nuclear reactor pressure vessel steels, JR = C(a)m, where the coefficient, C, and exponent, m, depend on the Charpy V-notch upper-shelf energy, CVN, and the flow stress, o or f, as shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2.

Using the above referenced Charpy V-notch upper-shelf energy correlation for the J-integral resistance curve with a Charpy V-notch upper-shelf energy of [ ] the coefficients of the power law equation over a wide range of temperatures are:

C= [ ]

m= [ ]

Page 23

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis Figure 4-1: Correlation of Coefficient, C, of Power Law with Charpy V-Notch Upper Shelf Energy Figure 4-2: Correlation of Exponent, m, of Power Law with Coefficient, C, and Flow Stress, o Page 24

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 4.1.5 Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Flaw growth due to cyclic loading is calculated using the fatigue crack growth rate model from Article A-4300 of Section XI [11],

da

= C o ( K I )n ,

dN where KI is the stress intensity factor range in ksiin and da/dN is in inches/cycle. The crack growth rates for a surface flaw will be used for the evaluation of the corner crack since it is assumed that the degraded condition of the J-groove weld and butter exposes the low alloy steel head material to the primary water environment.

The following equations from Section XI [11] are used to model fatigue crack growth.

KI = KImax - KImin R = KImin / KImax 0 R 0.25: KI < 17.74, n = 5.95 Co = 1.02 x 10-12 x S S = 1.0 KI 17.74, n = 1.95 Co = 1.01 x 10-7 x S S = 1.0 0.25 R 0.65: KI < 17.74 [ (3.75R + 0.06) / (26.9R - 5.725) ]0.25, n = 5.95 Co = 1.02 x 10-12 x S S = 26.9R - 5.725 KI 17.74 [ (3.75R + 0.06) / (26.9R - 5.725) ]0.25, n = 1.95 Co = 1.01 x 10-7 x S S = 3.75R + 0.06 0.65 R < 1.0: KI < 12.04, n = 5.95 Co = 1.02 x 10-12 x S S = 11.76 KI 12.04, n = 1.95 Co = 1.01 x 10-7 x S S = 2.5 Page 25

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 4.2 Basic Geometry The reactor vessel head and CRDM nozzle penetration are described by the following key dimensions:

Spherical radius to base metal = [ ] in. [9]

Head thickness = [ ] in. [9]

Cladding thickness = [ ] in. [9]

Butter thickness = [ ] in. [9]

Penetration bore = [ ] in. [9]

Horizontal radius to outermost penetration = [ ] in. [9]

Penetration angle at outermost nozzle = [ ] deg. (derived*)

• (sin-1(horizontal radius/spherical radius))

4.3 Operating Transients Based on bounding transients developed for the companion ASME Code Section III fatigue stress analysis [12], fatigue crack growth will be calculated for the normal and upset condition transients listed in Table 4-4. Since crack growth will be calculated in one-year increments, the number of cycles is obtained by dividing the forty-year design life cycles by 40. While not physically meaningful, a fractional yearly cycle count is computationally acceptable since it is merely used to determine an increment of crack growth from a calculated value of da/dN.

Table 4-5 lists the emergency and faulted condition transients applicable to Shearon Harris reactor vessel components [13]. From a review of the pressure and temperature time-history definitions for these transients, it is clear that the large LOCA and large steam line break transients would bound the remaining transients for emergency and faulted condition flaw evaluations.

Page 26

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis Table 4-4: Bounding Transients for Normal and Upset Conditions Table 4-5: Emergency and Faulted Condition Transients

• Bounding transients to be considered in emergency and faulted condition flaw evaluations Page 27

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 4.4 Applied Stresses Two sources of applied stress are considered for the present flaw evaluations, residual stresses from welding and stresses that occur during plant operation.

4.4.1 Residual Stresses Residual stresses are obtained from a three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite element stress analysis [3]

that simulates fabrication of the outermost nozzle to head partial penetration weld and the effect of subsequent hydrostatic tests and operating cycles on stresses in the welded joint. It is widely accepted that stresses at the outermost CRDM nozzle location conservatively bound stresses at all other nozzle locations exhibiting a smaller penetration angle (the angle between the nozzle and inside surface of the head on the downhill side of the penetration). Stresses are transferred from the finite element residual stress model in the form of nodal arrays contained in ANSYS parameter save files.

4.4.2 Operating Stresses Operating stresses are obtained from the three-dimensional finite element stress analysis [12] used to qualify the nozzle repair to ASME Code Section III requirements. Hoop stresses from the Section III analysis are conservatively superimposed on the residual stresses to represent the crack face opening stresses during operation. Stresses are transferred from the finite element operating stress model in the form of nodal arrays contained in ANSYS parameter save files. Pressure is added to the operating stresses to account for the additional loading on the crack face due to pressure.

Page 28

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 5.0 COMPUTER USAGE This section describes computer resources, software testing, and stored computer files.

5.1 Hardware/Software 5.2 Installation/Validation Test Page 29

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis Table 5-1: Test Case Results Verification Problem VM256 Fracture Mechanics Analysis of a Crack in a Plate File: vm256.vrt

---

VM256 RESULTS COMPARISON ----------------------------------------

l TARGET l ANSYS l RATIO USING PLANE 183 ELEMENT (2-D ANALYSIS)

KI 1.0249 1.0038 0.979 USING SOLID 185 ELEMENT (3-D ANALYSIS)

KI 1.0249 1.0383 1.013 USING SOLID 186 ELEMENT - SURFACE CRACK (3-D ANALYSIS)

KI 1.4000 1.4132 1.009 Page 30

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 5.3 Computer Files The computer files listed below are stored in the AREVA ColdStor repository in the directory

\cold\41304\32-9176350-000\official.

ANSYS Models ColdStor ColdStor File Name Description Storage Storage Checksum Date Time

[

[ ] 04-15-12 09:01:06 22856

]

[

[ ] 04-15-12 09:00:56 18509

]

ANSYS Macros ColdStor ColdStor File Name Description Storage Storage Checksum Date Time

[ ] [ ] 04-15-12 09:01:22 15845

[ ] [ ] 04-15-12 09:01:21 11056 ANSYS Input Files ColdStor ColdStor File Name Description Storage Storage Checksum Date Time

[

[ ] 04-15-12 09:01:42 32454

]

[

[ ] 04-15-12 09:01:41 08793

]

Page 31

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis ANSYS Result Files for Uphill Stress Intensity Factors File Name ColdStor ColdStor Loading Condition Storage Storage Checksum Date Time 04-15-12 09:04:35 22371 04-15-12 09:04:07 16344 04-15-12 09:04:03 19578 04-15-12 09:04:10 45340 04-15-12 09:04:10 36382 04-15-12 09:04:09 50736 04-15-12 09:04:08 46959 04-15-12 09:04:09 35163 04-15-12 09:04:07 46631 04-15-12 09:04:04 15882 04-15-12 09:04:05 54622 04-15-12 09:04:08 25345 04-15-12 09:04:04 17221 04-15-12 09:04:03 01071 04-15-12 09:04:06 55706 04-15-12 09:04:05 62230 04-15-12 09:04:06 06099 Page 32

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis ANSYS Result Files for Downhill Stress Intensity Factors Loading Condition ColdStor ColdStor File Name Storage Storage Checksum Date Time 04-15-12 09:04:34 59428 04-15-12 09:03:13 59492 04-15-12 09:03:10 49475 04-15-12 09:03:16 50217 04-15-12 09:03:17 37165 04-15-12 09:03:16 34304 04-15-12 09:03:15 19734 04-15-12 09:03:16 29947 04-15-12 09:03:14 23156 04-15-12 09:03:11 35585 04-15-12 09:03:12 60112 04-15-12 09:03:15 42106 04-15-12 09:03:11 65275 04-15-12 09:03:10 04872 04-15-12 09:03:13 36168 04-15-12 09:03:12 09825 04-15-12 09:03:13 31095 Page 33

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis Excel Spreadsheets Description ColdStor ColdStor File Name Storage Storage Checksum Date Time 04-15-12 09:06:58 58102 04-15-12 09:06:57 00505 04-15-12 09:06:57 38955 04-15-12 09:06:57 63694 04-15-12 09:06:56 21575 04-15-12 09:06:56 25218 ANSYS Test Cases ColdStor ColdStor File Name Description Storage Storage Checksum Date Time

[

[ ] 04-15-12 09:07:25 49343

]

Page 34

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis 6.0 CALCULATIONS Propagation of a postulated initial flaw in the J-groove weld and butter is calculated to determine the final flaw size after 30 years of service. Flaw evaluations are then performed to assess the acceptability of the final flaw size.

6.1 Initial Flaw Size It is both difficult and unnecessary to prescribe initial flaw sizes for the non-classical flaw shapes comprising the postulated uphill and downhill flaws in the J-groove weld and butter. Since the explicit finite element crack models described in Section 2.1.1 were developed to realistically capture the basic geometry of the J-shaped flaws, any characteristic dimension of the flaws may be used to track flaw growth during cyclic fatigue. The constant depth J-groove design suggests that a common value can be utilized to describe the initial depth of the uphill and downhill flaws. Accordingly, the vertical distance along the uphill side penetration bore, from the inside surface of the cladding to the weld-to-butter/head interface, is used to define the initial flaw size, ao (as shown Figure 2-1). From the uphill crack model, the initial flaw size value is determined to be 2.1482.

As discussed in Section 2.1.3, crack tip stress intensity factors are calculated directly from the finite element crack models for the initial flaw size and then updated based on incremental crack growth according to ai +1 K I (a i+1 ) = K I (a i ) ,

ai so that after the first increment of crack growth, a1 K I ( a i ) = K I (a 0 ) .

a0 6.2 Fatigue Crack Growth Although it is believed that a PWSCC flaw would be confined to the J-groove weld and butter, it is postulated that a fatigue flaw would initiate in the low alloy steel head, combine with the PWSCC flaw, and propagate farther into the head under cyclic loads. Fatigue crack growth is calculated from finite element based stress intensity factors using residual and operational stresses from References [3] and

[12], respectively. The actual flaw growth calculations are presented in Appendix A for the uphill flaw and Appendix B for the downhill flaw, along with a comparison of the final stress intensity factor for each transient with the fracture toughness requirements of Section XI. Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 summarize the flaw growth analyses for the uphill and downhill sides of the flaw, respectively. These tables serve several purposes; they present the final flaw size at the end the design life, they compare stress intensity factors at the final flaw size with LEFM acceptance criteria, and they serve as a means of screening for the worst case loading conditions and stress intensity factors for subsequent EPFM analysis.

Crack growth is calculated in one-year increments for each of the analyzed transients, while uniformly distributing the growth over the service life by linking the yearly crack growth between the crack growth tables in Appendix A for the uphill flaw and the tables in Appendix B for the downhill flaw.

Page 35

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis Stress intensity factors are provided in the crack growth tables for all locations along the postulated crack fronts, including the cladding. It is apparent from the tables in Appendix A that on the uphill side of the penetration, the highest stress intensity factors in the low alloy steel head occur near the cladding surface (Position 3) for residual stresses and near the penetration bore (Position 16) for operating stresses. It is noted that due to residual tensile strain in the cladding material, cladding stresses and the associated stress intensity factors may be higher than those in the adjacent head material. However, stress intensity factors within the stainless steel cladding portion of the crack front need not be considered in the evaluation of the potential for non-ductile failure of the low alloy steel head. Fatigue crack growth analysis performed for both Position 3 and 16 showed that the operating stresses controlled, producing higher final stress intensity factors at Position 16. Thus Position 16 on the uphill side will be used to calculate fatigue crack growth and evaluate the final stress intensity factors for each transient considering flaw acceptance standards for the low alloy steel head material. The downhill side crack growth tables in Appendix B, use Position 7 to calculate crack growth and evaluate fracture toughness margins since the highest stress intensity factors occur either at or near this crack front position for both the residual and operating stresses.

Page 36

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis Table 6-1: LEFM Fracture Toughness Margins for Uphill Side Period of Operation: Time = 30 years Flaw Size: a=

Loading Conditions Temperature Pressure Fracture Toughness, KIc 200.0 200.0 98.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 63.5 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 63.5 200.0 ksiin Fracture Toughness, KIa 200.0 85.5 55.2 200.0 200.0 200.0 43.2 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 43.2 200.0 ksiin Position 16 KI(a) 73.546 50.736 31.531 78.325 79.225 94.843 64.199 82.085 72.962 109.077 73.540 96.413 89.569 233.116 190.113 ksi in ae 3.1971 3.0955 3.0602 3.2163 3.2219 3.2883 3.1266 3.2381 3.1944 3.3708 3.1972 3.2988 3.2369 4.1923 3.9097 in.

KI(ae) 75.434 51.204 31.640 80.576 81.573 98.653 65.117 84.729 74.802 114.874 75.428 100.448 92.437 273.795 215.630 ksi in Margin = KIc / KI(ae) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.23 0.93 Margin = KIa / KI(ae) 2.65 1.67 1.75 2.48 2.45 2.03 0.66 2.36 2.67 1.74 2.65 1.99 2.16 n/a n/a Required Margin 3.16 1.41 1.41 3.16 3.16 3.16 1.41 3.16 3.16 3.16 3.16 3.16 3.16 1.41 1.41 Acceptable by LEFM? No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No where: ae = a + 1/(6) [KI(a)/Sy] 2 KI(ae) = KI(a)*(ae/a)

Page 37

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis Table 6-2: LEFM Fracture Toughness Margins for Downhill Side Period of Operation: Time = 30 years Flaw Size: a=

Loading Conditions Temperature Pressure Fracture Toughness, KIc 200.0 200.0 98.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 63.5 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 63.5 200.0 ksiin Fracture Toughness, KIa 200.0 85.5 55.2 200.0 200.0 200.0 43.2 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 43.2 200.0 ksiin Position 7 KI(a) 56.220 22.499 17.076 58.314 58.716 65.540 55.130 59.913 55.969 72.039 56.216 66.756 65.585 77.409 63.626 ksi in ae 2.3201 2.2388 2.2339 2.3259 2.3279 2.3467 2.2923 2.3337 2.3191 2.3724 2.3201 2.3515 2.3338 2.3549 2.3255 in.

KI(ae) 57.373 22.555 17.099 59.585 60.021 67.267 55.923 61.322 57.105 74.341 57.369 68.584 67.127 79.587 65.007 ksi in Margin = KIc / KI(ae) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.80 3.08 Margin = KIa / KI(ae) 3.49 3.79 3.23 3.36 3.33 2.97 0.77 3.26 3.50 2.69 3.49 2.92 2.98 n/a n/a Required Margin 3.16 1.41 1.41 3.16 3.16 3.16 1.41 3.16 3.16 3.16 3.16 3.16 3.16 1.41 1.41 Acceptable by LEFM? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes where: ae = a + 1/(6) [KI(a)/Sy] 2 KI(ae) = KI(a)*(ae/a)

Page 38

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary) 6.3 LEFM Flaw Evaluations Results of the linear-elastic fracture mechanics flaw evaluations are summarized below for the final flaw size after 30 years of crack growth.

6.3.1 Normal and Upset Conditions Listed below are the controlling LEFM fracture toughness margins from the fatigue crack growth tables.

Uphill Side Downhill Side Flaw Sizes Initial flaw size, ai = 2.148 in. 2.148 in.

Final flaw size, af = [ ] in. [ ] in.

Flaw growth, a = [ ] in. [ ] in.

Operating Conditions Reactor Trip Reactor Trip Temperature, T= [ ] o F [ ] o F

Fracture toughness, KIa = 200.0 ksiin 200.0 ksiin Final stress intensity factor, KI(af) = 109.1 ksiin 72.04 ksiin Effective flaw size, ae = 3.371 in. 2.372 in.

Effective stress intensity factor, KI(ae) = 114.9 ksiin 74.34 ksiin Fracture toughness margin (> 3.16), KIa/KI(ae) = 1.74 2.69 Low Temperature Conditions Refueling Refueling Temperature, T= [ ] o F [ ] o F

Fracture toughness, KIa = 43.2 ksiin 43.2 ksiin Final stress intensity factor, KI(af) = 64.20 ksiin 55.13 ksiin Effective flaw size, ae = 3.127 in. 2.292 in.

Effective stress intensity factor, KI(ae) = 65.12 ksiin 55.92 ksiin Fracture toughness margin (> 1.41), KIa/KI(ae) = 0.66 0.77 Since the above fracture toughness margins for the controlling normal and upset conditions are less than the Code required minimums, EPFM flaw evaluations will be performed in Section 6.4 to account for the ductile behavior of the low alloy steel under stable crack propagation.

Page 39

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary) 6.3.2 Faulted Conditions The bounding faulted condition stress intensity factors are evaluated below for the final flaw size after 30 years of crack growth.

Uphill Side Downhill Side Flaw Sizes Final flaw size, af = [ ] in. [ ] in.

Large Loss of Coolant Accident Temperature, T= [ ] o F [ ] o F

Fracture toughness, KIc = 63.5 ksiin 63.5 ksiin Final stress intensity factor, KI(af) = 233.1 ksiin 77.41 ksiin Effective flaw size, ae = 4.192 in. 2.355 in.

Effective stress intensity factor, KI(ae) = 273.8 ksiin 79.59 ksiin Fracture toughness margin (> 1.41), KIc/KI(ae) = 0.23 0.80 Large Steam Line Break Temperature, T= [ ] o F [ ] o F

Fracture toughness, KIc = 200.0 ksiin 200.0 ksiin Final stress intensity factor, KI(af) = 190.1 ksiin 63.63 ksiin Effective flaw size, ae = 3.910 in. 2.326 in.

Effective stress intensity factor, KI(ae) = 215.6 ksiin 65.01 ksiin Fracture toughness margin (> 1.41), KIc/KI(ae) = 0.93 3.08 Since some of the above fracture toughness margins for the controlling faulted conditions are less than the Code required minimums, EPFM flaw evaluations will be performed in Section 6.4 to account for the ductile behavior of the low alloy steel under stable crack propagation.

Page 40

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary) 6.4 EPFM Flaw Evaluations The EPFM analysis is used to evaluate the limiting loading conditions that fail the LEFM-based Code margins. In this context, EPFM is meant to include either classical elastic-plastic fracture mechanics or limit load analysis, as applicable.

6.4.1 Operating Conditions Uphill Side Downhill Side Controlling Conditions Reactor Trip Reactor Trip Flaw size at 30 years of service, a= [ ] in. [ ] in.

Effective flaw size, ae = 3.371 in. 2.373 in.

SCREENING PROCEDURE T= [ ] o F [ ] o F

E = 27200 ksi 27200 ksi

= 0.3 0.3 E = E/(1-2) = 29890 ksi 29890 ksi y = 43.6 ksi 43.6 ksi u = 80.0 ksi 80.0 ksi f = 61.8 ksi 61.8 ksi Crack initiation toughness, KIc = 200.0 ksiin 200.0 ksiin Total applied KI, KI(ae) = 114.9 ksiin 74.34 ksiin Kr = KI(ae) / KIc = 0.574 0.372 From finite element analysis, the maximum crack face stresses due to residual stress, pressure, and thermal gradients are max = 68.3 ksi 70.9 ksi Sr = max / f = 1.105 1.147 Screening ratio, Kr / Sr = 0.520 0.324 (1.8 > Kr / Sr 0.2) (1.8 > Kr / Sr 0.2)

Analysis regime: EPFM EPFM Page 41

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

EPFM ANALYSIS Uphill Side Downhill Side Controlling Conditions Reactor Trip Reactor Trip KI primary, KIp(a) = 190.8 ksiin 86.02 ksiin KI secondary (residual plus thermal), KIs(a) = 68.19 ksiin 65.05 ksiin Total KI, KI(a) = 259.0 ksiin 151.1 ksiin Effective flaw size, ae = 4.912 in. 2.865 in.

Total KI, KI(ae) = 329.3 ksiin 171.3 ksiin Table A-14 (uphill side) and Table B-14 (downhill side) develop all the data necessary to construct J-T diagrams for the controlling operating conditions. The J-T diagrams are presented in Figures A-1 and B-1 for the uphill and downhill sides, respectively.

Uphill Side:

It can be seen from Table A-14 that for an applied J-integral of 3.628 kips/in, corresponding to safety factors of 3 and 1.5, the applied tearing modulus, 8.502, is less than the material tearing modulus, 50.70, indicating flaw stability. Alternately, the applied J-integral is less than the J-integral, 8.181 kips/in, at the point of instability. For safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied J-integral of 0.785 kips/in is less than the J0.1 value of 2.473 kips/in, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.

Downhill Side:

Table B-14 shows that for an applied J-integral of 0.982 kips/in, corresponding to safety factors of 3 and 1.5, the applied tearing modulus, 3.139, is less than the material tearing modulus, 242.0, indicating flaw stability. The applied J-integral is also less than the J-integral, 7.102 kips/in, at the point of instability.

For safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied J-integral of 0.273 kips/in is less than the J0.1 value of 2.473 kips/in, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.

Page 42

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary) 6.4.2 Low Temperature Conditions Uphill Side Downhill Side Controlling Conditions Refueling Refueling Flaw size at 30 years of service, a= [ ] in. [ ] in.

Effective flaw size, ae = 3.127 in. 2.292 in.

SCREENING PROCEDURE T= [ ] o F [ ] o F

E = 29200 ksi 29200 ksi

= 0.3 0.3 2

E = E/(1- ) = 32080 ksi 32080 ksi y = 50.0 ksi 50.0 ksi u = 80.0 ksi 80.0 ksi f = 65.0 ksi 65.0 ksi Crack initiation toughness, KIc = 63.5 ksiin 63.5 ksiin Total applied KI, KI(ae) = 65.12 ksiin 55.92 ksiin Kr = KI(ae) / KIc = 1.025 0.880 From finite element analysis, the maximum crack face stresses due to residual stress, pressure, and thermal gradients are max = 59.1 ksi 49.5 ksi Sr = max / f = 0.909 0.762 Screening ratio, Kr / Sr = 1.127 1.156 (1.8 > Kr / Sr 0.2) (1.8 > Kr / Sr 0.2)

Analysis regime: EPFM EPFM Page 43

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

EPFM ANALYSIS Uphill Side Downhill Side Controlling Conditions Refueling Refueling KI primary, KIp(a) = 0.0 ksiin 0.0 ksiin KI secondary (residual plus thermal), KIs(a) = 96.30 ksiin 82.70 ksiin Total KI, KI(a) = 96.30 ksiin 82.70 ksiin Effective flaw size, ae = 3.236 in. 2.373 in.

Total KI, KI(ae) = 99.37 ksiin 85.35 ksiin Table A-15 (uphill side) and Table B-15 (downhill side) develop all the data necessary to construct J-T diagrams for the controlling operating conditions. The J-T diagrams are presented in Figures A-2 and B-2 for the uphill and downhill sides, respectively.

Uphill Side:

It can be seen from Table A-15 that for an applied J-integral of 0.308 kips/in, corresponding to safety factors of 3 and 1.5, the applied tearing modulus, 0.700, is less than the material tearing modulus, 942.9, indicating flaw stability. Alternately, the applied J-integral is less than the J-integral, 8.179 kips/in, at the point of instability. For safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied J-integral of 0.132 kips/in is less than the J0.1 value of 2.474 kips/in, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.

Downhill Side:

Table B-15 shows that for an applied J-integral of 0.227 kips/in, corresponding to safety factors of 3 and 1.5, the applied tearing modulus, 0.704, is less than the material tearing modulus, 1357, indicating flaw stability. The applied J-integral is also less than the J-integral, 7.101 kips/in, at the point of instability.

For safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied J-integral of 0.097 kips/in is less than the J0.1 value of 2.474 kips/in, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.

Page 44

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary) 6.4.3 Faulted Conditions Uphill Side Downhill Side Controlling Conditions LLOCA LLOCA Flaw size at 30 years of service, a= [ ] in. [ ] in.

Effective flaw size, ae = 4.192 in. 2.355 in.

SCREENING PROCEDURE T= [ ] o F [ ] o F

E = 29200 ksi 29200 ksi

= 0.3 0.3 2

E = E/(1- ) = 32080 ksi 32080 ksi y = 50.0 ksi 50.0 ksi u = 80.0 ksi 80.0 ksi f = 65.0 ksi 65.0 ksi Crack initiation toughness, KIc = 63.5 ksiin 63.5 ksiin Total applied KI, KI(ae) = 273.8 ksiin 79.59 ksiin Kr = KI(ae) / KIc = 4.310 1.253 From finite element analysis, the maximum crack face stresses due to residual stress, pressure, and thermal gradients are max = 198.3 ksi 163.2 ksi Sr = max / f = 3.051 2.511 Screening ratio, Kr / Sr = 1.413 0.499 (1.8 > Kr / Sr 0.2) (1.8 > Kr / Sr 0.2)

Analysis regime: EPFM EPFM Page 45

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

EPFM ANALYSIS Uphill Side Downhill Side Controlling Conditions LLOCA LLOCA KI primary, KIp(a) = 2.596 ksiin 1.170 ksiin KI secondary (residual plus thermal), KIs(a) = 231.4 ksiin 76.63 ksiin Total KI, KI(a) = 234.0 ksiin 77.80 ksiin Effective flaw size, ae = 4.201 in. 2.356 in.

Total KI, KI(ae) = 275.1 ksiin 80.01 ksiin Table A-16 (uphill side) and Table B-16 (downhill side) develop all the data necessary to construct J-T diagrams for the controlling operating conditions. The J-T diagrams are presented in Figures A-3 and B-3 for the uphill and downhill sides, respectively.

Uphill Side:

It can be seen from Table A-16 that for an applied J-integral of 2.359 kips/in, corresponding to safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied tearing modulus, 5.364, is less than the material tearing modulus, 82.38, indicating flaw stability. Alternately, the applied J-integral is less than the J-integral, 8.179 kips/in, at the point of instability. For safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied J-integral of 2.359 kips/in is less than the J0.1 value of 2.474 kips/in, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.

Downhill Side:

Table B-16 shows that for an applied J-integral of 0.200 kips/in, corresponding to safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied tearing modulus, 0.619, is less than the material tearing modulus, 1584, indicating flaw stability. The applied J-integral is also less than the J-integral, 7.101 kips/in, at the point of instability. For safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied J-integral of 0.200 kips/in is less than the J0.1 value of 2.474 kips/in, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.

Page 46

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary) 6.5 Limit Load Analysis A conservative limit load analysis is performed by comparing the remaining available head thickness to the minimum required thickness, tmin, from Section 2.3.2. This analysis is dependent only on the final flaw depth and is applicable to all loading conditions.

The spherical radius to the inside surface of the cladding is [ ] inches [1] and the spherical radius to the initial flaw depth, obtained from the uphill crack model, is [ ] inches. The maximum flaw growth, calculated on the uphill side and measured along the vertical bore, is [ ]

inch, can also be used as a conservative measure of the flaw growth along a spherical radius. The final flaw depth, dr, measured along a spherical radius through the J-shaped flaw, is dr = [ ]

The remaining head thickness, trem, is t rem = t clad + t base dr where t clad = [ ] in.

t base = [ ] in.

Then t rem = 3.82 in. > t min = 3.74 in.

Since the remaining thickness is greater than the minimum required thickness, the conservative limit load evaluation criterion is satisfied.

Page 47

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary) 7.0

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Linear-elastic and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics has been used to evaluate a postulated radial flaw in the J-groove weld and butter of an outermost CRDM nozzle reactor vessel head penetration. It was determined that an acceptable flaw size would be present after 30 years of fatigue crack growth, as summarized below.

7.1 Summary of Results Uphill Side Downhill Side Flaw Sizes Initial flaw size, ai = 2.148 in. 2.148 in.

Final flaw size after 30 years, af = [ ] in. [ ] in.

Flaw growth, a = [ ] in. [ ] in.

Operating Conditions Reactor Trip Reactor Trip Temperature, T= [ ] o F [ ] o F

Material tearing modulus, Tmat = 50.70 242.0 Material J-integral at 0.1 crack extension, J0.1 = 2.473 kips/in. 2.473 kips/in.

Safety factors (primary/secondary), SF = 3 / 1.5 3 / 1.5 Applied tearing modulus (< Tmat) Tapp = 8.502 3.139 Safety factors (primary/secondary), SF = 1.5 / 1 1.5 / 1 Applied J-integral (< J0.1) Japp = 0.785 kips/in 0.273 kips/in Low Temperature Conditions Refueling Refueling Temperature, T= [ ] o F [ ] o F

Material tearing modulus, Tmat = 942.9 1357 Material J-integral at 0.1 crack extension, J0.1 = 2.474 kips/in. 2.474 kips/in.

Safety factors (primary/secondary), SF = 3 / 1.5 3 / 1.5 Applied tearing modulus (< Tmat) Tapp = 0.700 0.704 Safety factors (primary/secondary), SF = 1.5 / 1 1.5 / 1 Applied J-integral (< J0.1) Japp = 0.132 kips/in 0.097 kips/in Page 48

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Summary of Results (Contd)

Faulted Conditions LLOCA LLOCA Temperature, T= [ ] o F [ ] o F

Material tearing modulus, Tmat = 82.38 1584 Material J-integral at 0.1 crack extension, J0.1 = 2.474 kips/in. 2.474 kips/in.

Safety factors (primary/secondary), SF = 1.5 / 1 1.5 / 1 Applied tearing modulus (< Tmat) Tapp = 5.364 0.619 Safety factors (primary/secondary), SF = 1.5 / 1 1.5 / 1 Applied J-integral (< J0.1) Japp = 2.359 kips/in 0.200 kips/in 7.2 Conclusion Based on a combination of linear elastic and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics analysis of a postulated remaining flaw in the original Alloy 182 J-groove weld and butter material, the Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM and CET nozzles are considered to be acceptable for at least 30 years of operation following an IDTB weld repair.

8.0 REFERENCES

1. AREVA Drawing 02-9175500E-005, Shearon Harris CRDM ID Temper Bead Weld Repair

2. AREVA Document 08-9172870-002, Shearon Harris RVCH CRDM and CET Nozzle Penetration Modification

3. AREVA Document 32-9176344-000, Shearon Harris Unit 1 IDTB CRDM/CET Nozzle Weld Residual Stress Analysis - Proprietary Document

4. AREVA Document 51-5012047-00, Stress Corrosion Cracking of Low Alloy Steel

5. ANSYS Finite Element Computer Code, Version 12.1, ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA.

6. T.L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, CRC Press, 1991.

7. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, Division 1, Subsection NB, Class 1 Components, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003.

8. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section II, Materials, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003.

9. AREVA Document 38-2200979-000, Shearon Harris - Proprietary Document Transmittal 1

10. AREVA Document 55-PQ7183-005, Procedure Qualification Record PQ7183-005 Page 49

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

11. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003.

12. AREVA Document 32-9175220-003, Shearon Harris Unit 1 Contingency CRDM IDTB Weld Repair Analysis

13. AREVA Document 38-2201004-000, Shearon Harris - Proprietary Document Transmittal 4 Page 50

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

APPENDIX A: DETAILED FLAW EVALUATIONS FOR UPHILL SIDE This appendix presents the fatigue crack growth tables and the elastic-plastic fracture mechanics flaw evaluations for the uphill side of the CRDM penetration.

Table A-1: Stress Intensification Factors for Uphill Side - Welding Residual Stress Condition WRS Temperature 70.0 F Pressure n/a psig Sy 50.0 ksi KIc 98.0 ksiin KIa 55.2 ksiin Crack Front KI Position (ksiin) 1 45.118 2 41.056 3 38.435 4 31.191 5 27.747 6 24.365 7 20.513 8 14.773 9 18.055 10 9.772 11 -2.101 12 7.352 13 14.344 14 18.763 15 22.133 16 26.509 17 17.849 Page 51

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-2: Fatigue Crack Growth for Uphill Side - Heatup/Cooldown STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* HU1 HU2 CD SD Transient

Description:

200 cycles over 40 years Temperature 557.0 349.0 120.0 70.0 F Pressure 2317 467 467 0 psig N = 5.0 cycles/year Sy 42.6 44.9 49.2 50.0 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 200.0 98.0 ksiin Position 16 KIa 200.0 200.0 85.5 55.2 ksiin Operating HU1 HU2 CD SD Crack Front Stress Intensity Factor, KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a KI(a) KI(a)

Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) 1 18.527 -18.920 13.250 0.000 0 0.0 61.833 13.247 48.586 42.656 26.509 2 18.826 -17.438 12.738 0.000 1 5.0 61.857 13.252 48.604 42.672 26.519 3 19.351 -15.934 12.257 0.000 2 10.0 62.217 13.329 48.888 42.921 26.674 4 18.420 -13.078 10.820 0.000 3 15.0 62.579 13.407 49.172 43.171 26.829 5 18.505 -11.272 10.097 0.000 4 20.0 62.943 13.485 49.458 43.422 26.985 6 18.197 -9.462 9.289 0.000 5 25.0 63.309 13.563 49.746 43.674 27.142 7 16.954 -7.589 8.195 0.000 6 30.0 63.678 13.642 50.035 43.929 27.300 8 12.946 -5.678 6.169 0.000 7 35.0 64.048 13.722 50.326 44.184 27.459 9 16.968 -5.646 7.508 0.000 8 40.0 64.420 13.801 50.619 44.441 27.618 10 8.787 -3.529 4.085 0.000 9 45.0 64.795 13.881 50.913 44.699 27.779 11 -3.688 -1.066 -0.898 0.000 10 50.0 65.171 13.962 51.209 44.959 27.940 12 7.147 -2.712 3.264 0.000 11 55.0 65.550 14.043 51.506 45.220 28.102 13 14.991 -4.996 6.623 0.000 12 60.0 65.930 14.125 51.805 45.483 28.266 14 20.357 -7.186 9.121 0.000 13 65.0 66.313 14.207 52.106 45.747 28.430 15 25.782 -9.743 11.777 0.000 14 70.0 66.698 14.289 52.409 46.012 28.595 16 35.324 -13.262 16.147 0.000 15 75.0 67.085 14.372 52.713 46.279 28.761 17 23.491 -9.495 10.995 0.000 16 80.0 67.474 14.455 53.018 46.547 28.927 17 85.0 67.865 14.539 53.326 46.817 29.095

• Condition Description 18 90.0 68.258 14.624 53.635 47.089 29.264 HU1 Time step 6 at 7.67 hr. (Heatup) - Maximum KI 19 95.0 68.654 14.708 53.946 47.362 29.433 HU2 Time step 3 at 2.29 hr. (Heatup) - Minimum KI 20 100.0 69.052 14.794 54.258 47.636 29.604 CD Time step 15 at 14.37 hr. - Maximum KI at Low Temperature 21 105.0 69.452 14.879 54.572 47.912 29.775 SD Shutdown at Ambient Conditions 22 110.0 69.854 14.965 54.888 48.189 29.948 23 115.0 70.258 15.052 55.206 48.468 30.121 24 120.0 70.665 15.139 55.526 48.749 30.295 25 125.0 71.073 15.227 55.847 49.031 30.471 26 130.0 71.484 15.315 56.170 49.314 30.647 27 135.0 71.898 15.403 56.494 49.599 30.824 28 140.0 72.313 15.492 56.821 49.886 31.002 29 145.0 72.731 15.582 57.149 50.174 31.181 30 150.0 73.151 15.672 57.479 50.464 31.361 Page 52

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-3: Fatigue Crack Growth for Uphill Side - Unit Loading/Unloading STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* UL UU Transient

Description:

18300 cycles over 40 years Temperature 533.8 574.3 F Pressure 2265 2209 psig N = 457.5 cycles/year Sy 42.9 42.4 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 16 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating UL UU Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 23.007 10.659 0 0.0 65.851 53.629 12.222 2 23.018 11.371 1 457.5 65.891 53.662 12.229 3 23.249 12.295 2 915.0 66.275 53.974 12.301 4 21.710 12.334 3 1372.5 66.661 54.288 12.372 5 21.430 12.954 4 1830.0 67.049 54.604 12.444 6 20.760 13.214 5 2287.5 67.439 54.922 12.517 7 19.115 12.658 6 2745.0 67.831 55.241 12.589 8 14.550 9.722 7 3202.5 68.225 55.563 12.663 9 18.795 13.197 8 3660.0 68.622 55.886 12.736 10 9.829 6.679 9 4117.5 69.021 56.210 12.810 11 -3.731 -3.452 10 4575.0 69.422 56.537 12.885 12 7.964 5.477 11 5032.5 69.825 56.865 12.960 13 16.596 11.668 12 5490.0 70.230 57.196 13.035 14 22.593 15.748 13 5947.5 70.638 57.528 13.110 15 28.716 19.782 14 6405.0 71.048 57.861 13.187 16 39.342 27.120 15 6862.5 71.460 58.197 13.263 17 26.287 17.846 16 7320.0 71.875 58.535 13.340 17 7777.5 72.291 58.874 13.417

• Condition Description 18 8235.0 72.710 59.215 13.495 UL Time step 12 at 0.29 hr. - Maximum KI 19 8692.5 73.132 59.559 13.573 UU Time step 11 at 0.29 hr. - Minimum KI 20 9150.0 73.555 59.904 13.652 21 9607.5 73.981 60.250 13.731 22 10065.0 74.410 60.599 13.811 23 10522.5 74.841 60.950 13.890 24 10980.0 75.274 61.303 13.971 25 11437.5 75.709 61.657 14.052 26 11895.0 76.147 62.014 14.133 27 12352.5 76.587 62.372 14.215 28 12810.0 77.030 62.733 14.297 29 13267.5 77.475 63.095 14.379 30 13725.0 77.922 63.460 14.462 Page 53

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-4: Fatigue Crack Growth for Uphill Side - Step Load Increase/Decrease STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* SLI SLD Transient

Description:

4000 cycles over 40 years Temperature 551.4 570.8 F Pressure 2367 2246 psig N = 100.0 cycles/year Sy 42.7 42.5 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 16 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating SLI SLD Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 22.974 11.043 0 0.0 66.608 54.168 12.440 2 23.070 11.733 1 100.0 66.884 54.393 12.492 3 23.434 12.620 2 200.0 67.274 54.709 12.564 4 21.981 12.614 3 300.0 67.665 55.028 12.637 5 21.803 13.209 4 400.0 68.059 55.348 12.711 6 21.191 13.451 5 500.0 68.455 55.670 12.785 7 19.546 12.878 6 600.0 68.853 55.994 12.859 8 14.887 9.896 7 700.0 69.253 56.319 12.934 9 19.268 13.414 8 800.0 69.656 56.647 13.009 10 10.061 6.796 9 900.0 70.061 56.976 13.085 11 -3.874 -3.486 10 1000.0 70.468 57.307 13.161 12 8.146 5.579 11 1100.0 70.877 57.640 13.237 13 16.990 11.874 12 1200.0 71.288 57.974 13.314 14 23.108 16.034 13 1300.0 71.702 58.311 13.391 15 29.318 20.161 14 1400.0 72.118 58.649 13.469 16 40.099 27.659 15 1500.0 72.536 58.989 13.547 17 26.771 18.203 16 1600.0 72.957 59.331 13.626 17 1700.0 73.380 59.675 13.705

• Condition Description 18 1800.0 73.805 60.021 13.784 SLI Time step 10 at 0.05 hr. - Maximum KI 19 1900.0 74.233 60.369 13.864 SLD Time step 10 at 0.042 hr. - Minimum KI 20 2000.0 74.663 60.718 13.944 21 2100.0 75.095 61.070 14.025 22 2200.0 75.530 61.424 14.106 23 2300.0 75.967 61.779 14.188 24 2400.0 76.406 62.136 14.270 25 2500.0 76.848 62.496 14.353 26 2600.0 77.293 62.857 14.436 27 2700.0 77.739 63.221 14.519 28 2800.0 78.189 63.586 14.603 29 2900.0 78.640 63.953 14.687 30 3000.0 79.095 64.323 14.772 Page 54

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-5: Fatigue Crack Growth for Uphill Side - Turbine Roll Test STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* TRT1 TRT2 Transient

Description:

80 cycles over 40 years Temperature 443.4 557.4 F Pressure 1692 2317 psig N = 2.0 cycles/year Sy 43.8 42.6 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 16 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating TRT1 TRT2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 40.587 7.354 0 0.0 79.738 50.447 29.291 2 39.304 8.260 1 2.0 80.133 50.697 29.436 3 38.158 9.378 2 4.0 80.599 50.992 29.607 4 34.061 9.845 3 6.0 81.069 51.289 29.780 5 32.161 10.713 4 8.0 81.540 51.587 29.953 6 29.935 11.230 5 10.0 82.015 51.887 30.127 7 26.687 10.973 6 12.0 82.492 52.189 30.303 8 20.115 8.468 7 14.0 82.971 52.493 30.479 9 24.921 11.756 8 16.0 83.453 52.798 30.656 10 13.413 5.859 9 18.0 83.938 53.104 30.834 11 -3.551 -3.409 10 20.0 84.426 53.413 31.013 12 10.752 4.835 11 22.0 84.916 53.723 31.193 13 21.987 10.400 12 24.0 85.409 54.035 31.374 14 30.173 13.981 13 26.0 85.905 54.348 31.556 15 38.799 17.463 14 28.0 86.403 54.664 31.739 16 53.229 23.938 15 30.0 86.904 54.981 31.923 17 36.060 15.642 16 32.0 87.408 55.300 32.109 17 34.0 87.915 55.620 32.295

• Condition Description 18 36.0 88.424 55.943 32.482 TRT1 Time step 5 at 0.278 hr. - Maximum KI 19 38.0 88.937 56.267 32.670 TRT2 Time step 8 at 1.418 hr. - Minimum KI 20 40.0 89.452 56.593 32.859 21 42.0 89.970 56.920 33.050 22 44.0 90.491 57.250 33.241 23 46.0 91.014 57.581 33.433 24 48.0 91.541 57.914 33.627 25 50.0 92.070 58.249 33.821 26 52.0 92.603 58.586 34.017 27 54.0 93.138 58.924 34.213 28 56.0 93.676 59.265 34.411 29 58.0 94.217 59.607 34.610 30 60.0 94.761 59.952 34.810 Page 55

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-6: Fatigue Crack Growth for Uphill Side - Refueling STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* RF1 RF2 Transient

Description:

80 cycles over 40 years Temperature 32.0 140.0 F Pressure 0 0 psig N = 2.0 cycles/year Sy 50.0 48.5 ksi KIc 63.5 200.0 ksiin Position 16 KIa 43.2 105.3 ksiin Operating RF1 RF2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 27.949 -4.885 0 0.0 53.975 22.705 31.270 2 26.345 -4.536 1 2.0 54.247 22.819 31.427 3 24.683 -4.194 2 4.0 54.563 22.952 31.610 4 21.095 -3.491 3 6.0 54.880 23.086 31.794 5 18.978 -3.063 4 8.0 55.200 23.220 31.979 6 16.815 -2.617 5 10.0 55.521 23.355 32.165 7 14.330 -2.135 6 12.0 55.844 23.491 32.353 8 10.707 -1.614 7 14.0 56.168 23.628 32.541 9 12.277 -1.643 8 16.0 56.495 23.765 32.730 10 6.961 -1.007 9 18.0 56.823 23.903 32.920 11 -0.430 -0.243 10 20.0 57.153 24.042 33.111 12 5.491 -0.781 11 22.0 57.485 24.181 33.303 13 10.857 -1.457 12 24.0 57.819 24.322 33.497 14 15.170 -2.084 13 26.0 58.154 24.463 33.691 15 19.962 -2.802 14 28.0 58.492 24.605 33.887 16 27.466 -3.804 15 30.0 58.831 24.748 34.083 17 19.022 -2.699 16 32.0 59.172 24.891 34.281 17 34.0 59.515 25.035 34.480

• Condition Description 18 36.0 59.860 25.180 34.679 RF1 Time step 7 at 0.171 hr. - Maximum KI 19 38.0 60.207 25.326 34.880 RF2 Time step 1 at 0.0001 hr. - Minimum KI 20 40.0 60.555 25.473 35.082 21 42.0 60.906 25.621 35.285 22 44.0 61.259 25.769 35.490 23 46.0 61.613 25.918 35.695 24 48.0 61.969 26.068 35.902 25 50.0 62.328 26.219 36.109 26 52.0 62.688 26.370 36.318 27 54.0 63.051 26.523 36.528 28 56.0 63.415 26.676 36.739 29 58.0 63.781 26.830 36.951 30 60.0 64.150 26.985 37.165 Page 56

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-7: Fatigue Crack Growth for Uphill Side - Loss of Load STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* LL1 LL2 Transient

Description:

210 cycles over 40 years Temperature 575.8 588.8 F Pressure 2710 1844 psig N = 5.25 cycles/year Sy 42.4 42.2 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 16 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating LL1 LL2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 23.554 -4.474 0 0.0 69.012 37.236 31.776 2 23.806 -3.022 1 5.3 69.364 37.426 31.938 3 24.444 -1.387 2 10.5 69.768 37.644 32.124 4 23.114 0.461 3 15.8 70.174 37.863 32.311 5 23.111 2.069 4 21.0 70.582 38.083 32.499 6 22.576 3.396 5 26.3 70.993 38.305 32.688 7 20.873 4.163 6 31.5 71.406 38.527 32.878 8 15.923 3.330 7 36.8 71.821 38.751 33.069 9 20.646 5.710 8 42.0 72.238 38.977 33.261 10 10.754 2.498 9 47.3 72.658 39.203 33.455 11 -4.216 -2.966 10 52.5 73.080 39.431 33.649 12 8.702 2.160 11 57.8 73.504 39.660 33.844 13 18.163 5.054 12 63.0 73.931 39.890 34.041 14 24.668 6.566 13 68.3 74.360 40.122 34.238 15 31.190 7.815 14 73.5 74.792 40.354 34.437 16 42.503 10.727 15 78.8 75.225 40.588 34.637 17 28.370 6.584 16 84.0 75.662 40.824 34.838 17 89.3 76.100 41.060 35.040

• Condition Description 18 94.5 76.541 41.298 35.243 LL1 Time step 2 at 0.003 hr. - Maximum KI 19 99.8 76.985 41.538 35.447 LL2 Time step 12 at 0.033 hr. - Minimum KI 20 105.0 77.430 41.778 35.652 21 110.3 77.879 42.020 35.859 22 115.5 78.330 42.263 36.066 23 120.8 78.783 42.508 36.275 24 126.0 79.239 42.754 36.485 25 131.3 79.697 43.001 36.696 26 136.5 80.158 43.250 36.908 27 141.8 80.621 43.500 37.121 28 147.0 81.087 43.751 37.336 29 152.3 81.555 44.004 37.551 30 157.5 82.026 44.258 37.768 Page 57

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-8: Fatigue Crack Growth for Uphill Side - Loss of Power STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* LP1 LP2 Transient

Description:

100 cycles over 40 years Temperature 553.8 600.5 F Pressure 2295 2464 psig N = 2.5 cycles/year Sy 42.7 42.1 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 16 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating LP1 LP2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 18.177 2.404 0 0.0 61.342 46.871 14.471 2 18.484 3.685 1 2.5 61.668 47.120 14.548 3 19.014 5.180 2 5.0 62.027 47.395 14.633 4 18.116 6.387 3 7.5 62.388 47.671 14.718 5 18.212 7.727 4 10.0 62.751 47.948 14.803 6 17.922 8.703 5 12.5 63.116 48.227 14.890 7 16.708 8.918 6 15.0 63.483 48.507 14.976 8 12.759 6.975 7 17.5 63.852 48.789 15.063 9 16.740 10.142 8 20.0 64.224 49.073 15.151 10 8.663 4.906 9 22.5 64.597 49.358 15.239 11 -3.661 -3.498 10 25.0 64.972 49.645 15.327 12 7.047 4.105 11 27.5 65.349 49.933 15.416 13 14.789 9.001 12 30.0 65.729 50.223 15.506 14 20.078 12.011 13 32.5 66.110 50.514 15.596 15 25.423 14.846 14 35.0 66.494 50.807 15.686 16 34.833 20.362 15 37.5 66.879 51.102 15.777 17 23.159 13.095 16 40.0 67.267 51.398 15.869 17 42.5 67.657 51.696 15.961

• Condition Description 18 45.0 68.049 51.996 16.053 LP1 Time step 2 at 0.003 hr. - Maximum KI 19 47.5 68.443 52.297 16.146 LP2 Time step 11 at 0.053 hr. - Minimum KI 20 50.0 68.840 52.600 16.240 21 52.5 69.238 52.905 16.334 22 55.0 69.639 53.211 16.428 23 57.5 70.042 53.519 16.523 24 60.0 70.447 53.828 16.619 25 62.5 70.855 54.140 16.715 26 65.0 71.264 54.453 16.812 27 67.5 71.676 54.767 16.909 28 70.0 72.090 55.084 17.007 29 72.5 72.507 55.402 17.105 30 75.0 72.926 55.722 17.204 Page 58

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-9: Fatigue Crack Growth for Uphill Side - Reactor Trip STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* RT1 RT2 Transient

Description:

250 cycles over 40 years Temperature 457.4 537.4 F Pressure 2205 1803 psig N = 6.25 cycles/year Sy 43.6 42.8 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 16 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating RT1 RT2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 50.109 15.130 0 0.0 91.705 55.567 36.138 2 48.502 15.368 1 6.3 92.195 55.864 36.331 3 47.097 15.728 2 12.5 92.732 56.189 36.543 4 42.010 14.966 3 18.8 93.272 56.516 36.755 5 39.651 14.995 4 25.0 93.814 56.845 36.969 6 36.864 14.741 5 31.3 94.360 57.176 37.184 7 32.808 13.760 6 37.5 94.909 57.508 37.401 8 24.760 10.481 7 43.8 95.461 57.843 37.618 9 30.517 13.823 8 50.0 96.016 58.179 37.837 10 16.474 7.136 9 56.3 96.573 58.517 38.056 11 -4.144 -3.110 10 62.5 97.134 58.857 38.278 12 13.197 5.817 11 68.8 97.698 59.199 38.500 13 26.924 12.241 12 75.0 98.266 59.542 38.723 14 36.980 16.629 13 81.3 98.836 59.888 38.948 15 47.575 21.108 14 87.5 99.409 60.235 39.174 16 65.196 29.058 15 93.8 99.986 60.585 39.401 17 44.202 19.322 16 100.0 100.566 60.936 39.630 17 106.3 101.149 61.289 39.859

• Condition Description 18 112.5 101.735 61.644 40.090 RT1 Time step 13 at 0.171 hr. - Maximum KI 19 118.8 102.324 62.001 40.323 RT2 Time step 8 at 0.025 hr. - Minimum KI 20 125.0 102.917 62.361 40.556 21 131.3 103.513 62.722 40.791 22 137.5 104.112 63.085 41.027 23 143.8 104.714 63.450 41.265 24 150.0 105.320 63.817 41.503 25 156.3 105.929 64.186 41.743 26 162.5 106.542 64.557 41.985 27 168.8 107.157 64.930 42.227 28 175.0 107.777 65.305 42.471 29 181.3 108.399 65.683 42.717 30 187.5 109.025 66.062 42.963 Page 59

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-10: Fatigue Crack Growth for Uphill Side - Inadvertent Depressurization STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* ID1 ID2 Transient

Description:

100 cycles over 40 years Temperature 557.4 556.6 F Pressure 2317 1161 psig N = 2.5 cycles/year Sy 42.6 42.6 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 16 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating ID1 ID2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 18.517 -4.170 0 0.0 61.828 33.923 27.905 2 18.817 -3.034 1 2.5 62.182 34.117 28.065 3 19.343 -1.801 2 5.0 62.544 34.316 28.228 4 18.414 -0.310 3 7.5 62.908 34.515 28.392 5 18.500 0.933 4 10.0 63.274 34.716 28.558 6 18.193 1.996 5 12.5 63.642 34.918 28.724 7 16.951 2.674 6 15.0 64.012 35.121 28.891 8 12.944 2.112 7 17.5 64.384 35.325 29.059 9 16.966 3.967 8 20.0 64.758 35.531 29.228 10 8.786 1.655 9 22.5 65.135 35.737 29.397 11 -3.689 -2.383 10 25.0 65.513 35.945 29.568 12 7.146 1.450 11 27.5 65.893 36.154 29.740 13 14.989 3.509 12 30.0 66.276 36.363 29.912 14 20.354 4.514 13 32.5 66.660 36.574 30.086 15 25.779 5.327 14 35.0 67.047 36.787 30.261 16 35.319 7.414 15 37.5 67.436 37.000 30.436 17 23.488 4.490 16 40.0 67.827 37.215 30.613 17 42.5 68.220 37.430 30.790

• Condition Description 18 45.0 68.616 37.647 30.968 ID1 Time step 1 at 0.0001 hr. - Maximum KI 19 47.5 69.013 37.865 31.148 ID2 Time step 9 at 0.022 hr. - Minimum KI 20 50.0 69.413 38.085 31.328 21 52.5 69.815 38.305 31.510 22 55.0 70.219 38.527 31.692 23 57.5 70.625 38.750 31.875 24 60.0 71.034 38.974 32.060 25 62.5 71.445 39.199 32.245 26 65.0 71.858 39.426 32.432 27 67.5 72.273 39.654 32.619 28 70.0 72.691 39.883 32.808 29 72.5 73.110 40.113 32.997 30 75.0 73.533 40.345 33.188 Page 60

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-11: Fatigue Crack Growth for Uphill Side - Excessive Feedwater Flow STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* EFF1 EFF2 Transient

Description:

40 cycles over 40 years Temperature 462.4 557.4 F Pressure 1977 2317 psig N = 1.0 cycles/year Sy 43.6 42.6 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 16 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating EFF1 EFF2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 40.206 18.517 0 0.0 81.058 61.828 19.230 2 39.093 18.817 1 1.0 81.529 62.187 19.342 3 38.174 19.343 2 2.0 82.003 62.549 19.454 4 34.281 18.414 3 3.0 82.480 62.913 19.567 5 32.584 18.500 4 4.0 82.960 63.279 19.681 6 30.503 18.193 5 5.0 83.443 63.647 19.796 7 27.311 16.951 6 6.0 83.928 64.017 19.911 8 20.626 12.944 7 7.0 84.416 64.389 20.027 9 25.683 16.966 8 8.0 84.907 64.764 20.143 10 13.771 8.786 9 9.0 85.400 65.140 20.260 11 -3.839 -3.689 10 10.0 85.896 65.518 20.378 12 11.051 7.146 11 11.0 86.395 65.899 20.496 13 22.647 14.989 12 12.0 86.896 66.281 20.615 14 31.036 20.354 13 13.0 87.401 66.666 20.735 15 39.815 25.779 14 14.0 87.908 67.053 20.855 16 54.549 35.319 15 15.0 88.418 67.442 20.976 17 36.881 23.488 16 16.0 88.930 67.833 21.098 17 17.0 89.446 68.226 21.220

• Condition Description 18 18.0 89.964 68.621 21.343 EFF1 Time step 30 at 0.167 hr. - Maximum KI 19 19.0 90.485 69.019 21.466 EFF2 Time step 1 at 0.0001 hr. - Minimum KI 20 20.0 91.009 69.418 21.591 21 21.0 91.536 69.820 21.716 22 22.0 92.066 70.225 21.842 23 23.0 92.599 70.631 21.968 24 24.0 93.134 71.039 22.095 25 25.0 93.673 71.450 22.223 26 26.0 94.215 71.863 22.351 27 27.0 94.759 72.279 22.480 28 28.0 95.307 72.696 22.610 29 29.0 95.857 73.116 22.741 30 30.0 96.411 73.539 22.872 Page 61

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-12: Fatigue Crack Growth for Uphill Side - Leak Test STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* LT1 LT2 Transient

Description:

280 cycles over 40 years Temperature 238.0 82.0 F Pressure 2351 602 psig N = 7.0 cycles/year Sy 46.4 50.0 ksi KIc 200.0 115.6 ksiin Position 16 KIa 200.0 60.6 ksiin Operating LT1 LT2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 36.203 7.924 0 0.0 75.304 37.270 38.034 2 35.188 7.716 1 7.0 75.743 37.487 38.255 3 34.376 7.578 2 14.0 76.184 37.705 38.478 4 30.852 6.820 3 21.0 76.627 37.925 38.702 5 29.318 6.511 4 28.0 77.073 38.145 38.927 6 27.425 6.103 5 35.0 77.521 38.367 39.154 7 24.524 5.455 6 42.0 77.972 38.590 39.381 8 18.585 4.155 7 49.0 78.425 38.815 39.610 9 22.970 5.093 8 56.0 78.881 39.040 39.841 10 12.351 2.750 9 63.0 79.339 39.267 40.072 11 -3.258 -0.668 10 70.0 79.800 39.495 40.305 12 9.923 2.208 11 77.0 80.263 39.725 40.539 13 20.272 4.493 12 84.0 80.729 39.955 40.774 14 27.806 6.166 13 91.0 81.198 40.187 41.011 15 35.677 7.901 14 98.0 81.669 40.420 41.249 16 48.795 10.761 15 105.0 82.143 40.655 41.488 17 33.019 7.282 16 112.0 82.619 40.890 41.729 17 119.0 83.098 41.127 41.970

• Condition Description 18 126.0 83.579 41.366 42.214 LT1 Time step 6 at 3.92 hr. - Maximum KI 19 133.0 84.064 41.605 42.458 LT2 Time step 2 at 0.12 hr. - Minimum KI 20 140.0 84.550 41.846 42.704 21 147.0 85.040 42.089 42.951 22 154.0 85.532 42.332 43.200 23 161.0 86.027 42.577 43.450 24 168.0 86.525 42.823 43.701 25 175.0 87.025 43.071 43.954 26 182.0 87.528 43.320 44.208 27 189.0 88.034 43.571 44.464 28 196.0 88.543 43.822 44.721 29 203.0 89.054 44.075 44.979 30 210.0 89.569 44.330 45.239 Page 62

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-13: Stress Intensification Factors for Uphill Side - Faulted Conditions STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS TOTAL STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FOR OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH RESIDUAL STRESS Condition* LLOCA LSLB Temperature 32.0 204.3 F Pressure 60 1331 psig ao = 2.1482 in.

Sy 50.0 46.9 ksi KIc 63.5 200.0 ksiin KIa 43.2 200.0 ksiin Condition* LLOCA LSLB Crack Front KI Crack Front KI Position (ksiin) (ksiin) Position (ksiin) (ksiin) 1 172.666 125.310 1 217.784 170.428 2 162.695 118.971 2 203.751 160.027 3 152.220 112.724 3 190.655 151.159 4 129.976 97.510 4 161.167 128.701 5 116.733 89.073 5 144.480 116.820 6 103.336 80.161 6 127.701 104.526 7 88.075 69.285 7 108.588 89.798 8 65.634 51.855 8 80.407 66.628 9 75.591 61.179 9 93.646 79.234 10 42.758 34.017 10 52.530 43.789 11 -3.101 -4.606 11 -5.202 -6.707 12 33.734 26.937 12 41.086 34.289 13 66.840 53.893 13 81.184 68.237 14 93.354 74.686 14 112.117 93.449 15 122.911 97.237 15 145.044 119.370 16 169.481 133.327 16 195.990 159.836 17 117.360 91.670 17 135.209 109.519

• Condition Description LLOCA Time step 15 at 0.03889 hr. (140 sec.) - Maximum KI LSLB Time step 10 at 0.09889 hr. (356 sec.) - Maximum KI Page 63

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-14: EPFM Evaluations for Uphill Side - Reactor Trip EPFM Equations: Jmat = C(a)m C=

Tmat = (E/f 2)*Cm(a)m-1 m=

Japp = [KI'(ae)] 2/E' Tapp = (E/f 2)*(dJapp/da)

Ductile Crack Growth Stability Criterion: Tapp < Tmat At instability: Tapp = Tmat Safety Factors KI*p KI*s KI*(a) ae KI'(ae) Japp Tapp Stable?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) 1.00 1.00 63.614 45.463 109.077 3.3712 114.881 0.442 1.035 Yes 2.00 1.00 127.227 45.463 172.690 3.8714 194.907 1.271 2.978 Yes 3.00 1.50 190.841 68.194 259.035 4.9117 329.307 3.628 8.502 Yes 4.00 1.00 254.455 45.463 299.918 5.5495 405.277 5.495 12.877 Yes 6.00 1.00 381.682 45.463 427.145 8.1310 698.669 16.331 38.270 No Iterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability :

Jinstability Tapp Tmat 3.1437 3.1437 199.980 142.920 342.900 6.3206 494.503 8.181 19.171 19.171 at Jmat = 3.628 kips/in, Tmat = 50.698 Applied J-Integral Criterion: Japp < J0.1 where, J0.1 = Jmat at a = 0.1 in.

Safety Factors KI*p KI*s KI*(a) ae KI'(ae) Japp J0.1 OK?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) (kips/in) 1.50 1.00 95.421 45.463 140.883 3.5931 153.185 0.785 2.473 Yes Page 64

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Figure A-1: J-T Diagram for Uphill Side - Reactor Trip 10 9

Instablility Point 8

7 J-T Material 6

J-Integral (kips/in) 5 J-T Applied 4

SF = 3 & 1.5 3

2 1

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Tearing Modulus Page 65

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-15: EPFM Evaluations for Uphill Side - Refueling EPFM Equations: Jmat = C(a)m C=

Tmat = (E/f 2)*Cm(a)m-1 m=

Japp = [KI'(ae)] 2/E' Tapp = (E/f 2)*(dJapp/da)

Ductile Crack Growth Stability Criterion: Tapp < Tmat At instability: Tapp = Tmat Safety Factors KI*p KI*s KI*(a) ae KI'(ae) Japp Tapp Stable?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) 1.00 1.00 0.000 64.199 64.199 3.1266 65.117 0.132 0.301 Yes 3.00 1.50 0.000 96.299 96.299 3.2359 99.368 0.308 0.700 Yes 10.00 3.00 0.000 192.598 192.598 3.8263 216.106 1.456 3.311 Yes 10.00 4.00 0.000 256.798 256.798 4.4385 310.338 3.002 6.827 Yes 10.00 7.00 0.000 449.396 449.396 7.3248 697.672 15.173 34.504 No Iterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability :

Jinstability Tapp Tmat 5.7241 5.7241 0.000 367.482 367.482 5.9048 512.230 8.179 18.599 18.599 at Jmat = 0.308 kips/in, Tmat = 942.947 Applied J-Integral Criterion: Japp < J0.1 where, J0.1 = Jmat at a = 0.1 in.

Safety Factors KI*p KI*s KI*(a) ae KI'(ae) Japp J0.1 OK?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) (kips/in) 1.50 1.00 0.000 64.199 64.199 3.1266 65.117 0.132 2.474 Yes Page 66

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Figure A-2: J-T Diagram for Uphill Side - Refueling 10 9

Instablility Point 8

7 J-T Material 6

J-T Applied J-Integral (kips/in) 5 4

3 2

1 SF = 3 & 1.5 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Tearing Modulus Page 67

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table A-16: EPFM Evaluations for Uphill Side - LLOCA EPFM Equations: Jmat = C(a)m C=

Tmat = (E/f 2)*Cm(a)m-1 m=

Japp = [KI'(ae)] 2/E' Tapp = (E/f 2)*(dJapp/da)

Ductile Crack Growth Stability Criterion: Tapp < Tmat At instability: Tapp = Tmat Safety Factors KI*p KI*s KI*(a) ae KI'(ae) Japp Tapp Stable?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) 1.00 1.00 1.731 231.385 233.116 4.1923 273.795 2.337 5.314 Yes 1.50 1.00 2.596 231.385 233.982 4.2009 275.092 2.359 5.364 Yes 20.00 1.00 34.620 231.385 266.005 4.5407 325.143 3.295 7.494 Yes 50.00 1.00 86.549 231.385 317.934 5.1842 415.242 5.375 12.223 Yes 100.00 1.00 173.098 231.385 404.484 6.5110 592.037 10.926 24.847 No Iterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability :

Jinstability Tapp Tmat 1.5764 1.5764 2.729 364.753 367.482 5.9048 512.230 8.179 18.599 18.599 at Jmat = 2.359 kips/in, Tmat = 82.380 Applied J-Integral Criterion: Japp < J0.1 where, J0.1 = Jmat at a = 0.1 in.

Safety Factors KI*p KI*s KI*(a) ae KI'(ae) Japp J0.1 OK?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) (kips/in) 1.50 1.00 2.596 231.385 233.982 4.2009 275.092 2.359 2.474 Yes Page 68

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Figure A-3: J-T Diagram for Uphill Side - LLOCA 10 9

Instablility Point 8

7 J-T Applied J-T Material 6

J-Integral (kips/in) 5 4

3 2 SF = 1.5 & 1 1

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Tearing Modulus APPENDIX B: DETAILED FLAW EVALUATIONS FOR DOWNHILL SIDE Page 69

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

This appendix presents the fatigue crack growth tables and the elastic-plastic fracture mechanics flaw evaluations for the downhill side of the CRDM penetration.

Table B-1: Stress Intensification Factors for Downhill Side - Welding Residual Stress Condition WRS Temperature 70.0 F Pressure n/a psig Sy 50.0 ksi KIc 98.0 ksiin KIa 55.2 ksiin Crack Front KI Position (ksiin) 1 -1.701 2 13.932 3 15.717 4 27.178 5 33.890 6 37.604 7 40.501 8 40.098 9 37.638 10 33.447 11 24.673 12 27.528 13 26.926 14 24.389 15 21.701 16 16.768 17 5.776 Page 70

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-2: Fatigue Crack Growth for Downhill Side - Heatup/Cooldown STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* HU1 HU2 CD SD Transient

Description:

200 cycles over 40 years Temperature 557.0 349.0 120.0 70.0 F Pressure 2317 467 467 0 psig N = 5.0 cycles/year Sy 42.6 44.9 49.2 50.0 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 200.0 98.0 ksiin Position 7 KIa 200.0 200.0 85.5 55.2 ksiin Operating HU1 HU2 CD SD Crack Front Stress Intensity Factor, KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a KI(a) KI(a)

Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) 1 0.943 1.525 -0.207 0.000 0 0.0 55.207 31.286 23.921 22.094 16.768 2 2.680 -5.311 2.591 0.000 1 5.0 55.214 31.290 23.924 22.097 16.770 3 3.692 -5.535 2.956 0.000 2 10.0 55.247 31.309 23.938 22.110 16.780 4 7.332 -8.637 5.117 0.000 3 15.0 55.280 31.327 23.953 22.123 16.790 5 10.761 -9.272 6.370 0.000 4 20.0 55.313 31.346 23.967 22.137 16.800 6 12.898 -9.294 6.973 0.000 5 25.0 55.347 31.365 23.982 22.150 16.810 7 14.706 -9.215 7.386 0.000 6 30.0 55.380 31.384 23.996 22.163 16.821 8 15.467 -8.853 7.381 0.000 7 35.0 55.414 31.403 24.011 22.177 16.831 9 15.906 -8.287 7.265 0.000 8 40.0 55.447 31.422 24.025 22.190 16.841 10 15.601 -7.685 6.943 0.000 9 45.0 55.481 31.441 24.040 22.204 16.851 11 12.347 -6.288 5.571 0.000 10 50.0 55.514 31.460 24.054 22.217 16.861 12 14.585 -7.340 6.566 0.000 11 55.0 55.548 31.479 24.069 22.230 16.872 13 15.201 -7.848 6.962 0.000 12 60.0 55.582 31.498 24.083 22.244 16.882 14 14.925 -7.826 6.945 0.000 13 65.0 55.615 31.517 24.098 22.257 16.892 15 14.388 -7.578 6.747 0.000 14 70.0 55.649 31.536 24.112 22.271 16.902 16 11.322 -5.983 5.326 0.000 15 75.0 55.683 31.556 24.127 22.284 16.912 17 2.718 -1.762 1.368 0.000 16 80.0 55.716 31.575 24.142 22.298 16.923 17 85.0 55.750 31.594 24.156 22.311 16.933

• Condition Description 18 90.0 55.784 31.613 24.171 22.325 16.943 HU1 Time step 6 at 7.67 hr. (Heatup) - Maximum KI 19 95.0 55.818 31.632 24.186 22.338 16.954 HU2 Time step 3 at 2.29 hr. (Heatup) - Minimum KI 20 100.0 55.852 31.651 24.200 22.352 16.964 CD Time step 15 at 14.37 hr. - Maximum KI at Low Temperature 21 105.0 55.886 31.671 24.215 22.366 16.974 SD Shutdown at Ambient Conditions 22 110.0 55.920 31.690 24.230 22.379 16.984 23 115.0 55.953 31.709 24.244 22.393 16.995 24 120.0 55.988 31.728 24.259 22.406 17.005 25 125.0 56.022 31.748 24.274 22.420 17.015 26 130.0 56.056 31.767 24.289 22.434 17.026 27 135.0 56.090 31.786 24.303 22.447 17.036 28 140.0 56.124 31.806 24.318 22.461 17.046 29 145.0 56.158 31.825 24.333 22.475 17.057 30 150.0 56.192 31.844 24.348 22.488 17.067 Page 71

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-3: Fatigue Crack Growth for Downhill Side - Unit Loading/Unloading STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* UL UU Transient

Description:

18300 cycles over 40 years Temperature 533.8 574.3 F Pressure 2265 2209 psig N = 457.5 cycles/year Sy 42.9 42.4 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 7 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating UL UU Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 0.746 1.229 0 0.0 57.263 50.968 6.295 2 3.671 0.911 1 457.5 57.277 50.980 6.297 3 4.755 1.748 2 915.0 57.311 51.011 6.300 4 9.072 4.086 3 1372.5 57.346 51.042 6.304 5 12.751 6.918 4 1830.0 57.381 51.073 6.308 6 14.950 8.813 5 2287.5 57.415 51.104 6.312 7 16.762 10.467 6 2745.0 57.450 51.134 6.316 8 17.430 11.286 7 3202.5 57.485 51.165 6.319 9 17.756 11.855 8 3660.0 57.519 51.196 6.323 10 17.317 11.772 9 4117.5 57.554 51.227 6.327 11 13.737 9.268 10 4575.0 57.589 51.258 6.331 12 16.213 10.975 11 5032.5 57.624 51.289 6.335 13 16.951 11.372 12 5490.0 57.659 51.320 6.339 14 16.691 11.113 13 5947.5 57.694 51.351 6.342 15 16.112 10.692 14 6405.0 57.729 51.382 6.346 16 12.687 8.404 15 6862.5 57.764 51.414 6.350 17 3.091 1.937 16 7320.0 57.799 51.445 6.354 17 7777.5 57.834 51.476 6.358

• Condition Description 18 8235.0 57.869 51.507 6.362 UL Time step 12 at 0.29 hr. - Maximum KI 19 8692.5 57.904 51.538 6.365 UU Time step 11 at 0.29 hr. - Minimum KI 20 9150.0 57.939 51.570 6.369 21 9607.5 57.974 51.601 6.373 22 10065.0 58.009 51.632 6.377 23 10522.5 58.045 51.664 6.381 24 10980.0 58.080 51.695 6.385 25 11437.5 58.115 51.726 6.389 26 11895.0 58.151 51.758 6.393 27 12352.5 58.186 51.789 6.396 28 12810.0 58.221 51.821 6.400 29 13267.5 58.257 51.853 6.404 30 13725.0 58.292 51.884 6.408 Page 72

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-4: Fatigue Crack Growth for Downhill Side - Step Load Increase/Decrease STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* SLI SLD Transient

Description:

4000 cycles over 40 years Temperature 546.7 577.3 F Pressure 2300 2290 psig N = 100.0 cycles/year Sy 42.7 42.4 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 7 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating SLI SLD Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 0.772 1.285 0 0.0 57.658 51.114 6.544 2 3.722 0.748 1 100.0 57.676 51.130 6.546 3 4.835 1.591 2 200.0 57.711 51.161 6.550 4 9.238 3.871 3 300.0 57.746 51.192 6.554 5 13.010 6.778 4 400.0 57.781 51.223 6.558 6 15.276 8.792 5 500.0 57.816 51.254 6.562 7 17.157 10.613 6 600.0 57.851 51.285 6.566 8 17.864 11.582 7 700.0 57.885 51.316 6.570 9 18.206 12.260 8 800.0 57.920 51.347 6.574 10 17.751 12.215 9 900.0 57.955 51.378 6.578 11 14.072 9.584 10 1000.0 57.991 51.409 6.582 12 16.598 11.333 11 1100.0 58.026 51.440 6.586 13 17.336 11.683 12 1200.0 58.061 51.471 6.590 14 17.050 11.350 13 1300.0 58.096 51.502 6.594 15 16.440 10.878 14 1400.0 58.131 51.533 6.598 16 12.943 8.536 15 1500.0 58.166 51.565 6.602 17 3.170 1.973 16 1600.0 58.202 51.596 6.606 17 1700.0 58.237 51.627 6.610

• Condition Description 18 1800.0 58.272 51.659 6.614 SLI Time step 9 at 0.041 hr. - Maximum KI 19 1900.0 58.308 51.690 6.618 SLD Time step 9 at 0.028 hr. - Minimum KI 20 2000.0 58.343 51.721 6.622 21 2100.0 58.378 51.753 6.626 22 2200.0 58.414 51.784 6.630 23 2300.0 58.449 51.816 6.634 24 2400.0 58.485 51.847 6.638 25 2500.0 58.521 51.879 6.642 26 2600.0 58.556 51.910 6.646 27 2700.0 58.592 51.942 6.650 28 2800.0 58.627 51.973 6.654 29 2900.0 58.663 52.005 6.658 30 3000.0 58.699 52.037 6.662 Page 73

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-5: Fatigue Crack Growth for Downhill Side - Turbine Roll Test STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* TRT1 TRT2 Transient

Description:

80 cycles over 40 years Temperature 443.4 557.4 F Pressure 1692 2317 psig N = 2.0 cycles/year Sy 43.8 42.6 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 7 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating TRT1 TRT2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 -0.097 1.296 0 0.0 64.359 49.628 14.731 2 7.596 0.314 1 2.0 64.381 49.645 14.736 3 8.926 1.073 2 4.0 64.419 49.675 14.745 4 15.799 2.965 3 6.0 64.458 49.705 14.754 5 20.199 5.609 4 8.0 64.497 49.735 14.763 6 22.374 7.456 5 10.0 64.536 49.765 14.772 7 23.858 9.127 6 12.0 64.575 49.795 14.780 8 23.895 10.028 7 14.0 64.614 49.825 14.789 9 23.591 10.686 8 16.0 64.653 49.855 14.798 10 22.575 10.691 9 18.0 64.692 49.885 14.807 11 18.078 8.372 10 20.0 64.732 49.915 14.816 12 21.311 9.916 11 22.0 64.771 49.945 14.825 13 22.588 10.205 12 24.0 64.810 49.976 14.834 14 22.546 9.905 13 26.0 64.849 50.006 14.843 15 21.928 9.491 14 28.0 64.888 50.036 14.852 16 17.326 7.446 15 30.0 64.928 50.067 14.861 17 4.367 1.684 16 32.0 64.967 50.097 14.870 17 34.0 65.007 50.127 14.879

• Condition Description 18 36.0 65.046 50.158 14.888 TRT1 Time step 5 at 0.278 hr. - Maximum KI 19 38.0 65.085 50.188 14.897 TRT2 Time step 8 at 1.418 hr. - Minimum KI 20 40.0 65.125 50.219 14.906 21 42.0 65.165 50.249 14.915 22 44.0 65.204 50.280 14.924 23 46.0 65.244 50.310 14.934 24 48.0 65.283 50.341 14.943 25 50.0 65.323 50.371 14.952 26 52.0 65.363 50.402 14.961 27 54.0 65.403 50.433 14.970 28 56.0 65.443 50.464 14.979 29 58.0 65.482 50.494 14.988 30 60.0 65.522 50.525 14.997 Page 74

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-6: Fatigue Crack Growth for Downhill Side - Refueling STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* RF1 RF2 Transient

Description:

80 cycles over 40 years Temperature 32.0 140.0 F Pressure 0 0 psig N = 2.0 cycles/year Sy 50.0 48.5 ksi KIc 63.5 200.0 ksiin Position 7 KIa 43.2 105.3 ksiin Operating RF1 RF2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 -1.034 0.410 0 0.0 54.137 37.685 16.452 2 6.136 -1.478 1 2.0 54.156 37.698 16.458 3 6.728 -1.554 2 4.0 54.189 37.721 16.468 4 11.118 -2.447 3 6.0 54.222 37.744 16.478 5 12.933 -2.684 4 8.0 54.254 37.767 16.488 6 13.508 -2.754 5 10.0 54.287 37.790 16.498 7 13.636 -2.816 6 12.0 54.320 37.812 16.508 8 13.111 -2.783 7 14.0 54.353 37.835 16.518 9 12.453 -2.669 8 16.0 54.386 37.858 16.528 10 11.656 -2.515 9 18.0 54.419 37.881 16.538 11 9.511 -2.035 10 20.0 54.452 37.904 16.548 12 11.218 -2.375 11 22.0 54.485 37.927 16.558 13 12.125 -2.502 12 24.0 54.517 37.950 16.568 14 12.312 -2.456 13 26.0 54.551 37.973 16.578 15 12.086 -2.355 14 28.0 54.584 37.996 16.588 16 9.579 -1.852 15 30.0 54.617 38.019 16.598 17 2.556 -0.538 16 32.0 54.650 38.042 16.608 17 34.0 54.683 38.065 16.618

• Condition Description 18 36.0 54.716 38.088 16.628 RF1 Time step 7 at 0.171 hr. - Maximum KI 19 38.0 54.749 38.111 16.638 RF2 Time step 1 at 0.0001 hr. - Minimum KI 20 40.0 54.783 38.134 16.648 21 42.0 54.816 38.158 16.658 22 44.0 54.849 38.181 16.668 23 46.0 54.882 38.204 16.679 24 48.0 54.916 38.227 16.689 25 50.0 54.949 38.250 16.699 26 52.0 54.983 38.274 16.709 27 54.0 55.016 38.297 16.719 28 56.0 55.050 38.320 16.729 29 58.0 55.083 38.344 16.740 30 60.0 55.117 38.367 16.750 Page 75

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-7: Fatigue Crack Growth for Downhill Side - Loss of Load STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* LL1 LL2 Transient

Description:

210 cycles over 40 years Temperature 575.8 588.8 F Pressure 2710 1844 psig N = 5.25 cycles/year Sy 42.4 42.2 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 7 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating LL1 LL2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 0.950 1.766 0 0.0 58.834 42.239 16.595 2 3.481 -2.663 1 5.3 58.857 42.255 16.601 3 4.682 -2.204 2 10.5 58.892 42.281 16.611 4 9.183 -2.532 3 15.8 58.928 42.306 16.621 5 13.346 -0.958 4 21.0 58.963 42.332 16.631 6 15.991 0.418 5 26.3 58.999 42.357 16.642 7 18.333 1.738 6 31.5 59.035 42.383 16.652 8 19.392 2.668 7 36.8 59.070 42.409 16.662 9 19.973 3.496 8 42.0 59.106 42.434 16.672 10 19.585 3.858 9 47.3 59.142 42.460 16.682 11 15.468 2.902 10 52.5 59.177 42.486 16.692 12 18.216 3.502 11 57.8 59.213 42.511 16.702 13 18.870 3.448 12 63.0 59.249 42.537 16.712 14 18.370 3.223 13 68.3 59.285 42.563 16.722 15 17.573 3.041 14 73.5 59.321 42.589 16.732 16 13.802 2.360 15 78.8 59.357 42.614 16.742 17 3.440 0.326 16 84.0 59.393 42.640 16.753 17 89.3 59.429 42.666 16.763

• Condition Description 18 94.5 59.465 42.692 16.773 LL1 Time step 2 at 0.003 hr. - Maximum KI 19 99.8 59.501 42.718 16.783 LL2 Time step 12 at 0.033 hr. - Minimum KI 20 105.0 59.537 42.744 16.793 21 110.3 59.573 42.770 16.804 22 115.5 59.610 42.796 16.814 23 120.8 59.646 42.822 16.824 24 126.0 59.682 42.848 16.834 25 131.3 59.718 42.874 16.844 26 136.5 59.755 42.900 16.855 27 141.8 59.791 42.926 16.865 28 147.0 59.828 42.952 16.875 29 152.3 59.864 42.978 16.886 30 157.5 59.900 43.005 16.896 Page 76

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-8: Fatigue Crack Growth for Downhill Side - Loss of Power STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* LP1 LP2 Transient

Description:

100 cycles over 40 years Temperature 553.8 600.5 F Pressure 2295 2464 psig N = 2.5 cycles/year Sy 42.7 42.1 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 7 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating LP1 LP2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 0.946 1.583 0 0.0 54.961 47.394 7.567 2 2.604 -0.933 1 2.5 54.986 47.416 7.570 3 3.602 -0.235 2 5.0 55.019 47.444 7.575 4 7.174 0.851 3 7.5 55.053 47.473 7.580 5 10.560 3.271 4 10.0 55.086 47.502 7.584 6 12.672 5.130 5 12.5 55.119 47.530 7.589 7 14.460 6.893 6 15.0 55.152 47.559 7.593 8 15.213 7.988 7 17.5 55.186 47.588 7.598 9 15.652 8.849 8 20.0 55.219 47.617 7.603 10 15.355 9.056 9 22.5 55.253 47.645 7.607 11 12.150 7.048 10 25.0 55.286 47.674 7.612 12 14.353 8.381 11 27.5 55.319 47.703 7.616 13 14.958 8.536 12 30.0 55.353 47.732 7.621 14 14.686 8.199 13 32.5 55.386 47.761 7.626 15 14.157 7.823 14 35.0 55.420 47.790 7.630 16 11.141 6.120 15 37.5 55.454 47.819 7.635 17 2.671 1.294 16 40.0 55.487 47.848 7.639 17 42.5 55.521 47.877 7.644

• Condition Description 18 45.0 55.555 47.906 7.649 LP1 Time step 2 at 0.003 hr. - Maximum KI 19 47.5 55.588 47.935 7.653 LP2 Time step 11 at 0.053 hr. - Minimum KI 20 50.0 55.622 47.964 7.658 21 52.5 55.656 47.993 7.663 22 55.0 55.690 48.022 7.667 23 57.5 55.723 48.052 7.672 24 60.0 55.757 48.081 7.677 25 62.5 55.791 48.110 7.681 26 65.0 55.825 48.139 7.686 27 67.5 55.859 48.169 7.691 28 70.0 55.893 48.198 7.695 29 72.5 55.927 48.227 7.700 30 75.0 55.961 48.257 7.705 Page 77

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-9: Fatigue Crack Growth for Downhill Side - Reactor Trip STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* RT1 RT2 Transient

Description:

250 cycles over 40 years Temperature 457.4 537.4 F Pressure 2205 1803 psig N = 6.25 cycles/year Sy 43.6 42.8 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 7 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating RT1 RT2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 -0.344 0.927 0 0.0 70.741 52.016 18.725 2 9.813 2.017 1 6.3 70.774 52.040 18.734 3 11.437 2.874 2 12.5 70.816 52.071 18.745 4 20.106 5.810 3 18.8 70.859 52.103 18.756 5 25.541 8.607 4 25.0 70.902 52.134 18.768 6 28.273 10.252 5 31.3 70.945 52.166 18.779 7 30.240 11.515 6 37.5 70.987 52.197 18.790 8 30.411 11.924 7 43.8 71.030 52.229 18.802 9 30.082 12.163 8 50.0 71.073 52.260 18.813 10 28.819 11.886 9 56.3 71.116 52.292 18.824 11 23.051 9.451 10 62.5 71.159 52.324 18.836 12 27.143 11.204 11 68.8 71.202 52.355 18.847 13 28.677 11.791 12 75.0 71.246 52.387 18.859 14 28.509 11.714 13 81.3 71.289 52.419 18.870 15 27.648 11.387 14 87.5 71.332 52.450 18.881 16 21.824 8.989 15 93.8 71.375 52.482 18.893 17 5.557 2.099 16 100.0 71.418 52.514 18.904 17 106.3 71.462 52.546 18.916

• Condition Description 18 112.5 71.505 52.578 18.927 RT1 Time step 13 at 0.171 hr. - Maximum KI 19 118.8 71.548 52.610 18.939 RT2 Time step 8 at 0.025 hr. - Minimum KI 20 125.0 71.592 52.642 18.950 21 131.3 71.635 52.674 18.962 22 137.5 71.679 52.706 18.973 23 143.8 71.722 52.738 18.985 24 150.0 71.766 52.770 18.996 25 156.3 71.810 52.802 19.008 26 162.5 71.853 52.834 19.019 27 168.8 71.897 52.866 19.031 28 175.0 71.941 52.898 19.043 29 181.3 71.985 52.931 19.054 30 187.5 72.029 52.963 19.066 Page 78

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-10: Fatigue Crack Growth for Downhill Side - Inadvertent Depressurization STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* ID1 ID2 Transient

Description:

100 cycles over 40 years Temperature 557.4 556.6 F Pressure 2317 1161 psig N = 2.5 cycles/year Sy 42.6 42.6 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 7 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating ID1 ID2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 0.944 1.606 0 0.0 55.203 40.508 14.695 2 2.677 -2.583 1 2.5 55.235 40.531 14.703 3 3.690 -2.226 2 5.0 55.268 40.556 14.712 4 7.328 -2.753 3 7.5 55.301 40.580 14.721 5 10.757 -1.643 4 10.0 55.335 40.605 14.730 6 12.894 -0.738 5 12.5 55.368 40.629 14.739 7 14.702 0.007 6 15.0 55.402 40.654 14.748 8 15.463 0.486 7 17.5 55.435 40.678 14.757 9 15.902 1.001 8 20.0 55.468 40.703 14.766 10 15.598 1.266 9 22.5 55.502 40.727 14.775 11 12.345 0.914 10 25.0 55.536 40.752 14.784 12 14.583 1.172 11 27.5 55.569 40.777 14.792 13 15.199 1.177 12 30.0 55.603 40.801 14.801 14 14.922 1.172 13 32.5 55.637 40.826 14.810 15 14.385 1.175 14 35.0 55.670 40.851 14.819 16 11.320 0.928 15 37.5 55.704 40.876 14.828 17 2.717 -0.029 16 40.0 55.738 40.900 14.837 17 42.5 55.772 40.925 14.846

• Condition Description 18 45.0 55.805 40.950 14.855 ID1 Time step 1 at 0.0001 hr. - Maximum KI 19 47.5 55.839 40.975 14.864 ID2 Time step 9 at 0.022 hr. - Minimum KI 20 50.0 55.873 41.000 14.873 21 52.5 55.907 41.025 14.882 22 55.0 55.941 41.050 14.891 23 57.5 55.975 41.075 14.901 24 60.0 56.009 41.100 14.910 25 62.5 56.043 41.125 14.919 26 65.0 56.077 41.150 14.928 27 67.5 56.111 41.175 14.937 28 70.0 56.146 41.200 14.946 29 72.5 56.180 41.225 14.955 30 75.0 56.214 41.250 14.964 Page 79

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-11: Fatigue Crack Growth for Downhill Side - Excessive Feedwater Flow STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* EFF1 EFF2 Transient

Description:

40 cycles over 40 years Temperature 448.6 557.4 F Pressure 1809 2317 psig N = 1.0 cycles/year Sy 43.7 42.6 ksi KIc 200.0 200.0 ksiin Position 7 KIa 200.0 200.0 ksiin Operating EFF1 EFF2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 -0.519 0.944 0 0.0 65.553 55.203 10.350 2 9.452 2.677 1 1.0 65.592 55.236 10.356 3 10.871 3.690 2 2.0 65.632 55.269 10.362 4 18.778 7.328 3 3.0 65.672 55.303 10.369 5 23.040 10.757 4 4.0 65.711 55.336 10.375 6 24.576 12.894 5 5.0 65.751 55.370 10.381 7 25.052 14.702 6 6.0 65.791 55.403 10.388 8 24.101 15.463 7 7.0 65.830 55.437 10.394 9 23.123 15.902 8 8.0 65.870 55.470 10.400 10 21.900 15.598 9 9.0 65.910 55.504 10.406 11 17.871 12.345 10 10.0 65.950 55.537 10.413 12 21.256 14.583 11 11.0 65.990 55.571 10.419 13 23.048 15.199 12 12.0 66.030 55.604 10.425 14 23.529 14.922 13 13.0 66.070 55.638 10.432 15 23.259 14.385 14 14.0 66.110 55.672 10.438 16 18.487 11.320 15 15.0 66.150 55.706 10.444 17 4.524 2.717 16 16.0 66.190 55.739 10.451 17 17.0 66.230 55.773 10.457

• Condition Description 18 18.0 66.270 55.807 10.463 EFF1 Time step 4 at 0.013 hr. - Maximum KI 19 19.0 66.310 55.841 10.470 EFF2 Time step 1 at 0.0001 hr. - Minimum KI 20 20.0 66.351 55.875 10.476 21 21.0 66.391 55.909 10.482 22 22.0 66.431 55.943 10.489 23 23.0 66.472 55.977 10.495 24 24.0 66.512 56.011 10.501 25 25.0 66.553 56.045 10.508 26 26.0 66.593 56.079 10.514 27 27.0 66.634 56.113 10.521 28 28.0 66.674 56.147 10.527 29 29.0 66.715 56.181 10.533 30 30.0 66.756 56.216 10.540 Page 80

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-12: Fatigue Crack Growth for Downhill Side - Leak Test STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Condition* LT1 LT2 Transient

Description:

280 cycles over 40 years Temperature 238.0 82.0 F Pressure 2351 602 psig N = 7.0 cycles/year Sy 46.4 50.0 ksi KIc 200.0 115.6 ksiin Position 7 KIa 200.0 60.6 ksiin Operating LT1 LT2 Crack Front KI Time Cycle a KI(a) KI(a) KI a Position (ksiin) (ksiin) (end of yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.)

1 -0.484 -0.180 0 0.0 64.403 46.197 18.206 2 7.656 1.843 1 7.0 64.442 46.225 18.217 3 8.820 2.100 2 14.0 64.481 46.253 18.228 4 15.468 3.646 3 21.0 64.520 46.281 18.239 5 19.687 4.609 4 28.0 64.559 46.309 18.250 6 21.987 5.170 5 35.0 64.598 46.337 18.261 7 23.902 5.696 6 42.0 64.637 46.365 18.272 8 24.423 5.902 7 49.0 64.676 46.393 18.283 9 24.437 5.952 8 56.0 64.715 46.421 18.294 10 23.571 5.765 9 63.0 64.754 46.449 18.305 11 18.741 4.566 10 70.0 64.793 46.477 18.316 12 22.027 5.351 11 77.0 64.832 46.505 18.327 13 23.041 5.545 12 84.0 64.872 46.533 18.338 14 22.643 5.386 13 91.0 64.911 46.561 18.350 15 21.785 5.139 14 98.0 64.950 46.589 18.361 16 17.137 4.030 15 105.0 64.990 46.618 18.372 17 4.398 1.055 16 112.0 65.029 46.646 18.383 17 119.0 65.068 46.674 18.394

• Condition Description 18 126.0 65.108 46.703 18.405 LT1 Time step 6 at 3.92 hr. - Maximum KI 19 133.0 65.147 46.731 18.416 LT2 Time step 2 at 0.12 hr. - Minimum KI 20 140.0 65.187 46.759 18.428 21 147.0 65.227 46.788 18.439 22 154.0 65.266 46.816 18.450 23 161.0 65.306 46.845 18.461 24 168.0 65.346 46.873 18.472 25 175.0 65.385 46.902 18.484 26 182.0 65.425 46.930 18.495 27 189.0 65.465 46.959 18.506 28 196.0 65.505 46.987 18.517 29 203.0 65.545 47.016 18.529 30 210.0 65.585 47.045 18.540 Page 81

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-13: Stress Intensification Factors for Downhill Side - Faulted Conditions STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS TOTAL STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FOR OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH RESIDUAL STRESS Condition* LLOCA LSLB Temperature 32.0 207.8 F Pressure 60 1316 psig ao = 2.1482 in.

Sy 50.0 46.9 ksi KIc 63.5 200.0 ksiin KIa 43.2 200.0 ksiin Condition* LLOCA LSLB Crack Front KI Crack Front KI Position (ksiin) (ksiin) Position (ksiin) (ksiin) 1 -6.103 -3.533 1 -7.804 -5.234 2 38.630 26.671 2 52.562 40.603 3 42.411 29.689 3 58.128 45.406 4 70.343 50.026 4 97.521 77.204 5 81.924 59.828 5 115.814 93.718 6 85.195 63.651 6 122.799 101.255 7 85.364 65.558 7 125.865 106.059 8 81.305 64.020 8 121.403 104.118 9 76.653 61.644 9 114.291 99.282 10 71.333 58.060 10 104.780 91.507 11 58.183 46.864 11 82.856 71.537 12 68.598 55.118 12 96.126 82.646 13 74.395 58.941 13 101.321 85.867 14 75.853 59.256 14 100.242 83.645 15 74.663 57.792 15 96.364 79.493 16 59.246 45.712 16 76.014 62.480 17 15.675 12.059 17 21.451 17.835

• Condition Description LLOCA Time step 15 at 0.03889 hr. (140 sec.) - Maximum KI LSLB Time step 9 at 0.09222 hr. (332 sec.) - Maximum KI Page 82

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-14: EPFM Evaluations for Downhill Side - Reactor Trip EPFM Equations: Jmat = C(a)m C=

Tmat = (E/f 2)*Cm(a)m-1 m=

Japp = [KI'(ae)] 2/E' Tapp = (E/f 2)*(dJapp/da)

Ductile Crack Growth Stability Criterion: Tapp < Tmat At instability: Tapp = Tmat Safety Factors KI*p KI*s KI*(a) ae KI'(ae) Japp Tapp Stable?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) 1.00 1.00 28.672 43.367 72.039 2.3726 74.344 0.185 0.591 Yes 2.00 1.00 57.345 43.367 100.711 2.5108 106.918 0.382 1.223 Yes 3.00 1.50 86.017 65.050 151.067 2.8646 171.305 0.982 3.139 Yes 8.00 1.00 229.378 43.367 272.745 4.3038 379.096 4.808 15.371 Yes 15.00 1.00 430.084 43.367 473.451 8.4835 923.906 28.558 91.296 No Iterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability :

Jinstability Tapp Tmat 4.3064 4.3064 123.476 186.756 310.232 4.9137 460.742 7.102 22.705 22.705 at Jmat = 0.982 kips/in, Tmat = 242.047 Applied J-Integral Criterion: Japp < J0.1 where, J0.1 = Jmat at a = 0.1 in.

Safety Factors KI*p KI*s KI*(a) ae KI'(ae) Japp J0.1 OK?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) (kips/in) 1.50 1.00 43.008 43.367 86.375 2.4360 90.321 0.273 2.473 Yes Page 83

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Figure B-1: J-T Diagram for Downhill Side - Reactor Trip 10 9

8 Instablility Point 7

J-T Material 6

J-Integral (kips/in)

J-T Applied 5

4 3

2 1

SF = 3 & 1.5 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Tearing Modulus Page 84

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-15: EPFM Evaluations for Downhill Side - Refueling EPFM Equations: Jmat = C(a)m C=

Tmat = (E/f 2)*Cm(a)m-1 m=

Japp = [KI'(ae)] 2/E' Tapp = (E/f 2)*(dJapp/da)

Ductile Crack Growth Stability Criterion: Tapp < Tmat At instability: Tapp = Tmat Safety Factors KI*p KI*s KI*(a) ae KI'(ae) Japp Tapp Stable?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) 1.00 1.00 0.000 55.130 55.130 2.2923 55.923 0.097 0.302 Yes 3.00 1.50 0.000 82.695 82.695 2.3729 85.346 0.227 0.704 Yes 10.00 3.00 0.000 165.391 165.391 2.8082 185.692 1.075 3.335 Yes 10.00 4.00 0.000 220.521 220.521 3.2597 266.751 2.218 6.881 Yes 10.00 7.00 0.000 385.912 385.912 5.3881 600.168 11.228 34.834 No Iterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability :

Jinstability Tapp Tmat 6.0382 6.0382 0.000 332.889 332.889 4.5793 477.273 7.101 22.029 22.029 at Jmat = 0.227 kips/in, Tmat = 1357.163 Applied J-Integral Criterion: Japp < J0.1 where, J0.1 = Jmat at a = 0.1 in.

Safety Factors KI*p KI*s KI*(a) ae KI'(ae) Japp J0.1 OK?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) (kips/in) 1.50 1.00 0.000 55.130 55.130 2.2923 55.923 0.097 2.474 Yes Page 85

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Figure B-2: J-T Diagram for Downhill Side - Refueling 10 9

8 Instablility Point 7

J-T Material 6

J-T Applied J-Integral (kips/in) 5 4

3 2

1 SF = 3 & 1.5 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Tearing Modulus Page 86

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Table B-16: EPFM Evaluations for Downhill Side - LLOCA EPFM Equations: Jmat = C(a)m C=

Tmat = (E/f 2)*Cm(a)m-1 m=

Japp = [KI'(ae)] 2/E' Tapp = (E/f 2)*(dJapp/da)

Ductile Crack Growth Stability Criterion: Tapp < Tmat At instability: Tapp = Tmat Safety Factors KI*p KI*s KI*(a) ae KI'(ae) Japp Tapp Stable?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) 1.00 1.00 0.780 76.629 77.409 2.3549 79.587 0.197 0.613 Yes 1.50 1.00 1.170 76.629 77.799 2.3562 80.010 0.200 0.619 Yes 200.00 1.00 156.040 76.629 232.668 3.3765 286.443 2.558 7.935 Yes 300.00 1.00 234.059 76.629 310.688 4.2761 430.443 5.776 17.918 Yes 400.00 1.00 312.079 76.629 388.708 5.4341 607.088 11.489 35.642 No Iterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability :

Jinstability Tapp Tmat 4.3004 4.3004 3.355 329.534 332.889 4.5793 477.273 7.101 22.029 22.029 at Jmat = 0.200 kips/in, Tmat = 1584.010 Applied J-Integral Criterion: Japp < J0.1 where, J0.1 = Jmat at a = 0.1 in.

Safety Factors KI*p KI*s KI*(a) ae KI'(ae) Japp J0.1 OK?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) (kips/in) 1.50 1.00 1.170 76.629 77.799 2.3562 80.010 0.200 2.474 Yes Page 87

Controlled Document Document No. 32-9215680-000 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (NonProprietary)

Figure B-3: J-T Diagram for Downhill Side - LLOCA 10 9

8 Instablility Point 7

J-T Material 6

J-Integral (kips/in) 5 J-T Applied 4

3 2

1 SF = 1.5 & 1 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Tearing Modulus Page 88

Controlled Document 20004-020 (10/21/2013)

AREVA NP Inc.

Engineering Information Record Document No.: 51 - 9215673 - 000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Page 1 of 20

Controlled Document A

ARE VA 20004~020 (1 0/21/2013)

Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Safety Related? IZJ YES D NO Does this document establish design or technical requirements? 0 YES ~ NO Does this document contain assumptions requiring verification? 0 YES cgj NO Does this document contain Customer Required Format? DYES cgj 1' 0 Signature Block Pages/Sections Name and P/LP, RILR, Prepared/Reviewed/

Title/Discipline Signature A-CRF, A Date Approved or Comments R. S. Hosler _,.. p Supervisor . ~ .£...._

Materials Engineering - ~

S. B. Davidsaver * .;_ J f),. A; J "~A R EngineeriV ~ J./wV11C7\(IVI'"*'

Matedals Engineering B. V. Haibach A Manager Materials & RCS Stmctural Analysis Note: P/LP designates Preparer (P), Lead Preparer (LP)

RILR designates Reviewer (R), Lead Reviewer (LR)

A-CRF designates Project Manager Approver of Customer Required Format (A*CRF)

A designates Approver/RTM- Verification of Reviewer Independel(ce I

Project Manager Approval of Customer References (N/A if ~ot applicable)

Name Title (printed or typed) (printed or typed) ~ignature Date N/A Page2

Controlled Document 20004-020 (10/21/2013)

Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Record of Revision Revision Pages/Sections/

No. Paragraphs Changed Brief Description / Change Authorization 000 All Original Issue. The corresponding proprietary version is in AREVA document 51-9176114-001.

Page 3

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Table of Contents Page SIGNATURE BLOCK ................................................................................................................................ 2 RECORD OF REVISION .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 6 1.0 PURPOSE..................................................................................................................................... 7

2.0 BACKGROUND

............................................................................................................................ 7 3.0 KNOWN OCCURANCES OF EXPOSED CARBON/LOW ALLOY STEEL BASE METAL ......... 12 4.0 CORROSION OF EXPOSED LOW ALLOY STEEL AT LOCATION A ....................................... 13 4.1 General Corrosion of Exposed Base Metal ..................................................................... 13 4.1.1 Oxygen Level in the Repaired Area ............................................................... 13 4.1.2 General Corrosion Rate ................................................................................. 13 4.1.3 General Corrosion Rate in the HAZ ............................................................... 14 4.2 Crevice Corrosion of Exposed Base Metal...................................................................... 14 4.3 Galvanic Corrosion of Exposed Base Metal .................................................................... 14 4.4 Stress Corrosion Cracking of Exposed Base Metal ........................................................ 15 4.5 Hydrogen Embrittlement of Exposed Base Metal............................................................ 15 5.0 ESTIMATE OF FE RELEASE RATE FROM EXPOSED LOW ALLOY STEEL AT LOCATION A16 5.1 CRDM, CET, and Spare Nozzle Repairs ........................................................................ 16 6.0 CORROSION OF ALLOY 52M ................................................................................................... 18

7.0 CONCLUSION

S .......................................................................................................................... 19

8.0 REFERENCES

............................................................................................................................ 19 Page 4

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

List of Tables Page TABLE 5-1: ESTIMATED EXPOSED AREA OF LAS AND FE RELEASE RATE ................................. 17 Page 5

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

List of Figures Page FIGURE 2-1: CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF CRDM/CET/SPARE NOZZLE AT HNP (REFERENCE 2, STEP 1) ............................................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 2-2: IDTB CRDM NOZZLE REPAIR CONFIGURATION [

] INCLUDING REMEDIATION (SHOWN BEFORE REPLACEMENT THERMAL SLEEVE ATTACHMENT FOR CLARITY) (REFERENCE 2, STEP 6).................. 9 FIGURE 2-3: IDTB CRDM NOZZLE REPAIR CONFIGURATION [

] NO REMEDIATION SHOWN (SHOWN BEFORE REPLACEMENT THERMAL SLEEVE ATTACHMENT FOR CLARITY) (REFERENCE 2, STEP 5A) ............. 10 FIGURE 2-4: IDTB CRDM NOZZLE REPAIR CONFIGURATION (REFERENCE 2, STEP 7).............. 11 Page 6

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary) 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to evaluate potential corrosion concerns arising from the final geometrical configuration of the proposed inner diameter temper bead (IDTB) weld repair of the control rod drive mechanism (CRDM), core exit thermocouple (CET), and/or spare nozzle penetrations due to potential degradation at these potentially repaired locations. Sixty-five (65) nozzle reactor vessel closure head (RVCH) penetrations, including fifty-two (52) CRDM nozzles with thermal sleeves, four (4) CET nozzles with no thermal sleeves, and nine (9) spare locations with no thermal sleeves are potential locations for this repair to be performed [1]. The materials with potential corrosion concerns evaluated within this document include the low alloy steel RVCH exposed as well as the new Alloy 52M used to create a new weld during the proposed repair.

2.0 BACKGROUND

In December 2000, inspections of the Alloy 600 CRDM nozzle penetrations in the RVCH at a domestic pressurized water reactor (PWR) identified leakage in the region of the partial penetration weld between the RVCH and the CRDM nozzle. This leakage, identified as the result of primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC), was repaired using manual grinding and welding. In February 2001, the manual repair of several CRDM nozzles at another domestic PWR with similar defects resulted in extensive radiation dose to the personnel due to the location and access limitations. Therefore, the Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) Owners Group (BWOG) commissioned Framatome (now AREVA) to provide an automated repair process that was ultimately implemented at a third domestic PWR [1].

Due to concerns that similar degradation at CRDM, CET, and spare nozzle locations may have occurred at Shearon Harris Unit 1, Progress Energy has contracted AREVA to adapt this repair for Shearon Harris as a contingency. In the current configuration (Figure 2-1 [2]), a leak of primary water through a PWSCC crack in a potentially susceptible Alloy 600 penetration or Alloy 82/182 J-groove weld could cause the buildup of boric acid on the outer portion of the RVCH. If required, the IDTB nozzle repair method shown in Figure 2-2, Figure 2-3, and Figure 2-4 will be used [2]. Figure 2-2 depicts the proposed repair method [

] and after abrasive water jet machining (AWJM) remediation is performed. Figure 2-3 depicts the proposed repair method [

]

Note that Figure 2-3 does not show the AWJM remediation. Both Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 are shown before replacement thermal sleeve attachment for clarity purposes. Figure 2-4 depicts the final repair, including the replacement thermal sleeve (where applicable). [

] Therefore this drawing is applicable for the CRDM, CET, and spare locations described in Section 1.0 of this document. As stated in Section 1.0, the materials with potential corrosion concerns evaluated within this document include the low alloy steel RVCH exposed as well as the new Alloy 52M used to create a new weld during the proposed repair.

Page 7

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 AREVA Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Figure 2-1: Current Configuration of CRDM/CET/Spare Nozzle at HNP (Reference 2, Step 1)

Original Alloy 600 housing --------------.

Low Alloy Steel RVCH Original J-Groove Weld Original Thermal Sleeve Page 8

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Figure 2-2: IDTB CRDM Nozzle Repair Configuration [

] including Remediation (Shown before Replacement Thermal Sleeve Attachment for Clarity) (Reference 2, Step 6)

Page 9

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Figure 2-3: IDTB CRDM Nozzle Repair Configuration [

] no Remediation Shown (Shown before Replacement Thermal Sleeve Attachment for Clarity) (Reference 2, Step 5A)

Page 10

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Figure 2-4: IDTB CRDM Nozzle Repair Configuration (Reference 2, Step 7)

Page 11

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary) 3.0 KNOWN OCCURANCES OF EXPOSED CARBON/LOW ALLOY STEEL BASE METAL The primary reactor coolant system (RCS), the pressurizer, reactor vessel, and the steam generator are clad with either a stainless steel or nickel-base alloy in order to prevent corrosion of the carbon or LAS base metal.

Throughout the operating history of domestic PWRs, there have been many cases where a localized area of the carbon or LAS base metal has been exposed to the primary coolant. Several such instances are listed below:

1960s Yankee-Rowe reactor vessel - Surveillance capsules fell from holder assemblies to the bottom of the vessel, releasing test specimens and other debris, leading to perforations in the cladding.

1990 Three Mile Island Unit 1 steam generator - Several tubes have separated within the tubesheet area exposing the tubesheet material to primary coolant. (LER 289-1990-005) 1990 ANO Unit 1 pressurizer - A leak was detected at the pressurizer upper level tap nozzle within the steam space in December 1990. The repair consisted of removing the outer section of the nozzle followed by welding a new section of nozzle to the OD of the pressurizer. (LER 313-1990-021) 1991 Oconee-Unit 1 steam generator - A misdrilled tubesheet hole in the upper tubesheet of one of the steam generators, during plugging operation in 1991, led to exposure of a small area of unclad tubesheet to primary coolant. [Note: This area of the tubesheet has since been patched and is no longer exposed to coolant.]

1993 McGuire-Unit 2 reactor vessel - A defect in the vessel cladding was discovered during an inspection in July 1993; the defect is believed to have occurred as a result of a pipe dropped in the vessel during construction (1975).

1993 SONGS-Unit 2 hot leg nozzle - A repair to a hot leg nozzle was completed during the 1993 outage at the SONGS Unit 2. This repair consisted of replacing a section of the existing Alloy 600 nozzle with a new nozzle section fabrication from Alloy 690. A gap approximately [ ] wide exists between the two nozzle sections where the carbon steel base metal is exposed to the primary coolant. Verbal communication with SONGS personnel indicated that the hot leg nozzle containing this repair was removed and the exposed carbon steel examined.

1994 Calvert Cliffs-Unit 1 pressurizer - Two leaking heater nozzles in the lower head of the pressurizer were partially removed and the penetrations were plugged in 1994. (LER 317-1994-003) 1997 Oconee-Unit 1 OTSG manway - During the end-of-cycle (EOC) 17 refueling outage, a degraded area was observed in the bore of the 1B once through steam generator (OTSG). Subsequent inspection revealed a

[ ] circumferential damaged area to the cladding surface of the manway opening. The exposure of the base metal was confirmed by etching.

2001 CRDM repairs at Oconee Unit 2, Oconee Unit 3, Crystal River Unit 3, Three Mile Island Unit 1, and Surry Unit 1. (LER 270-2001-002, 287-2001-003, 302-2001-004, 289-2001-002, 280-2001-003) 2002 CRDM repairs at Oconee Unit 1 and Oconee Unit 2. (LER 269-2002-003, 270-2002-002) 2003 CRDM/CEDM repairs at St. Lucie Unit 2 and Millstone Unit 2, half nozzle repairs of STP-1 bottom mounted instrument nozzles, half nozzle repairs of pressurizer instrument nozzles at Crystal River Unit 3. (LER 389-2003-002, 498-2003-003, 302-2003-003) 2005 Half-nozzle modification for the TMI-1 pressurizer vent nozzle.

In each of these instances, carbon or LAS base metal was exposed to primary coolant in a localized area. Each plant returned to normal operation with the base metal exposed; in the case of Yankee-Rowe, the vessel operated for roughly 30 years with the base metal exposed.

Page 12

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary) 4.0 CORROSION OF EXPOSED LOW ALLOY STEEL AT LOCATION A Several types of corrosion can occur when carbon and LAS base metal are exposed to primary coolant. During operating conditions, the primary coolant is deaerated at high temperatures (550-650°F) depending on the location within the RCS. The following sections discuss the possible corrosion mechanisms for the exposed LAS base metal at Location A (see Figure 2-3 for depiction of Location A).

4.1 General Corrosion of Exposed Base Metal General corrosion is defined as a type of corrosion attack (deterioration) uniformly distributed over a metal surface and corrosion that proceeds at approximately the same rate over a metal surface [3]. Stainless steels and nickel-base alloys (e.g., wrought Type 304, Type 316, Alloy 600, and Alloy 690 and their equivalent weld metals) are essentially unsusceptible to general corrosion in a PWR environment due to their passive protective surface layer. Carbon and LASs, however, may be susceptible to general corrosion depending on the service environment. The major factors affecting the general corrosion susceptibility of LAS are temperature, fluid velocity, boric acid concentration, and time. The general corrosion rates of carbon and LASs in aerated and deaerated conditions are discussed below.

4.1.1 Oxygen Level in the Repaired Area 4.1.2 General Corrosion Rate Many investigators have reported corrosion rates of carbon and LAS in various environments [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. In several instances, the corrosion rates for carbon and LASs have been observed to be similar in PWR environments; this data is applicable to carbon and LAS materials such as A-302, SA-533 (the material of the Shearon Harris RVCH [1]), and SA-516 [6, 8, 9, 13]. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has published a handbook on boric acid corrosion [16]. This handbook summarizes the industry field experience with boric acid corrosion incidents, a discussion of boric acid corrosion mechanisms, and a compilation of all prior boric acid corrosion testing and results. In one evaluation, ASTM A302 Grade B was exposed to primary coolant in aerated and deaerated conditions [17]. It was shown that under deaerated conditions (i.e., during operation), the corrosion rate depended on temperature, fluid velocity, boric acid concentration, and time [17]. At the maximum velocity tested (36 ft/sec), the corrosion rate was determined to be 0.003 inch/year (ipy); this was the maximum corrosion rate reported in the report. Under static conditions (i.e., stagnant) at 650°F, a maximum corrosion rate of 0.0009 ipy was reported. In this same study at shutdown conditions (aerated, at low temperature), the maximum corrosion rate was determined to be 0.0015 inch for a two month shutdown, or 0.009 ipy [17].

Page 13

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

[

]

4.1.3 General Corrosion Rate in the HAZ

[

]

4.2 Crevice Corrosion of Exposed Base Metal The environmental conditions in a crevice can become aggressive with time and can cause accelerated local corrosion. The proposed as-repaired geometry shown in Figure 2-3 is open and does not contain any crevices.

Experiments were conducted (not as a part of this work scope) to determine the crevice corrosion rate of LAS.

The results indicate that the crevice corrosion rate for both aerated and deaerated conditions is less than the respective general corrosion rate [11, 17]. Operating experience from PWRs shows that crevice corrosion is not normally a problem in PWR systems with expected low oxygen contents [13].

[ ]

4.3 Galvanic Corrosion of Exposed Base Metal Galvanic corrosion may occur when two dissimilar metals in contact are exposed to a conductive solution or coupled together. The three essential components to galvanic corrosion are 1) materials possessing different surface potential, 2) a common electrolyte, and 3) a common electrical path. The larger the potential difference between the metals, the greater the likelihood of galvanic corrosion. Low alloy and carbon steel are more anodic than stainless steels and nickel-base alloys [18] and could therefore be subject to galvanic attack when coupled and exposed to reactor coolant.

Page 14

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Several corrosion tests were performed (not as a part of this work scope) to determine the influence of coupling.

In one test, carbon steel specimens were coupled and uncoupled to stainless steel and exposed to simulated reactor shutdown conditions. The corrosion rates while coupled and uncoupled were determined to be similar [17].

Additionally, galvanic corrosion of carbon steel coupled to stainless steel in boric acid solution in the absence of oxygen should be quite low, therefore the galvanic corrosion rate should be low and the total corrosion is expected to be about equal to the general corrosion rate [17]. Austenitic stainless steels, such as Type 304, have approximately the same corrosion potential as nickel-base alloys such as Alloy 690. Therefore, galvanic corrosion studies of LAS and stainless steel give insight into the galvanic corrosion of LAS and nickel-base alloys. Specimens made from 5% chromium steel coupled to Type 304 stainless steel were exposed to aerated water at 500°F for 85 days (~2000 hours) with no evidence of galvanic corrosion. In the test above, the corrosion rates was note affected by coupling [15]. Additionally, results of the NRCs boric acid corrosion test program have shown that the galvanic difference between ASTM A533 Grade B, Alloy 600, and 308 stainless steel is not significant enough to consider galvanic corrosion as a strong contributor to the overall boric acid corrosion process [19].

[

]

4.4 Stress Corrosion Cracking of Exposed Base Metal Stress corrosion cracking (SCC) can only occur when the following three conditions are present:

• A susceptible material

• A tensile stress

• An aggressive environment Under normal PWR conditions (deaerated), primary water is not a particularly aggressive environment for LAS.

[

] This service environment does not generally support localized corrosion of LAS therefore the likelihood of a pit or notch forming which would contribute a stress concentrator or SCC initiation site is negligible. Extensive experience with exposed LAS [

] has not resulted in any significant SCC. [

]

4.5 Hydrogen Embrittlement of Exposed Base Metal Hydrogen embrittlement occurs when a materials properties are degraded due to the presence of hydrogen. This type of damage usually occurs in combination with a stress, residual, applied, or otherwise. Hydrogen embrittlement is typically observed in high pressure hydrogen environments and in deformed metals and is characterized by ductility losses and lowering of the fracture toughness [3]. High pressure hydrogen environments are not typical of PWR systems and are defined as an environment with approximately 5,000-10,000 psi [20]. Although hydrogen is added to PWR water to scavenge oxygen (see Section 4.1.1 of this report),

the primary contributor of hydrogen diffusion into the LAS is the corrosion process. Corrosion tests on LAS in deaerated boric acid solutions indicated that the maximum concentration of the hydrogen in the steel from the corrosion process was less than 2 ppm and did not increase with time [17]. The quantity of hydrogen that may accumulate at locations within the coolant system is not expected to induce hydrogen embrittlement in materials at these locations. [

]

Page 15

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary) 5.0 ESTIMATE OF FE RELEASE RATE FROM EXPOSED LOW ALLOY STEEL AT LOCATION A 5.1 CRDM, CET, and Spare Nozzle Repairs Based on Figure 2-3 of this report, the limiting dimensions after boring and AWJM for D and W are:

Page 16

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

The estimated exposed LAS surface area and the corresponding Fe release rate are summarized in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Estimated Exposed Area of LAS and Fe Release Rate Page 17

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary) 6.0 CORROSION OF ALLOY 52M Alloy 52M (Alloy 52 modified) is the specified IDTB weld repair for the CRDM/CET/spare nozzle penetrations. To better understand the potential corrosion concerns of Alloy 52M, information regarding the corrosion of Alloy 690 (the associated base metal to Alloy 52M) and Alloy 52 (the base Alloy 52 not containing some of the alloying element of Alloy 52M) will also be presented. The corrosion resistance of Alloy 52M is expected to be similar to that of Alloy 52 and Alloy 690. The difference between these Alloy 52 and 52M is only minor alloying elements such as niobium and cobalt for enhanced weldability. The chromium content, which provides the corrosion resistance of the material, is similar. The corrosion resistance of Alloy 690 has been extensively studied as a result of numerous PWSCC failures in mill annealed Alloy 600 in primary water environments. As a result of Alloy 600 failures, Alloy 690 has been chosen by the nuclear industry as the replacement material of choice for Alloy 600 components.

A comprehensive review for the use of Alloy 690 in PWR systems cites numerous investigations and test results under a wide array of conditions, including both primary (high temperature deoxygenated water) and secondary coolant environments. The first Alloy 690 steam generator went online in May 1989 with no reported failures as to the date of that publication due to environmental degradation (August 1997) [23]. No environmental degradation of Alloy 690 or its related weld metals has been reported since the August 1997. Crevice and general corrosion of austenitic nickel-base materials is not expected to be of great concerns in typical PWR conditions

[24].

Alloy 52M was tested (not as a part of this work scope) in accelerated corrosion conditions by testing a weld mockup that simulated nozzle safe end repairs. The testing consisted of 400°C (752°F) steam plus hydrogen doped with 30 ppm each of fluoride, chloride, and sulfate anions. The hydrogen partial pressure was controlled at approximately 75kPa with a total steam pressure of 20 MPa; this environment has been previously used to accelerate the simulated PWSCC of nickel-base alloys. After a cumulative exposure of 2051 hours0.0237 days <br />0.57 hours <br />0.00339 weeks <br />7.804055e-4 months <br /> (equivalent to 45.6 EFPY), no environmental degradation was detected on the surface of the Alloy 52M welds. Small microfissures on the surface of the Alloy 52M welds, stressed in tension, did not serve as initiation sites for environmental degradation, nor did they propagate during the tests. Stress corrosion cracks initiated in the also-tested Alloy 182 welds in exposure times less than one-fifth the total exposure time of the Alloy 52M specimens

[25]. This study, along with many others [examples in References 26, 27, 28], indicate that the Alloy 52M weld metal in the proposed repair [ ]

Page 18

Controlled Document A Document No.: 51-9215673-000 AREVA Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

7.0 CONCLUSION

S The information presented above describes the potential corrosion mechanisms that may affect the exposed LAS in the proposed Shearon Harris RVCH penetration repair configuration in Figure 2-3. Based on this evaluation, the modification is found acceptable (as detailed below).

8.0 REFERENCES

1. AREVA 08-9172870-002, "Shearon Harris R VCH CRDM and CET Nozzle Penetration Modification."

2. AREVA 02-9175500E-005, "Shearon Harris CRDM ID Temberbead Weld Repair."

3. ASM Metals Handbook, Eleventh Edition, Volume 13A "Corrosion", 2003.

4. P. Pastina, et. al., "The Influence of Water Chemistry on the Radiolysis of the Primary Coolant Water in Pressurized Water Reactors," Journal ofNuclear Materials, 264 (1999) 309-318.

5. P. Scott, "A Review oflrradiation Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking," Journal of Nuclear Materials, 211 (1994) 101-122.

6. Whitman, G. D. et. al., A Review of Current Practice in Design, Analysis, Materials, Fabrication, Inspection, and Test, ORNL-NSIC-21, ORNL, December~I~G"1 R.~H \1/).~/J">

7. Vreeland, D. C. et. al., "Corrosion of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels in Out-of-Pile Boiling Water Reactor Environment," Corrosion, v17, June 1961, p. 269.

8. Vreeland, D. C. et. al., "Corrosion of Carbon Steel and Other Steels in Simulated Boiling-Water Reactor Environment: Phase II," Corrosion, v18, October 1962, p. 368.

9. Uhlig, H. H., "Corrosion and Corrosion Control," John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1963.

10. Copson, H. R., "Effects of Velocity on Corrosion by Water," Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, v44, No.8, p. 1745, August 1952.

Page 19

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215673-000 Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

11. Vreeland, D. C., Corrosion of Carbon Steel and Low Alloy Steels in Primary Systems of Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors, Presented at Netherlands-Norwegian Reactor School, Kjeller, Norway, August 1963.

12. Pearl, W. L. and Wozadlo, G. P., Corrosion of Carbon Steel in Simulated Boiling Water and Superheated Reactor Environments, Corrosion, v21, August 1965, p. 260.

13. DePaul, E. J., Corrosion and Wear Handbook for Water-Cooled Reactors, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1957.

14. Tackett, D. E. et. al., Review of Carbon Steel Corrosion Data in High-Temperature Water, High-Purity Water in Dynamic Systems, USAEC Report, WAPD-LSR(C)-134, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, October 14, 1955.

15. Ruther, W. E. and Hart, R. K., Influence of Oxygen on High Temperature Aqueous Corrosion of Iron, Corrosion, v19, April 1963, p. 127.

16. Boric Acid Corrosion Guidebook, Revision 1: Managing the Boric Acid Corrosion Issues at PWR Power Stations, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001. 1000975.

17. Evaluation of Yankee Vessel Cladding Penetrations, Yankee Atomic Electric Company to the U. S.

Atomic Energy Commission, WCAP-2855, License No. DPR-3, Docket No. 50-29, October 15, 1965, NRC Accession No. 8101070056.

18. ASM Metals Handbook, Ninth Edition, Volume 13 Corrosion, 1987.

19. U. S. NRC publication NUREG-1823, U.S. Plant Experience with Alloy 600 Cracking and Boric Acid Corrosion of Light-Water Reactor Pressure Vessel Materials, NRC Accession No. ML051390139.

20. Gray, H.H., Hydrogen Embrittlement Testing (STP 543), Opening Remarks, 1974, ASTM.

21. AREVA 38-2200979-00, Submittal of Information Requested by Progress Energy to be Provided to AREVA NP for Shearon Harris Unit 1 Reactor Vessel Head Repair.

22. AREVA 51-1177703-00, Estimated Cobalt Release Rates.

23. Crum, J.R., Nagashima, T., Review of Alloy 690 Steam Generator Studies, Eighth International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors, August 10-14, 1997, ANS.

24. Fyfitch, S. (2012) Corrosion and Stress Corrosion Cracking of Ni-Base Alloys. In: Konings R.J.M., (ed.)

Comprehensive Nuclear Materials, volume 5, pp. 69-92, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

25. Jacko, R.J., et. al., Accelerated Corrosion Testing of Alloy 52M and Alloy 182 Weldments, Eleventh International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear System, August 10-14, 2003, ANS.

26. Sedricks, A.J., et. al., Inconel Alloy 690 - A New Corrosion Resistant Materials, Boshoku Gijutsu, Japan Society of Corrosion Engineering, v28, No. 2, pp. 82-95, 1979.

27. Brown, C.M., and Mills, W.J., Effect of Water on Mechanical Properties and Stress Corrosion Behavior of Alloy 600, Alloy 690, EN82H Welds, and EN52 Welds, Corrosion, v55(2), February 1999.

28. Mills, W.J., and Brown, C.M., Fracture Behavior of Nickel-Based Alloys in Water, Ninth International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors, August 1-5, 1999, TMS.

Page 20

Controlled Document 20004-020 (10/21/2013)

AREVA NP Inc.

Engineering Information Record Document No.: 51 - 9215674 - 000 PWSCC Assessment of the Alloy 600 Nozzle in the SH RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Page 1 of 8

Controlled Document A 20004-020 (10/21/2013)

Document No.: 51-9215674-000 AREVA PWSCC Assessment of the Alloy 600 Nozzle In the SH RV Head Penetration DTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Safety Related? ~YES 0 NO Does this document establish design or technical requirements? 0 YES k8J NO Does this document contain assumptions requiring verification? 0 YES cgJ NO Does this document contain Customer Required Format? D YES [ZJ 1' 0 Signature Block Pages/Sections Name and P/LP, RILR, Prepared/Reviewed/

Title/Discipline Signature A-CRF, A Date Approved or Comments I"

Ryan Hosler p Supervisor Materials Engineering Sarah Davidsaver R Engineer IV ~ OrxM dvWIJ.A. 11 /Z-51!3 Mate!'ials Engineering B1ian Haibach A AU Manager ~-~ ~~~.

Materials & RCS Structural Analysis

(._..- f>\1~ ~ /~

Unit ~*( ,ej~kJ Note: PILP designates Preparer (P), Lead Preparer (LP)

R/LR designates Reviewer (R), Lead Reviewer (LR)

A-CRF designates Project Manage1* Approver of Customer Requirec Format (A-CRF)

A designates Approve1'/RTM- Verification of Reviewer Independe 1ce I

Project Manager Approval of Customer References (N/A if ~ot applicable)

Name Title (printed or typed) (printed or typed) Signature Date N/A Page2

Controlled Document 20004-020 (10/21/2013)

Document No.: 51-9215674-000 PWSCC Assessment of the Alloy 600 Nozzle in the SH RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Record of Revision Revision Pages/Sections/

No. Paragraphs Changed Brief Description / Change Authorization 000 Initial Issue Original Issue. The corresponding proprietary version is in AREVA document 51-9176115-002.

Page 3

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215674-000 PWSCC Assessment of the Alloy 600 Nozzle in the SH RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

Table of Contents Page SIGNATURE BLOCK ................................................................................................................................ 2 RECORD OF REVISION .......................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 PURPOSE..................................................................................................................................... 5

2.0 BACKGROUND

............................................................................................................................ 5 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 5 3.1 Unverified Assumptions (i.e., assumptions requiring verification) ..................................... 5 3.2 Justified Assumptions........................................................................................................ 5 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS .......................................................................................................................... 5 5.0 EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................... 5

6.0 CONCLUSION

S ............................................................................................................................ 7

7.0 REFERENCES

.............................................................................................................................. 7 Page 4

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215674-000 PWSCC Assessment of the Alloy 600 Nozzle in the SH RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary) 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to estimate a lifetime for the inside diameter temperbead (IDTB) weld repairs on the Shearon Harris reactor vessel closure head (RVCH) control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) type nozzles (this includes 52 CRDM nozzles, 4 core exit thermocouple (CET) nozzles, and 9 spare locations [1]). This evaluation considers nozzles in the as-repaired abrasive water jet machining (AWJM) remediated condition. This evaluation is limited in scope to primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) concerns of the original Alloy 600 nozzles.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Operating experience has shown that Alloy 600 CRDM nozzles and their welds are susceptible to primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) [1]. Consequently, the B&W Owners Group (BWOG) commissioned AREVA to provide an automated repair process that was ultimately implemented at Oconee Unit 2. Progress Energy has contracted AREVA to adapt this repair for Shearon Harris Unit 1 as a contingency [1].

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS 3.1 Unverified Assumptions (i.e., assumptions requiring verification)

None.

3.2 Justified Assumptions Assumptions made in this evaluation are discussed in Section 5.0.

4.0 DESIGN INPUTS Design inputs and sources are discussed in Section 5.0.

5.0 EVALUATION The IDTB weld repair process includes: 1) removing the thermal sleeve (not applicable to CET nozzles and spare locations), 2) roll-expanding the original nozzle above the flaw, 3) removal of the lower portion of the nozzle, 4) ambient temperbead welding of the remaining nozzle material to the RV head with Alloy 52M, 5) AWJM remediation of the repaired area [2]1, and 6) replacement of the thermal sleeve (where applicable). The purpose of this evaluation is to approximate the service life for weld repaired nozzles.

[

]

1 The referenced repair drawing is applicable to all 65 CRDM penetrations. This includes 52 CRDM nozzles, 9 spares, and 4 CET nozzles.

Page 5

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215674-000 PWSCC Assessment of the Alloy 600 Nozzle in the SH RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

The U.S. nuclear industry has developed a conservative 75% through-wall acceptance criterion for the depth of both axial and circumferential flaws that initiate and propagate from the ID of CRDM nozzles at or above the J-groove weld. The industry criterion limits the length of circumferential flaws to 180° at or above the J-groove weld

[4]. Note that a version of this 75% criterion has also been added to newer versions of the ASME Code [5].

The AWJM process uses high-pressure water and an abrasive to remove material and flaws. The process leaves a compressive residual surface stress, thereby mitigating PWSCC [6]. Similarly, shot peening produces a layer of compressive residual surface stress and is used in many industries for surface modification of components in aggressive environments. Shot peening of Alloy 600 has been shown to reduce the occurrence of PWSCC and delay initiation, but does not mitigate pre-existing non-detectable cracks [7,8,9]. AWJM remediation removes pre-existing non-detectable cracks within the remediation depth and leaves a new surface which has had no prior exposure to primary water. A quantitative lifetime has not been established for AWJM remediation, although there is significant data in the literature to show that the use of shot peening of new components significantly extends their lifetime. Shot peened surfaces, (i.e. surfaces with compressive residual stress) are not expected to be susceptible to PWSCC for extended periods of time.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Materials Reliability Program (MRP) has conducted a test program of various Alloy 600 RV head penetration PWSCC mitigation techniques including the AWJM process [10]. Other mitigation techniques tested in the program include: excavation weld repair, laser cladding, laser weld repair, EDM, flapper wheel, shot peening, brush nickel plating, and electroless nickel plating. Alloy 600 samples mitigated by each technique were autoclave tested under accelerated SCC conditions at 750°F in doped steam with hydrogen. AWJM was shown to be the best mitigation technique with no SCC being observed after exposures of up to 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br />. These results provide qualitative support to the claim that AWJM mitigates PWSCC initiation.

Since PWSCC has not been shown to initiate in the compressive stress region induced by the AWJM process, the dominant degradation mechanism is assumed to be general corrosion. The average corrosion rate for Alloy 600 in primary water is less than or equal to [ ] [11]. The compressive stress layer was measured to be 0.003 inches thick in a AWJM remediated CRDM nozzle [

]

The assumptions used in this scenario are as follows:

1. [ ] an undetected flaw 0.002 inches deep

[ ] is assumed present. This results in a 0.001 inch layer of compressive stress which must be breached before PWSCC can initiate.

Page 6

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215674-000 PWSCC Assessment of the Alloy 600 Nozzle in the SH RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

It is estimated that it will take 12.5 EFPY for the remaining compressive stress layer to be breached [

] Thereafter, it is estimated that a crack could propagate to 75% of the original wall thickness in 2.3 EFPY [ ] The total estimated lifetime of the repair is 14.8 EFPY.

6.0 CONCLUSION

S An evaluation of PWSCC initiation and growth was performed for the IDTB weld repair process with the use of AWJM remediation. Conservative assumptions were used for the flaw initiation time and crack growth rate. The industry adopted 75% though-wall flaw acceptance criterion was used.

The estimated time to breach the compressive stress layer and reach a flaw through 75% of the original wall thickness is 14.8 EFPY.

7.0 REFERENCES

1. AREVA Document 08-9172870-002, Design Specification - Shearon Harris RVCH CRDM and CET Nozzle Penetration Modification.

2. AREVA Drawing 02-9175500E-005, Shearon Harris CRDM ID Temper Bead Weld Repair.

3. Pichon, C. et. al., Phenomenon Analysis of Stress Corrosion Cracking in the Vessel Head Penetrations of French PWRs, Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems- Water Reactors, NACE, 1995, p. 1.

4. AREVA Document 38-1288355-00, Background and Technical Basis for PWR Reactor Vessel Upper Head Penetration Flaw Acceptance Criteria.

5. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section XI, IWB-3663, 2004 Edition, including Addenda through 2006.

6. AREVA Document 51-5002387-03, AWJ Remediation of Alloy 600 CRDM Nozzle-Material Test Results.

7. Vaccaro, F.P., et. al., Remedial Measures for Stress Corrosion Cracking of Alloy 600 Steam Generator Tubing, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems- Water Reactors, TMS, 1988.

8. Pement, F.W., et. al., Treatment of Alloy 600 Simulated Tube-Tube Sheet Transitions for Improved Resistance to Primary Water SCC. II. Performance of Treated Specimens in Accelerated Environments, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems- Water Reactors, 1988.

9. Tsai, W.T., et. al., Effects of Shot Peening on Corrosion and Stress Corrosion Cracking Behaviors of Sensitized Alloy 600 in Thiosulfate Solution, Corrosion, February 1994, p. 98.

Page 7

Controlled Document Document No.: 51-9215674-000 PWSCC Assessment of the Alloy 600 Nozzle in the SH RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair (NonProprietary)

10. Materials Reliability Program: An Assessment of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) Alloy 600 Reactor Vessel Head Penetration PWSCC Remedial Techniques (MRP-61), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2003.

1008901.

11. AREVA Document 51-1236573-02, Corrosion Rate of Control Rod Drive Materials.

Page 8