ML033070012

To WCAP-16027-NP, Structural Integrity Evaluation of Reactor Vessel Upper Head Penetrations to Support Continued Operation: Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4

ML033070012
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	03/31/2003
From:	Swamy S, David Tang Westinghouse
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0108 WCAP-16027-NP, Rev. 0
Download: ML033070012 (158)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 WCAP-16027-NP Revision 0 March 2003 Structural Integrity Evaluation of Reactor Vessel Upper Head Penetrations to Support Continued Operation: Turkey Point Units 3&4 e Westinghouse

WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 WCAP-16027-NP Revision 0 Structural Integrity Evaluation of Reactor Vessel Upper Head Penetrations to Support Continued Operation: Trkey Point Units 3&4 Adam H. Alvarez Chris K. Ng March 2003 Verifier: ____ D. Tang Structural Mechanics Technology S.A.Swamy Structural Mechanics Technology Westinghouse Electric Company LLC P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355 ( 2003 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC All Rights Reserved 61 09(copy).doc-033 103

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables.......... v List of Fdguresc. ii I Introduction..1-1 2 History Of Cracking In Head Penetrations 2-1 3 Overall Technical Approach 3-1 3.1 Penetration Stress Analysis.3-1 3.2 Flaw Tolerance Approach.3-1 4 Material Properties, Fabrication History And Crack Growth Prediction .4-1 4.1 Materials And Fabrication.4-1 4.2 Crack Growth Prediction.4-1 5 Stress Analysis..5-1 5.1 Objectives Of The Analysis.5-1 5.2 Model.5-1 5.3 Stress Analysis Results - Outermost CRDM Penetration (42.6). 5-1 5.4 Stress Analysis Results - Intermediate CRDM Penetrations.5-2 5.5 Stress Analysis Results - Center CRDM Penetration.5-2 5.6 Stress Analysis Results - Head Vent.5-2 6 Flaw Tolerance Charts 6-1 6.1 Introduction.6-1 6.2 Overall Approach...................... 6-1 6.3 Axial Flaw Propagation.6-2 6.4 Circumferential Flaw Propagation.6-3 6.5 Flaw Acceptance Criteria.6-5 7 Summary 7-1 7.1 Safety Assessment.7-2 8 References 8-1 March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

iv Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Allowable Areas of Lack of Fusion: Weld Fusion Zone. ....................................... A-) Flaw Tolerance Evaluation Guidelines....................................... B-I Example Problems....................................... C-I Worksheets........................................ D-1 RAI Responses To Relaxation From Order Ea-03-009.. ...................................... E-I NRC Response To Relaxation Form Order Ea-03-009...................... ................ F-I March 2003 Revision 0 61 09(copy).doc-040203

v LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Turkey Point Units 3&4 Head Penetration Nozzles with the Intersection Angles Identified............................................. 1-2 Table 2-1 Operational Information and Inspection Results for Units Examined (Results through April 30, 2002).2-4 Table 4-1 Turkey Point Units 3&4 Head Penetration Material Information.4-6 Table 6-1 Summary of R.V. Head Penetration Flaw Acceptance Criteria (Limits for Future Growth).6-8 Table 6-2 Turkey Point Units 3&4 Penetration Geometries.6-8 Table C-I Example Problem Inputs: Initial Flaw Sizes and Locations.C-3 Table D-I Turkey Point Units 3&4 Head Penetration Nozzles with the Intersection Angles Identified.......... D-I Table D-2 Summary of R.V. Head Penetration Flaw Acceptance Criteria (Limits for Future Growth)................... D-I March 2003 6109(copy).doc.040203 Revision 0

vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Reactor Vessel Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) Penetration............ ................ 1-3 Figure 1-2 Location of Head Penetrations for Turkey Point Units 3&4.................... ....................... 1-4 Figure 2-1 EDF Plant RIV Closure Head CRDM Penetrations - Penetrations with Cracking......... 2-5 Figure 3-1 Schematic of a Head Penetration Flaw Growth Chart for Part-Through Flaws.............. 3-3 Figure 3-2 Schematic of a Head Penetration Flaw Tolerance Chart for Through-Wall Flaws.......... 3-4 Figure 4-1 Yield Strength of the Various Heats of Alloy 600 Used in Fabricating the Turkey Point Units 3&4 and French HeadPenetrations.4-7 Figure 4-2 Carbon Content of the Various Heats of Alloy 600 Used in Fabricating the Turkey Point Units 3&4 and French HeadPenetration.4-8 Figure 4-3 Screened Laboratory Data for Alloy 600 with the MRP Recommended Curve (Note that the Modified Scott Model is also Shown).4-9 Figure 44 Model for PWSCC Growth Rates in Alloy 600 in Primary Water Environments (3250C), With Supporting Data from Standard Steel, Huntington, and Sandvik Materials. 4-10 Figure 4-5 Summary of Temperature Effects on PWSCC Growth Rates for Alloy 600 in Primary Water...................................................... 4-11 Figure 5-1 Finite Element Model of the Outermost CRDM Penetration (42.6 Degrees)................. 5-3 Figure 5-2 Vent Pipe Finite Element Model...................................................... 54 Figure 5-3 Stress Distribution at Steady State Condition: Outermost CRDM Penetration Nozzle (42.6 Degrees) (Hoop Stress is the Top Figure, Axial Stress is the Bottom Figure). 5-5 Figure 54 Stress Distributions at Steady State Conditions for the 40.0 Degree CRDM Penetration Nozzle (Hoop Stress is the Top Figure; Axial Stress is the Bottom Figure).5-6 Figure 5-5 Stress Distribution at Steady State Conditions for the 38.6 Degrees CRDM Penetration (Hoop Stress is the Top Figure; Axial Stress is the Bottom Figure).5-7 Figure 5-6 Stress Distribution at Steady State Conditions for the 28.6 Degrees CRDM Penetration (Hoop Stress is the Top Figure; Axial Stress is the Bottom Figure).5-8 Figure 5-7 Stress Distribution at Steady State Conditions for the Center CRDM Penetration (Hoop Stress is the Top Figure; Axial Stress is the Bottom Figure).5-9 Figure 5-8 Stress Contours in the Head Vent Nozzle as a Result of Residual Stresses and Operating Pressure (Hoop Stress is the Top Figure; Axial Stress is the Bottom Figure). 5-10 Figure 5-9 Axial Stress Distribution at Steady State Conditions for the Outermost CRDM (42.6 Degrees) Penetration, Along a Plane Oriented Parallel to, and Just Above, the Attachment Weld. 5-ll Figure 6-1 Stress Intensity Factor for a Through-Wall Circumferential Flaw in a Head Penetration.6-9 March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

viii LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) Figure 6-2 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions...................................... 6-10 Figure 6-3 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions................. 6-11 Figure 6-4 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions..................................................................................................................... 6-12 Figure 6-5 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions............ 6-13 Figure 6-6 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Above the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions............ 6-14 Figure 6-7 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Above the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions................. 6-15 Figure 6-8 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Head Vent, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions................. 6-16 Figure 6-9 Outside, Axial Surface Flaws, Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions............ 6-17 Figure 6-10 Outside, Axial Surface Flaws, Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions................. 6-18 Figure 6-11 Outside, Circumferential Surface Flaws, Along the Top of the Attachment Weld - Crack Growth Predictions (MRP Factor of 2.0 Included)............ ...................... 6-19 Figure 6-12 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the Center CRDM (0.0 Degrees) Penetration, Uphill and Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions...................................... 6-20 Figure 6-13 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 28.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions................. 6-21 Figure 6-14 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 28.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions...................... 6-22 Figure 6-15 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 38.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions................. 6-23 Figure 6-16 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 38.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions...................... 6-24 Figure 6-17 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 40.0 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions................. 6-25 Figure 6-18 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 40.0 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions...................... 6-26 Figure 6-19 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 42.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions................. 6-27 March 2003 61 O9(copy).doc-04020.3 Revision

ix LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) Figure 6-20 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 42.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions..................................................... 6-28 Figure 6-21 Through-Wall Circumferential Flaws Near the Top of the Attachment Weld for CRDM Nozzles - Crack Growth Predictions (MRP Factor of 2.0 Included)............................. 6-29 Figure 6-22 Section XI Flaw Proximity Rules for Surface Flaws (Figure IWA-3400-1).6-30 Figure 6-23 Definition of "Circumferential.6-31 Figure 6-24 Schematic of Head Penetration Geometry.6-32 FigureA-I Typical Head Penetration. A-3 Figure A-2 Allowable Regions of Lack of Fusion for the Outermost Penetration Tube to Weld Fusion Zone: Detailed View............. A-4 Figure A-3 Allowable Regions of Lack of Fusion for the Outermost Penetration Tube to Weld Fusion Zone. A-5 Figure A4 Allowable Regions of Lack of Fusion for all Penetrations: Weld to Vessel Fusion Zone.A-6 Figure A-5 Allowable Regions of Lack of Fusion for the Weld to Vessel Fusion Zone.A-7 Figure C-I Example Problem I. C4 Figure C-2 Example Problem 2. C-5 Figure C-3 Example Problem 3. C-6 Figure C4a Example Problem 4 (See also Figure C-4b).C-7 Figure C-4b Example Problem 4 (See also Figure C-4a). C-8 Figure C-5 Example Problem 5. C-9 Figure D-I Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions............ D-2 Figure D-2 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions................. D-3 Figure D-3 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions.......................................................................................................................D-4 Figure D-4 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions............ D-5 Figure D-5 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Above the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions............ D-6 Figure D-6 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Above the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions................. D-7 March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

x LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) Figure D-7 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Head Vent, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions........................................................... D-8 Figure D-8 Outside, Axial Surface Flaws, Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions............ D-9 Figure D-9 Outside, Axial Surface Flaws, Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions................................... D-10 Figure D-10 Outside, Circumferential Surface Flaws, Along the Top of the Attachment Weld - Crack Growth Predictions (MRP Factor of 2.0 Included).................................... D-I Figure D-I I Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the Center CRDM (0.0 Degrees) Penetration, Uphill and Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions.............................................. D-12 Figure D-12 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 28.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions............................................... D-13 Figure D-13 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 28.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions.............................................. D-14 Figure D-14 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 38.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions.............................................. D-15 Figure D-15 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 38.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions.............................................. D-16 Figure D-16 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 40.0 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions.............................................. D-17 Figure D-17 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 40.0 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions.............................................. D-18 Figure D-18 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 42.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions.............................................. D-19 Figure D-19 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 42.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions.............................................. D-20 Figure D-20 Through-Wall Circumferential Flaws Near the Top of the Attachment Weld for CRDM Nozzles - Crack Growth Predictions (MRP Factor of 2.0 Include................................ D-21 Figure E-I Hoop Stress in Figure 5-7 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 0 degrees Uphill and Downhill. E4 Figure E-2 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-6 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 28.6 deg Downhill. E-5 Figure E-3 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-6 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 28.6 deg Uphill. E-6 Figure E4 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-5 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 38.6 deg Downhill. E-7 Figure E-5 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-5 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 38.6 deg Uphill. E-8 March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision

xi LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) Figure E-6 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-4 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 40.0 degrees Downhill......................................................... E-9 Figure E-7 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-4 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 40.0 degrees Uphill..... E-10 Figure E-8 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-3 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 42.6 degrees Downhill......................................................... E-1 I Figure E-9 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-3 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 42.6 degrees Uphill..... E-12 Figure E-10 Hoop Stress vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 49.6 degrees Uphill............. ............. E-13 Figure E-11 Hoop Stress vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 49.6 degrees Downhill...................... E-14 Figure E-12 Model for PWSCC Growth Rates in Alloy 600 in Primary Water Environments (3250C).. E-15 March 2003 Revision 0 61 09(copv).doc-040203

1-1 INTRODUCTION In September of 1991, a leak was discovered in the Reactor Vessel Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) head penetration region of an operating plant. This has led to the question of whether such a leak could occur at the Turkey Point Units 3&4 Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) or head vent nozzle penetrations. The geometry of interest is shown in Figure 1-1. Throughout this report, the penetration rows have been identified by their angle of intersection with the head. The location of head penetrations for Turkey Point Units 3&4 are shown in Figure 1-2 and the angles for each penetration are identified in Table 1-. The CRDM leak resulted from cracking in Alloy 600 base metal, which occurred in the outermost penetrations of a number of operating plants as discussed in Section 2. This outermost CRDM location, as well as a number of intermediate CRDM locations and the head vent were chosen for fracture mechanics analyses to support continued safe operation of Turkey Point Units 3&4 if such cracking were to be found. The dimensions of the CRDM penetrations are all identical, with a 4.00 inch Outside Diameter (OD) and a wall thickness of 0.625 inch [I IC]. The head vent OD is 1.014 inch and the wall thickness is 0.122 inch [A, IB]. All of these dimensions are summarized in Table 6-2. The basis of the fracture analysis was a detailed three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite element analysis of several penetration locations, as described in detail in Section 5. The fracture analysis was carried out using crack growth rates recommended by the EPRI Materials Reliability Program (MRP). These rates are consistent with service experience. The results are presented in the form of flaw tolerance charts for both surface and through wall flaws. If indications are found, the charts will determine the allowable service life of safe operation. The service life calculated in the flaw tolerance charts are all in Effective Full Power Years (EFPY). Note that there are several locations in this report where Non-Proprietary information has been identified and bracketed. For each of the bracketed locations, reasons for Non-Proprietary classifications are given using a standardized system. The Non-Proprietary brackets are labeled with three different letters to provide this information. The explanation for each letter is given below:

a.

The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process or component, structure, tool, method, etc., and the prevention of its use by Westinghouse's competitors, without license from Westinghouse, gives Westinghouse a competitive economic advantage.

b.

The information, if used by a competitor, would reduce the competitor's expenditure of resources or improve the competitor's advantage in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product.

c.

The information reveals aspects of past, present, or future Westinghouse or customer funded development plans and programs of potential commercial value to Westinghouse. The Non-Proprietary information is deleted in this, the unclassified version, of the report WCAP-16027-P Revision 0. Introduction March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

1-2 Table 1-1 Turkey Point Units 3&4 Head Penetration Nozzles with the Intersection Angles Identified Nozzle Angle Nozzle Angle Nozzle Angle No. Type (Degrees) No. Type (Degrees) No. Type (Degrees) I CRDM 0.0 23 CRDM 25.4 45 CRDM 33.1 2 CRDM 8.7 24 CRDM 25.4 46 CRDM 37.3 3 CRDM 8.7 25 CRDM 25.4 47 CRDM 37.3 4 CRDM 8.7 26 CRDM 27.0 48 CRDM 37.3 5 CRDM 8.7 27 CRDM 27.0 49 CRDM 37.3 6 CRDM 12.4 28 CRDM 27.0 51 CRDM 38.6 7 CRDM 12.4 29 CRDM 27.0 53 CRDM 38.6 8 CRDM 12.4 30 CRDM 28.6 55 CRDM 38.6 9 CRDM 12.4 31 CRDM 28.6 57 CRDM 38.6 10 CRDM 17.6 32 CRDM 28.6 58 CRDM 40.0 11 CRDM 17.6 33 CRDM 28.6 59 CRDM 40.0 12 CRDM 17.6 34 CRDM 28.6 60 CRDM 40.0 13 CRDM 17.6 35 CRDM 28.6 61 CRDM 40.0 14 CRDM 19.8 36 CRDM 28.6 62 CRDM 42.6 15 CRDM 19.8 37 CRDM 28.6 63 CRDM 42.6 16 CRDM 19.8 38 CRDM 33.1 64 CRDM 42.6 17 CRDM 19.8 39 CRDM 33.1 65 CRDM 42.6 18 CRDM 19.8 40 CRDM 33.1 66 CRDM 42.6 19 CRDM 19.8 41 CRDM 33.1 67 CRDM 42.6 20 CRDM 19.8 42 CRDM 33.1 68 CRDM 42.6 21 CRDM 19.8 43 CRDM 33.1 69 CRDM 42.6 22 CRDM 25.4 44 CRDM 33.1 Introduction 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

1-3 Uphill Side (1800) Cladding Downhill Side (00) Head Penetration Nozzle Figure 1-1 Reactor Vessel Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) Penetration Introduction 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

1-4 270-Z ~%)- 6 JO00V11,t'IESO#ILVA. CA'A AURWKV MlS Pr1TifF/6#b#Z A AS 5M)W. £9IflA'W4ts TOO. a-.- a 04COrfIAJ6tE. Figure 1-2 Location of Head Penetrations for Thrkey Point Units 3&4 Introduction 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

a.P 1 2-1 2 HISTORY OF CRACKING IN HEAD PENETRATIONS In September of 1991, leakage was reported from the reactor vessel CRDM head penetration region of a French plant, Bugey Unit 3. Bugey 3 is a 920 megawatt three-loop Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) plant which had just completed its tenth fuel cycle. The leak occurred during a post ten year hydrotest conducted at a pressure of approximately 3000 psi (204 bar) and a temperature of 1940F (900C). The leak was detected by metal microphones, which are located on the top and bottom heads. The leak rate was estimated to be approximately 0.7 liter/hour. The location of the leak was subsequently established on a peripheral penetration with an active control rod (H-14), as seen in Figure 2-1. The control rod drive mechanism and thermal sleeve were removed from this location to allow further examination. A study of the head penetration revealed the presence of longitudinal cracks near the head penetration attachment weld. Penetrant and ultrasonic testing confirmed the cracks. The cracked penetration was fabricated from Alloy 600 bar stock (SB-166), and has an outside diameter of 4 inches (10.16 cm) and an inside diameter of 2.75 inches (7.0 cm). As a result of this finding, all of the control rod drive mechanisms and thermal sleeves at Bugey 3 were removed for inspection of the head penetrations. Only two penetrations were found to have cracks, as shown in Figure 2-1. An inspection of a sample of penetrations at three additional plants were planned and conducted during the winter of 1991-92. These plants were Bugey 4, Fessenheim 1, and Paluel 3. The three outermost rows of penetrations at each of these plants were examined, and further cracking was found in two of the three plants. At Bugey 4, eight of the 64 penetrations examined were found to contain axial cracks, while only one of the 26 penetrations examined at Fessenheim I was cracked. The locations of all the cracked penetrations are shown in Figure 2-1. At the time, none of the 17 CRDM penetrations inspected at Paluel 3 showed indications of cracking, however subsequent inspections of the French plants have confirmed at least one crack in each operating plant. Thus far, the cracking in reactor vessel heads not designed by Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) has been consistent in both its location and extent. All cracks discovered by nondestructive examination have been oriented axially, and have been located in the bottom portion of the penetration in the vicinity of the partial penetration attachment weld to the vessel head as shown schematically in Figure 1-1. History of Cracking in Head Penetrations March 2003 6109(copy).doc.040203 Revision 0

2-2 ]a.c.e Non-destructive examinations of the leaking CRDM nozzles showed that most of the cracks were axially oriented, originating on the outside surface of the nozzles below the J-groove weld and propagating primarily in the nozzle base material to an elevation above the top of the J-groove weld. Leakage could then pass through the annulus to the top of the head where it was detected by visual inspection. In some cases the cracks initiated in the weld metal or propagated into the weld metal, and in a few cases the cracks propagated through the nozzle wall thickness to the inside surface. I ]a.cwe History of Cracking in Head Penetrations 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

2-3 I The cracking has now been confirmed to be primary water stress corrosion cracking. Relatively high residual stresses are produced in the outermost CRDM penetrations due to the welding process. Other important factors which affect this process are temperature and time, with higher temperatures and longer times being more detrimental. The inspection findings for the plants examined through April 3 0 h, 2002 are summarized in Table 2-1. History of Cracking in Head Penetrations 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

2-4 Table 2-1 Operational Information and Inspection Results for Units Examined (Results through April 30,2002) Plant Units Head Total Penetrations Penetrations Country Type Inspected K Hours Temp. F) Penetrations Inspected With Indications CPO 6 80-107 596-599 390 390 23 France CPY 28 42-97 552 1820 1820 126 1300MW 20 32-51 558-597 1542 1542 95 Sweden 3 Loop 3 75-115 580-606 195 190 8 Switzerland 2 Loop 2 148-154 575 72 72 2 2 Loop 7 105-108 590-599 276 243 0 Japan 3 Loop 7 99 610 455 398 0 4 Loop 3 46 590 229 193 0 Belgium 2 Loop 2 115 588 98 98 0 BelgiumI 3 Loop 5 60-120 554-603 337 337 6 Spain 3 Loop 5 65-70 610 325 102 0 Brazil 2 Loop 1 25 NA 40 40 0 South Africa 3 Loop I NA NA 65 65 6 Slovenia 2 Loop I NA NA 49 49 0 2 Loop 3 NA NA 49 49 3 South Korea 3 Loop 2 NA NA 130 130 2 2 Loop 2 170 590 98 98 0 US 3 Loop I NA NA 65 20 12 4 Loop 18 NA NA 1149 537 35 TOTALS 117 7384 6373 318 NA = Not Available. Note: CPY and CPO are both 900 MW reactors. History of Cracking in Head Penetrations 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

2-5 270' 270' 0O 0 90-0 Crocked Per BUGEY 3 Wetration 90

• Crocked Ptratwon BUGEY 4 270' Os,

,0. \\ ~I2QZI O7 O33 0,i Crc, Pt \\ ES3E OnH.I 027 0O, 04oso o> t.403 °n009 ze°s° 90 C°23e Penet2r°tio/ FESNHI I") 2 o Figure 2-1 EDF Plant RV Closure Head CRDM Penetrations - Penetrations with Cracking History of Cracking in Head Penetrations 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

3-1 3 OVERALL TECHNICAL APPROACH The primary goal of this work is to provide technical justification for the continued safe operation of Turkey Point Units 3&4 in the event that cracking is discovered during in-service inspections of the Alloy 600 reactor vessel upper head penetrations. 3.1 PENETRATION STRESS ANALYSIS Three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite element stress analyses applicable to Turkey Point Units 3&4 was performed to determine the stresses in the head penetration region [6, 11 A, II B, II C, I ID, I IE]. These analyses have considered pressure loads associated with steady state operation, as well as the residual stresses that are produced by the fabrication process. Iac.e 3.2 FLAW TOLERANCE APPROACH A flaw tolerance approach has been developed to allow continued safe operation until an appropriate time for repair, or the end of plant life. The approach is based on the prediction of future growth of detected flaws, to ensure that such flaws would remain stable. If an indication is discovered during in-service inspection, its size can be compared with the flaw size considered as allowable for continued service. This "allowable" flaw size is determined from the actual loading (including mechanical and residual loads) on the head penetration for Turkey Point Units 3&4. Acceptance criteria are discussed in Section 6.5. The time for the observed crack to reach the allowable crack size determines the length of time the plant can remain online before repair, if required. For the crack growth calculation, a best estimate is needed and no additional margins are necessary. The results of the evaluation are presented in terms of simple flaw tolerance charts. The charts graphically show the time required to reach the allowable length or depth, which represents additional service life before repair. This result is a function of the loading on the particular head penetration as well as the circumferential location of the crack in the penetration nozzle. Overall Technical Approach 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

3-2 Schematic drawings of the head penetration flaw tolerance charts are presented as Figures 3-1 and 3-2. These two types of charts can be used to provide estimates of the remaining service life before a leak would develop from an observed crack. For example, if a part-through flaw was discovered, the user would first refer to Figure 3-1, to determine the time (tp) which would be remaining before the crack would penetrate the wall or reach the allowable depth (ta) (e.g. at = 0.75). Once the crack penetrates the wall, the time (tB) required to reach an allowable crack length would be determined from Figure 3-2. The total time remaining would then be the simple sum: Time remaining = t + tB Another way to determine the allowable time of operation with a part-through flaw would be to use Figure 3-2 directly, in effect assuming the part-through flaw is a through-wall flaw. This approach would be more conservative than that above, and the time remaining would then be: Time remaining = tB Overall Technical Approach 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

3-3 Flaw Becomes Through - Wall Time ( Months ) Figure 3-1 Schematic of a Head Penetration Flaw Growth Chart for Part-Through Flaws Overall Technical Approach 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 203 Revision 0

34 Critical Length ( Excessive Leakage) Allowable Length Detected Indication Len Allowable Operating Margin Time Before RepairtB Time Months) Figure 3-2 Schematic of a Head Penetration Flaw Tolerance Chart for Through-Wall Flaws Overall Technical Approach March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

4-1 4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES, FABRICATION HISTORY AND CRACK GROWTH PREDICTION 4.1 MATERIALS AND FABRICATION The head adapters for Turkey Point Units 3&4 were produced by Huntington Alloys in the USA. The carbon content and mechanical properties of the Alloy 600 material used to fabricate the Turkey Point Units 3&4 vessel are provided in Table 4-1. The Certified Material Test Reports (CMTRs) were used to obtain the chemistry and mechanical properties for the vessel head penetrations. The CMTRs for the material indicate a heat treatment of 1.5 hours at 1725TF, air-cooled. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 illustrate the yield strengths and carbon content based on percent of heats for Turkey Point Units 3&4 relative to a sample of the French head adapters that have experienced cracking. Note that Turkey Point Unit 3 and Turkey Point Unit 4 are identical in heat number, yield strength, and carbon content and are therefore enveloped together. The general trend for the head adapter penetrations in Turkey Point Units 3&4 are of a higher carbon content, higher mill annealing temperature, and lower yield strength relative to those on the French vessels. These factors should all have a beneficial effect on the material resistance to PWSCC in the head penetrations. 4.2 CRACK GROWTH PREDICTION The cracks in the penetration region have been determined to result from primary water stress corrosion cracking in the Alloy 600 base metal and, in some cases, the Alloy 182 weld metal. There are a number of available measurements of static load crack growth rates in primary water environment, and in this section the available results will be compared and a representative growth rate established. Direct measurements of Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) growth rates in Alloy 600 are relatively rare. Also, care should be used when interpreting the results because the materials may be excessively cold worked, or the loading applied may be near or exceeding the limit load of the penetration nozzle, meaning there will be an interaction between tearing and crack growth. In these cases the crack growth rates may not be representative of service conditions. The effort to develop a reliable crack growth rate model for Alloy 600 began in the spring of 1992, when the Westinghouse Owners Group began to develop a safety case to support continued operation of plants. At the time, there was no available crack growth rate data for head penetration materials, and only a few publications existed on growth rates of Alloy 600 in any product form. The best available publication at that time was that of Peter Scott of Framatome, who had developed a growth rate model for PWR steam generator materials [1]. His model was based on a study of results obtained by McIlree, Rebak and Smialowska [2] who had tested short steam generator tubes which had been flattened into thin compact specimens. Material Properties, Fabrication History and Crack Growth Prediction March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

4-2 An equation was fitted to the data of reference 121 for the results obtained in water chemistries that fell within the standard specification for PWR primary water. Results for chemistries outside the specification were not used. The following equation was fitted to the data at 330'C (6260F): -=2.8x 10'1 (K _9)1 6 m/sec dt (4-1) where: K is in MPaJ;;; The next step was to correct these results for the effects of cold work. Based on work by Cassagne and Gelpi [3], Scott concluded that dividing the above equation by a factor of 10 would be appropriate to account for the effects of cold work. The crack growth law for 330'C (626°F) then becomes: -=2.8 x 10- 2 (K 9)1.16 m/sec dt (4-2) Scott further corrected this law for the effects of temperature. This forms the basis for the PWR Materials Reliability Program (MRP) recommended crack growth rate (CGR) curve for the evaluation of SCC where a power-law dependence on stress intensity factor was assumed [41-11. The MRP recommended CGR curve was used in this report for determining the primary water stress corrosion crack growth rate and a brief discussion on this recommended curve is as follows: I jaxc.e Material Properties, Fabrication History and Crack Growth Prediction 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

4-3 I There is a general agreement that crack growth in Alloy 600 materials in the primary water environment can be modeled using a power-law dependence on stress intensity factor with differences in temperature accounted for by an activation energy (Arrhenius) model for thermally controlled processes. Figure 4-3 shows the recommended CGR curve along with the laboratory data from Huntington materials used to develop the curve. ]a.c.e Material Properties, Fabrication History and Crack Growth Prediction 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

4-4 azc.e The applicability of the MRP recommended model to head penetrations was recently confirmed by two independent approaches. The first was a collection of all available data from Standard Steel'and Huntington Alloys materials tested over the past ten years [4H]. The results are shown in Figure 4-3, along with the Scott model for the test temperature. The MRP crack growth curve was structured to bound 75 percent of the 26 heats for which test results were available. Fits were done on the results for each heat, and the constant term was determined for each heat. This was done to eliminate the concern that the curve might be biased from a large number of results from a single heat. The 752 percentile was then determined from these results. The MRP expert panel on crack growth endorsed the resulting curve unanimously in a meeting on March 6 and 7th 2002. This approach is consistent with the Section XI flaw evaluation philosophy, which is to make a best estimate prediction of future growth of a flaw. Margins are incorporated in the allowable flaw sizes. The entire data set is shown in Figure 4-3, where the data have been adjusted to a single temperature of 3250C. A second independent set of data were used to validate the model, and these data were obtained from the two inspections carried out on penetration no. 75 of D.C. Cook Unit 2, which was first found to be cracked in 1994 [4G]. The plant operated for one fuel cycle before the penetration was repaired in 1996 and the flaw was measured again before being repaired. These results were used to estimate the PWSCC growth rate for both the length of the flaw and its depth. These two points are also shown in Figure 4-4, and are consistent with the laboratory data for Huntington materials. In fact, Figure 4-4 demonstrates that the MRP model is nearly an upper bound for these materials. The D.C. Cook Unit 2 penetrations were made from Huntington materials. Since Turkey Point Units 3&4 operate at a temperature of 312'C (5940 F) in the head region [9], and the crack growth rate is strongly affected by temperature, a temperature adjustment is necessary. This temperature correction was obtained from study of both laboratory and field data for stress corrosion crack growth rates for Alloy 600 in primary water environments. The available data showing the effect of temperature are summarized in Figure 4-5. Most of the results shown here are from steam generator tube materials, with several sets of data from operating plants, and results from two heats of materials tested in a laboratory [4A]. Material Properties, Fabrication History and Crack Growth Prediction March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

4-5 Study of the data shown in Figure 4-5 results in an activation energy of 31-33 Kcal/mole, which can then be used to adjust for the lower operating temperature. This value is slightly lower than the generally accepted activation energy of 44-50 Kcal/mole used to characterize the effect of temperature on crack initiation, but the trend of the actual data for many different sources is unmistakable. ]a.c.e Therefore the following crack growth rate model was used for the Turkey Point Units 3&4 head penetration for crack growth in all the cases analyzed. da = l.s x O-2 (K 9) 6 rn/sec dt Material Properties, Fabrication History and Crack Growth Prediction 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision

4-6 where: K = applied stress intensity factor, in MPa2;fl This equation implies a threshold for cracking susceptibility, Klscc = 9 MPal;;. The crack growth rate is applicable to propagation in both axial and circumferential directions. (a.c.e) Table 4-1 Turkey Point Units 3&4 Head Penetration Material Information 9 1 9 9 + + 4 -t 9 + + 4 4 9 + + 4 4 9 + + 4 4 I Material Properties, Fabrication History and Crack Growth Prediction 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

4-7 100

• EdF(11 Heats) 90

.l Turkey Point Units 3&4 80 (5 Heats) 70 a 40 ~~~~~------------ -------------------------------------------------------- --------- CL 60--- I-0 I 0 l-- A pa 69~~~~ ~~~~- I 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 0 ,o He NoIHwi' o Yield Strength (ksi) Figure 4-1 Yield Strength of the Various Heats of Alloy 600 Used in Fabricating the Turkey Point Units 3&4 and French Head Penetrations Material Properties, Fabrication History and Crack Growth Prediction March 2003 6109(copy).doc-033103 Revision 0

4-8 80. 80

• EdF (11 Heats) 70 Turkey Point Units 3&4 S

60 - (5 Heats) GO20 =40 0 Carbon Content (Weight %) Figure 4-2 Carbon Coultent of the Various Heats of Alloy 600 Used i Fabricating the Ilurkey Point Units 3&4 and Freliell Head lcnctrationl Material Properties, Fabrication History and Crack; Growth Prediction March 2003 6109(copy).duc-033103 Revision 0

4-9 (a.c.e) Figure 4-3 Screened Laboratory Data for Alloy 600 with the MRP Recommended Curve (Note that the Modified Scott Model is also Shown) Material Properties, Fabrication History and Crack Growth Prediction March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

4-10 (a.c.e) Note that the data have been normalized to a temperature of 3250C. The actual test temperatures are listed in parenthesis after the caption. For example, the Huntington data were obtained at temperatures ranging from 315'C to 3310C. Figure 4-4 Model for PWSCC Growth Rates in Alloy 600 in Primary Water Environments (3250C), With Supporting Data from Standard Steel, Huntington, and Sandvik Materials Material Properties, Fabrication History and Crack Growth Prediction March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

4-11 TEMPERATURE, DEG. C 372 352 333 315 298 282 1 E-08 1 E-09 C/) 6 I- = 1E-10 CD W-C-) 1E-1 1 1E-12 ~~~~~~~~~~Paw_ 1,000 100 I z 0 -J La 10 0 I CD 1 O 00 0.1 0.00155 0.0016 0.00165 0.0017 0.00175 RECIPROCAL TEMPERATURE, I/DEG. K 0.0018 Note: All symbols are for steam generator materials, except the solid circles, which are head penetration laboratory data. Figure 4-5 Summary of Temperature Effects on PWSCC Growth Rates for Alloy 600 in Primary WVater Material Properties, Fabrication History and Crack Growth Prediction 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

5-I 5 STRESS ANALYSIS 5.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE ANALYSIS The objective of this analysis was to obtain accurate stresses in each of the CRDM and head vent penetrations as well as the immediate vicinity. To do so requires a three-dimensional finite element analysis which considers all the pertinent loading on the penetration [6]. An investigation of deformations at the lower end of the housing was also performed using the same model. Five CRDM locations were considered: the outermost row (42.60), rows at 40.0, 38.60, 28.60, and the center location (0"). These locations bound the CRDM penetration angles in the Turkey Point Units 3&4 reactor vessel head. In addition the head vent was analyzed. The analyses were used to provide information for the flaw tolerance evaluation in Section 6. Also, the results of the stress analysis were compared to the findings from service experience to help assess the causes of the observed cracking. 5.2 MODEL A three-dimensional finite element model comprised of isoparametric brick and wedge elements with mid-side nodes on each face was used to obtain the stresses and deflections. Views of the outermost CRDM and the head vent models are shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2 respectively. Taking advantage of the symmetry of the vessel head, only half of the CRDM penetrations were modeled. Similarly, only half of the center penetration was modeled. In the models, the lower portion of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) penetration nozzle, the head vent, the adjacent section of the vessel closure head, and the joining weld were modeled. The vessel to penetration nozzle weld was simulated with two layers of elements. The penetration nozzle, weld metal, and cladding were modeled as Alloy 600 and the vessel head shell as carbon steel. The only loads used in the analysis are the steady state operating loads. External loads, such as seismic loads, have been studied and have no impact since the penetration nozzles are captured by the full thickness of the reactor vessel head (about 6 and 3/16 inches of steel [A, IB]) into which the penetrations are shrunk fit during construction. The area of interest is in the penetration near the attachment weld, which is unaffected by these external loads. 5.3 STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS - OUTERMOST CRDM PENETRATION (42.6°) Figure 5-3 presents the hoop and axial stresses for the steady state condition for the outermost penetration. ]abcoc Stress Analysis March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

5-2 I 5.4 STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS - INTERMEDIATE CRDM PENETRATIONS [ Iauc.e 5.5 STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS - CENTER CRDM PENETRATION I I a.c.e 5.6 STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS - HEAD VENT [ ]ac.e Stress Analysis 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

5-3 Figure 5-1 Finite Element Model of the Outermost CRDM Penetration (42.6 Degrees) Stress Analysis 6109(copy).doc-040703 March 2003 Revision 0

5-4 Figure 5-2 Vent Pipe Finite Element Model Stress Analysis 6109(copy).doc-040703 March 2003 Revision 0

5-5 ANSYS 5.7 JUL 3 2002 03:36:25 PLOT NO. 3 ELEMENTS PowerGraphics EFACET=1 MAT NUM NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4004 SY (AVG) RSYS=11 Power~raphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat DMX -401282 SM0 =-30104 _MX =84379 -30104 -10000 100000 20000 30000 __ 40000 50000 100000 Far-CRDM(42.6d, YC S, S. ANSYS.7 JUL 3 2002 03 3 6:27 PLOT NO. 4 ELEMENTS MAT NUN NODAL SOUTION TINE=4S004 NT (AVG) RSYS=l00 Power~raphics EFACET=1 AVRES=MaL DMX =401282 0MM =-39656 SM4O =70712 -396 56 -- 105000 -O0000 20000 m30000 __ 40000 50000 100000 Far-CRDM(42.6dCYC S, Figure 5-3 Stress Distribution at Steady State Condition: Outermost CRDM Penetration Nozzle (42.6 Degrees) (Hoop Stress is the Top Figure, Axial Stress is the Bottom Figure) Stress Analysis 6109(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

5-6 ANSYS 5.7 JUL 2 2002 19: 08: 46 PLOT NO. 3 ELEMENTS PowerGraphics EFACET=1 MAT NUM NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4004 SY (AVG) RSYS=11 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat DMX =.400473 SMN =-28035 SMX =82569 -2803 5 -10000 o 10000 2 2000 0 3i 3000 0 =] 40000 50000 100000 ANSYS 5.7 JUL 2 2002 19:08:50 PLOT NO. 4 ELEMENTS MAT NUM NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4004 SZ (AVG} RSYS=11 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat DMX =. 400473 SMN =-40121 SMX =67206 -40121 -10000 1000 0 20000 m 30000 40000 C 50000 100000 Figure 5-4 Stress Distributions at Steady State Conditions for the 40.0 Degree CRDM Penetration Nozzle (Hoop Stress is the Top Figure; Axial Stress is the Bottom Figure) Stress Analysis 6109(copy).doc-033 103 C0 Z March 2003 Revision 0

5-7 ANSYS 5.7 JUL 2 2002 15 59 21 PLOT NO. 3 ELEME=NTS PowerGraphics EFACET=1 NAT NUM NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4004 _ -1 0 0 0 0~~~~~~~~~~~~000 Far-CRDMN(38. 6d, CYC SS,_\\ ANSYS 5 7 \\ / 1T/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~PowerGraPhics ) 4 / /\\>( / ~~~~~~~~AVRES-Mat I 1X/ / \\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D =.400101 i l l l Z\\/ \\/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =-270241 I W /7\\ /s\\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =86486 2002 1 - W _4l0~~~~~~~~~~~0000o TIE40000 Far -CRDM (38.6d,.CYC SS,.4 ASYS 5.7 JUL 2 4000 3IE=0000 DX=4000 1 0000 100000 Far-CRDM(38.6d.CYC SS, Figure 5-5 Stress Distribution at Steady State Conditions for the 38.6 Degrees CRDM Penetration (Hoop Stress is the Top Figure; Axial Stress is the Bottom Figure) Stress Analysis 6109(copy).doc-033 103 C o March 2003 Revision 0

5-8 ANSYS 5.7 JUL 2 2002 13 5208 PLOT NO. 3 ELEMNEITS PowerGraphics EPACET=1 MAT NUM NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4004 SY (AVG) RSYS=11 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=Mat SMN =-9 SOD? =77071 -19865 10000 0 10000 3_ 0000 50000 100000 Far-CRDM(28.6d,CYC SS. ANSYS 5.7 JUL 2 2002 13 08R54 PLOT NO. 4 ELEMENTS MAT NUM NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4004 SZ (AVG) RSYS=11 Power~raphics EFACET=I AVRES=Mat DOD? =.397658 SMN =-42791 SOD? =45307 -42791 10000

• 11 lPar-CRDM(28.6d,cyc Ss, Figure 5-6 Stress Distribution at Steady State Conditions for the 28.6 Degrees CRDM Penetration (Hoop Stress is the Top Figure; Axial Stress is the Bottom Figure)

Stress Analysis March 2003 6 109(copy).doc-033 103 Revision 0

5-9 ANSYS .7 JUL 2 2002 10 05 : 37 PLOT NO. 3 ELEMENTS PowerGraphics EFACET=1 MAT NUM NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4004 SY (AVG) RSY0=1 1 PowerGraphics EFACET= 1 AVRES-Nat 0X E = ^i l l l 1 \\ i ~~~~~~~~~SMN -32 = s l l ~~~~~~~~~~~ 10000° 20000 310000 1_ 0000 50000 100000 'Far-CRDM(Od.CYC SS,4/2.75,0,A) - Operating ANSYS.7 JUL 2 2002 10 05 39 PLOT NO. 4 ELEMENTS MAT NUN NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4 004 SI (AVG) ROS-il PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES-Mat DMX.883 SMN SM 41043 -10000 10000 _~ ~~ [ 40000 50000 100000 Far-CRDM(OdCYC SS,4i2.75,0,A) - Operating Figure 5-7 Stress Distribution at Steady State Conditions for the Center CRDM Penetration (Hoop Stress is the Top Figure; Axial Stress is the Bottom Figure) Stress Analysis 6109(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

002NSYS 5 I s s I s s e) 19 I toO3 kon O -ing ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n F~m -%v d cyc SS,10IRetof Residual Stressesand n the Hlead Vent ozze as Result

• al Stress is the Bottom FigurV IFigure 5-8 Stress Cotouts te C

C operating Pressure (OOP Srs su FRevisiz stress AnalySS 610 9 (cOpy)dOc-O 33

5-11 ANSYS 5.7 JUL 3 2002 03:36:49 PLOT NO. 9 DISPLACEMENT TIME=4004 RSYS=SOLU DMX =.401282

• DSCA=10 XV

=-I ZV =2 DIST=7.895 XF =-.210557 YF =52.729 ZF =63.38 VUP =Z PRECISE HIDDEN NODAL SOLUTION TIME=4004 SZ (AVG) RSYS=SOLU DMX =.393402 SMN =-44688 SMX =78642 -44688 -10000 _0 \\ 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 100000 Far-CRDM(42.6d,CYC SS,4/2.75,2.5E-03,A) - Operating Figure 5-9 Axial Stress Distribution at Steady State Conditions for the Outermost CRDM (42.6 Degrees) Penetration, Along a Plane Oriented Parallel to, and Just Above, the Attachment Weld Stress Analysis March 2003 6109(copy).doc-033103 Revision 0

6-1 6 FLAW TOLERANCE CHARTS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The flaw tolerance charts were developed using the stress analysis of each of the penetration locations as discussed in Section 5. The crack growth law developed for Turkey Point Units 3&4 in Section 4.2 was used for each case, and several flaw tolerance charts were developed for each penetration location. The first series of charts characterizes the growth of a part through flaw, and the second series of charts characterizes the growth of a through-wall flaw in the length direction. The allowable safe operating life of the penetration nozzle may then be directly determined, using the combined results of the two charts. All times resulting from these calculations are effective full power years, since crack growth will only occur at operating temperatures. 6.2 OVERALL APPROACH The results of the three-dimensional stress analysis of the penetration locations were used directly in the flaw tolerance evaluation. The crack growth evaluation for the part-through flaws was based on the worst stress distribution through the penetration wall at the location of interest of the penetration. The highest stressed location was found to be in the immediate vicinity of the weld for both the center and outermost penetrations. The stress profile was represented by a cubic polynomial: a(x) = A + AIx + A2x 2 + A3x3 (6-1) where: x = the coordinate distance into the nozzle wall CY = stress perpendicular to the plane of the crack Al = coefficients of the cubic polynomial fit For ihe surface flaw with length six times its depth, the stress intensity factor expression of Raju and Newman [SA] was used. The stress intensity factor K] (4) can be calculated anywhere along the crack front. The point of maximum crack depth is represented by Q = 0, and this location was also found to be the point of maximum K for the cases considered here. The following expression is used for calculating K ()), where ¢ is the angular location around the crack. The units of K () are ksiiiii. K 1(0)=- ] E j (a /c, a t, t R, <)) Aj a (6-2) Flaw Tolerance Charts March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

6-2 The boundary correction factors Go (), G (P), G2 (D) and G3 (D) are obtained by the procedure outlined in reference [5A]. The dimension "a" is the crack depth, and "c" is the semi crack length, while "t" is the wall thickness. "R" is the inside radius of the tube, and "Q" is the shape factor. [ JAa.c.e 6.3 AXIAL FLAW PROPAGATION CRDNI Surface Flaws The results of the calculated growth through the wall thickness of the CRDM penetration nozzles for surface flaws are shown in Figures 6-2 through 6-8 for inside surface flaws. For outside surface flaws the results are shown in Figures 6-9 and 6-10. Based on the discussion in MRP-55 report [4H], the use of stress intensity factors less than 15MPa-/;; involves assumption not currently substantiated by actual CGR data for CRDM nozzle materials. Therefore, these crack Flaw Tolerance Charts 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

6-3 growth curves begin at a flaw depth that results in a stress intensity factor of 15 MPao/m, which exceeds the threshold value of 9MPaVm. This may result in curves with different initial flaw sizes, as seen for example in Figure 6-3. Note that results are only provided for the uphill and downhill sides of each penetration nozzle; the stresses for the regions 90 degrees from these locations are compressive. If flaws are found in such a location, the results for either the uphill or downhill location, whichever is closer, can be used. Each of these figures allows the future allowable service time to be estimated graphically, as discussed in Section 3. Results are shown for each of the penetration nozzles analyzed in each of these figures. The stresses are much higher near the attachment weld than at 0.5 inch below or above it, so separate figures have been provided for these three regions. Also, the stresses are different on the downhill side of the penetration as opposed to the uphill side, so these two cross sections have also been treated separately. A set of guidelines for evaluating an indication found during inspection has been provided in Appendix B. Example problems following the previously mentioned guidelines have also been provided in Appendix C for a range of possible flaw types. CRDM Through-Wall Flaws The projected crack growth of a through-wall flaw in the CRDM penetration nozzles are the primary concern in evaluating the structural integrity of head penetrations. In some cases, the through-wall flaw may be located sufficiently below the attachment weld that additional time may be required for the flaw to grow to the attachment weld. To provide a means to evaluate the duration of this additional time, a series of flaw tolerance charts for through-wall flaws were prepared. Charts were prepared for each of the penetrations evaluated, for both the uphill and downhill locations, as shown in Figures 6-12 through 6-20. In each figure, the through-wall crack length is measured from the bottom of the nozzle. Note that in all the cases, the crack slows down significantly as it grows above the weld, due to the decreasing magnitude of the stress field. This provides further assurance that axial flaws will not extend to a critical length which exceeds 15 inches, regardless of the duration of crack growth. Head Vent The only flaw tolerance chart that is necessary for the head vent region is for flaws at and above the weld, since there is no portion of the head vent which projects below the weld. Figure 6-8 provides the projected growth of a part through flaw in the head vent just above the attachment weld. The growth through the wall is relatively rapid, because the thickness of the head vent is small. 6.4 CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW PROPAGATION Since circumferentially oriented flaws have been found at five plants (Bugey 3, Oconee 2, Crystal River 3, Davis Besse, and Oconee 3), it is important to consider the possibility of crack extension Flaw Tolerance Charts March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

6-4 in the circumferential direction. The first case was discovered as part of the destructive examination of the tube with the most extensive circumferential cracking at Bugey 3. The crack was found to have extended to a depth of 2.25 mm in a wall thickness of 16 mm. The flaw was found at the outside surface of the penetration (number 54) at the downhill side location, just above the weld. The circumferential flaws in Oconee Unit 3 were discovered during the process of repairing a number of axial flaws, whereas the circumferential flaw in Oconee Unit 2 and Crystal River Unit 3 were discovered by UT. Experience gained from these findings has enabled the development of UT procedures capable of detecting circumferential flaws reliably. To investigate this issue completely, a series of crack growth calculations were carried out for a postulated surface circumferential flaw located just above the head penetration weld, in a plane parallel to the weld itself. This is the only flaw plane that could result in a complete separation of the penetration nozzle, since all others would result in propagation below the weld, and therefore there is no chance of complete separation because the remaining weld would hold the penetration nozzle in place. Ia.c.e Flaw Tolerance Charts 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

6-5 1abcbe The results of this calculation are shown in Figure 6-21. From Figure 6-2 1, it can be seen that the time required for propagation of a circumferential flaw to a point where the integrity of the CRDM penetration nozzle would be affected (330 degrees [10]) would be about 24 years. Due to the conservatism in the calculations (the time period for a surface flaw to become a through-wall flaw was ignored) the service life is likely to be even longer. In addition, due to uncertainties in the exact composition of the chemical environment in contact with the nozzle OD, a multiplicative factor of 2.0 is used in the CGR for all circumferential surface flaws on the OD of the head penetration nozzles located above the elevation of the 3-groove weld. 6.5 FLAW ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Now that the projected crack growth curves have been developed, the question remains as to what flaw size would be acceptable for further service. Acceptance criteria have been developed for indications found during inspection of reactor vessel upper head penetration as part of an industry program coordinated by NEI (formerly NUMARC). Such criteria are normally found in Section XI of the ASME Code, but Section XI does not require in-service inspection of these regions and therefore acceptance criteria are not available. In developing the enclosed acceptance criteria, the approach used was very similar to that used by Section XI, in that an industry consensus was reached using input from both operating utility technical staff and each of the three PWR vendors. The criteria developed are applicable to all PWR plant designs. Since the discovery of the leaks at Oconee and ANO-1, the acceptance criteria have been revised slightly to cover flaws on the outside diameter of the penetration below the attachment weld, and flaws in the attachment weld. These revised criteria are now in draft form, but they are expected to be acceptable to the NRC, and will be used in these evaluations. The draft portions of the acceptance criteria will be noted below. The criteria presented herein are limits on flaw sizes, which are acceptable. The criteria are to be applied to inspection results. It should be noted that determination of the future service during which the criteria are satisfied is plant-specific and dependent on flaw geometry and loading conditions. It has been previously demonstrated by each of the owners groups that the penetration nozzles are very tolerant of flaws and there is only a small likelihood of flaw extensions to larger sizes. Therefore, it was concluded that complete fracture of the penetration nozzle is highly unlikely. The approach used here is more conservative than that used in Section XI applications where the acceptable flaw size is calculated by placing a margin on the critical flaw size. For the current application, the critical flaw size would be far too large to allow a practical application of the approach used in Section XI applications, so protection against leakage is the priority. Flaw Tolerance Charts March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

6-6 The acceptance criteria presented herein apply to all the flaw types regardless of orientation and shape. Similar to the approach used in Section XI, flaws are first characterized according to established rules and then compared with acceptance criteria. Flaw Characterization Flaws detected must be characterized by the flaw length and preferably flaw depth. The proximity rules of Section XI for considering flaws as separate, may be used directly (Section XI, Figure IWA 3400-1). This figure is reproduced here as Figure 6-22. When a flaw is detected, its projections in both the axial and circumferential directions must be determined. Note that the axial direction is always the same for each penetration, but the circumferential direction will be different depending on the angle of intersection of the penetration nozzle with the vessel head. The "circumferential" direction of interest here is along the top of the attachment weld, as illustrated in Figure 6-23. It is this angle which will change for each penetration nozzle and the top of the attachment weld is also the plane which could cause separation of the penetration nozzle from the vessel head. The location of the flaw relative to both the top and bottom of the partial penetration attachment weld must also be determined since a potential leak path exists when a flaw propagates through the penetration nozzle wall and up the penetration nozzle past the attachment weld. Schematic of a typical weld geometry is shown in Figure 6-24. Flaw Acceptance Criteria The maximum allowable depth (af) for axial flaws on the inside surface of the penetration nozzle, at or above the weld is 75 percent of the penetration wall thickness. The term af is defined as the maximum size to which the detected flaw is calculated to grow in a specified time period. This 75 percent limitation was selected to be consistent with the maximum acceptable flaw depth in Section XI and to provide an additional margin against through wall penetration. There is no concern about separation of the penetration nozzle from the vessel head, unless the flaw is above the attachment weld and oriented circumferentially. Calculations have been completed to show that the geometry of all penetrations can support a continuous circumferential flaw with a depth of 75 percent of the wall thickness. Axial inside surface flaws found below the weld are acceptable regardless of depth as long as their upper extremity does not reach the bottom of the weld during the period of service until the next inspection. Axial flaws that extend above the weld are limited to 75 percent of the wall thickness. Axial flaws on the outside surface of the penetration nozzle below the attachment weld are acceptable regardless of depth, as long as they do not extend into the attachment weld during the period of service until next inspection. Outside surface flaws above the attachment weld must be evaluated on a case by case basis, and must be discussed with the regulatory authority. Circumferential flaws located below the weld are acceptable regardless of their depth, provided the length is less than 75 percent of the penetration nozzle circumference for the period of service Flaw Tolerance Charts March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

6-7 until the next inspection. Circumferential flaws detected in this area have no structural significance except that loose parts must be avoided. To this end, intersecting axial and circumferential flaws shall be removed or repaired. Circumferential flaws at and above the weld must be discussed with the regulatory authority on a case by case basis. Surface flaws located in the attachment welds themselves are not acceptable regardless of their depth. This is because the crack growth rate is several times faster than that of the Alloy 600 material, and also because depth sizing capability does not yet exist for indications in the attachment weld. The flaw acceptance criteria are summarized in Table 6-1. Flaws that exceed these criteria must be repaired unless analytically justified for further service. These criteria have been reviewed and approved by the NRC, as documented in references [7, 8] with the exception of the draft criteria discussed above, for outside surface flaws and flaws in the attachment weld. These criteria are identical with the draft acceptance criteria now being considered for Section Xl, for head penetrations. It is expected that the use of these criteria and crack growth curves will provide conservative predictions of the allowable service time. Flaw Tolerance Charts 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

6-8 Table 6-1 Summary of R.V. Head Penetration Flaw Acceptance Criteria (Limits for Future Growth) Axial Circumferential Location af t ar I Below Weld (ID) t no limit t .75 circ. At and Above Weld (ID) 0.75 t no limit Below Weld (OD) t no limit t .75 circ. Above Weld (OD) Note: Surface flaws of any size in the attachment weld are not acceptable.

• Requires case-by-case evaluation and discussion with regulatory authority.

af = Flaw Depth C = Flaw Length t= Wall Thickness Table 6-2 Turkey Point Units 3&4 Penetration Geometries [IIA, IB, 1IC] Penetration Type Wall Thickness (in.) Penetration OD (in.) CRDM 0.625 4.00 Head Vent 0.122 1.014 Flaw Tolerance Charts 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

6-9 70 _ I I I I I 60 60~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 50 I-6-40 C,, 20 0 0 V, K Estimated 10 K SIA

---

K ORNL pressure 0

0 50 100 150 200 Crack Half Angle Figure 6-1 Stress Intensity Factor for a Through-Wall Circumferential Flaw in a Head Penetration Flaw Tolerance Charts March 2003 6109(copy).doc.040203 Revision 0

6-J0 1.0 0.9 Turkey Point Nozzle Angle: Units 3&4 42.6 deg 0.8 Nozzle Angle: 40.0 deg 5- 0.7 Nozzle Angle oyi\\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~38.6 deg / // \\ ,,, 0.6 >AX/ - /............. Nozzle Angle:.

DL 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.5::.

..... //.... 28.6 /deg;...... C) 045 -X /t 0.- 0.2 .. Ad. :.............. Nozzle Angle: Angle:. 0 de2 deg 0 0.3 0.0 -. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time (Year) Figure 6-2 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions (Note: All time (year) indicated in charts are in effective full power years) Flaw Tolerance Charts March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

6-11 1.0 0.9 0.8 Wm 0.7 (0 .6 = 0.6 .5 CL ~: 0.4 ~0.3 Turkey Point.. Units 3&4 Nozzle Angle:.. Nozzle Angle: 40.0 deg Nozzle Angle: 38.6 deg* Nozzle Angle:' Nozzle Angle:: 0.0 deg 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (Year) Figure 6-3 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growvth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

6-12 1.0 0.9 0.8 (a C.) C 0 CL ig U. 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (Year) Figure 6-4 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 61 09(copy).doc.040203 March 2003 Revision 0

6-13 1.0 Turkey Point Nozzle Angle: 0.9 Units 3&4 42.6 deg 0.8 0.7 0 0. 7-. ............. - -' - / v t Nozl Angle: / -\\ 0.6 'D rNzlAngle--

~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

38.6 deg!. Q 0.5 / Nozzle Angle: 40.0 deg 0.4 0.3 - ., ///:\\ Nozzle Angle: .28.6 deg / \\.Nozzle Angle:. 0.0 deg9 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (Year) Figure 6-5 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

6-14 1.0 0.9 0.8 U) l) 0.6 C E 0.5 co 0 9: 0.4 Turkey Point Units 3&4 -;:Nozzle Angle: Nozzle Angle 40.0 deg; NozzleAngle: O 28.6 deg

• ......:Nozzle Angle:.

'ozle Ang;e 40.6 deg

>,>/ //........ l lNozzle'Anyle

'~~~~4. deg/ -3.de 0.3 - 0.2 0.1 - 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Time (Year) Figure 6-6 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Above the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side-Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 61 09(copy).do-040203 March 2003 Revision

6-15 U) a. C CL U 1.0 Turkey Point 0.9 Units 3&4 0.8 Nozzle Angle: f// 42.6 deg 0.7 -.. Nozzle Angle: 38.6 deg 0.6-Nozzle Angle: 0.5 40.0 deg 0.4 ozeAge 0.3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Nozzle Angle:.

D

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~28.6 deg 0.2 - 8 } I r .r 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time (Year) Figure 6-7 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Above the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

6-16 0 4' C .X 0 iL 1.0 Turkey Point 0.9 Units 3&4 0.8 0.7 0.6-Head Vent Nozzle 0.5-0.4 0.3 0.2.... 0.0 - 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Time (Year) Figure 6-8 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Head Vent, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

6-17 1.0 0.9 - 0.8 0 (U 0.7 - 0.6 - 0.5 - 0.4 - 0.3-Turkey Point Units 3&4 ~~~~~~~~~~Nozzle Ange... Units 3&4

40.0 deg'-

t Nozzle Angle: 38.8 deg A / .... / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ~~~Nozzle Angle: Nozzle Angle: 42.6 deg Nozzle Angle: 0.0 deg 0.2 0.1 - 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 Time (Year) Figure 6-9 Outside, Axial Surface Flaws, Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charls 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

6-18 U) U) 0 .X 0 FE cE CL 1.0 Turkey Point 0.9 Units 3&4 0.8 Nozzle Angle: 0.7 42.6 deg 0.6 ;;Y o4-e Nozzle Angle: 0.5~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~00d 0.4

/

/Nozzle Angle:: 0.3 N Nozzle Angle: 0.2 28.6 deg 0.1 oze n l: 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 Time (Year) Figure 6-10 Outside, Axial Surface Flaws, Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

6-19 1.0 Turkey Poin I~L+/- 4-Nozzle Angle:--- / o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~~~~~~ nt - - - - - - - - - - - de ~~ ~/g--J-----l-- Units3&4 426deg---- -- rL 0.9 - - - - -' -- - - - - - r -o~ Anle -r- \\1 ~~~r~~ 0.9 --,Il

• - - - 40.0 deg :<S.

~ 1 g~ // \\' ~ ~ ' ~ - r---- 0.7~~~~~~~~~~~ -- /- - - - - - - - - - r--- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0.8 - ---- r- -- o---z-e :-- l Angle:, o 0 6 ~~~~~~~~- - -- - - - - - - - - - - r-r --- /-----r---- T--'------ - - -r~~ -I I L~~~~~~~~~~~-- -40:0 deg I-F -I-L.. - j - -

• Nozzle Angle:-.-l

.*.l / .,gf a X s L = ~~~~~~~~~~~~- - - - - -r-

2.

e r-- l/-/ -1 ~~T~~~~~~ r~~

0.

J L-i-------**// X**,NonleAngle:- L-E 0.5 L - - - - - - T--- In rs tot Th cl frenti sa6 ce - - - - - - CPDM- - 0.1 -I -- reI ss---an*.O( M )--------- 0 1 2 3 4 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6 7 D _ _,__ _ e__ - ~~l~ L--- -- No zl An le r-~~

2. Included)

I I I I 3 u.4 ~~~~- -- - -- -- -l -- - -T - - - - - - rS---I------Is-

---

T

- - - - - -1 r- <._.__.J______l______L_____ X/ ]______l______l______l______L-----J------r_-- - - - - - - - - ---N 1--i-l; -C-i;-- L - - - - - _. -_j_

---

l-8 d

g- -------r------- 61 (c do-03103 R io 7 L- - - - - -0 r- -- 0.2 - - ~~~~~~~ l------l---------l--- r--- L- -ht -tes'nest -rctr -oth -icrfeeti -ufc -lw -{cne -4. deg -CRDM L--- -- L 03 0.3 - T---l---r--ol-r -esta -. - - ---- -- - - - r I T-------- - -~~~~r~~ r- ---Thl r - * - -- - - r - - l - - - - -- - - ~~ l - - - -~ Figure~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~irs 6-1 nsl Cicmfrnta Surac Flaws Alngthnl of the Attchen ol - Crac Grwt Preicton (MRacoro 2.0 In Ilel Flawv Tolerance Charts March 2003 6109(copy).doc-033103 Revision 0

6-20 8.0 7.5 7.0 dS Eto6.5 0 o 6.0 z 0 L4-0 C a 5.0 4..i..LJ..i...L..I.L1..i......................L......L...'.. J.. I.--.Ii..1

i.

J-Lij-i. Ji.L .LI.......LJ.....I LIJ.. -;- liii 'I 1 I gg I i' i I I I g g H I ii iii li ' 1 : 11--11, L 1-: lii L J. -:I

-L-IL J.

11 I IL -1. L I

1.

1.

IL I L.~~~~~~~~I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I gr-it-rflC~~~gr -cr i~~iii 't-ri--r-. 1 -;,r;-,~~~ r-1 r -,-ir I cr I tim-T -g;rI r i -r ; Tt-rI rI-- r--- -- rI-I-r p II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I I

i*1.1., I -I . I I I CRDMV Nozzle Weld Regloi i-I -rr-i r tI-I.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I" I I. I .... I.I.. 4.5 4.0 I I - T I-I I I - T -i r ~~~~~~~I I i I I I i i I I r i i T.. i.. i i I -r i il..r -j -ii Ti.T c -r 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 Period (Year) Figure 6-12 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the Center CRDM (0.0 Degrees) Penetration, Uphill and Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 61 09(copy).doc.0331ID] March 2003 Revision 0

6-21 10.0 9.5 9.0 E0v 8.5 0 0 0

6.

8. E. ci C 7.5 a3 Ol 9, 9 919 Il ? I 9~~~~~llt..l 9 1

• 9 9

1 1 9, 9 9, I.9

9.

9 9I. II I ii. t~~j i J I Ii

• LI L

'II; I; lit I till 9 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Ig III I i.- l~~9ll99 9 9i19 t~~I I 1II1 I I9 I9 1 9hI~ L - - I -. I -i 1 .4 1-I 1 1111191 I r 'i fr't1 I V T t r I il I ll 91 11 I I i, V I1 I T-1 1 11Ir1I111 I I .1111 .11 iI19-.T1 I I L J I.. L I 9 9 I I I I 9 I -I t I

• I I

j L.. 2.LL 111.I11I-'-.11111 lJ IL !L J.) L l*1L J.'LJ.- -9' -- f-i-i- --i--ri --i- -i-e-t-'- ii--4 i-I-t- II t I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I 9 9 I 11 I I 1I1 I" - 1 r I r - T. I I £I 1 F t I I-I I 9-i I r I 7.0 6.5 6.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 9 I 9 , I I I I I I I I I 9 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I9 9 9 9 I I I I 9 I ~ ~~ ~~~~~I I I I I I I I9 9 9 I I99 9 9 I 9 9 I I. I 9 I I I I9 T ~~9 9 9 9 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I-I I I I-I-9I9I I 9 1. 9 9, 9 1 9. 9 i ~~I 9 I -11 1 1 I - - I I I I 9 9 9 9 I 9 I I I I I I 9 9 9 i I I 1 1 9 9 1 9 1 1 1 9 1 9 I~. I I I I I I I I I. I1 9 I9 1 1 I I I I. I I I I 9 I9 9 9 I9I 9 I. I II I I II 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 Period (Year) Figure 6-13 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 28.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 6109(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

6-22 8.0 7.5 L I b L J - I I .1 L A I-. - LI-I-L 3 L J I L -1 L J-I-LJ

1. I-I L I-I-L J-I-IJ L I L

r I - - r r i r r, i r t i-r- -r I-j-r I r I T - r I -j-r -i -i-rn r I- -r i'- -r i-i-r-1 r 7 - - r I-1 L J L j j J j L- 'L J L j L -L L j I j I L-I L J1 LJ I-i j IL JI -:-I-J i r -I-r L J L J I L J LJ I-IJ L 2 - - I - - - - - - - - --- L J 1 J J- - - --- - F I 4 -I- - - - I - - r I 11 1 4 r I r 'i tn r 7 r i r I L J L J J LJ J L J L J

1. J L

J L L j LJ I-E0 0 0z E 0 L. 4-a1 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 I.. ii I I I i . CRDMNozzleweldReglon .-l I.,-t.

• I I

l.IIl.I' I 111,lI I I III I i I I I I..

• .l I

I.I..I,.,I,. I ,I.!i1 I I I I I..  I I I I I I' I I I I I ... i 1.' I J.*.. 1.1 .4 1.1.' II..II 11, .* T l7 1 I1 I I I I I I I I I I I~ ~ ~~ I 1111 I II~~~~~~~~~~~ I ~ I I J 1. 1. I I - .I ~ i I I ..l..6.J 4 L L LI

• I

'I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I r 1 lr~ nr 7 ~lr -- r 1.l r -l-T-~ar i -z r -,-r v r I -I-V I-l T -Ir t -lr -i r l - i -ie r r n i-e --r -i r -r rn -r T-t-r 4.5 I L J 1, IJ'_ I __L J i J1

• J_'

L !_I _ l.J_ _I__'I__L J -:- L ' ' . -1 __I__L!. I_ LJ__I__ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ .s 7 - ts--r n--r v--l -e t-1 -g - x 1 1 i 1 r 4.0 m,zz f 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 Period (Year) Figure 614 Through-WVall Axial Flaws Located in the 28.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 6109(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

6-23 11.0 10.5 I I I, - I

--, I _.

I I _.. L -1 _'
I.,,...' I.'. L I.'
.1. '. L J.1. I k-J -I-L J -I-I J -I-L.1 --. I --- L I.1. L I -1. 1 J -I.. L J I-I i-I --- L J - I I. I -,-I I I I I I I I I I I I I.. I I I I I.. -I-. -.I " -.- I - I I I I i I I I I I I... I I I I I I I I I I I I I J.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I 1 1 1 1 I I.5. I I I I ~.I. A I .J 0V: 0z 0 0 U D 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 CRDMV Nozzle Weld Flegion LA I I I I tI I 8.0 I I i*. I ¶ 1 I - r 1/4

• I I

I~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I, I g r I I 7.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Period (Year) Figure 6-15 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 38.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flawv Tolerance Charts 61 09(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

6-24 8.0 7.5 I - I - I ; I I I I I I. .,, ~~~~~~ I - I I~~~~~~~ a ' a. I Ia I I i I I I I C E0 0 0 a.- C) C .4 a 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 a - I I*.* a I. I. .I .I I I -I. I. I..

. I....I

.. I.. I... I .. I -. III. .I. .II. II I. I. ... I., .. I. I... I. I... I. . I. I .. I . I.. I . I :... . I. ' . I . I... . I., I I-I... I .... I I I.... I.... Ila ~~ a aialalllla i la laaCl al a aa a a - - - - - a .a a a- -a--,. a a a a aaa. a I a......a a a a a a -lii la-ala a a a a a a. a a a -a ala. a

• ia a a a a-1 a a a a a a a

a a a. a

• a a a a a a ag-a-al a

-a-* I-.-, a-- a a a jag a. a a a a a a a a a a a a-ia a ill a - -.. a.-- -a- -r .a ia a rra-7 1 a a.1 arirlar~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a a a -a a ~~~~~~~i a~~~ a 1. 1 a ia~~~~~~aa..a.L~~~~~a g~~~aa..aaj..a~~~~~~j .4..aa~~~~~g aaaaa sa~~~~~~a a..L~~~~a~~a,.a~ ja a a a a a a a a a a a a a 1,1 II.~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ aJ g g l a. a a a-----. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a--I-a-ri a~~~~~~~~~~~r' r-i-~~ L2 5.0 4.5 4.0 In~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I a a -l a a a a a a a a a a a a a l i a a a a aaIg a a a a a a a aa-i a a a a a a aa-a a l a l a a l l - a a u a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a2 a a alga gauaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a gun alga gag a~~~~~~~ g -Ig L1 igIag a aa 4aa-ag ga 4~a~. aa.a.--g-~a-g a-a &.-..-a-a--a-i la~a ~ aL12aa gL'a2g-4s-LrLIa-aa r gL. g & 4a& 1 2 Tga. a a a a a a a a a a a a-a ~ a - -- a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a i a a a a a a a La a a a aIa a aaaa aiaa ala i I -i 1a TThai a aa r ai aC grag gg~ gj gr~g igLg 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 Period (Year) Figure 6-16 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 38.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 61 09(copy).doc-0331303 March 2003 Revision 0

6-25 11.0 C ~~~~~~~~L LiJi .i L1. L j L.i t.i.Li i L 1. j ii L k L i LJ ii -kI.Lj Lji5 Jg ji LLJ i j Iji-- I-o i g i g g ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ g:Ir Ig, g g l i ll .~.... F. i z I I i I i .'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i gig g I~~~~~~~~~I I L L J. .1 IL i5.1.g.. .*g gg I!i i 0 I-T ri~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ II is si g -- i--r- -~~~~~1. J 1 L J -I-I t '

• r;'-I 1

I.g i ii 11ri g s I 8.5I I T ii I-:g i i~~~~~~~~~~~

• 'i~~~~,

5 IFS-r 1i11T r T,. S I F r r T i g g T 1 i-L 4 i I I2 L.I g.. L 4 L-L4I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I i g g i i g g g g g E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-4g -5i4~4-~----.~4---4ii 5I gi g g' g igDMii Nozzl gigd Rgi n gi gi g g gi i i i i i g g iggggg g g gig I g g 'i i i gig g iii g g i g g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g gig g gig iii gig g i g' g l u l l g g i l ii g g g g g g ill~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 j i C I I Y T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~i g g ii Ig Tg g-gI li i gI g g ig i i 7.5 IJ - I I L .j 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 ii 12 13 14 15~~~~~~~~~~~ m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~eid(er Figre -17ThrughWal Axal law Loate inthe40. DereeRowof eneratons UpillSid rac GrwthPreicton Fla Tolerance'ChartsTMarch 200 61 09(ccspy).doc-033 103 Revision 0~~~~~~~~~

6-26 8.0 7.5 7.0 Eo 6.5 0 o 6.0 z E0 U 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 I .4.L j L 4. I 4.. '. 1.. J L J. I.... i. .I J. 4.1 .4 .L J .L. I-.'. i 4 L J .L J. I., I LJ. .'J L L I-J .'..-1A-I .L4J I- .i J - 4L 1. 1 r....,, r I r.,. ' 4

' 4 m

r i r r r. I I g I I 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 I I ~~ ~ ~ ~~I I I T I I I 444 44 4..4.4[.~ I 4LJ L...L.. I I I I CRDM Nozzle Weld IH legion .I -I. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4. 4 4 4 4 4,I I T r I I I I I4 4 4 r r i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I11 12 13 14 15 Period (Year) Figure 6-18 Throughi-Wall Axial Flaws Locatcd in the 40.0 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 6109(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

6-27 11.5 .E 10 ~- .I 9Lj5.9 4 l&

9.

-5 5 ,-J I I 9 I 9 1 1 9 5 9 9 I , 9 1, 9 5 5 I9 I I 9 I I I 9 S I 5 5 5 I 9 9 I 5 I 9 E ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 9 9 I

1.

4 I S I I 9, I-I I I 5 9 s 7 s 9 II-9 5 I I S S 0 5 99.5 1 9 5 9 I S I I r 9 9 I I 9 I I 5 9 5 I S 5 5 I fI I I I I I I I 9 9 9 51 Ir 9 I- -I-I-I rI 5 9 I S 10.0 t-9~~~--'.r 9 1 ~ 9'i T9 T. i-cr i 9 I' , r s 9I - r 1 -- 1 9r -' r s r -c T r r T 1 r rs1r 599599 liii.j 1 J LJ J I liL! I91 9 L9 s 1 1 1 9559LILJ L-I:-LIL L LJ56 91-111 111 IL999155 9 971rT~~~~r~~rr 's-r 1I~~~~ 59 T995 I I 1Ir -i r I ~ ~ t l -r9Tfl -I r-I r- -r t ~-r-r19 -¶9-1-- rir r--15-t-- v I r I 9-r I I -r I I 9 4 9 -I5 I I I I 9 I I I1 5 1 9 5 I 9 W 9.0~-l9 9 9 h--h~ 99 9.0 4999999 95999 9991~~~~~~~. II S1 I 9 95a999 99 I 1 95 4-41 1995-59-I I I11199I 19 I 111I59 8.5 r~~~~~~~9.--5 99I-I-i-- ~~ 9 .1I 9 4l 5 1 9 5i*-------- 95S59--9455 I I I I-- 9-l L '5-19 I11 J-9-..LJ.LJ I-+ -- I 4.I.L& I - 1 5 4..1,.5I.4.9L .491.I 5+9L.I L9II.491.1 5 9I 98,. L9 9I 15494.. -II 995 9..I......I19 .J95

9.

.,_5 ILIA L S1 I. I.... 5 .1.L J.. :- L J. 8.5 ~~,

9.

t~ r, 9;I, 9 I II ir I r I-- i-r-ri--r 7.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Period (Year) Figure 6-19 Trough-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 42.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 61 09(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

6-28 8.0 7.5 1a12a

• .a a

~ a. a a ~ ~ a ~ a L a ~ l ~ a a ~ L a ~ l a a~ I I I I I I a rI r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-a-- a a g tt-ar1 a- -i- -a-a r g a r'-- a a a a a a a a a a a a L a a L a a a a a L a a

• I a a

-I I

• I I

I.... a I I I I , I I a I a I I a I a a I I I I a aI I a aaIa iIa aIa aI L I LILI L LJar CL a aJaraI ra......,a.I-a.r a AT aA.a Aa aT~La L l.4~-a a 4l-4aaraa.L a..A..a...L4..ar.rJaiaLr aLJ..a..a.4 L aj a a a a -a a a,- , 1--' a aa-a a-a aI aLJI 1 a Ia a IL L~a a L a a a a a a a 1a-r-a-ara-r l-a-a--a-a-T-a'r'T-;-'r10r aatar~~~~at a~~ar~al~a~ar~ar~~a~ar~ar~aT-ar1 r,-aT-arirrlLfJ. nL C E0 0 0 z E0 a-C 'a 02in 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5

• ...a-a--a-.-

a' I a' I: a a a a a - a - a - a I a a a - a - a a - a a a a - a a:::', a a a a - -I.. I - I I I I I I : I. I I. I I I I I I. I.- I I. I.. I I I I - I . I. I. i I. I J I . I I - I I I . I I I I I I I I I a a Ia a a a l' a a a a ' a l a a a a a a a a a a a a a-a a a a~~~~a a a a a a a a '-aa-a-----aag-r---a.a IC '; a~ a a a a a a a a aa a aaea a a a a a a A a za a a a a-aRegion a a a a a a a a a a a a a a -a a a-aa. aa-,-aa-I-a-a "a .g-aa-a.-aaa--.L-.Ia.4 -aa.a-.a..-1-a-1 a a a a a I a a I a J l a a a a a a a a a l a a a a a a a a I-a Iaa' a a a a a a a a a a a a a g a all -a-a-a- -a - A A. £ a I a a i-a-a- -a a a I - a -- l - -a -a-4 -J a a a aa I A 4. a -A all I -a -a.. t a a a 1 a-r - a I -' I a a -a -a -a 5.0 4 a a a aa aa a aa----aaa a a-aaa aa a aa aa a a-aa a aa-aaa 4.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a a a a a a a a. a a ' a a. a -- a a a. a a - A a L g a a a a - ~ a, a a a a a,. - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Period (Year) Figure 6-20 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 42.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Flaw Tolerance Charts 6 109(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

6-29 180 150 (U .,..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U...~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ~ 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Period (Year) Figure 6-21 Through-Wall Circumferential Flaws Near the Top of the Attachment Weld for CRDM Nozzles -Crack Growth Predictions (MRP Factor of 2.0 Included) Flaw Tolerance Charts 61 09(copy).doc-0402031 March 2003 Revision 0

6-30 r (a) Single Linear Flaw [4 S 21 (c) Aligned Linear Flaws 21 > Q2 2Q S 2 in. 22 (ci Overlapping Parallel Flaws I Z Q ~SZ 1/2 in. (9) Nonaligned Parallel Flaws el 22 (bi Single Curvilinear Flaw S 41l2 in 1 S 1 -.2 S 112 in. (d) Nonoverlapping Flaws el 1 2 (fI Overlapping Flow S < 1/2 in. -i, 2 in. SC 1/2 in. i Q L 1/2 in. (hi Multiple Parallel Flaws Figure 6-22 Section XI Flaw Proximity Rules for Surface Flaws (Figure INVA-3400-1) March 21)03 Flaw Tolerance Charts 6109(copy).doc-040203 Marcho 203 Revision

6-31 Figure 623 Definition of "Circumferential" Flaw Tolerance Charts March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

6-32 NOZZLE TOP OF WELD BOTTOM OF WELD RV Head t Figure 6-24 Schematic of Head Penetration Geometry viarcn LUU) Flaw Tolerance Charts 6 109(copy).doc-040203 Marc v. Revision

7-1 7

SUMMARY

An extensive evaluation has been carried out to characterize the loads and stresses that exist in the head penetrations at Turkey Point Units 3&4. Three-dimensional finite element models were constructed, and all pertinent loads on the penetrations were analyzed [6]. These loads included internal pressure and thermal expansion effects typical of steady state operation. In addition, residual stresses due to the welding of the penetrations to the vessel head were considered. Results of the analyses reported here are consistent with the axial orientation and location of flaws that have been found in service in a number of plants. The largest stress component is the hoop stress and the maximum stresses were found to exist at the attachment weld. The most important loading conditions were found to be those which reside on the penetration for the majority of the time. These conditions are the steady state loading and the residual stresses. These stresses are important because the cracking that has been observed to date in operating plants has been determined to result from primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC). These stresses were used in the fracture mechanics calculations to predict the future growth of flaws postulated to exist in the head penetrations. A crack growth law was developed specifically for the operating temperature of the vessel head at Turkey Point Units 3&4 based on the EPRI recommendation, which is consistent with laboratory data as well as crack growth results for operating plants. The crack growth predictions contained in Section 6 show that the future growth of cracks which might be found in the penetrations will be typically moderate, however, a number of effective full power years would be required for any significant extensions. The examples in Appendix C show that the most important figures used in evaluating the detected flaws in the head penetrations are Figures 6-2 through 6-10 for the axial surface flaws, and Figure 6-11 for circumferential flaws postulated near the top of the attachment weld. Figures 6-12 through 6-20 provide valuable information on the projected growth of through-wall flaws, but may be of limited practical application with the current acceptance criteria. However, there is an important safety aspect to the through-wall flaw evaluation charts in that they demonstrate that flaw propagation above the weld will be very limited. The NRC request for additional information in regards to relaxation from Order EA-03-009 for Turkey Point Unit 3 Docket No. 50-250 can be found in Appendix E. Likewise, the Westinghouse responses to the NRC questions that pertain to this WCAP are found in Appendix E. Approval of the request for relaxation can be found in Appendix F of this WCAP. Summary March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

7-2 7.1 SAFETY ASSESSMENT It is appropriate to examine the safety consequences of an indication that might be found. The indication, even if it were to propagate through the penetration nozzle wall, would have only minor consequences since the pressure boundary would not be broken, unless it were to propagate above the weld. Further propagation of the indication would not change its orientation, since the hoop stresses in the penetration nozzle are much larger than the axial stresses. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the head penetration would be severed. If the indication were to propagate to a position above the weld, a leak could result, but the magnitude of such a leak would be very small, because the crack could not open significantly due to the tight fit between the penetration nozzle and the vessel head. Such a leak would have no immediate impact on the structural integrity of the system, but could lead to wastage in the ferritic steel of the vessel head as the borated primary water concentrates due to evaporation. Davis Besse has demonstrated the consequence of ignoring such leaks. Any indication is unlikely to propagate very far up the penetration nozzle above the weld since the hoop stresses decrease in this direction, causing the indication to slow down and stop before it reaches the outside surface of the head. The high likelihood that the indication will not propagate up the penetration nozzle beyond the vessel head ensures that no catastrophic failure of the head penetration will occur. The indication will be enveloped in the vessel head itself, which precludes the opening of the crack and limits leakage. Summary 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

8-1 8 REFERENCES I. Scott, P. M., "An Analysis of Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking in PWR Steam Generators," in Proceedings, Specialists Meeting on Operating Experience With Steam Generators, Brussels Belgium, Sept. 1991, pages 5, 6.

2.

Mcllree, A. R., Rebak, R. B., Smialowska, S., "Relationship of Stress Intensity to Crack Growth Rate of Alloy 600 in Primary Water," Proceedings International Symposium Fontevraud II, Vol, 1, p. 258-267, September 10-14, 1990.

3.

Cassagne, T., Gelpi, A., "Measurements of Crack Propagation Rates on Alloy 600 Tubes in PWR Primary Water, in Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems-Water Reactors," August 25-29, 1991, Monterey, California. 4A. Crack Growth and Microstructural Characterization of Alloy 600 PWR Vessel Head Penetration Materials, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. 1997. TR-109136. 4B. Vaillant, F. and C. Amzallag. "Crack Growth Rates of Alloy 600 in Primary Water," Presentation to the EPRI-MRP Crack Growth Rate (CGR) Review Team, Lake Tahoe, NV, presented August 10, 2001, and revised October 11, 2001 4C. Vaillant, F. and S. Le Hong. Crack Growth Rate Measurements in Primary Water of Pressure Vessel Penetrations in Alloy 600 and Meld Metal 182, EDF, April 1997. HT-44/96/024/A. 4D. Framatome laboratory data provided by C. Amzallag (EDF) to MRP Crack Growth Rate Review Team, October 4, 2001 (Non-Proprietary to EDF). 4E. Cassagne, T., D. Caron, J. Daret, and Y. Lefevre. "Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Rate Measurements in Alloys 600 and 182 in Primary Water Loops Under Constant Load," Ninth International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems-Water Reactors (Newport Beach, CA, August 1-5, 1999), Edited by F. P. Ford, S. M. Bruemmer, and G. S. Was, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS), Warrendale, PA, 1999. 4F. Studsvik laboratory data provided by Anders Jenssen (Studsvik) to MRP Crack Growth Rate Review Team, October 3, 2001 (Non-Proprietary to Studsvik). 4G [ ]a.c.e 4H. "Materials Reliability Program (MRP) Crack Growth Rates for Evaluating Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC) of Thick Wall Alloy 600 Material (MRP-55) Revision I," EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2002. 1006695.

41.

"Crack Growth Rate Tests of Alloy 600 in Primary PWR Conditions," Communication from M. L. Castaiio (CIEMAT) to J. Hickling (EPRI), March 25, 2002. 4J. G6mez-Bricefio, D., J. Lapefia, and F. BlAzquez. "Crack Growth Rates in Vessel Head Penetration Materials," Proceedings of the International Symposium Fontevraud 11: Contribution of Materials Investigation to the Resolution of Problems Encountered in Pressurized Water Reactors (Chinton, France, September 12-16, 1994), French Nuclear Energy Society, Paris, 1994, pp. 209-214. References March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

8-2 4K. G6mez-Briceio, D. and J. Lapefia. "Crack Growth Rates in Vessel Head Penetration Materials," Proceedings: 1994 EPRI lVorkshop on PWSCC of Alloy 600 in PWRs (Tampa, FL, November 15-17, 1994), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, TR-105406, August 1995, pp. E4-1 through E4-15. 4L. G6mez-Bricefio, D., et al. "Crack Propagation in Inconel 600 Vessel Head Penetrations," Eurocorr 96, Nice, France, September 24-26, 1996. 4M. Castaio, M. L., D. Gmez-Briceio, M. Alvarez-de-Lara, F. Bldzquez, M. S. Garcia, F. Herndndez, and A. Largares. "Effect of Cationic Resin Intrusions on IGA/SCC of Alloy 600 Under Primary Water Conditions," Proceedings of the International Symposium Fontevraud IV: Contribution of Materials Investigation to the Resolution of Problems Encountered in Pressurized Mater Reactors (France, September 14-18, 1998), French Nuclear Energy Society, Paris, 1998, Volume 2, pp. 925-937. 5A. Newman, J. C. and Raju, I. S., "Stress Intensity Factor Influence Coefficients for Internal and External Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Vessels," in Aspects of Fracture Mechanics in Pressure Vessels and Piping, PVP Vol. 58, ASME, 1982, pp. 3748. SB. Hiser, Allen, "Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessments," presentation at NRC/Industry/ACRS meeting, November 8, 2001.

6.

[ I a.c~e

7.

USNRC Letter, W. T. Russell to W. Raisin, NUMARC, "Safety Evaluation for Potential Reactor Vessel Head Adapter Tube Cracking," November 19, 1993.

8.

USNRC Letter, A. G Hansen to R. E. Link, "Acceptance Criteria for Control Rod Drive Mechanism Penetrations at Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit I," March 9, 1994.

9.

Materials Reliability Program Response to NRC Bulletin 2001-01 EPRI MRP Report 48 (TP 1006284), August 2001.

10.

"PWR Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Upper Head Penetrations Inspection Plan (MRP-75): Revision." EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2002. 1007337. 1 A. The Babcock & Wilcox Co. No. 117878-E, Closure Head Assembly "Unit No. I", Rev. 6 1 lB. The Babcock & Wilcox Co. No. 15381 1-E, Closure Head Assembly "Unit No. 2", Rev. 0 I IC. The Babcock & Wilcox Co. No. 117880-E, Detail & Sub-Assembly Control Rod Mechanism HousingRev. 6 1 ID. The Babcock & Wilcox Co. No. 117881 -E, Closure Head Sub-Assembly "Unit No. I ", Rev. 7 I IE. The Babcock & Wilcox Co. No. 153810-E, Closure Head Sub-Assembly "Unit No. 1", Rev. 0

12.

"Florida Power & Light Company Turkey Point Unit 3 Rai Responses To Relaxation From Order Ea-03-009," Westinghouse Letter No. FPL-03-37, March 14, 2003. Pat McDonough.

13.

"Safety Evalution by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relaxation of February 11.2003 Order (EA-03-009) Reator Pressure Vessel Head Inspections Florida Power and Light Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 Docket No. 50-250," March 20, 2003. Scott W. Moore. References March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

A-I APPENDIX A ALLOWABLE AREAS OF LACK OF FUSION: WELD FUSION ZONES There are two fusion zones of interest for the head penetration nozzle attachment welds, the penetration nozzle itself (Alloy 600) and the reactor vessel head material (A533B ferritic steel). The operating temperature of the upper head region of the Turkey Point Units 3&4 is 312'C (5940F) and the materials will be very ductile. The toughness of both materials is quite high and any flaw propagation along either of the fusion zones will be totally ductile. Two generic calculations were completed for the fusion zones, one for the critical flaw size, and the second one for the allowable law size, which includes the margins required in the ASME code. The simpler case is the Alloy 600 fusion zone, where the potential failure will be a pure shearing of the penetration as the pressurized penetration nozzle is forced outward from the vessel head, as shown in Figure A-I. The failure criterion will be that the average shear stress along the fusion line exceeds the limit shear stress. For the critical flaw size, the limiting shear stress is the shear flow stress, which is equal to half the tensile flow stress, according to the Tresca criterion. The tensile flow stress is the average of the yield stress and ultimate tensile stress of the material. The criterion for Alloy 600 tubes in the upper head region is: Average shear stress < shear flow stress = 26.85 ksi This value was taken from the ASME Code, Section 1lI, Appendix, at 600'F. For each penetration, the axial force, which produces this shear stress, results from the internal pressure. Since each penetration has the same outer diameter, the axial force is the same. The average shear stress increases as the load carrying area decreases (the area of lack of fusion increases). When this increasing lack of fusion area increases the stress to the point at which it equals the flow stress, failure occurs. This point may be termed the critical flaw size. This criterion is actually somewhat conservative. Alternatively, use of the Von Mises failure criterion would have set the shear flow stress equal to 60 percent of the axial flow stress, and would therefore have resulted in larger critical flaw sizes. The allowable flaw size, as opposed to the critical flaw size discussed above, was calculated using the allowable limit of Section III of the ASME Code, paragraph NB 3227.2. The criterion for allowable shear stress then becomes: Average shear stress < 0.6 Sm = 13.98 ksi where: Sm = the ASME Code limiting design stress from Section 111, Appendix 1. The above approach was used to calculate the allowable flaw size and critical flaw size for the outermost and center penetrations. The results show that a very large area of lack of fusion can be tolerated by the Appendix A March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

A-2 head penetrations, regardless of their orientation. These results can be illustrated for the outermost CRDM penetration. The total surface contact area for the fusion zone on the outermost head penetration is 17.4 in2. The calculations above result in a required area to avoid failure of only 1.45 in2, and using the ASME Code criteria, the area required is 2.79 in2. These calculations show that as much as 83.9 percent of the weld may be unfused, and the code acceptance criteria can still be met. To envision the extent of lack of fusion allowed, Figure A-2 was prepared. In this figure, the weld fusion region for the outermost penetration has been shown in an unwrapped, or developed view. The figure shows the extent of lack of fusion allowed in terms of limiting lengths for a range of circumferential lack of fusion. This figure shows that the allowable vertical length of lack of fusion for a full circumferential unfused region is 84 percent of the weld length. Conversely, for a region of lack of fusion extending the full vertical length of the weld, the circumferential extent is limited to 302 degrees. The extent of lack of fusion which would cause failure is labeled "critical" on this figure, and is even larger. The dimensions shown on this figure are based on an assumed rectangular area of lack of fusion. The full extent of this allowable lack of fusion is shown in Figure A-3, where the axes have been expanded to show the full extent of the head penetration-weld fusion line. This figure shows that a very large area of lack of fusion is allowed for the outer most penetration. Similar results were found for the center penetration, where the weld fusion area is somewhat smaller at 16.1 in2. A similar calculation was also carried out for the fusion zone between the weld and the vessel head, and the result is shown in Figure A-4. The allowable area of unfused weld for this location is 84.8 percent of the total area. This approach to evaluating the fusion zone with the carbon steel vessel head is only approximate, but may provide a realistic estimate of the allowable. Note that even a complete lack of fusion in this region would not result in penetration nozzle ejection, because the weld to the head penetration would prevent the penetration nozzle from moving up through the vessel head. The allowable lack of fusion for the weld fusion zone to the vessel head using the approximate approach may be somewhat in doubt, because of the different geometry, where one cannot ensure that the failure would be due to pure shear. To investigate this concern, additional finite element models were constructed with various degrees of lack of fusion discretely modeled, ranging from 30 to 65 percent. The stress intensities around the circumference of the penetration were calculated to provide for the effects of all the stresses, as opposed to the shear stress only, as used above. When the average stress intensity reaches the flow stress (53.7 ksi), failure is expected to occur. The code allowable stress intensity is 1.5 Sm, or 35 ksi, using the lower of the Alloy 600 and ferritic allowables at 316'C (600'F). The results of this series of analyses are shown in Figure A-5, where it is clear that large areas of lack of fusion are allowed. As the area of lack of fusion increases, the stresses redistribute themselves, and that the stress intensity does not increase in proportion to the area lost. These results seem to confirm that shear stress is the only important stress governing the critical flaw size for the vessel head fusion zone as well. Appendix A March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

A-3 Uphill Side (1800) Cladding Downhill Side (00) Head Penetration Nozzle Figure A-1 'pical Head Penetration Appendix A 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

A-4 100 a) 16-a) CL 60) a -j 95 90 85 'N% Critical Allowable an 300 310 320 330 340 350 Circumferential Extent (Degrees) I 360 Figure A-2 Allowable Regions of Lack of Fusion for the Outermost Penetration Tube to Weld Fusion Zone: Detailed View Appendix A 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

A-5 100 90 80 I-0a) ci0 a) 70 60 50 40 30 Allowable Cntical I I~~~~ I 20 10 0 100 200 300 Circumferential Extent (Degrees) Figure A-3 Allowable Regions of Lack of Fusion for the Outermost Penetration Tube to Weld Fusion Zone Appendix A 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

f A-6 Allowable Cntical 100 90 80 0 D) Q a) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 100 200 300 Circumferential Extent (Degrees) Figure A-4 Allowable Regions of Lack of Fusion for all Penetrations: Weld to Vessel Fusion Zone Appendix A 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

A-7 60 Critical 50 40 Code Allowable 30 20 10 0 I 0 5 10 i5 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Percentage Area Reduction Figure A-5 Allowable Regions of Lack of Fusion for the Weld to Vessel Fusion Zone Appendix A March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

B-I APPENDIX B FLAW TOLERANCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES The following guidelines are provided to assist in determining the allowable service time for a typical flaw found during inspections. The section entitled "Additional guidelines" is provided to assist in evaluating flaws not specifically covered in the enclosed flaw tolerance charts. Definition of Terms a = Flaw depth. t = Wall thickness (0.625 inches for CRDM, 0.122 for Head Vent). a/t = Ratio of flaw depth to wall thickness. d = Distance below or above the weld (See diagram below) c = Flaw half-length (2c shall be the full length of the flaw) aspect ratio = 2c/a = Flaw length / depth The subscript "initial" refers to the state at which the flaw is found The subscript "final" refers to the state at which the flaw has reached the acceptance criteria (Table 6-1) Appendix B 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

B-2 Procedure I (See Example 3 in Appendix C) Used For: - Inside, Axial Surface Flaws At the Attachment Weld - Inside, Axial Surface Flaws 0.5 " or More Above the Weld

1. Determine Location and Orientation of the Flaw Axial or Circumferential Inside or Outside Surface Above, At or Below Attachment Weld Uphill or Downhill

2. Go to Table 1-1 to obtain the Penetration Nozzle Locality Angle

3.

Identify the Applicable Flaw Tolerance Chart(s) At the Weld 0.5" Above the Weld

4. Determine the Ratio ajnitjaj/t (Flaw Depth / Wall Thickness)

5. Determine the Initial Reference Time for the Flaw Draw a horizontal line intersecting the vertical axis at the value of ajnjja/t Draw a vertical line downward at the point where the horizontal line intersects the applicable penetration nozzle locality angle curve.

The initial reference time for the flaw is where the vertical line intersects the horizontal axis.

6. Go to Table 6-1 to Determine Acceptance Criteria Acceptance criteria will provide the final allowable flaw depth (arna )

Determine the acceptable arin,,lt ratio

7.

Determine the Final Reference Time for the Flaw Draw a horizontal line intersecting the vertical axis at value of allowable ar/t Draw a vertical line downward at the point where the horizontal line intersects the applicable penetration nozzle locality angle curve. The final reference time for the flaw is where the vertical line intersects the horizontal axis.

8. Determine the Remaining Service Life Remaining Service Life = Final Reference Time - Initial Reference Time Appendix B March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

B-3 Procedure II (See Examples I and 4 in Appendix C) Used For: Inside, Axial Surface Flaws 0.5" or More Below the Attachment Weld Inside, Axial Surface flaws 0.5" or more below the attachment weld may require the use of more than one flaw tolerance chart. The following guidelines can be used to determine the remaining service life if the flaw length (2cr,.,) grows within 0.5" below the weld before the flaw depth (aj) reaches the acceptance criteria (Table 6-1).

1. Determine the final length of the flaw (2cflml)

Assume initial aspect ratio (2cinijaI/ainWaI) is maintained Determine allowable flaw depth (afir,) based on acceptance criteria (Table 6-1) Final length equals the product of aspect ratio and allowable flaw depth 2c initial 2c final =

• a final a initial

2. Determine the distance between the upper extremity of the flaw and the bottom of the weld d final = d initial - (c final - c initia)

3. Determine if the flaw will grow within 0.5" below the weld If d 1 > 0.5", the flaw will not grow within 0.5"' below the weld and the remaining service life can be determined using the guidelines for Procedure I.

If d.,a < 0.5", separate charts should be used for the time that the upper extremity grows to 0.5" below the weld, and the time that it grows from 0.5" below the weld to the acceptance criteria (Table 6-1). Evaluation continues with Step 4 of this section.

4. Determine Location of the Flaw Uphill or Downhill

5.

Go to Table -1 to obtain the Penetration Nozzle Locality Angle

6. Identify the Applicable Flaw Tolerance Charts At the Weld and 0.5" Below the Weld

7. Determine the Ratio a/t when the upper extremity of the flaw is 0.5" below the weld.

Assume initial aspect ratio (2cjojj/ajnjj,) is maintained. Determine flaw length (co.5-bb) when upper extremity reaches 0.5" below the weld. C0 5-bew = cinitial + dinitial - 0.5 Determine flaw depth (adj below) at which the upper extremity reaches 0.5" below the weld. aO.5-below = 2co0 s below (ainitial / 2 Cinitial) Determine ratio a/t Ratio = a5-below/t Appendix B March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

B-4

8. Determine the initial reference time for the flaw (use 0.5" below the weld flaw tolerance chart)

Draw a horizontal line intersecting the vertical axis at the value of ais 3/t. Draw a vertical line downward at the point where the horizontal line intersects the applicable penetration nozzle locality angle curve. The initial reference time for the flaw is where the vertical line intersects the horizontal axis.

9. Deternine the final reference time for the flaw to grow to 0.5" below the weld (use 0.5"below the weld flaw tolerance chart)

Draw a horizontal line intersecting the vertical axis at value of ao5s b,b/t. Draw a vertical line downward at the point where the horizontal line intersects the applicable penetration nozzle locality angle curve. The final reference time for the flaw is where the vertical line intersects the horizontal axis.

10. Determine the Service Life for the flaw to grow to 0.5" below the weld Service LifeO 5-beow = Final Reference Timeo 5-below - Initial Reference Timeo 5-below

11. Go to Table 6-1 to Determine Acceptance Criteria Acceptance criteria will provide the final allowable flaw depth (afi,3)

Determine the acceptable arn,,at ratio

12. Determine the initial reference time for the flaw to grow from 0.5" below the weld to the acceptance criteria (use at the weld flaw tolerance chart)

Draw a horizontal line intersecting the vertical axis at the value of ao.5 -tbelow/t. Draw a vertical line downward at the point where the horizontal line intersects the applicable penetration nozzle locality angle curve. The initial reference time for the flaw is where the vertical line intersects the horizontal axis.

13. Determine the final reference time for the flaw to grow from 0.5" below the weld to the acceptance criteria (use the at the weld flaw tolerance chart)

Draw a horizontal line intersecting the vertical axis at value of afinalt. Draw a vertical line downward at the point where the horizontal line intersects the applicable penetration nozzle locality angle curve. The final reference time for the flaw is where the vertical line intersects the horizontal axis.

14. Determine the Service Life for the flaw to grow from 0.5" below the weld to the acceptance criteria.

Service Lifeat wcd = Final Reference Timea, weld - Initial Reference Time, weld

15. Determine the Remaining Service Life Remaining Service Life = Service Lifeos-blow + Service Lifeal wrld See the additional guidelines for a quicker, yet more conservative, evaluation of flaws 0.5" below the attachment weld that cross zones before reaching the acceptance criteria.

Appendix B March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

B-5 Procedure III (See Example 2 in Apjendix C) Used For: Outside, Axial Surface Flaws Below the Attachment Weld Outside, Axial Surface flaws below the attachment weld may have a flaw length (2cfina,) that will grow into the weld before its depth (arna) can reach the acceptance criteria criteria (Table 6-1). If this is the case, the following guidelines can be used to determine the remaining service life.

1. Determine the final length of the flaw (2cfnal)

Assume initial aspect ratio (2cinhtja;lainitiai) is maintained Determine allowable flaw depth (ar,,) based on acceptance criteria (Table 6-1) Final length equals the product of aspect ratio and allowable flaw depth 2c initial 2c final i a final a initial

2. Determine the distance between the upper extremity of the flaw and the bottom of the weld d final = d initial - (c final - c initial

3. Determine if the flaw will grow into the weld If dfinal > 0, the flaw will not grow into the weld and the remaining service life can be determined using the guidelines for Procedure 1.

If dfinal< 0, the flaw will grow into the weld and evaluation continues with Step 4 of this section.

4. Determine Location of the Flaw Uphill or Downhill

5. Go to Table 1-1 to obtain the Penetration Nozzle Locality Angle

6. Identify the Applicable Flaw Tolerance Charts Outside Surface, Below the Attachment Weld

7. Determine the Ratio a/t when the upper extremity of the flaw at the weld.

Assume initial aspect ratio (2cj6stj/ajntjja) is maintained. Determine flaw length (cbotomofweld) when upper extremity reaches the weld. Cbottom of wld Cinitial + dinifial Determine flaw depth (aat weld) at which the upper extremity reaches the weld. aottom of weld 2Coonomof weld (ainidai/ 2Ciniciil) Determine ratio a/t Ratio = abttom of weld /t Appendix B March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

B-6

8. Determine the initial reference time for the flaw (use below the weld flaw tolerance chart)

Draw a horizontal line intersecting the vertical axis at the value of alnjlat. Draw a vertical line downward at the point where the horizontal line intersects the applicable penetration nozzle locality angle curve. The initial reference time for the flaw is where the vertical line intersects the horizontal axis.

9. Determine the final reference time for the flaw to grow to the weld (use below the weld flaw tolerance chart)

Draw a horizontal line intersecting the vertical axis at value of abottomofwed/t. Draw a vertical line downward at the point where the horizontal line intersects the applicable penetration nozzle locality angle curve. The final reference time for the flaw is where the vertical line intersects the horizontal axis.

10. Determine the Service Life for the flaw to grow to the weld Service Lifebtom.fweld = Final Reference Timebotomofwed - Initial Reference Timebotomorwed Appendix B 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

B-7 Procedure IV (See Example 5 in Appendix C) Used For: Axial Through-Wall Flaws Below the Weld

1. Go to Table 1-1 to obtain the Penetration Nozzle Locality Angle

2. Identify the Applicable Flaw Tolerance Chart(s)

Nozzle Locality Angle Uphill or Downhill

3. Determine the Initial Reference Time for the Flaw Draw a horizontal line intersecting the vertical axis at the value corresponding to the location of the crack tip with respect to the bottom weld.

Draw a vertical line downward at the point where the horizontal line intersects the applicable penetration nozzle locality angle curve. The initial reference time for the flaw is where the vertical line intersects the horizontal axis.

4. Determine the Final Reference Time for the Flaw Draw a vertical line downward at the point where the CRDM bottom weld horizontal line intersects the penetration nozzle locality angle curve.

The final reference time for the flaw is where the vertical line intersects the horizontal axis.

5. Determine the Remaining Service Life Remaining Service Life = Final reference Time - Initial Reference Time Appendix B 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

B-8 Additional Guidelines

1.

If a flaw is found in a penetration nozzle for which no specific analysis was performed and there is a uniform trend as a function of penetration nozzle angle, interpolation between penetration nozzles is the best approach.

2.

If a flaw is found in a penetration nozzle for which no specific analysis was performed and there is no apparent trend as a function of penetration nozzle angle, the result for the penetration nozzle with the closest angle should be used.

3.

If a flaw is found which has a depth smaller than any depth shown for the penetration nozzle angle of interest, the initial flaw depth should be assumed to be the same as the smallest depth analyzed for that particular penetration nozzle.

4.

The flaw evaluation charts are applicable for aspect ratio of 6 or less. Consult with Westinghouse if the as-found flaw has an aspect ratio larger than 6.0.

5.

In the Procedure II guidelines, flaws whose upper extremities grow within 0.5" below the weld require the use of both the 0.5" below the weld and "at the weld" flaw tolerance charts. To avoid the use of these two charts, the "at the weld" charts may solely be used in determining the service life. This shall provide a conservative estimate of the crack growth due to a larger stress field.

6.

All references to service life are in effective full power years.

7.

Results are only provided for the uphill and downhill sides of the selected penetration nozzles. If flaws are found in locations between the uphill and downhill side, use the results for either the uphill or downhill location, whichever is closer. Appendix B 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

C-l APPENDIX C EXAMPLE PROBLEMS The flaw tolerance charts in Figures 6-2 through 6-21 can be used with the acceptance criteria of Section 6.5 to determine the available service life. This appendix uses the guidelines of Appendix B to present a few examples illustrating the use of these figures. The example cases are listed in Table C-I. Example 1 - Determine the service life of an axially oriented inside surface flaw whose upper extremity is located 1.2" below the weld on the uphill side of penetration no. 30 with an initial flaw depth of 0.078" (ai,,,tiao and an initial flaw length of 0.195" (2cinW.a). First, we must assume that the initial aspect ratio of 2.5:1 (0.078/0.195) is maintained throughout the time that the inside surface flaw becomes a through-wall flaw. The final length of the flaw (2cr,, 1) will be 1.563" ((0.78/0.195)*0.625). The upper extremity of the flaw is now located 0.516" (1.2-((1.563/2)-(0.195/2))) below the weld and validates the use of a single crack growth curve. The penetration locality angle is then obtained from Table 1-1 (28.6 degrees). The crack growth curve for the nozzle angle of Figure 6-2 is applicable and Figure 6-2 has been reproduced as Figure C-1. The flaw is initially 12.5 percent of the wall thickness, and a straight line is drawn horizontally at a/t = 0.125 that intersects the crack growth curve. Using the acceptance criteria in Table 6-1, the service life can then be determined as the remaining time for this flaw to grow to the limit of 100 percent of the wall thickness or approximately 3.75 years (labeled as Service Life in Figure C-1) Example 2 - In this case, the flaw is identical in size to that used in Example 1, but located on the outside surface and on the downhill side of penetration no. 30. This flaw, just as the flaw in Example 1, will not cross into the weld region. The applicable curve to use is Figure 6-10. The ratio aft and initial reference time are likewise found using the same approach as used in Example 1. Using the acceptance criteria in Table 6-1, the determination of service life is illustrated in Figure C-2, where we can see that the result is approximately 2.3 years. Example 3 -An axial inside surface flaw is located at the weld and on the downhill side of penetration no. 1. The initial length of the flaw is 0.234" and the initial depth is 0.047". From Table -1, the angle of this penetration nozzle is 0.0 degrees. The applicable curve is Figure 6-5 and is reproduced here as Figure C-3. In this case, the initial flaw depth is 7.5 percent of the wall thickness. The initial reference time can be found by drawing a horizontal line at at = 0.075. Using the acceptance criteria in Table 6-1, the allowable service life can then be determined as the time for the flaw to reach a depth of 75 percent of the wall thickness. The final reference time is found through a horizontal line drawn at at = 0.75. The service life can be determined through the intersection points of these lines and the crack growth curve. The resulting service life is approximately 3.6 years, as shown in Figure C-3. Appendix C March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

C-2 Example 4 - In this case, we have postulated an axial inside surface flaw with an upper extremity located 1.0 inch below the attachment weld on the downhill side of penetration no. 30 (28.6 degrees). The flaw has an initial depth of 0.078" and an initial length of 0.394". Assuming that the initial aspect ratio of 5:1 (0.394" 0.078") is maintained as the flaw propagates into the nozzle wall, the final length of a through-wall flaw would be 3.125" long (0.625" x 5). The location of the upper extremity of this flaw would have reached within 0.5 inch below the weld as it propagates into the nozzle wall (1.0" - ((3.125" l 2) - (0.394" 1 2))). Therefore the evaluation will require the use of two flaw charts. The first step is to estimate the time required for the initial flaw to grow to within 0.5 inch of the weld. This can be accomplished with the use of Figure 6-3 and is reproduced here as Figure C-4a. The upper extremity is I inch below the weld and is assumed to grow until the extremity is 0.5 inches below the weld. The final half-length of the flaw when it reaches 0.5 inches below the weld will be the sum of the initial half-length and the 0.5 inches it has grown or 0.697" ((0.394 / 2) + 1.0" - 0.5"). Multiplying this by two and then dividing by the aspect ratio ((2 x 0.697") 5.0) gives the flaw depth (0.279") when the upper extremity is 0.5 inches below the weld. Figure C-4a can be used to find the time it takes to grow from 12.5% through-wall (a/t = 0.0.078" 1 0.625 = 0.125) to 45% through-wall (aft = 0.279/0.625 = 0.45). The time is estimated as 6.1 years. Using the flaw depth calculated previously (aft = 0.45) as the initial flaw depth, the curves in Figure 6-5, reproduced here as Figure C-4b, for inside surface flaws near the weld can be used to determine the remaining service time before the flaw depth reaches the allowable flaw size. Using the acceptance criteria in Table 6-1, Figure C4b shows an additional 0.75 years of service life for a total of 6.9 years (Consult additional guidelines #5 for a simplified, more conservative approach). Example 5 - This case is an axial through-wall flaw with its upper extremity located 0.40 inches below the weld region on the uphill side of penetration no. 69. The angle of the penetration nozzle is 42.6 degrees as shown in Table 1-1. The crack growth curves of Figure 6-19 are applicable and has been reproduced as Figure C-5. The initial reference time is found by drawing a horizontal line 0.40 inches below the line representing the bottom of the weld, then dropping a vertical line to the x axis. The final reference time is found by drawing a vertical line where the crack growth curve intersects the bottom of the weld horizontal line. The service life is estimated to be approximately 2.5 years for the initial flaw to grow to the bottom of the attachment weld. The examples show that the most important figures used in evaluating the detected flaws in the head penetrations are Figures 6-2 through 6-10 for the axial surface flaws, and Figure 6-11 for circumferential flaws postulated near the top of the attachment weld. Figures 6-12 through 6-20 provide valuable information on the projected growth of through-wall flaws, but may be of limited practical application with the current acceptance criteria. However, there is an important safety aspect to the through-wall flaw evaluation charts in that they demonstrate that flaw propagation above the weld will be very limited. Appendix C March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

C-3 Table C-1 Example Problem Inputs: Initial Flaw Sizes and Locations Wall Vertical Circum. Penetration Length Depth Asp. Thick. Pen. Source No. Orientation Location Location Angle (2c) (a) a/t Ratio (t) No. Figure 1.2" 1 Suiace Below Uphill 28.60 0.195" 0.078" 0.125 2.5:1 0.625" 30 6-2 Surface Weld Axial - 1.2" 2 Outside Below Downhill 28.60 0.195" 0.078" 0.125 2.5:1 0.625" 30 6-10 Surface Weld 3 Axial - Inside At Weld Downhill 0.00 0.234" 0.047" 0.075 5:1 0.625" 1 6-5 Surface Axial - Inside 1.0" 4 Sure Below Downhill 28.60 0.394" 0.078" 0.125 5:1 0.625" 30 6-3, 6-5 Suxrfa 11Weld Axial 0.4"1 5 Axial Below Uphill 42.60 0.625" 69 6-19 Through-Wall Weld Appendix C 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

C-4 Ian Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) Location Axial af I Below Weld No (ID) Limit 09. 8 L U) U) 0 Locality Angles (Table I - ) 07 0 Nozzle l l6 No. Type IAngle I 30 CRDM 28.6 X a. U OA nI~ ~- TLFW ~Y Rbilt. bjo1e 4Mdag 4 O.O c. O d a Ufe i. I I 86cg .2.

2.

I. I I I. 2 .2.... 031 f Hi I 0 1 2 3 The (Ybw) 4 5 6 Figure C-1 Example Problem Appendix C 6109(copy).doc-40203 March 2003 Revision 0

C-5 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) Location Axial a J I Below Weld LNo (OD) Limit Locality Angles (Table 1-1) [ Nozzle No. ype I Angle 30 l CRDM l 28.6 U, C 0 C) 0 1.0 TLtiey idrt 0.9 Wkits38 0.8 T 0.7 6 dog 0 86 065 I dog 4...... I Afl~~~~~~~~~~~. 054 0.3-0.0 0 I 2 3 4 Tirm (Ye) Figure C-2 Example Problem 2 Appendix C 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

C-6 A Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) Location Axial At and Above 0 75 No Weld (ID t Limit Locality Angles (Table I -I) Nozzle No. pe Angle I CRDM 0.0 U) 0. Go 0 'a Q9 0.8 0.7 06 0.5 0.4 TurIwyftirt Ifts384 -.. S. A~~~~~~~~~f I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o i x e .~~~~~~**;.. -..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4,1.. deg~~~~~~e ~ Ufe Q3 L.2 0.1 GO 0 1 2 3 4 5 Turm(Y) Figure C-3 Example Problem 3 Appendix C 6 109(copy).doc-04020.1 March 2003 Revision 0

C-7 Acceptance Criteria (Procedure 11) Locality Angles (Table I - I) Nozzle No. Type I Angle 30 CRDM 28.6 in 0 0 a U3r 1.0 .1.. Q9 Lhits384 eie Q8 ~ ~ ~ .~cg... 0.8~~~~:00 Q7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (14~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 G3 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6t ag....... ~ ~~~~ L .1 A.. 0.0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tine(Yem) Figure C4a Example Problem 4 (See also Figure C-4b) Appendix C 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

C-8 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) Location Axial At Weld (ID) 0.75 LNmoit Locality Angles (Table 1-1) Nozzle No. ITpe Angle 30 CRDM 28.6 1.0 4... -,~~~. TwhIy Rurt Q9. 4Uft '.6 Q8 0.( 4... 4.~~~J A 4.. 0.6- -A .4

• 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i 0Q4 QO 0

1 2 3 4 5 Trre(Ym) Figure C-4b Example Problem 4 (See also Figure C-4a) Appendix C 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

C-9 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) I1. Location Axial Below Wel~d-Bottom (Iov D Weld Locality Angles (Table I - ) 69N CRDM An 42e I1. L L L L L I. I I I. I.L 4.i~L LL.4 I.i.I...I I i.I. 1 I.1.1.. 4. 4 4 ........ I 4 4. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4. liii itt illLiLLLLLLt LL L Lii L ii i i i i i i i i tIi i ii i iiiii i 1i I1 iIi lit t -~ I I-II. i. I- -.I I-I 1 -L I 1- -I.I -I -I I I I I..-* I.4..I I I 4 4444+4 4 44 4 444 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 I -I 14 -. 4 4 iii Li L tLti iiiiili Li L L i Li ! i i i i ii i ii ii i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii -r r rr r rr rrr-r r rr rr i-r rrf rrr r r r r r r I ITTTTTTTI TIT I - 1 1 1 17 1 1 1 .Lt L - -tL L-L-L L.t-L t-L- L-L-L- tL L L L L L L. L L & L L tL L I I I L tL I I I I I L t I A + 111 1 1 4 4 -t

• 1 1 1 1 1 J A 1

a 002 0 0 0 0. ZU a 1QW IQO 9.5 9.0 Il I 1 1111 rr 11 11,1r-ri tv ! t' I I r i t t I lt l I1 1 4 fr r r r Ir ir r -rrTr r t I I 'Tf77 4 7 1 T T I I 'I 7 i. ' 1 7 1 1 'I F i iF Ti V TT 7 T r irri 7Tr7 t fiTTTr7 I r.1.I I .I -I.I I .I Ir 4. r. *- r I-r- I-I r r I 14 I I I 7 T I I i - I I 'tI I I I I 'I I -i I t 4. L L .i L L L.LL4. 1 I II L I L I. 4. I L I.L I, I. I 1, L .1.4 4 1 I A .1 4 4 4 4.I.4 1.1 I A.

4.

1. asI ao 75 I I 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 4 I I I I I I I I I -f I 1 L L I I I L L I 1 L I JI L J J I I I I I L I J J I I 1 J.1I.1J J J J I J-1.1J -L L L L L L L.1......... I I I. r r v r t r r r r r T T r T T I T T 7 t T 7 T 7 T 7 I T 7 T I T 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1.L L L I

1.

1-L I I I I 1 4 1 1. I 1, 1,I j 1.I I j jI 1.I i I 7 T 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Fedodffea) Figure C-5 Example Problem 5 Appendix C 6! 09(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

D-l APPENDIX D WORKSHEETS Table D-1 Turkey Point Units 3&4 Head Penetration Nozzles with the Intersection Angles Identified 1 Nozzle Angle Nozzle No. Type Angle (Degrees) Nozzle No. Type Angle (Degrees) Nozzle No. Type Angle (Degrees) I CRDM 0.0 2 CRDM 8.7 3 CRDM 8.7 4 CRDM 8.7 5 CRDM 8.7 6 CRDM 12.4 7 CRDM 12.4 8 CRDM 12.4 9 CRDM 12.4 10 CRDM 17.6 11 CRDM 17.6 12 CRDM 17.6 13 CRDM 17.6 14 CRDM 19.8 15 CRDM 19.8 16 CRDM 19.8 17 CRDM 19.8 18 CRDM 19.8 19 CRDM 19.8 20 CRDM 19.8 21 CRDM 19.8 23 CRDM 25.4 24 CRDM 25.4 25 CRDM 25.4 26 CRDM 27.0 27 CRDM 27.0 28 CRDM 27.0 29 CRDM 27.0 30 CRDM 28.6 31 CRDM 28.6 32 CRDM 28.6 33 CRDM 28.6 34 CRDM 28.6 35 CRDM 28.6 36 CRDM 28.6 37 CRDM 28.6 38 CRDM 33.1 39 CRDM 33.1 40 CRDM 33.1 41 CRDM 33.1 42 CRDM 33.1 43 CRDM 33.1 45 CRDM 33.1 46 CRDM 37.3 47 CRDM 37.3 48 CRDM 37.3 49 CRDM 37.3 51 CRDM 38.6 53 CRDM 38.6 55 CRDM 38.6 57 CRDM 38.6 58 CRDM 40.0 59 CRDM 40.0 60 CRDM 40.0 61 CRDM 40.0 62 CRDM 42.6 63 CRDM 42.6 64 CRDM 42.6 65 CRDM 42.6 66 CRDM 42.6 67 CRDM 42.6 68 CRDM 42.6 69 CRDM 42.6 22 1 CRDM 25.4 44 I CRDM I 33.1 Table D-2 Summary of R.V. Head Penetration Flaw Acceptance Criteria (Limits for Future Growth) Axial Circumferential Location ar l a, [ Below Weld (ID) t no limit t .75 circ. At and Above Weld (ID) 0.75 t no limit Below Weld (OD) t no limit t .75 circ. Above Weld (OD) Note: Surface flaws of any size in the attachment weld are not acceptable.

• Requires case-by-case evaluation and discussion with regulatory authority.

af = Flaw Depth 1 = Flaw Length t = NVall Thickness Appendix D 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

D-2 Crack Tip Circun. Length Depth Penetration Asp. Wall Orientation Location (d) Location Pen No. (2c) (a) Anglc a/t Ratio Thick. (t) Axial - Inside Below Uhl Surface" Weld Uphill 1.0 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) QL9 Y. /I Location Axial 4 Locatio uifas I Q8 z.eA~e ;///' ;. -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Locality Angles (Table I-I) Nozzle 6c-2 No. Type Angle ,x, Q6 /. L...

a.

-eA3 _ _ ' Q ,..,.,...gX 7 - jX r-T i r -Q4~~~~~~ ,4. .'~'D:'1-'I /- j 1t j l _ _ ' ) Q3 wQ, R / \\ 1$-. LL.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 0.4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. b

d

• s

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

---

- --- - - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,.

S.. QL2 = _ QO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O 1 2 3 4 5 6 FigureDT 1 InidQOi ura6Fas,5BeoimeYth6 Figure D.1 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

D-3 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) [ Location ar Axial Locality Angles (Table I-1) Nozzle No. Type I Angle 1.0 I 2~~~~~I 7I Tit3 4 09.7Ai I Q8 ~Q4 6....... 0.2 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a4 2I GO~~~~~~~~1c 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tirne(Ye) 7 8 9 10 Figure D-2 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

D-4 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1 ) Location l Axial l ar Locality Angles (Table 1-1) Nozzle No. ITpe Angle In o Q7. C Ci G6 X 'O04 0 1 2 3 4 5 Trnu(Ym) Figure D-3 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

D-5 I I I I Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) '-1 Location Axial .r lI Locality Angles (Table 1-1) Nozzle No. Type Angle Q9 Q8 j Co C .) Q6-

• a QS-0 0

Q3. Q2 Q - I i flnkEyF~irt ~.. -I~~~~~~~~~Nofk

• ~~~~~~~

4~~~~~~~~O cm IIH) I 0 1 2 3 4 5 Figure D-4 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

D-6 Crack Tip Circum. Length Depth Penetration Asp. Wall Orientation Location (d) Location Pen No. (2c) (a) Angle a/t Ratio Thick. (t) Axial - Inside UphAibll Surface Weld Uhl 1.0 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1 ) Location Axial Locality Angles (Table -1) Nozzle No. Type Angle Q9 Q8 £0 Vi) 0 U I-- 00 Mc Q7 Q6j Q5 Q4 I UitsW& I 2 4a6E ac-'- r -r -i Muieftjm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4'.6 ag. Q3 Q2 Q1 Q0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tim(Ye) Figure D-5 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Above the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

D-7 1.c Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) [ Location l Axial ar I 1~ Locality Angles (Table I -I) Nozzle No. Type Angle QE (A C 0 C. 0 .Q4 .4 426c hg&c13 ft ft ~~~~ Q2 a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 TFSe(Yr) Figure D-6 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5' Above the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

D-8 Crack Tip Circum. Length Depth Penetration Asp. Wall Orientation Location (d) Location Pen No. (2c) (a) Angle a/t Ratio Thick. (t) Axial - Inside At Weld Uphill / Head Surface Downhill Vent 1.0 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) 1)iy Axial i Q9a Location ar ~~~Q8-4 I. Locality Angles (Table -I) X Nozzle o ~ /: C=_. No. ype Angle F 6 / Nozzle Angle . I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (U .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. Q3 - i...... i......... so~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ l ~ / 2c ~~~~QQ QO Q5 1.0 1.5 FgrD-(Yew) Figure D-7 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Head Vent, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

D-9 Crack Tip Circum. Length Depth Penetration Asp. Wall Orientation Location (d) Location Pen No. (2c) (a) Angle a/t Ratio Thick. (t) Axial - Outside " Below Uphill Surface - Weld 1.0 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) Location Axial ar I I .I Locality Angles (Table 1-I) Nozzle No. Type IAngle I Q9 Q8 -2; Q7 (0 0 C .0 CL ~: Q4 (U Q3 2 ~~~~~4L~t. 38L6 dog~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2EWe 1. .j.2 -~~~~~~~~Z6do Q2 Q1 fi. 0 1 2 3 4 Tire (Yeer) Figure D-8 Outside, Axial Surface Flaws, Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

D-10 Crack Tip Circum. Length Depth Penetration Asp. Wall Orientation Location (d) Location Pen No. (2c (a) Angle a/t Ratio Thick. (t) Axial - Outside ' Below Surface Weld I fl Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) Location Axial Locality Angles (Table 1-1) Nozzle No. Type Ange k~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Q9. Q8 FA .X 'a 0 U Q7 Q6 Q5 Q4. Q3 .tzen Q2 Q1 nn. 0 1 2 3 4 Trwn(YmS) Figure D-9 Outside, Axial Surface Flaws, Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 6109(copy).doc.040203 March 2003 Revision 0

D-11I 1.0 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1 ) Location Axial I Locality Angles (Table 1-1) Nozzle No. Type Angle 0.9 0.8 I,, 0.7 0e 0 s 0.6 0.5 0ca -3 0.4 -a 0.3 Turey Point

a Wts W 4Z6,g.".

-I S ~ ~- .I- - I .8 I I I~~~~~~~ 2&6t~~~~~~~~~~~~g -s-- -i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~1 --- I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J - - - 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 nt (Yec Figure D-10 Outside, Circumferential Surface Flaws, Along the Top of the Attachment Weld -Crack Growth Predictions (MRP Factor of 2.0 Included) March 2003 Appendix D 61 09(copy).doc.033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

D-12 Crack Tip Circumn. Length Depth Penetration Asp. Wall Orientation Location d Location Pen No. (2c (a) Angle a/t Ratio Thick. t Axial - Through Below Uphill / 0.0 Wall Weld Downhill- . 1. . I... Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) Location atAxial Locality Angles (Table -1) No. Type IAngle Nozzle ~ ~ I-7.5 7.0 to 6.5 0 0 0 Oc 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 ari,, araaaa l ll lla alalar lgl 11j1 il i il L L L 1 11 111 II a r r I.. I Itilt I a * -i s-i,,,*,--s-i-i-a--i a--a-a-i-r-i--r-a-r-l-l-aa-- -ir ra-rrrrrrrrr rr rIIrrirrr ttt T L~ LL LI. I LI. 111.11. -LI11 j44IJ.J.J.J.J J.J.. I.ai1la LL L L LL L L a L +/- 1~ r rr rr a-i r r T T T7i 7I I 11111 *1l1 1raa aaaaa l* l~~l.,-.,.+t*-a4-a4-a-a-I ~.4-a....4---aa--aI

---

a a------

..- + a-...*- LII rrrr~~a*~~ IL IiA!!JIJJ IJ illJ Il l l lI II1'1111I I -rrr r rrIr rI IT.ITIIIT 1 I1111 rrr rrrr r Ir T77 T I L L L LLL L La

a. i L

liaaiiI4jij.JJJ!..rj4.I.- A I_ .L L LL LLIL .1L. i i+/- a I TI a r I I I a a a ~~ i~a1 a i~r~a a,,11aaaaaairaai3/4 aI a a~f FUIa I F I I 1I aI IITT 11 I~ri~rrrL~liaJli~JJ~jaIIaia Ilirllila,'~. a.-.,...La.L Irrr-I ITT.L.II. a L aL, L I I L1.4A 4 4 a.4.. 1.,..J1 L U~a L a LLL LL

a. L-

.L 1.1,1 I I a. a IL .5 I a I aI a4 4 4 .~j '11'rLaIi? LLILLL L'L III. [L I IA. I I a 1:-v T~~~ r I III1V.aa a gaa r .rr rT-rIT I a-

• ali-.,lt I ~ +

I 4 - -4 *tA I-.--A --4 -- - -1 a +i---IIlt-- .~~.l.IL -i-II .IIr-4 t

• iSR T

l I I I I 1 1 I il iiII I T I RCM N IeI I-II~f fI 'II r r11 I T III T I r r T T I it tI It'I III? 1"~iI fl1 -riItlr-I- -r rrrrrrr rrrII rrITT It TT 3.-u .31.1.53 & Ia-fl LI 1.4A4J4 444J444d444.I-: I ~ i I1-L-.I.LLLo, LL L a-L&L& 1 ALS4 4 I I aria I a J aI a I Il a ria Il~ I~ L L L L-~ .1. L 111I11I1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Peilod (Year) 12 13 14 15 Figure D-11 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the Center CRDM (0.0Degrees) Penetration, Uphill and Downhill Side -Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 6109(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

D-13 dtnn Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1 ) Location Axial Locality Angles (Table 1-I) Nozzle No. .Type Angle . L L L 1. L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L; L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L-- L -rrrcrrrrrcrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~rrr rrrrrrrrrr LLL L LL!!L!!!!!!:-L L.L!!!!LL !!LLLLLL!LLL LLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL!L I I I.. I I I f I I. I I I I I I I I I I I l rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r . L LL L L LL LL L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L 9 0 L L L L .L L L L L L L L LL L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L I- { L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L .~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i......... I I I I s I I I I I I I I I I I I. S m 0w as 0m 0z 80 E0 0 U D C 7. _3 r,' ',i.,'.,', 'L L t L L L L L L L L L L t L L L L L L.L . !L! L L L L L L L L!L L L L L L

1. L L. L L L 1.

L L L t. '/ Lt. 1. i.'L. L LL L L L. L L L L L L L L L L L L LLL g g I 0 w 1 t *

• r r

r r r r i I I I i r I r: r r-r f r r-r r r r r t r r r r r I I iL. L. .!1.t. I L LI LI 5111 I L

1. 1..LL I I 1

1.LL

1. 1.Li j 1. 1.1 I I L1 I 1:

1. 1.I 1: L.

1. L IL I g:

i, g. I rII I I'fIl-I I I I rr1 I r-Ir rg: r r r: I r rr r r r r rr -(~~~~~W~~~~oii Ie l~gibi il ii l l Il ii r -C I f r S o i r r r r r . r r.* I. I * - L L L LA I 1 1 I H. I,: g,,., g~i g l~ g li,, g i gi, .,g~ ,,,,~i i g, I I. I I. I. i.I. I..I.C. I ,,;r~ ~~~~. g i.ri 'i g,.-;.rrgg-grrrggggrfr .frf~fi~ff-riif~i-Fii.-T l~, ii ,,,g, H W-lii l i ,ll....!..~~~~. g.. $ I I~ I g 'l

r.

I I II I r r r r-r S. ' l I.

1.

I 1 air . *f g; I T I t I t I I I t 11I 1 ,g. --. ! g . I. " '

• g' I g.I

'. ' I g ' I L: I I I I I II I

• I r

-r ...1. 1 . 1 I C I g g I & g I I 1. 11 I L

1. 1. 1. L L I L L L. 1 I.

I. U... I I L 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I L I L L I I I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~g. g. -g..

g.

-g.. - - Ii. .g-g I g g I . g 1-1-g I g. g g . g I

• 1
• .II* I gI

g. g. i.

I. I -1 * ! e I I I I i g g -rIr g 1i 1l I I V I I g-1 .7 i I I I I I I i I. I I I I I* I I I I I I I-I gul'lllll. 'gggigglfg 1ogLgiggl~tIgig5tIgg gILLiggIggtggilILLLLLLLLLILLLS -i r i r r r r r-r rr-rrrrr r r r rrr t r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r frrrr r I gI g II ' ig gig gIg Ig L gig I IgI I 1. 1 1 1 L.

1. 1. 1. 1 1.

ig g I. L g g L I .L g.I Li gi L I L L L L L 7.0 6.5 6.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Priod (Y7 Figure D-12 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 28.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 61 09(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

D-14 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) Location Axial ] Ii Locality Angles (Table -I) No. Type IAngle Nozzle ]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7.5 7.0 E0 0 6 0 0 0 0 50 4.0-l I I I J .ll ilAlJlii Ifl.I -1Ig .I . I-gi I i -I..11g . L iLiLi LL L g Li L I L r l~~ I i Ir 27 I 1-IF 1 1 1 1 1 l- ,1 g* 1.1 i i II - c lr : r r Ir r r r r r r r IT rI-S. I i II I i~l* I Ii S I I 41 4 I 4 i iI 4

• i.

i4 -i i Ii~iii I I I I I.I ... lI I I i . I I I I I I I ili i i I I It Ii. i i u ii i i g g t l

• .,I~g.Ilgg ililgg~ggg ig-i i-i-i

-i 4-i I i -i-i--- -I-- -i i ~~~- - i ii ~- I - -I --- iiiii LiiL IkIi I ll gi ll Ig ii g gi i l gg li ill ii gil Li gLL LLLL I gr l.. l l i ii li i i il l ii ii. g i i i i I i ILI t Ilt.,.,. I I I* I I Ili ii-iiI I --1-iiI-Jii I I I I I rI r ILLLP I rILLI I I I t I-I r III1 I tt t it I~t T I t, , IItI il-t--g-Iii---lil---I-liii r r-Orr r r r r Pr r rt P r' r L L L L L L I I L III I i i l l IiIi ~~* i ~ ~ i LL L L LLIL I Ii 1 1.i~~~~~~~~ rr r ir r L ull.r rr L L L .LLLILAIAAAAAIA. 1 .L L LL L L LL~ L LL LL 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 Paiod (i') Figure D-13 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 28.6 Degree Row ofi-Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 6 109(copy).doc.033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

D-15 Crack Tip Circum. Length Depth Penetration Asp. Wall Orientation Location (d) Location Pen No. (2c) (a) Angle a/t Ratio Thick. (t) Axial - Through " Below Uphill 3 8.6 wall Weld Uhl 86 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) Location a Axial L II Locality Angles (Table I - ) Nozzle IAg No. I Type Angle 11.0 1Q5 0 0m 9.5 0 z E 9.0 0 0 U 7.5 7.0 .L L L L L L L L 1. L. L .L LL L I L I I I I I. 1I I.11

11. I I I I

J1 J I J J J J J J J J 1 .1_1 1__1_1_11_1_1__1_1_1 11111111 11111111 111 4111 1 1 4 444444411 i44444 44444 4 444 4444 44 44411 r P I r i rr r r rr r r r r T Tr T r T T 1 1 11 11 1 11 411 n 1 i1 iI 4i I I4I44i4 L.. I.. I. L I. IL L L LL L 1. I L I I I I J J J J -.

• J J -I 4

J -. J - I4 .I.-i-l-i.I-i..4. rrrrrrI I I I I r I1 11 II I I I I 4 I i r r r.r r. .rr r.? T .r

l.

r 7.i l. ' 1.' i.l '1. .i 1,.Y rr - r r r r 4 r r r r r r I I r t I I r r T 7 T 7 7*7 1 7 14*4 44 44 444'I.4 4 4 4 I.. 4- 'l-n -I L - L L.L LA I L s L .L L...L iz 1.1.z l. I..! L ii J J 1 1 I I IJ J J J X J _ J.J 4 J J i J _l z _l _l _ I l _. I...4 4 4 4 4.4 1 1~l I I I I I I I I I L I 1 4 4 4 44 4 A I 4I A 4 A J 1 1 1 1 I I -rir I.-. 414 4-r i T I I 14 411 Ti? 1-11 ll111 1 , nnI-,n-,-, n t I L rI L L I Lr I I. I L. +/- r r1 1 4.4. 4 4. 4 4 2 4 J 4 J 4.......i . 4.l.l.. I I I....I. 444444' _ I I i 4 4 I

• . v i

4 I l;; z i i is J. i4 II.I4 I l4 4 4 4 4 4i 4 4I l4 lI J 4 4 4 4 J 41 Fri,, rr I r T. T T T T r r v ~ rr v 7 vi v 1 1 ? i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? 1 1 1 1 i -i, ,z -'~ ' ' l I 4I'--' i I 4 II~ ~ ' i I~ ~ F. - *- *. *- *- I ..1 4.1. I . I L I Li + + + 4. II.1 1 44 _ 4 4

• 4. 4 1 4 4.1 1.

i1 1.i.4* 1I_ .Il._1 _ _ _1 _ _1 I _ I _ I_ I _ I I I. I_ e L L L rr L L rrr 1TrrrrI 1 1 yr I t t1 11 j'11i' JlJ il-t L.L.

1.

I L. L.

1. LItLS L L

.I 1 I I A A J 1 - 4.1 1 JAJ 4 J. J lJI , I JII.l 4 I III 1 4 4I4IIIII I I4I4IIIII I I J I 4 14,,,,I,,,,,1,I r r r r r r 4 t 1 4.4.1777.71 11 1 1 1 1 -1

• 1

-I-4-T1-4 1 I.-....1.. l7.I.-l .l 4.. 4. I... I. & 4..I.4 4. 4 -4 4 4.1 4

• 4 <.

1. 4 -I.I 4 4J4 J 4 4 4 A 4 4...J. I I 4 4 4 1 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 4 I I 4 - I 4 1.1 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g l i 1

1.

L. I 1 :+/- 1*.1. .!1 A 2 4 1 I 4 I L I I L' I JI I I 1

4. I I

I J I A I J.1 J -J -144141 4. I I I I I ! I I 4 4 I I I I I 1: ! I.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I.! I I I *. I I I I I I *

• I I I I I I 'I

1. 1 1 I 1.

r r :i '1r r r i r T 7F I I T 7 T 7 -I -7 "I 'I^175-n5 I)111 -I -il' 1 1--1 1 4..1 4 I 4.4 4.4 4 -..* 4 4 4. 4.4 -t i -i 4, I t, 4 4 4 4 4 I 4 1 1-64 4 4. 4 4 -4 4 - I I -I 4 4 - -i I 4II L l L L. L L L l L L 4 I .L 1 L I 1 1 1 1 I 1. 1 '1 1 J lJ .1 _.Jl. -jJ .JjJl_1. 1 .1 4..I4.4 .l_ Il. ,,~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ t D e~daltslltls f + t t ri r-rr rrr..r r.-r 4.1 .7 l1-/in n -iniiii§l-n----nl,tlgllga 1L L L L L LL L Li L. I 14 114 44 44 4 I I L4 4 4 11 J J1JI.J.4.I J441 J 4 I ..1. .4- -_1_ 1 11 1 -_I_ 1. l.L L L L I. IL L L I L I LI LI1I 1 4 41 4 i IJ1

1i4r, I

I I I

4.

J J J ** . J1 JJ 1J 1 J 1 ..I.4...1 1 1 41' rr r r r r l -ri-rr rr ii rrT T TI I777I II71II 111 i7111 1-n-n,,,,1----,,,,,,----- I. I I .I

• 4 4 4 1 41 41 1 41 4-LI.

4-4.4. I LI I I I I I 4 4A A 1 1

• 1.J 1

4..1J -J J -J 4 1r F I 4 F r*Ft r I ' T t 't4 t4 1 't t -4 1 1 4-4 I'1 4--- - 1 1 ' - - 1 1 1 1 r-F L I L I. L I Z 14 L I I J 4 AI-tt++t+*+tt*4 4 t 4-1- 1, -- -t -t-- -- IttI---- i I I I~~~~~~~~~~~~:. 1: 1 1111!II'IIiIIIIII 1 / 1 1 11s 11111. I '---

• I IIiI8IIII*2 I I t I * -r -r.,~~~~7 tts1~*1'*2^-

..... *. e-f- *- t-t-I 4444rrr4444rrr444 rrrr4 1rT 4441*414444444 n1n nnn nnnn nnn 118 11~~14 44 4111141444414444II14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Pdod (Yea Figure D-14 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 38.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 61 09(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

D-16 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) Location Axial Locality Angles (Table -I) INozzle No. Type IAngle I Cr rrIr r r I IiI III I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. .I.IIIIIiIII II I I I I I IrI, 11 1 ' gill ,, 111 11 iI 111I111r1r1r11r1 rI r .1 r1111 .LL -LL L L L L L iA.4 A1. A A +/-I4J 4.1 J AJ JJ..'JJJ I IIIII I I I I L I L-L L LL _LL L LL L L L 6.5 ~~rr Li. LLLLLLL ~I. 1.1..

l. I.

44 4 j J 4 4 4 1111.1.l..........~.i.I ..LLL LLLL LLLLL J.LI Ill 11111 Ill~~~~~IlillI JJiJl 1111 l JilIlll~lIll~lI 111111111 E0 0 0 Z 6.0 E 0 U) .50 4.0 11 L & I I I & I i I U S I 4 54 54 2

2.

4.. 4L..~~..I. -I LS 4SL. L. 4 I T V .iI I I L...ImI II:g I r rl~ II it~ I it I 9t'IIIII II!; 'II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I I, I I I. S,.ii,; I I~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ii I, I I I~~. -I -I 9.

• II,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~

I.I. II I II. I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Fbiod (er Figure D-15 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 38.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 6 109(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

D. 17 Crack Tip Circum. Length Depth Penetration Asp. wall Orientation Location d Location Pen No. (2c (a) Angle alt Ratio Thick. t Axial - Through " Below Uhl 00 Wall Weld Uhl 00 11.0 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-I1) Location arAxial Locality Angles (Table I - ) Nozzle1 No. Type IAngle I 10.5 .0-0 a, N 9.5 0z E0 94: U0 9.0 C as 8.0 7.5 It IqI-I-t !_L L L ! !.I ! I ! - ! I ! i ! ! I.. !2 I! i I !j I 2 I.1 ! j j 1 _I I I I... I. I I I. I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I 4 1 .1 A r I r I'f I T T I I T I I I I I I I I I I I 'II 'I I II'I I. I I I I. I. I I I j j2j 2 - - - -- - - - - - - - I-I I I I I I I I.... t I I t 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 -I.1.4 II-II .1.1 -1 -t-r f r r r I r t I I I T I i I t I t i v i i v i i i I I I r r r r r r r 4 -I 4 14-I 1 - 4-I 1 -1 I I I I I. I I I. I. I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t r I f I I t I T I I I I I I I I I -1 I I I I I I I--. I, I-1 I -I r Ir rr r r r I, j j j j j j j I-I 4 4 4 -I 44-I 44.1-1 I .1.1' .4 4'4'.' I. ii. F.mg-hgf I I I Il I.

2.

+/-~~4 4 4 IA..1.1. 4 -.j.. 4 K4.4 I I 1 4 1 4 I1 .4.I. I 6,I I+/- T TI TrTT77T ~ 1 1 1, II-1 1 -g -1 1l1 I I I

li4i-I!-

I-'-- I r 4 r (!r

• . II.

t4. 4 4 4I 4 4.4.4 .i I 4.2 I 4 J J J j '4l4-:.-41IlI. 4411l 9 4 g414 44g4 4 4.4444 .liliI.,I~l~i149. r - r 4 1 1 1 C 5IeT T dF av 1 11 1 V4 11 -lgg[7l-.l1l474r Vr i I I I I I I I. 1 1 4I

44.

.444 I I..4 4 g 4 9 i II . 4 44 1 gl 414 44 4 II I 9 4 I 44 4 9 I 41 49 4 94.9 99 4 4 9 4 99 4-49 4 j I 4 4

1.

4 i 4 1 _1_4 1.94 I Im k4 44 44LI rr4r r V'T r r t it r I44 'If 4 11 I1 Il 11 4I: I 44 41. f I4 I4r L.ILL L.4.. LI 4.I L IIiII! III1+/-1. 1jj1.Ij .1 I.9 I g 9 4 4 4 1 IV4 4 4 4

9. '

I~ I 4 4. 9 .7. 4 9 9949 4 4414414444444.44.94444944111~~44 11 - 4 4444 9-..4144444 - -i-4 4g 449.1.441 444994 44i 4 'i V r iii t 11 1 1 141 1~I ~I 1' I I I '~ I a f I I 1t Il 1 4 4 I44

4.

I 41. 4..4 it, Ii!) It1 11.111. 1J..JJ.J.4..l..4.I................4..4.l....I.L4.L. 941. LL41 L1 L 1L II I IJ 44I 4IIII .44494499494l_)og14 1 4g l 1 i 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 'irr rr rr rr rr r T T T TT T TT T L LL LL L LLL L L LL 11 ill 1 1 Ii g 1 14I 4 III I I41I49 I9I4 I I.ILILIL I I I..L JiJ.1 1 L3" 11 1i 11 11 V 4 44ingg 41 199 gg g4

7 41J J JJ J JJJ JJJJ..

J4.....9..4..444.4 44 9-44.Ig-g4.....L I-L LI 11 44 4g 41-9 4 1-I I 1 1 1 - 1 491 g I-g 1114 g. I 14 14I 44419 4 2 g g 2 2e 4 14 4 4 g 9,j ggg ,i!4 g1 I I III II I1 4 44 4I 44I4g 144444_1_ 44141,g-, L g- -gIgg I LrIL IJJI I I II I II IJII I II I II I II I II I II I II X 4 I II I II II... .g....4. L 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Period (ea) Figure D-16 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 40.0 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 6 109(copy).doc.033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

D-18 Crack Tip Circum. Length Depth Penetration Asp. Wall Orientation Location (d) Location Pen No. (2c) (a) Angle a/t Ratio Thick. (t) Axial - Through Below Downhill 40.00 W all W eld ao Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-I1) Location Axial Locality Angles (Table 1-1) No.zl Type Angle 7.5 7.0 .S E 0 60 E 0 .LA o 5 45 40 LI L I.LL I.£ 1 I I I 1J 4I1.1A.IJ.I.IJ..iIii...1i.LI.L. LLLI L L LI I. L. L 1 I I 11.4JJJJJ.IJ.jI..i... I r F1 rr rg rr i i li i11 ii ii ii h i*r ri 1 r-r I F1 Trill 1 1 1 11 ii 111 1 11 LL & LII_ I IIJ1 414 4III1.I.I.II..iI.t.IL.L. L LLL_.14.. .11.1.4 .444..i.I.,..~.I I r r r r r fri T ril 1111 1 11'II I I ii I Ir:"r r r1 r1 g r r, r 1I1 1 1 11 1 11 11 12 -I -I -I-Ii-Ii-i-I -. .4.1.4.4.4.1.1.1,1144 4444444444.44 I..9...I4...I...l...I...I.9.I...I...I..LLLLLLLL1.1.&t1.1 I 444.14444444.14.44..i.9..I.~~~~~LA. L 4 4 A 44 I I I I I I I I I I 9 I I I I I I I I 9 I I I I I I I I I I I 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 .LLLLLLLLJ.II!1.1.+/-11JJ2 I' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~il Ii iii ii '..I.II..I.'I.II.II.IILI.L. LL LI 1111 4 11111111 I_11 r11 1 rI r11 11 1 1 1 11 11 1 11 11 11 1 11 1 LLLLLLL Lu 11 1444441J444JJ1I1.ii..li..i...i.L~~~~~~~~~~i...i..LLLLLLLLLLLLLI 1141 44J44JJLJL4LJLi1I111 1 1. Ii.. I.9 I I9 I. I I i I9 i I1 1 1 i 1 1 I i i 11 1 1 I I I 1 1 r-r-r r r r ii Ti ii lI I19 r -L,,i r1 riIrr rrrI rrrI T TT t1 il 1 1 i* 9i 11191111 9999,999 99999999999999 ill~~~~~~~~~~~ll

liii, 111119111 ii 11.1

-iLiL 999999 il4l 1111993 J1 A - I I I r V 7 F T I ~~~~~~~9 II 9r I T I .1 7 1 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I9 99 I99I I I I I i 9 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I Ij199 I

9.

9.

i,

9. 9 9. 9..

i9 9 I.9.4. 4. 11 4 '-I-9I9IIIi---91-I9 9-99-9-9 -;+ 99.4T -9 7 11.9 9-,Ii II 99999119 ~~~~~~~~~~~j~~~.4i~~~~i~~~iI~~~i~~i9.ii99I9Iii9 9 9L9 £99.1. 4 4 4 4 1.9. i 1 :4144 .;J.I9.9.1

i.

9.

i L L L I L11 114.44 J JI -. 9jJJ..11.99.l I-I 9 9 99 9,I, 4144444441.42 .9999I1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LI.LLL~~~L LL L. L L L L I 1111I 444 444.1I1.9I9 9. It I9.1 1.1 I 444.1.A 144 199.99991I.99.i.L L.L1. L. I. L.1. I I II IIA1J.J.4 4.-i4-.i.9i.ji 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ftiod (Year) 13 14 15 Figure D-17 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 40.0 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 61 09(copy).dac.033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

D-19 11.5 Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) Axial Location -a Locality Angles (Table I-I) No.~ Type IAngle I 11.0 . 15 E 0 0

• 100 0z 0U E

a AG 9.0 B .L LL.LLL L LL L L L1IL1II1AI1A.1A141I4.1 4.144444j.l.l..AJlA.l....i.l.....4 JJJ-.JA JL..L.L LL LL L LLLLI-L ............... I 7 1 1i i g I I I I I I I I I I I I~~~- , ~~~ I .I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I III r r r*..r I....1 'lll* .*I*,*,. -.- *-~~~~~~~~~~~,-, CI~~~~I~~.~I~~i*. ~ rrr rr r r U FLIT:..

• 1,

~ ~ ~ ~ j 2j j 2 -- rrr rrr I 4 4 4 4 4 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .I 1.1

1.

L 1~1I 7 F I I I i F F' I I I I I - I I -I l C l i -l l V i ii Fr r 'Ir I I I I I I i i 1 I I 1 1 1~~~~i 1 *, -, I .i~~~g' -r-~ c c r r I r r I l I I I I11 11I I I I I I I I I I I,. I I II I.. rl.li.Il '.l i.I.I L , LL L I I I f J I IJ II 1111 1 111J-11'LI11 L11 L1 L I 85 8a0 7.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Figure D-18 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 42.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 61 09(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

D-20 Crack Tip Circum. Length Depth Penetration Asp. Wall Orientation Location d) Location Pen No. (2c) (a) Angle alt Ratio Thick. (t) Axial -Througi " Below Downhill 42.60 Wall Weld Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) [ Location Axial 1 Locality Angles (Table 1-1) Nozzle No. pe Angle I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c E0 0 0 z E 0 0 a LLULL~LLILIiJI1I]iJJiJJJJJJgJlgllt...l...g...gII_._.lLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL+/-+/-.A.1JJJJJJJJJJ!. -rrr rr r r ar TT rI 1111,--a aia-a-rl-l-ll-rrrrrrr r r r a T T T T5155 5-& it limit 8l81111l1 lililllili11111 liii11111l1 iii 111111 aligliit iii iii li r I t 1 I 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 1 I I IIII III I I I I I I I I I a I I I I a I I I I I I I a I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 11 I I 75 LL L L L a I.1 U L I A AI44JJ44J4 4 J JJ J J J J _ L L.L Lg..g...a. UL.LLLL Lt ttt4tIISS4JJ JJ44.JJ-I rr I I I I I I I I I I Im a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I a I I I rr r r rI I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I. I 4.** 4 4 44i 4-l-l--l.-l-l-i-l--t-i -l..l-a-l-l-l-4444 44444 -1 4 -g-7.0 *:-r~, a,,, algal li TTT7 -I a f I -r 1 1 1 r1 1 1ITTT7 'liI I i I FF.~rU4 L,+,

• *4444g-g-t~q~q-ig-g-g-t-g-g-g-l-l-4 4

4 4 44 41-I.4 4 -- l.-- gall, agl,,,,gl t,,,,, l-iii,,

algal, l

t g g L. L L L Ll,,,, .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J L JJ J J L L '_ 8_______________@ _' L L L L L L L L ! ! J J J '{ J J j 65 -r'rr F*ra + a t a.,. -a,-a-------l----l-l-----l-l-g-rr r rrrr t-,. -a.* Stqq'ttttl ra ,*.-I l~~: II l~a1 I 'a 1-a, mi ~ a-r-rm-a-a-a-a-a III II T I I II III I I .LrLLLL L! L L it, a lt '-la-a g-a-t-,-a-g-t'g-,_.'r!rr L LLL L!!! lII I J ' J t

1. a i ai a a _.._.

,,,J 11111.1 .la I I

41.

I t i I I a l @ ! l l l l l ga l l l ll gglgllglagtgltlgl l s j l l l l l l e t g gt I I I. I I I I. I I I. r, rmaa~~aa:-;t' a a a -~~ a ~

• a-a' a,~t~m-i'm~a-,-aa rrarrrrr I rr r a 117 TI Ill 711'a I

11 1 I 6 In0 L I. L .1 1.. !-If. iIl.la.L-t.LL-L-L LaLA.L:I.J.U1LU i .JJJJJl. V Ir a I I t T I II I g1 m r r a r a I ' m a a I I I I a g T I I a t a 1 a t a a a IF I I I I i a-Ia r I-r r r r I 7r 'T 'I I a a 1 .-l 'a L I. I L tF t I.. I. I I I. O Wljj a J J-s ;II! I ...I4e_..___ "__.. I I. L. L L L L L I. -L L L 1 I A. l , I J J.J JJ J l r5 ! I I ' I*I i 'I 1 A -1 l ii N'l' I-l--lll---ll r r rr rr l rlT r l a an l n b-Li II I I I I I I, I A._l J 'I I .L.m.. I. IL .I ,L . L LL L U. I. I-. U AAIU AJUi 1i. JJJJ 55 r n .1 a: a,,,,- a:lr---^lllnll+ cr-u-lX-awrrTr-'rrTra,'i1la1gat,'mm 1.1.1. ~ tii.~lllit.. gaa_..l...malI...g..1.1..' l.LI.g.LLUsL.L -JL..,$4l.J4.l.J.Jd4QJ tam,. a.: at ag (i~~~~~~~~~~1 L'L IIIIII.., a.. I U. a -a a-la-a ! I-. .l-ll--g-. /I-U.. I -almaiiI44 Ii I I... J4.I.II @llI.I,,!;,-l, 1l,l,.s.,..,.T.l_.*.z_1_. -g., Il,,1ir rl r 1 ! aI I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..,. L :... L., :.,,. z I.. I..& J._. J l..' _'_l _,..,.. I..._._.I., ' S.. I. L L.IL I. *T-L

• __
• 1 I*

.' J -I4.84. J 4J J 5 a. I-I.' I-i-, -I I I FaI-'aaa-- -,l1-'.'.I I I

a.

a a I I I I I .z!.ii. *-,--. .] l 1: ! !.. ! l ' Wl '/ l I j' l i !- I !' ; i j ; ; ! i i i 7 l ] I i A I I I -I 50lt 1.:.;: . :~lt g.l a tilt lla l., ' fi L J; i 2 L L L L1, e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I I. I 1: I I i I I I I. I,.: I I I I I I i I I I I I I / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ii ii.ii ; .,l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ An ,,,,,.,,,,alg,,,aga, _,ilig li,,,, .lit ali,,,..... r -AAt _ I-l- l- ~l l-1 -* F -*f*+++t++tt+* 4* l_ Rev 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 F1od(Y* Figure D-19 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 42.6 Degree Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions Appendix D 61 09(copy).doc-033 103 March 2003 Revision 0

D-21 I" Acceptance Criteria (Table 6-1) Location Axial ar Locality Angles (Table I -I) Nozzle No. TVe Angle 150 Is 0 a 4120 0 C 0 0 E U -a g .,..Na. 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Period (YeAr) Figure D-20 Through-Wall Circumferential Flaws Near the Top of the Attachment Weld for CRDM Nozzles - Crack Growth Predictions (MRP Factor of 2.0 Included Appendix D 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-1 APPENDIX E RAI RESPONSES TO RELAXATION FROM ORDER EA-03-009 This appendix contains the Request for Additional Information (RAI) and responses pertaining to Relaxation from Order EA-03-009 for Turkey Point Unit 3 (Docket No. 50-250) documented in letter FPL-03-37, which was electronically approved (see cover letter) [12]. Appendix E 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-2 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELAXATION FROM ORDER EA-03-009 TURKEY POINT PLANT UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-250 1 In Figures 5-3 through 5-9 of WCAP-16027-P, what is the maximum hoop stress in the nozzle base material greater than one inch from the bottom of the weld? What material properties (i.e., yield strength) were used in these calculations?

2.

In Table 2 of the submittal, the Head Vent's leak path data has been marked N/A. How will the assessment of leakage required in Section IV.C.(l)(b)(i) be performed for the Head Vent? Have you considered a surface examination to provide an assessment of the condition of the J-groove weld of the head vent?

3.

In Figure I of the submittal, the degrees of missed coverage for control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) 67 are listed as 60.27 and 175.79 for a total of 236.06 degrees. In Table 2 of the submittal, a comment for CRDM 67 states "coverage below weld from 343 degrees - 170 degrees." What is the area of missed coverage for this nozzle, how is it determined and how does one reconcile the information provided in the C-scans with the table? 4. Has the crack growth data in Figure 4-4 of WCAP-16027-P (in particular the data marked "Huntington") been normalized to a common temperature (325 C?) or does this figure represent as-measured data? 5. The Order provides for ultrasonic testing (UT) and assessment of leakage, OR surface examination to assess the condition of the vessel head penetration nozzles and J-groove welds. Have you considered supplementing the limited UT examination data for some nozzles (as described in your relaxation request) with surface examinations to provide 100% coverage for each nozzle? Appendix D 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-3 e Westinghouse Mr. Jimmie L. Perryman, ENG-JB Room D 4466 Turkey Point Project Engineer Florida Pover & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard P.O. Box 1400 Juno Beach. Florida 33408-0420 Wesinlvm Etbrc Compary Puc.O. Ser* P.O.BM355 PjtswPenelaia1 SZ3tU55 US'A Oirecttel Die¢tfac e-nail; 412-374-6650 412-374-3451 mcdonnpjqjwestinghotxse.com ourf;. FPL-03-37 March 21. 2003 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT UNIT 3 RAI Resnonses to Relaxation from Order EA-03-009

Dear Mr. Perryman:

Attached please find responses to the Request for Additional nformation (RAI) pertaining to Relaxation from Order EA-03-009 for Turkey Point Unit 3 (Dockct No. 50-250). Thesc responses pertain to RA] #1 and RAI #4 and have been independently verified in accordance with the Westinghouse QA requirements. Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLC P. J. McDonough Customer lrojects Manager Attachment cc: Bob Tomonto John Rivera Joe LaDuca Paul Roach offdtl rt'rd e-mmicalapprvmJ in Er.r 2900 A5Nl~rP Cqup omp Appendix E March 2003 61 09(copy).dac-040203 Revision 0 Appendix E 6 109(copy).doc-040203 Mareh 2003 Revision 0 I

E4 (a3,e,) Appendix March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision

E-5 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 III III l CO U, 20,000 10,000 0 -10,000 -20,000 Distance from Bottom of Weld (In.) Figure E-l oop Stress in Figure 5-7 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 0 degrees Uphill and Downhill Appendix E 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-6 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 lInspection Zone \\ \\- - .~~~~~ I I I 0L 0. 4' U-30,000 20,000 10,000 +- 4 - - - Downhill, Oytside Dbwnhill, Inside -L--a------------------------------------------ 0, I -10,000 W 0 015 Inspection Zone I_. Distance from Bottom of Weld(in.) Figure E-2 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-6 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 28.6 degrees Downhill Appendix E 6109(copy).doc.040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-7 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 cL 0 20,000 0 nC) 10,000* 0 -10,000 -20,000 -30,000 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Inspection Zone I----------r---------I----------r---------I--- I il Insid I I I

---

r------I----------r---- ----- ---------- T----------

I I Uphill, Inside

Otsid n -------

n __----------r----

---

,----------r----------

l ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I ~~~~~~\\ A f--P----------- \\,,r ' ~~Uphl Outid j-- I ~~~~~~~I I Inspection Zone Distance from Bottom of WeldIn.) 5 Figure E3 Hoops Stress in Figure 5-6 vs. Distance from Bottomr of Veld, 28.6 degrees Uphill Appendix E 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-8 .dd a. U, U, 4-90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 -10,000 -20,000 Inspection Zone Doyvnhill, Outside X d------------- \\ ~Dpwrihill, Inside L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -r -- -- -- -- -- -- ---

---

--------------- ---------------r---------------

k~~~~~~~~~~ Inspection Zone I I'I III I r --------------- I l l -11%~~~U Distance from Bottom of Weld (in.) Figure E-4 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-5 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 38.6 degrees Downhill Appendix E 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-9 70,000 60,000 - 50,000 40,000 - 30,000 - C 20,000-0.0 a, 10,000- -1 0,000 -20,000 - -30,000- -40,000 ' Inspection one I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Uphill Outside I I I ~~~~~~~~~~II II p -~~~~~~~~~--- 0 0,5 ,0 21

2..3..0

\\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~4 - - - - - - - - - ------------ \\- - r \\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Iseto one** 5 Distance from Bottom of Weld (in.) Figure E-5 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-5 vs. Distance rom Bottomr of Weld, 38.6 degrees Uphill Appendix E 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-10 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 0 U,1. 30,000 20,000 10,000-0 C -10,000- -20,000 Inspection Zone \\ Downhill, Outside Dovvnhill, Inside X f \\ g \\ .1A~~~~~~~~~~~.L ,~~~~~ 1 -44.

---

--------------- r--------------- --------------

_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- v~ ~ ~~~ I ji 0 0"5 O 5 3

InspectionZone I

I D Distance from Bottom of Weld (in.) Figure E-6 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-4 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 40.0 degrees Downhill Appendix E 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-11 60,000 50,000 - 40,000-30,000 - 20,000 (a 10,000-4- (I) A 0 C -10,000* -20,000 -30,000 -40,000

I I

I t Inspectiqn Zone x~~~~~~------- --- ~~~~--

---

~------ ---------------------------- ----------

Uphill, Iside I ---\\---n------------------ X

---

---------- r---------- ---------- T-------

- ----- -U phillI O utside- \\~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ I Inspecton Zon

---

-------n----------- ---------- ---------- ----------

\\-- - - - - - - - - - -IL - - -j -I i I I I I l I I I I

---

,----pil Iusde---

Distance from Bottom of Weld (in.) Figure E-7 Hoop Stress in Figure 5-4 vs. Distance from Bottom of W~eld, 40.0 degrees Uphill 5 Appendix E 6109(copy).doc.040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-12 90,000 80,000 - 70,000-60,000-50,000-u) 40,000' Co 0 30,000 U, 20,000-10,000-0 C -10,000- -20,000 Inspection Zone DoWnhill, Outside Downhill, Inside a ; S or ~r~~~~~

---

r i-------

~

---

--------------- ----- --- ~-------

.L I--__ 0 0:5 1

• • 2 0 25 3

Inspection Zone I

I 0 -1q Distance from Bottom of Weld (in.) Figure E-8 Hoop Stress in Figure 5.3 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 42.6 degrees Downhill Appcndix E 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-13 60,000 50,000: 40,000-30,000 - 20,000 - 0 VW 10,000 P -10,000- -20,000- -30,000 -40,000 Inspection Zone \\ I \\ l Uphill, )nside \\ ,,,, *:Uphll*

• ts

- - - - - - -= - - ,-~~~~n~~~~~ \\ I I I I-I I I ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I \\ I I I \\ I I I I ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I \\ I I I XI I I I ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I \\ I I I \\ I I I ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I \\ I I I IX I I I ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I- ~~~~~~ - - - -Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, - - - II - \\ I I I I \\ I n I oII \\ g~~~phill Ou~~~side\\inspecton ,on X X X I I I '@\\~ ~~~~ Is Is l I@ l l' 0 1- Distance from Bottom of Weld (in.) Figure E-9 oop Stress in Figure 5-3 vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 42.6 degrees Uphill Appendix E 6109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-14 C. 10,000........ b \\ * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Uphill, Outsida (50 ksl Cycl~c yield ud I > 0 0 1'0 2'l0 3's0 4i0 6 .10,000............. -30,000. -40,000 Distance from Bottom of Weld(In.) Figure E-10 Hoop Stress vs. Distance from Bottom of Weld, 49.6 degrees Uphill (Note: Results are for a typical plant, not Turkey Point specific) Appendix E 6 109(copy).doc-04020.1 March 2003 Revision 0

E-15 100,000 80,000; 60,000 ir a. S) 40,000 20,000 I ownhlIl, dutside (425 ksl ylel2) Downhill, Outside (50: ksl CyclW yield used In WCAP) .................... t........... DownhIll,!Inside (4215 ksl yield) ,Dowill ~nslde O ksl'Cyclk'ylerd use 1n'WCAPj '+ ..........t.... 020 0 0,2 0,4 0,6

0.

2 i 14 1,6 1,8S 2* '~~~ ~ I 0 0 -20,000 .40,000 i,............................ .h. A A .4. -1 J. A .4. 4 Distance from Bottom of Waid(in.) Figure E-1l Hoop Stress vs. Distance from Bottom of Veld, 49.6 degrees Downhill (Note: Results are for a typical plant, not Turkey Point specific) AIn.UA;r n 61011 p.;IIUIA G 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

E-16 RAI #4 Has the crack growth data in Figure 4-4 of WCAP-16027-P (in particular the data marked "Huntington") been normalized to a common temperature (325 C?) or does this figure represent as-measured data? (ac.e) 'Note that the data have been normalized to a temperature of 3250C. The actual test temperatures are listed in parenthesis after the caption. For example, the Huntington data were obtained at temperatures ranging from 315'C to 3310C. Figure E-12 Model for PWSCC Growth Rates in Alloy 600 in Primary Water Environments (3250C), With Supporting Data from Standard Steel, Huntington, and Sandvik Materials Appendix E 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

F-I APPENDIX F NRC RESPONSE TO TURKEY POINT UNIT 3 - RELAXATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ORDER (EA-03-009) REGARDING REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL HEAD INSPECTIONS (TAC NO. MB7990) The following is the NRC letter approving the request for relaxation of order EA-03-009 [13]. Appendix F 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

F-2 MR2s20W3 15:UW. W/V5? sik1 Hfot, UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASadGTON D.C. 255-O0O1 March 20, 2003 Mr.J. A. Stall Senior Vice President, Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer Florida Power and Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420

SUBJECT:

TURKEY POINT UNIT 3 - RELAXATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ORDER (EA-03-009) REGARDING REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL HEAD INSPECTIONS (TAC NO. MB7990)

DearMr. Stall:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the enclosed request for relaxation of the specific requirements of Order EA-03-009, requiring specific inspections of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and associated penetration nozzles at pressurized water reactors. for Turkey Point Unit 3. This Relaxation is in response to your letter dated March 11, 2003, as supplemented by a letter dated March 14, 2003. Florida Power and Light has requested Relaxation for Turkey Point Unit 3. of the requirements to perform the prescribed ultrasonic testing (UT) inside the tube from 2 inches above the J-groove weld to the bottom of the penetration for nine RPV head penetrations. Specifically, this Relaxation allows the UT examination, with less than full coverage, for nine RPV nozzles. The areas on each nozzle with less than full coverage are located in a non-pressure boundary portion of the nozzle that is greater than 1 inch below the J-groove weld to the bottom of the nozzle. This acceptance is contingent upon one condition described in the enclosed Safety Evaiuation report. If there are any questions concerning this approval, please to contact Ms. Eva Brown at (301) 415-2315. Sincerely, Scott W. Moore, Acting Director Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-250

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ercl: See next page Appendix F March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

F-3 hP-20-2033 15:es Mr. J. A. Stall Florida Power and tight Company cc: M. S. Ross, Attorney Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL. 33408-0420 Site Vice President Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power and Light Company 9760 SW. 344th Street Florida City, FL 33035 County Manager Miami-Dade County 1 1 1 NW I Street. 291h Floor Miami, Florida 337 28 Senior Resident Inspector Turkey Point Nuclear Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9762 SW. 3441 Street Florida City, Florida 33035 Mr. William A. Passetti, Chief Department of Health Bureau of Radiation Control 2020 Capital Circle, SE. Bin C1 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1 741 Mr. Craig Fugate, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 TURKEY POINT PLANT Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304.,., T. O.Jones, Plant General Manager Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power and Light Company 9760 SW. 344th Street Florida City, FL 33035 Walter Parker Licensing Manager Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 9760 SW 344th Street Florida City, FL 33035 -Mr. William Jefferson Vice President, Nuclear Operations Support P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. Rajiv S. Kundalkar Vice President - Nuclear Engineering Florida Power &Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Appendix F 61 09(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

PA M-20-2003 15: 09 "0111 plot P. M/U? UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGoND.C.20X5W01 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELAXATION OF FEBRUARY 11.2003. ORDER UFA403-009) REACTORPRESSURE VESSEL HEAD INSPECTIONS FLORIDA POWER AND UGHT TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT 3 DOCKET NO 50-250 1.0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated March 11, 2003. as supplemented by a letter dated March 14,2003. Florida Power and Light (the licensee) submitted a request for relaxation, in accordance with Section IV. paragraph F(2) of Order EA-03-009 for Turkey Point Unit 3, of the requirements contained in Section IV, paragraphs C.(I)(b)(i) of Order EA-03-009 issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff on Febtuiary 11, 2003. Relaxation was requested for one 18-month operating cycle. The errata to Order EA-03-009, issued March 14, 2003. do not affect the technical issues raised in the Relaxation request, The basis for the licensee's request was that compliance with Order EA-03-009 for nine reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head penetrations would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. The licensee has requested relaxation of the requirements to perform the prescribed ultra60nc testing (UT) inside the tube from 2 inches above the J-groove weld to the bottom of the penetration for nine RPV head penetrations. Specifically, the Relaxation would allow the UT examination, with less than full coverage, for nine RPV nozzles. The areas on each nozzle with less than full coverage are located in a nonpressure boundary portion of the nozzle that is greater than 1 inch below the weld to the bottom of the nozzle.

2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION

Order EA-03-009, issued on February 11, 2003, requires specific examinations of the RPV head and vessel head penetration (VHP) nozzles of all pressurized water reactor plants. Section IV, paragraph F. of the Order states that requests for Relaxation of the Order associated with specific penetration nozzles will be evaluated by the NRC staff using the procedure for evaluating proposed alternatives to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code in accordance with Title 10 of the Coda FederalRegulations Section 50.55a(a)(3). Section IV, paragraph F, of the Order states that a request for Relaxation regarding inspection of specific nozzles shall address the following criteria: (1) the proposed Appendix F 6 109(copy).doc-040203 March 2003 Revision 0

F-5 MAR-20-2003 15:0s . alternalive(s) for inspection of specific nozzles will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety, or (2) compliance with this Order fr specific nozzles would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating Increase in the level of quality and safety, Turkey Point Unit 3 was determined to have a high susceptibility to primary water stress-corrosion cracking (PWSCC) in. accordance with Section IV. paragraphs A and B. of the Order.

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

3.1 Components for Which RelAxat e The licensee has requested relaxation of Section IV, paragraph C.(l)(b)(i) of the Order for nine VHP nozzles, including numbers 14, 16,25,28,31.43 63. 64. and 67, 3.2 Order Reouirements for Which Relaxaton is Reguested For Turkey Point Unit 3. and similar plants determined to have a high susceptibility to PWSCC In accordance with Section IV, paragraphs A and B, of the Order, the following inspections are required to be performed every refueling outage in accordance with Section IV, paragraph G.(l) of the Ordar: (a) Bare metal visual BMV) examination of 100 percent of the RPV head surface {including 3600 around each RPV head penetration nozzle), and (b) Either: () UT of each RPV head penetration nozzle (i.e., nozzle base material) from 2 inches above the J-groove weld to the bottom of the nozzle and an assessment to determine if leakage has occurred into the interference fit zone, or (ii) Eddy current testing or dye penetrant testing of the wetted surface of each J-Groove weld and RPV head penetration nozzle base material to at least 2 inches above the J-groove weld. Footnote 3 of the Order provides specific criteria for examination of repaired VHP nozzles. 3.3 licpnsee's Proposed AltersatIve The proposed alternate examination Is to perform an UT examination to include 2 inches above the weld to at least 1 inch below the weld. 3.4 Licensee's Basis for Relaxation The licensee stated that gaining access to perform examination of the nine VHP nozzles would result in a hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. In particular, a physical modification, such as removal of sleeves inside of these nozzles. or the development of new equipment would be required to implement an inspection in Appendix F March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

F-6 MAR-20-2 03 15:89 P.06/37 .3-accordance with Section IV, paragraph C.(I)(b)(i), of the Order. As described in Attachment 2 of the supplement to the licensee's request dated March 14, 2003. the effect of not performing the inspection for which relaxation is requested is negligible on the level of quality and safety. Due to the low stresses in these portions of the nozzles and the corresponding low crack growth rates. the licensee indicates that there are no concerns with the structural integrity of the VHP nozzles from the unexamined portions of the nozzles addressed in their request, 3.5 Evaluation The NRC staff's review of this request was based on criterion (2) of paragraph Fof Section IV of the Order, which states: Compliance with this Order for specific nozzles would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. Within the context of the licensee's proposed alternative examination of the RPV penetration nozzles, the licensee has demonstrated the hardship that would result from implementing examinations to the bottom end of these nozzles. The staff agrees that the nozzles' geometry makes inspection of these nozzles in accordance with Order EA-03-009 very difficult and would involve a hardship. This evauation focuses on the issue of whether there is a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety such that these nozzles should be inspected despite this hardship. The licensee's request to iimit examination of the nozzle base material inner surface to 1 inch below the weld is appropriately supported by the licensee's analysis which demonstrated that no flaw below that portion of the nozzle would propagate to a level adjacent to the J-groove weld within an 18-month operating period, This analysis used the approach described in Footnote 1 of the Order as the criteria to set the necessary height of the surface examination. However, the licensee's analysis uses a crack growth formula from the Electric Power Research Institute Report, 'Material Reliability Program (MRP) Crack Growth Rates for Evaluating Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC) of Thick Walt Alloy 600 Material (MRP-55), Revision I" which is different than that described in Footnote 1 of Order EA.03-009. The NRC staff is currently evaluating this report and has not made an assessment regarding the acceptability of the report. Should the NRC staff find the crack growth formula used by the licensee to be unacceptable, the licensee will be required to revise its analysis to incorporate an acceptable crack growth formula, The safety issues that are addressed by the inspections mandated by Order EA-03-009 are degradation (corrosion) of the low-alloy steel RPV head and ejection of the VHP nozzle due to circumferential cracking of the nozzle above the J-groove weld. The following three items provide reasonable assurance that these safety issues are addressed: I. The BMV examination performed by the licensee directly demonstrated the integrity of the RPV head and the absence of ongoing degradation of the head.

2.

The icensee's analysis, which demonstrates that no flaw located within the unexamined portion of the nozzles (i.e., more than 1 inch below the J-groove weld) would propagate to a level adjacent to the weldwithin an 18-mnnthoperating period, provides sufficient justification that there is a very low likelihood of through wall leakage or possible Appendix F March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

F-7 MRf-20--d* 1t0116.rr~r .4. degradation of the low-alloy steel RPV head, due to such a flaw, prior to the next Inspection.

3.

The UT examination of 55 of the 64 RPV head penetration nozzles in accordance with Section IV. paragraph C.(I)(b)(i). of the Order and the remaining nine RPV head penetration nozzles from 2 inches above, the weld to greater than or equal to 1 inch below the weld reasonably demonstrates that the RPV head penetration nozzles are intact throughout the region of Inspection. This examination provides reasonable assurance that no circumferential cracking of the nozzle above the J-groove weld is present and no through wail leakage and dsgradation of the RPV head should occur. The inspections proposed by the licensee combined with an evaluation of the effects of postulated cracks in the areas below 1inch (e.g., crack growth analysis) provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety. 3.6 Condition This authorization has one condition. Should the NRC staff find the crack growth formula described In Industry report MRP-55 to be unacceptable, the licensee will be required to revise its analysis that justifies no examination of the nozzle inside diameter surface greater than 1 inch below the J-groove weld.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The NRC staff concludes that inspection of the nine VHP nozzles in accordance with Section IV, paragraph G.(l)(b), of Order EA-03.009. would result in hardship without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. Further, the staff concludes that the licensee's proposed alternative examination of nine RPV head penetration nozzles to a level at least one inch below the J-groove weld provides reasonable assurance of the structural integrity of the RPV head, VMP nozzles, and welds. However, the NRC staff notes that this acceptance Is based not only on the licensee's arguments, but on the criterion identified herein. Should the NRC staff find the crack growth formula described in industry report MRP-55 to be unacceptable, the licensee shall revise Its analysis that justifies no examination of the nozzle outside surface more than 1 inch below the J-groove weld, Therefore the NRC staff finds that inspection of these VHP nozzles In accordance with Section IV. paragraph C.(1)(b), of Order EA-03-009 would result in hardship without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety, and authorizes, pursuant to Section IV. paragraph F, of Order EA-03-009. the alternative proposed by he licensee for VHP head penetration nozzles numbers 14, 16, 25,28, 31, 43 63,64, and 67 at Turkey Point Unit 3, Principal Contributor: Allen Hiser, NRR Daie: March 20, 2003 TOTAL P.07 Appendix F March 2003 6109(copy).doc-040203 Revision 0

L-2003-274 ENCLOSURE 2

Westinghouse Westinghouse Electric Company Nuclear Services P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230-0355 USA U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Directtel: (412) 374-5282 Directfax: (412) 374-4011 e-mail: Sepp 1 ha@westinghouse.com Ourref: CAW-03-1616 April 1, 2003 APPLICATION FOR WITHHOLDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

Subject:

WCAP-16027-P, "Structural Integrity Evaluation of Reactor Vessel Upper Head Penetrations to Support Continued Operation: Turkey Point Units 3 & 4" (Proprietary) The proprietary information for which withholding is being requested in the above-referenced report is further identified in Affidavit CAW-03-1616 signed by the owner of the proprietary information, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC. The affidavit, which accompanies this letter, sets forth the basis on which the information may be withheld from public disclosure by the Commission and addresses with specificity the considerations listed in paragraph (b)(4) of 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations. Accordingly, this letter authorizes the utilization of the accompanying affidavit by Florida Power & Light Company. Correspondence with respect to the proprietary aspects of the application for withholding or the Westinghouse affidavit should reference this letter, CAW-03-1616 and should be addressed to the undersigned. Very truly yours, H. A. Sepp, anager Regulatory and Licensing Engineering Enclosures cc: S. J. Collins

• G. ShukIa/NRR A BNFL Group company

CAW-03-1616 AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: ss COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY: Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared H. A. Sepp, who, being by me duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is authorized to execute this Affidavit on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC ("Westinghouse"), and that the averments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief: H. A. Sepp, Manager Regulatory and Licensing Engineering Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of ,?:g , 2003 Notary Public $I~~PI4~~~AO ShaionL Fai, Notary uAc Mnievle Boro Aloowy Coxnty Mlember Pewnnva Assoatin ari

2 CAW-03-1616 (1) I am Manager, Regulatory and Licensing Engineering, in Nuclear Services, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC ("Westinghouse"), and as such, I have been specifically delegated the function of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public disclosure in connection with nuclear power plant licensing and rule making proceedings, and am authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of the Westinghouse Electric Company LLC. (2) I am making this Affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations and in conjunction with the Westinghouse application for withholding accompanying this Affidavit. (3) I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by the Westinghouse Electric Company LLC in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or financial information. (4) Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Commission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure should be withheld. (i) The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure is owned and has been held in confidence by Westinghouse. (ii) The information is of a type customarily held in confidence by Westinghouse and not customarily disclosed to the public. Westinghouse has a rational basis for determining the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utilizes a system to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in confidence. The application of that system and the substance of that system constitutes Westinghouse policy and provides the rational basis required. Under that system, information is held in confidence if it falls in one or more of several types, the release of which might result in the loss of an existing or potential competitive advantage, as follows: (a) The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.) where prevention of its use by any of

3 CAW-03-1616 Westinghouse's competitors without license from Westinghouse constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies. (b) It consists of supporting data, including test data, relative to a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.), the application of which data secures a competitive economic advantage, e.g., by optimization or improved marketability. (c) Its use by a competitor would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing a similar product. (d) It reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of Westinghouse, its customers or suppliers. (e) It reveals aspects of past, present, or future Westinghouse or customer funded development plans and programs of potential commercial value to Westinghouse. (f) It contains patentable ideas, for which patent protection may be desirable. There are sound policy reasons behind the Westinghouse system which include the following: (a) The use of such information by Westinghouse gives Westinghouse a competitive advantage over its competitors. It is, therefore, withheld from disclosure to protect the Westinghouse competitive position. (b) It is information that is marketable in many ways. The extent to which such information is available to competitors diminishes the Westinghouse ability to sell products and services involving the use of the information. (c) Use by our competitor would put Westinghouse at a competitive disadvantage by reducing his expenditure of resources at our expense.

4 CAW-03-1616 (d) Each component of proprietary information pertinent to a particular competitive advantage is potentially as valuable as the total competitive advantage. If competitors acquire components of proprietary information, any one component may be the key to the entire puzzle, thereby depriving Westinghouse of a competitive advantage. (e) Unrestricted disclosure would jeopardize the position of prominence of Westinghouse in the world market, and thereby give a market advantage to the competition of those countries. (f) The Westinghouse capacity to invest corporate assets in research and development depends upon the success in obtaining and maintaining a competitive advantage. (iii) The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence and, under the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790, it is to be received in confidence by the Commission. (iv) The information sought to be protected is not available in public sources or available information has not been previously employed in the same original manner or method to the best of our knowledge and belief. (v) The proprietary information sought to be withheld in this submittal is that which is appropriately marked in WCAP-16027-P, "Structural Integrity Evaluation of Reactor Vessel Upper Head Penetrations to Support Continued Operation: Turkey Point Units 3 & 4" (Proprietary), dated March 2003 for Turkey Point Units 3 & 4, being transmitted by the Florida Power & Light Company letter and Application for Withholding Proprietary Information from Public Disclosure, to the Document Control Desk. The proprietary information as submitted for use by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC for Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 is expected to be applicable for other licensee submittals in response to certain NRC requirements for justification of the structural integrity of the reactor vessel head penetrations for continued operation. This information is part of that which will enable Westinghouse to:

5 CAW-03-1616 (a) Assess the risk with unexamined reactor vessel upper head penetrations. (b) Assist the customer in obtaining NRC approval. Further this information has substantial commercial value as follows: (a) Westinghouse plans to sell the use of similar information to its customers for purposes of meeting NRC requirements for licensing documentation. (b) Westinghouse can sell support and defense of continued safe operation with the presence of cracks in the reactor vessel upper head penetrations. (c) The information requested to be withheld reveals the distinguishing aspects of a methodology that was developed by Westinghouse. Public disclosure of this proprietary information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Westinghouse because it would enhance the ability of competitors to provide similar documentation and licensing defense services for commercial power reactors without commensurate expenses. Also, public disclosure of the information would enable others to use the information to meet NRC requirements for licensing documentation without purchasing the right to use the information. The development of the technology described in part by the information is the result of applying the results of many years of experience in an intensive Westinghouse effort and the expenditure of a considerable sum of money. In order for competitors of Westinghouse to duplicate this information, similar technical programs would have to be performed and a significant manpower effort, having the requisite talent and experience, would have to be expended. Further the deponent sayeth not.

CAW-03-1616 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE Transmitted herewith are proprietary and/or non-proprietary versions of documents furnished to the NRC in connection with requests for generic and/or plant-specific review and approval. In order to conform to the requirements of 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations concerning the protection of proprietary information so submitted to the NRC, the information which is proprietary in the proprietary versions is contained within brackets, and where the proprietary information has been deleted in the non-proprietary versions, only the brackets remain (the information that was contained within the brackets in the proprietary versions having been deleted). The justification for claiming the information so designated as proprietary is indicated in both versions by means of lower case letters (a) through (f) located as a superscript immediately following the brackets enclosing each item of information being identified as proprietary or in the margin opposite such information. These lower case letters refer to the types of information Westinghouse customarily holds in confidence identified in Sections (4)(ii)(a) through (4)(ii)(f) of the affidavit accompanying this transmittal pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(b)(1).

CAW-03-1616 COPYRIGHT NOTICE The reports transmitted herewith each bear a Westinghouse copyright notice. The NRC is permitted to make the number of copies of the information contained in these reports which are necessary for its internal use in connection with generic and plant-specific reviews and approvals as well as the issuance, denial, amendment, transfer, renewal, modification, suspension, revocation, or violation of a license, permit, order, or regulation subject to the requirements of 10 CFR 2.790 regarding restrictions on public disclosure to the extent such information has been identified as proprietary by Westinghouse, copyright protection notwithstanding. With respect to the non-proprietary versions of these reports, the NRC is permitted to make the number of copies beyond those necessary for its internal use which are necessary in order to have one copy available for public viewing in the appropriate docket files in the public document room in Washington, DC and in local public document rooms as may be required by NRC regulations if the number of copies submitted is insufficient for this purpose. Copies made by the NRC must include the copyright notice in all instances and the proprietary notice if the original was identified as proprietary.}}