ML040500602
| ML040500602 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/2004 |
| From: | Southern California Edison Co |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| EA-03-009 | |
| Download: ML040500602 (75) | |
Text
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 San Onofre Units 2 & 3 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 is used in predicting remaining service life of the penetration nozzle. The second series of charts, which characterizes the growth of a through-wall flaw below the J-groove weld, can be used to determine the minimum required inspection coverage to ensure that any flaws initiated below the weld in the un-inspected region of the penetration nozzle would not reach the bottom of the weld in less than one operating fuel cycle. 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) = AO + Ax+A2x2 + A3x 3 (6-1) where:
x
= the coordinate distance into the nozzle wall a
= stress perpendicular to the plane of the crack Al
= coefficients of the cubic polynomial fit For the 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, (0) can be calculated anywhere along the crack front. The point of maximum crack depth is represented by <) = 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! (4), where $ is the angular location around the crack. The units of K () are ksilin.
K, (0))=[] 1Gj (a/c, a/t, t/R, P) Aj a (6-2)
Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-2 The boundary correction factors G (P).
GI (($) G ()
and G3 ()
are obtained by the procedure outlined in reference [5A]. The dimension a is the crack depth. and c" is the semni crack length. while "t" is the wall thickness.
R" is the inside radius of the tube. and "Q is the shape factor.
I I ;I.C' onuary Flaw Tolerance Charts January Iuu4 Revision I
6-3 6.3 AXIAL FLAW PROPAGATION CEDM and ICI Surface Flaws The results of the calculated growth for inside surface flaws growing through the wall thickness of the CEDM penetration nozzles are shown in Figures 6-2 through 6-7 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 15 MPal;; involves assumption not currently substantiated by actual CGR data for neither CEDM or ICI nozzle materials. Therefore, these crack growth curves begin at a flaw depth that result in a stress intensity factor of 15 MPa4`, which exceeds the threshold value of 9 MPa/f
. 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 in general compressive. If flaws are found in such a location, the results for either the uphill or downhill location, whichever is closer, can be conservatively 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. For more than 0.5 inch below the weld, the crack growth will eventually come to rest since the stresses are compressive as shown for the CEDM/ICI nozzles in Appendix A. 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.
It should be noted that the hoop stress distribution in Appendix A is determined based on the as-designed J-weld geometry. A comparison of the hoop stress distribution below the weld between the as-designed [6A] and as-built J-weld geometry [16] is shown in Appendix B. The comparison shows that the hoop stress below the weld on the downhill side for the as-built J-weld geometry is in general lower and that the magnitude of the hoop stress drops off faster as a function of distance away from the bottom of the J-weld.
Example problems are provided in section 7 for a range of possible flaw types.
Inspection Coverage of RPV Head Penetration Below the Weld As a result of NRC Order EA-03-009, nearly all the plants in the United States have encountered problems with the required inspection coverage of the head penetrations below the weld. To support the submittal of relaxation request for less than 100% inspection coverage below the weld, a series of axial through-wall crack growth below the weld charts for the downhill side were prepared for each of the penetrations evaluated. The charts are shown in Figures 6-12 through 6-17.
There is nearly universal agreement that high stresses, on the order of the material yield strength, are necessary to initiate Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC). There is no known case of stress corrosion cracking of Alloy 600 below the yield stress [15]. Typical yield strengths Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision
6-4 for wrought Alloy 600 head penetration nozzles are in the range of 37 ksi to 65 ksi. Weld metal yield strengths are generally higher. Tile yield strength of the head penetration nozzles for San Onofre varies from 35 ksi to 59 ksi [II]. The stress level of 20 ksi is a conservative value below which 1PWSCC initiation is extremely unlikely. Therefore the assumption of any P1WSCC crack initiation in the region of the penetration nozzle with a stress level of 20 ksi or less is conservative.
In each of the figures. the location of the upper extremity of the postulated through-wall crack is identified on the charts by the distance measured from the bottom of weld. The initial through-wall flaw size is determined by assuming that the lower extremity of the through-wall flaw is located on the penetration nozzle where both the inside and outside surface hoop stress in the tensile region drops below 20 ksi [13]. If either inside or outside surface hoop stress becomes compressive before the opposite surface drops below 20 ksi, which is the case for the ICI nozzle on the uphill side, the lower extremity of the initial flaw is assumed to be where either the inside or outside surface hoop stress drops below () ksi. The time duration required for the upper extremity of an axial through-wall flaw to reach the bottom of the weld can be determined from these charts as illustrated in Example 5 of section 7.
A limiting case for the crack growth below the weld is shown in Appendix C. For this limiting case, the initial through-wall flaw size is dctermined by assuming that the lower extremity of the flaw is located on the penetration nozzle where either the inside or outside surface hoop stress drops below 0 ksi.
Ilea(d 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 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 mmll. The law 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 circumfercntial flaws reliably.
Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-5 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.
]a.c The results of this calculation are shown in Figure 6-18. From this figure, it can be seen that the time required for propagation of a circumferential flaw to a point where the integrity of the CEDM penetration nozzle would be affected (330-350 degrees [10]) would be about 27 years. From the same figure, the required time for propagation of a circumferential flaw to a point where the integrity of the ICI penetration nozzles would be affected is about 40 years.
Due to the conservatism in the calculations (the time period for a surface flaw to become a through-wall flaw was conservatively 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 Crack Growth Rate (CGR) for all Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-6 circumferential surface flaws on te OD of tile head penetration nozzles located above the elevation of the J-groove weld.
6.5 FLAVACCEPTANCE 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 Xl 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 P\\WR plant designs.
Since the discovery of the leaks at Oconee and ANO-I, the acceptance criteria have been revised slightly to cover flaws on the outside diameter of the penetration below the attachment weld, and
[laws in the attachment weld. These revised criteria are now formally endorsed by the NRC [ 12].
and will be used in these evaluations. 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 Xl 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.
The acceptance criteria presented herein apply to all the flaw types regardless of orientation and shape. Similar to the approach used in Section Xl. 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 law depth.
The proximity rules of Section XI for considering flaws as separate, may be used directly (Section Xl, Figure IWA 3400- ). This figure is reproduced here as Figure 6-19.
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 Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-7 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 6-20. 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 6-2 1.
Flaw Acccptancc Criteria The maximum allowable depth (ad) 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 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 of the weld material 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 endorsed by the NRC, as documented in references [7, 8, 12].
Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-8 It is expected that the use of these criteria and crack growth curves vill provide conservative predictions of the allowable service time.
Table 6-1 Summary of R.V. I lead Penetration Flaw Acceptance Criteria Axial Circumrerential Location ar ar Below Weld (ID) t no limit t
.75 circ.
At and Above Weld (ID) 0.75 t no limit repair repair Below Weld (OD) t no limit t
.75 circ.
Above Weld (OD) repair repair repair repair Note: Surface flaws ol any se in the attachment weld are nt acceptable.
a, = Ilaw l)epth C = :lav length
=
all Thickness Table 6-2 San Onofre Units 2 & 3 enetration Geometries Penetration Type Wall Thickness (in.)
Penetration 01) (in.)
CEDNI 0.661 4.050 ICT 0.469*
5.563 ICI Counterbore 0.407*
5.563 Ilead Vent 0.154 1.05
- 1C[ counterbore wall thickness shall he used hen evaltating ICI no/zle laws at all time.
Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-9 70 60 It:
U)
._n
~e 50 40 30 20 10 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 January 2004 Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-10 0 -
- 0.
- 0. -
C-" 0.6 -
1 0.4 -
0.3 -
-i - -L 2
IL T-T I
F FI FT-A
.~~~~~
L-F 7
-I---&-I-I-I
-I
-I TI ozzle Ahglet Nozzle Ahgie I
I I
I I
0.2 -1 0.1 0
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
time (year)
Figure 6-2 inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions for San Onofre Units 2 & 3 C
Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision 1
6-11 0.9 0.8 0.7 0
-~ 0.6
.5 a.
0
~: 0.4
'U 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
I F
I I
I I
IL L I - -, I J I
I I
-I II I
I L
L I
I-I -I -
II I
1 -LI I
I L
I I~~~~l I
I
~~~~~
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I--I I
4 4-I-4 F~ ~~ ~~-I I- -1 4 I
4 4
- I 4
4
- I I
I-4 4-FI-I 4I F
I
-55.
-d4a F
F I
I I -
I -- -
I --
4 4
+
FI-I I -
I I
I -
r I - - I I-1 I
I
~~~
~~~~~
- ~~~~~~~i J
I4: L F
I 1
1L 5 - I C.)
r-r
-i I
7 I
I -
1I I
I I
I T
I I
-4 I
4 -I--F 4
F-I -I-I 4
I 4
4 I
I I
-I 4-
-4 I
F--
-I -~~~~~~
I I
I II I
V-I I
IL I
I I
I
,~~~~~I I
I I
I I
I II 4 I I
If-I plet I
SanOnoreVulea I
- -~~~~~
-I-enerating~~~~~~~~~~~taIti:- I I 4 4
4 4
4 4
4
-I -
4-- -
4 4
F 4
4 - -
4 F-I I
4 I
4 I -I I T I
ITIT r
I T-rI I
I T I
T T
I I-I I
I I
T I
1 4 I 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 1 1 12 time (year)
Figure 6-3 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions for San Onofre Units 2 & 3 CV-71 Haw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision 1
6-12 0.9
__I_
_L _X
__ _L
-J -- -- L_
I/
__ L_ 1_ __ _i__
L_--------- _-
7 - - - - - - r-
--T
- - - - - - r f
- - T7- -
i- - - - - --
/------r--
L__
a nge: -
0.9 ~~~~- - -
1
-_ Nk-&j:-:-;
l-
/
T 47dg-T 4---l----__l--S__1___W__4
--1-----1--4------;--
-i---;H-4------4----_----------
0.8 ----
I I-i I
7
- - - -e -ng-
_4--
l-
_ N l n l T ~
~ ~
I----r-r
-r - -T-
-i-----t--
~
~
t~
- --9--e----- - - -
I I
]
]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-29.1 deo
-T+---------1 I
I F-+--
-- ---I ---- -
+-- ----
I--+-
-- -- --- t-
--F6+e-lt----
q- --- - ---4 I
_ ~~~~--+-----+------t---I---F
-+-- ---
I
+
T- ---
-L
]
I
]
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-.6 --
+
e----------
+--
1--- -----e--
)
NA~hozzleAngle:
0.5
-_ -_llL______
-____L/_l___r_:_S 0 dog - -: - _L
---t~~- ----
t
-- I I-r-t
---1--r-----r-t i- -- -- -- --- --
- - I L - -
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--
+4 Z e n l
---t--r---l---r-n---l---r--n r--r--n---l-sr--X------r--
--/-
-</t 7-j---
r-------r 3- - -
L
_S n Nuclear--L---J L
0.3 -- --
--- -- - - - - - - I I-I I
I
.V
!- ~
~~~~
~
~~~~
J I------r--n-I- - -
r -
r -I L -
-r--T-
- - -I - - -
L
~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I IIIIIIIw T -- ----- -r- - - -
7 7
I
-r--T<
j
-7r 7
T -
1-7 I
0n -- - - _
u____
_ I___I___L H
L L
f L
1_
0 1
2 3
4 I
6 7
T-m--l--r--n r-n-
- - --- - -;?;
-r-T---r-r------
---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rF T- - ---r-------
--fr r
T- - - - - - --
T---T-I T- --L
- --1-r
-I'
- -- - -- 7 0.1 San nore Nuclear Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004nratng taton T - - - - - -
T- ----- - -
-G-eviSion 1 o
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 time (year)
Figure 6-4 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions for San Onofre Units Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-13 0.9 --
-A---
-'-----1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I-1 0.8
- -A -Ie
__I 0
I~
1 9 Id o
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0.7 T T---I-
- No
~
e~--
~
5 0.6 1-- -4
- - - -e ng~e
- a.
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~04 N~~~-----Moe Angel an O ofe u lea sn Le
- 0.
~-....
4 e er tn tton&-
time (year)
~
~
~
~
~
~
Wozl Ai Figure 6-5 Inside Axial Sufc FlasAtth AtahetWl, ozeDwhllSd-rc rotTrdcinsfrSnOor Units 2 & 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9-Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004~~~~~~
0.3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rvso
6-14 L
L L
L L
I L
L~~~~
L L
L
-L LL F F
L L
L - L -
4-L-L F
L F-F-F-
r r
V VFF F
v v
F-F
,-r~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~--
I I
F F-F t
-F - ~
0.9 I
-, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
t~~~~~~~~
E deg 09 F-- --
I-Ir F
F 1,,,
F F
F F
F ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-r-I F
-IFF F
F V~-r i
F F
FF F
I Fr-FFT F
I F--
L L-U L.-
L F
L L
L L
2L L
L-L I
L-F 4--
F F
I I
F I
F F
F F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I T
0.7 L
I F -
FI L
L 4-L 0.FF6 FF F
F F M~~~~~A~~JJ~~~.
F F
F F
F F~~~~~~T-F I-,
I-F-I T--
TY.~- I T-4 F
4- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~T FT F
FT F,-
(U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r r-T-II F
LF L2 I
L L
F
~
- 0.
1 L ~~~~~~--
F~
~San Onofre Nuclear F
F F
F F
IF F
Generating Station 2 & 3 F
7 F
F F -
F F
I I
F F
I F F'F-F I
7 F
F T F F I I
L L
L L - L L~~~~F F-F L
F-F
-LL LL 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 1 1 1 2 time (year)
Figure 6-6 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws,.5" Above the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions for San Onofre Units 2 & 3 Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision
6-15 0
.9 I -
t' -
I'--
I'--
ILI
_I Iz eI nIO.
-~~~~~
- I N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~zzt~~~~~~~~A
~~~~~gI~~~~~~ --~~~~~~~~~
0.9
-N zz --
~,
I
- -4bs 4ngI--
I F-I
-1 1
-49.7' deg-r
~~~I I
T I
I L
I L
j L ~
~
~
~ ~
I I
~~~~~~F F- -
1 4S.TTdI TI I
0.7 II I
I I
I I-I I
~ ~
~~I II I
F
-I I
I V
I I
t I
'I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
- 4)
-I T - - r -
I F
T 11 F
I 1
J I
I I
~~~~~~~~~II eeaIg SaIo 2 & 31 01 1
4 I3 4
5 41 7
4 81 9
Onofran Units N2c&e3 Generating StatioRevision3
6-16 1
0.9 0.8 -
T 0
a 0.7 -
0.6 -
0.5 -
0.4 -
0.3 -
-~~~
Head Vent....
- ~
- /
/ ~
~~~~~~
~
~
~~~~~
-= -- - - -
a nfc ula d;
-3 0.2 1 0.1 0 -
0 I
2 Time (Effective Full Power Year)
Figure 6-8 Inside, Axial Surface Flaws, At the Attachment Weld, Head Vnt-Crack Growth Prcdictions for San Onofre Units 2 3
Flaw 'olerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-17
-~~~
-~~~~~
-~~~
- - -- - -n-0.9 1
T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
e 0.8 0.7 I
I
~~~~~~~~~7.8 deg I
I r
~~~~~~~Nozzle An g!eI
~~~ 0.6 5~~~~~~~~~~5.3Sdeg OCI) -----
-~~~~~~
-~~-
~0.5
-1
- Nzr~W
.4 0.3 - - - - - -
- - - -N ozzle-A nzgle-A-- - -
~~~~ 04 291 d-4 I-
- 0.
-N- -
- -A-- - ----
0.1 I San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 2 & 3 0
0 1
2 3
4 5
time (year)
Figure 6-9 Outside, Axial Surface Flaws, Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions for San Onofre Units 2 & 3 Flaw Tolerance Charts c' l January 2004 Revision
6-18 1
4
-~~~~L
-L
_____L_____I__---L----------------
-LI------ --
i--------
I I
F I
II I
/
I1/
/
II
/
/
- 0. -----------------------------------------
8--r--------
te 0.9 f--
FL- -
49zzb-deg- -- - - -
L- - - - -- /------
f---
F-
/----------
0.9 5-----I-----
o-z---n-i 0.8 L
l l
L _ _ _
_ _ _ _ 1/
f-7-
I-i Age glg-T----//----- 0.7 E
l
- E 5.;e 6
/
7 E/
/
[____S_
F-
-Noz~teAngl~*F F
0.7 t-I__________ ____ _____ ____I
-r - - -
r
-t -
_53ce
_C
-F F
F F
F F
F F ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-4 0_
¢ l__
__F L__
__l__
4_
\\
- - -/
- - - -g - - - -
-e 0.6 F
F---
- e - - - -
1
_ -I - - - - -
L
/__I_________L I
F F~~~~~~~~~~~I A ---
I--- --
I---- - ----- ----- I
-- I~----- I- ----
--/-- --
7 F
t-----
r-
{
t t
I I
t-----I-----
0.4
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -L-
- - - No~~~I FF F
F zzle Anglei--
7 A--
C--,----
1 7----I----r-----l----r---7---Xf---or---,4--r----T----l----r--------------
-G3e---------
-aI - --
- 0. --
n~
~- 1--
r
>/
/-
r 0
1~~~~~~~7 31 4
~~~~~~~~~~~~I I-
- - - - - - - - - - 7 time (year)-----
-- 8----------t-------- - -
/
4 7
I-
-t - - -
7
-1 7-
_nofre Units 2 &
___ R ___
/_
L__
_]_
San Onofre Nuclear 0.1 q-----
-f--
F----
Raw Tole4 1--
Generating Station 2 & 3
- ~~
w ~ -r ~ ~ ~T-
-r - - - - -r - - -F- - - - - --
r r
T-----l-----
I- - - - -C- - - 7 0
1 2
3 4
time (year)
Figure 6-10 Outside, Axial Surface Flaws, Below the Attachment Weld, Nozzle Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions for San Onofre Units 2 & 3 Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision 1
6-19 1
T I
I I
I F
A I
I F
1 L
A I
J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I i~L -- I
'L A
L-
-A-I I
I I
I IngI I
I I
1 I
F ~~~l F-
- - r V- - -
- -- - - -F 11
- - - -F F
F A - - - - -
+-4 F
0.7 L
I I
I I
I I
I 1-I I
-A '-I I
I I
I I
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
l g
I T
I I
I ir I
I -I I
F I
I ozl ~
ge 0
~~~II I
I _
I F
I I
I I
F I
I I
I I
I F
12 9 1 1 cideI 0
I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'I
-L O.
I I
I F
I I
I I
I I
F I
. 0.4 4- -]I F
II I
I I
F F
I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-I-r 1-The stress Eintensity factors for the circumferential surface flaws of center & 7.8 deg CD-San Onofre Nuclear 01 nozzles are less than 9.0 Mpa*sqrt(M). In addition, a factor of 2.0 has been applied to raiseStio2&3 the CGR per MRP-55 recommendation.
GeneratingStio2 3
4-F F
4 4-
'I-4 F
I F
I
+
F 4
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
time (year)
Figure 6-11 Outside, Circumferential Surface Flaws, Along the Top of the Attachment Weld - Crack Growth Predictions for San Onofre Units 2 & 3 (MRP Factor of 2.0 Included)
Rlaw Tolerance Charts Januarv 2004 Revision
6-20 2.0 c
1.5 c
R a
0 0.5 0m E
2 0
ca 0.5 u)m
._L a
0.
(U CL.
3 L -0.5
-1.0 0
1 2
3 4
5 Period (Effective Full Power Year)
Figure 6-12 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the Center CEDIM (0.0 Degrees) Penetration - Crack Growth Predictions for Sall Onof're Units 2 & 3 Flaw 'olerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-21 2.5 0
0 m
E 0
0U C
0 I-C) 0.
la U.
2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
-1.0 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
Period (Effective Full Power Year)
Figure 6-13 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 7.8 Degrees CEDM Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions for San Onofre Units 2 & 3 Flaw Tolerance Charts Jnay20 Revision I
6-22 2.0
^
1.5 C
0
-0 E
1.0 0
0m E
0 0
c 0.5 U) 0.-
0.
2 0.0 CL ML -0.5
-1.0 0
1 2
3 4
Period (Effective Full Power Year) 5 Figure 6-14 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 29.1 Degrees (CEDIM) Row of Pcnetrations, I)ownhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions for San Onofre Units 2 3
Flaw Tolerance Chars January 2004 Revisior I
6-23 3.5 -
3.0 -
c5 V
0 E-0m S
0 C
C C
W Ba.PX c
Ci C
0 0.
U.
2.5 -
2.0 -
1.5 -
1.0 0.5 0.0
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
- - - - - X
.~~~~~
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~~~~~~~~~A t
-~ ~
- - - - - -M - - we
_~
~
~
EMozl~l~go
- - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-0.5 -
-1.0 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 Period (Effective Full Power Year)
Figure 6-15 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 49.7 Degrees (CEDM) Row of Penetrations, Downhill Side - Crack Growth Predictions for San Onofre Units 2 & 3 flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-24 3.0 2.5-E 0
c 1.5-w 20 ICI Nozzle Weld Region 0.
- a. 0.0 L
-0.5 -
-1.0 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 Period (Year)
Figure 6-16 Througi-W5all Axial Flaws Located in the 55.3 Degrees (ICI) Row of lenetratiois, )ownilil Side - Crack Growti Predictions for San Onofre Units 2 & 3 Flaw Tolerance Charts Janunary 2004 Revision I
6-25 2.0 d
0 E
5 0
m S
0 a
C Q
CL P
.F M
0a.
a.
U.
- - - -__I_-
- - - - I- -
7 -
-__7 I -
1 O
,--_-_-_ _-_-__-_-t-__ _ _ _ _ _ _._ - -
I
_-- __- __- __-- _-- __-__-__--_--.--/-_--__.__-__--_--_
I NozeWldRgo
~~~~~~~~~- - --- - - -
L__
L - -
0.0 7-7 --
_l L
_ _-_-- _-- --- 7
.____________~~~~~~~~~-
7 - - - --- - - - - - - - -___
_ _ _ =
_7_
.~~~~~~- -
7 - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_____
7 - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -_____7_-
o 5.
~
~
~
~ ~ ---------
-7
-- 7---------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -t 7 -
-7 7 - -
- - - - -7
- - - - - - - n 7
- - -7
- I A 0
1 2
3 4
5 Period (Year)
Figure 6-17 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 55.3 Degrees (ICI) Row of Penetrations, Uphill Side - Crack Growth Predictions for San Onofre Units 2 & 3 Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-26 180.000 I-r I
I I
-1
~F F V F
1 1
1 1
1 I
T T
77 T 11 1
7 1
F-F F-F1 A-TT A T
T 1
1 7 1 1
7 7
7 7
I I
I I
I -,
I I
I I
~
~
qEPM F11 F
V I
I 7TT 77 T I
1 1
1 F
FF 1
1 1
I I
T T
T T 1 7
150.000 r
FI-I I
1 1
T T
7 7
7 I1 7
7 F
-VIF 1 1_T_
T T
y I
T T
7 7
I 77 F
I IF
-I I
I' I'-
I' T
7 I
_T I
120.000 I-F F
T 7
T7 7
7 7 7--7 T-I 7
7 7
7 T7I1 0
I~~~~~~~~~
E 60.000 F
F1 I
77 I7 T
T 0 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T T
I--------
T ~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
C-Flaw Tolerance Charts JanuaryT I
2004 I
I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rvso
6-27 THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY B LANK Flaw Tolerance Charts January2004 Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-28 r Q (a) Single Linear Flaw 1-4< Q -
K-Ql-HI H22 KL
,P.
4 s<£ (c) Aligned Linear Flaws 2>22
\\
Q 7 lb) Single Curvilinear Flaw I
f S 4 1/2 in.
[d) Nonoverlapping Flaws e > 2 1/2 in.
S4 1/2 in.
lel Overlapping Parallel Flaws I
2 Q S 1/2in.
(g) Nonaligned Parallel Flaws Q1 2
(fl Overlapping Flaws Q~~~~
j Q,
-b.-I r-Q3 S <
1/2 in.
I SC 1/2 in.
A h
Q 2 e
I (h) Multiple Parallel Flaws Figure 6-19 Section XI Flaw Proximity Rutles for Surface Flaws (Figure IVA-3400-1)
Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
6-29 Figure 6-20 Definition of "Circumferential" Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision 1
6-30 NOZZLE TOP OF WELD BOTTOM OF WELD Figure 6-21 Schematic of Head Penetration Geometry Flaw Tolerance Charts January 2004 Revision I
7-1 7
SUMMARY
AND EXAMPLE PROBLEMS An extensive evaluation has been carried out to characterize the loadings and stresses, which exist in the head penetrations at San Onofre Units 2 & 3 reactor vessel head. Three-dimensional finite element models were constructed [6], and all pertinent loadings on the penetrations were analyzed. These loadings 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 which have been found in service in a number of plants and that 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 exist on the penetration for the majority of the time, which are the steady state loading and the residual stresses.
These stresses are important because the cracking 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 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 head at San Onofre Units 2 & 3 reactor pressure vessel, 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.
7.1 SAFETY ASSESSMENT It is appropriate to examine the safety consequences of an indication which 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.
Summary and Example Problems January 2004 Revision I
7-2 Any indication is unlikely to propagate very far up the penetration nozzle above the weld.
because the hoop stresses decrease in this direction. and this will cause it to slow down. and to stop before it reaches the outside surface of th heald.
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. since the indication will be enveloped in the vessel head itself. which precludes the opening of the crack and limits leakage.
It should be noted that the objective of the acceptance criteria shown in Table 6-1 is to prevent leakage. Therefore. even though a small leak may have no immediate impact on the structural integrity of the system. it is not acceptable to the NRC and nozzle repair is required.
7.2 EXAMPLE PROBLEMS The flaw tolerance charts in Figures 6-2 through 6-18 can be used with the acceptance criteria of Section 6.5 to determine the available service life.
In this section. a few examples will be presented to illustrate the use of these figures. The example cases are listed in Table 7-1.
Example 1. Determine the service life of ain axially oriented inside surface flaw whose upper extremity is located 1.25" below the weld on the uphill side of penetration no. 40. First. the penetration locality angle is obtained from Table 1-1 and, in this case. the locality angle is 29.1 degrees. The initial flaw depth aii,,. is 0.078" and the initial flaw length. 2ci i;i. is 0.195".
Assuming that the initial aspect ratio of 2.5:1 is maintained throughout the time that the inside surface flaw becomes a through-wall flaw. the final length of the flaw (2cnni.) will be 1.653". The upper extremity of the flaw is now located 0.521 " below the weld and validates the use of a single crack growth curve. The crack growth curve for the 29.1 degrees nozzle angle of Figure 6-2 is applicable and Figure 6-2 has been reproduced-as Figure 7-1. The flaw is initially 11.8 percent of the wall thickness. and a straight line is drawn horizontally at a/t = 0.1 S 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 4.6 years (labeled as "Service Life" in Figure 7-1)
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. 40. This flaw. just as the flaw in Example 1 will not cross into the weld region. The applicable curve to use is Ficure 6-10. The ratio a/t 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 Fisure 7-2. where we can see that the result is approximately 2.0 years.
Example 3. An axial inside surface flaw is located at the weld and on the downhill side of' penetration no. 90. The initial length of the flaw is 0.250" and the initial depth is 0.05". From Table 1-1, the angle of this penetration nozzle is 49.7 degrees. The applicable curve is Figure 6-5 and is reproduced here as Figure 7-3. In this case. the initial flaw depth is 7.6 percent of the wall thickness. The initial reference time can be found by drawing a horizontal line at a/t = 0.076.
Using the acceptance criteria in Table 6-1. the allowable service life can then be determined as the Summary and Example Problems January 2004 Revision I
7-3 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 a/t = 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 4.0 years, as shown in Figure 7-3.
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 uphill side of penetration no. 90 (49.7 degrees). The flaw has an initial depth of 0.079" and an initial length of 0.395". Assuming that the initial aspect ratio of 0.395" / 0.079" or 5:1 is maintained as the flaw propagates into the nozzle wall, the final length of a through-wall flaw would be 0.661" x 5 = 3.305" long. 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 - ((3.305" / 2) - (0.395" / 2)) = -0.455). 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 from the weld. This can be accomplished with the use of Figure 6-2 and is reproduced here as Figure 7-4a. The upper extremity is 1 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 0.395" / 2 + 0.5" = 0.6975". Multiplying this by two and then dividing by the aspect ratio gives the flaw depth when the upper extremity is 0.5 inches below the weld: 2 x 0.6975" / 5.0 = 0.279". Figure 7-4a can be used to find the time it takes to grow from 12.0% through-wall (a/t = 0.079" / 0.661" = 0.120) to 42.2% through-wall (a/t =
0.279" /0.661" = 0.422). The time is estimated as 2.2 years. Using the flaw depth calculated previously (a/t = 0.422) as the initial flaw depth, the curves in Figure 6-4 reproduced here as Figure 7-4b 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 (a/t = 0.75). Using the acceptance criteria in Table 6-1, Figure 7-4b shows an additional 0.8 years of service life for a total of 3.0 years.
As shown above, flaws whose upper extremities grow within 0.5 inch below weld require the use of both the 0.5 inch below weld and "at the attachment weld" flaw tolerance charts. To avoid the use of these two charts, the "at the weld" chart may solely be used in determining the service life.
This shall provide a conservative estimate of the crack growth due to larger stress field.
Example 5. This case is an axial through-wall flaw with its upper extremity located 0.40 inches below the weld region of penetration no. 3. This would be the case where inspection can only be performed from 2 inch above the J-weld to only 0.4 inches below the weld on the downhill side.
The objective is to determine the remaining service life for a flaw in the un-inspected region below the weld to reach the bottom of the J-weld. The angle of the penetration nozzle is 7.8 degrees as shown in Table 1-1. The crack growth curve of Figure 6-13 is applicable and has been reproduced as Figure 7-5. 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. If inspection can only be performed from 2 inch above the J-weld to only 0.4 inches below the weld, it would take approximately 1.8 years for a flaw in the un-inspected region below the weld to reach the weld bottom.
Summary and Example Problems January 2004 Revision I
7-4 Several guidelines are important to understand when using these flaw evaluation charts.
- 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 nozzle is the best approach.
- 2. If a flaw is found in a penetration nozzle for which no specific analysis was performled and there is no apparent trend as a function of penetration nozzle angle. the result for tile penetration nozzle with the closest angle should be used.
- 3. If a flaw is ound vhich 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 Vestinghouse if ie as-found tlaw has an aspect ratio larger than 6.0.
- 5. All references to service life are in Effective Full Power Years.
- 6. 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.
Summary and Example Problems January 2004 Revision I
7-5 Table 7-1 Example Problem Inputs: Initial Flaw Sizes and Locations Example Vertical Circumferential Penetration Penetration Source No.
Orientation Location Location Row Length Depth No.
Figure I
Axial - Inside 1.25" Uphill 29.10 0.195" 0.078" 40 6-2 Surface Below Weld 2
Axial - Outside 1.25" Downhill 29.10 0.195" 0.078" 40 6-10 Surface Below Weld 3
Axial - Inside At Weld Downhill 49.70 0.250" 0.05" 90 6-5 Surface 4
Axial - Inside 1.0" Uphill 49.70 0.395" 0.079" 90 6-2, 64 Surface Below Weld 5
Axial 0.4" Downhill 7.80 3
6-13 Through-Wall Below Weld Summary and Example Problems January 2004 Revision I
7-6 ExampleOretio Crack Tip Circumferential Penetration Length Depth Wall at Penetration Source No.
Oinain Location Location Row (2c)
(a)
Thickness No.
Figure Axial -
1.25" 1
Inside Below Uphill 29.10
- 0. 195" 0.078" 0.661" 0.118 40 6-2 1
1___
S urface I
W eld I
_I_
I__
I__
I__
I__I__II 1
Locality Angle from Table 1 -1:
0.9 -
Nozzle No.
Type Angle 40 CEDM 29.1 0.8 -
0.7 -
T
" 06 0.5 a
g 0.4-0.3-F I
~~~I
-TT
-I L -
I -- -
-I - -
I -- -
- - -
4-I L.
IS 2
-Nozzle Angim~-
Nozzle AngWe-
-4p7
- g-
- 56.3-jegjjp)--
T 27 IN 7
-r I
-- 2 7
Service life =4.6Years 7I I -
7----~~~~~~
I IF-T1
--I ---
7 I
-7I Gende rati-ng-Stto 2
- 3 0.2-0.1 0
I I
I I
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
time (year)
Figure 7-1 Example Problem 1
(: -Z-
Summary and Example Problems January 2004 Revision 1
7-7 Example Orientation Crack Tip Circumferential Penetration Length Depth Wall a/t Penetration Source No.
Location Location Row (2c)
(a)
Thickness No.
Figure Axial -
1.25" 2
Outside Below Downhill 29.1° 0.195" 0.078" 0.661" 0.118 40 6-10 Surface Weld
__I 1
Locality Angle from Table 1-1:
0.9 Nozzle No.
Angle 0.8 TyDe 40
] CEDM {
29.1 0.7 0
00
-w 0.6 c 0.5 0
B 04 S
0.3 0.2 0.1 0
. --1
-I-4-
-i:
4
~~~~~~~
Nz~~~~eA~~~r~~Ie._
F
_l
_ IA__-
_I
-I
-I 4---
1 1
1 I
-I 4
-1
-- 4
/A e
4-----
l _ l '_ _ t t l ~~~~~-49, 7 d__________ __J__J
- - - _JC_.
I I
I
,___e___
, /
l l
S/
I T
I-I-
-r-1--
-_4
._.1.-4----I
- 1.
4 4-r;
/ r.
L I
I I
I I
I I
I
/ /
1
-I- - -I- - - -r - _ __Nozzle Anr 1
srh gVC6 -
T-1 T-I L
I I
I I
I
-~~-
I~~Iozz~~~eozgleeng---i --
4F1-
.9-4 4
_ I__
T I
qdeIwI 9Shg f~e r
t S
/
n f l
l t I*
I I
I I
I I
I /
/
/
/
/
I r rr
~ f-
-r /f r I-1 4
1 4
I Noa Angh: - - - - - -
Nozze Angle--
a -
I, L 2s~tde9 1 1-- - - - - - - - - -
I I
~~~~~-
r----
-\\--
- - -T> -/
ohge
-I 4
I t--
-4 4
III I
I I
II/
/
I I
ij I Generating Station 2&3
- - - --- - - -I I
I I
0 1
2 3
4 time (year)
Figure 7-2 Example Problem 2 CXX Summary and Example Problems January 2004 Revision 1
7-8 Example Orientation Crack Tip Circumferential Penetration Length Depth Wall a/t Penetration Source No.
Location Location Row (2c)
(a)
Thickness No.
Figure Axial -
3 Inside At Weld Downhill 49.70 0.250" 0.05" 0.661" 0.076 90 6-5 1
Surface I
I I
II
_III_
1 Locality Angle from Table 1-1:
0.9 Nozzle No.
Type Angle 90 CEDM 49.7 a,a S-X U
S
.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 I - -
I- - - - - - - -
I
- -I4 I
I
-+
4.-
-+-/----
I T
t-
- -t
[ I FV
--F__
I ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T -
1-r - -
r 7t I
I F-4
~
NezzIeAngle-4 4
I I
_ +
+ -
-I
-I -
+ N l
A 9
1 -
/
I IJ I
I I
F L
F L j
A l
L L X I
j 1 L-I L
.,,,1,,,,,-
4nl 1 1 A
- t
/
t
-- /-.,
_-T I
r-7 F
F F~
F-F 49gic
~~~~~~I I
L L
-i L
j No;l A t I_ _ e
~~~~~~I I I I I5.
Ie
,C01\\
I-sr -
---T--T I
r F
F F
4- -
-F 4
An le.g P~~~~~ll
!eIA~~~~~~~Ie:I F. ~~~~~~~-
L L
I-r-1 I
L F
J O I
1 t - -- r
- ~
I T
t
-F I~
____ _ __l__f._
L__L San Onofre--/--:----
Nuc-l--
ear -
- - - - -G-e- - - - -
g-
-t -
a o 2
_ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
I I-
/
l I
~~~~~~~I I II/I E
j z
i r
r t
i
]
,r r
1-
- -I- - -L-L--
-- r t
t t -
I i
t t r r - - --
_~~~~~~~~~~~
an Ono,,S fr N IucJleJIarv_
E z
]
l--l---l----r->K--l---l->z-zz;0-r
-r---------
T -e -- rn Stto 2 -:-
0.2 0.1 0
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
time (year)
Figure 7-3 Example Problem 3 Summary and Example Problems January 2004 Revision 1
7-9 Example Orientation Crack Tip Circumferential Penetration Length Depth Wall at Penetration Source No.
Location Location Row (2c)
(a)
Thickness
___No.
Figure Axial -
1.00",62 4
Inside Below Uphill 49.70 0.395" 0.079" 0.661 "
0.12 90 6-4 Surface W eld I__
IIIIII 1
Locality Angle from Table 1-1:
Nozzle No.
Type Angle 90 CEDM 49.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0
0.0 C-d0.3
.2 3:0.1 0
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 4
-1 I
A I
I I -
I-I A1 - -
F 1-I 4
i I
I T--I--I--
I--I-
+
I I
I-4-4 I
44 I
4-I I
I-I I
I i
I IL I
I I 1 It I
I I I
i II t
I I
I I
I I-I--I t
I--
I 4
I-I-
T4 tA 4-I I-I i
Ll L-l1 I Nozze Anglec I NozzleAmgle~
i i-i I
I 1
4 t-AI-I
-I-I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I I
I I
I I
I I
~~~~~I I
T 7I I dog I
I I-I-11--I-4 V
41
~
1--
I 4T I
I TI I
I I
I ~
~~I I
N ~I~n 1
-I-1--
-~~
I-1 - -
e -rr
-i
-~
I I
I I
I ~~~~I I
,2 ld 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
I I
I I
I ~ ~~~~~~~~~1 I i I
A I
+~~-~
~
~
I4~
1ILII4--I
-4 4I I1L I
N Il Ar
-o-4 I
4-T
-1 I-
-1 I-I I
LL.
I-I L1 I
4 Z I0A I-I
- I i
I F
1 iF f ~
I I
I
'-t I- -I--p I i
I L
-1, I
it I
I L~~~~~~~~I I
1 I
I I
L I
I I
A L
I L~~ I I
IL I
IL J
I~~~~iii I
I
-1 I--4_
_________________ill 1
[Generating Station 2 &3 I-4
-1:
I~~~~~I f
-I--I-I
-I- -
4- -
I I
II
-L I~
~
~
I I
II 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 a
9 time (year)
Figure 7-4a Example Problem 4 (See also Figure 7-4b)
Summary and Example Problems January 2004 Revision
7-10 Example Orientation Crack Tip Circumferential Penetration Length Depth Wall Penetration Source No.
Location Location Row (2c)
(a)
Thickness No.
Figure Axial -
1.00" 6-2, 4
Inside Below Uphill 49.70 0.395" 0.079" 0.661 "
0.12 90 6-4 Surface Weld IIII Locality Angle from Table 1-1:
Nozzle No.
Type Angle 90 CEDM 49.7 0
0 0
IA T
Ia0 0-d0
'U
-0 0fio c
4) o0 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- I llf I
1 q
. +
._ _ +
I---1---I---
f i F
l I
I I
q h
4
+
l 1---l- - -,
i -- r--l---:--
f
-II
-I -I-
.9 1-I I
A 1
1 t-r
-__I___I_...I...._I_._j_
-I
.L-..-N-._ L I
hozzleAngle:- -
L
/
- ~~~
1
-T-97e
___:_____1
/_
- - T - -
).8 -
i..
1_ _ __LI_I__i__
_I__
1/-
N zl An..
gl.e.
1.:1.
i
/
~
T
- -t;
- - -sd-- -
/
f-I I
Nozzle ngle'
.7 L~~~~~~~~ozr~~~~~e-Ang~~~--
1
_I_
_ _I_
_I_
_ J
.1 _
1 1
L L
u L
L L-
.6 5
I I
F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L E
I -I--
-I-
-8 t--T--r--r-I I I si
-I t
-r -
-s-
-f
- - - -t - -
tl -
-le 1
4
-A-N A-O 45~
4------I---I--n--n-T 4
I I
1 l --1-tD-- -
1 I4 I.8 deg
-1 I
L
~~-----------~~~
-T
-/
-1 r-
--- -Noze-7 7
I 2
-~
I I
IFI
.... 8 - - 8 t
t - - - -
F--lO 1I ---
F-I T
F F-1-
0 E I I E
AX S
Life I
1 1
I ear s
I N uclear
.1 -
+
1- -,- - -:- - r:
~~~~~~
~~Years
-I-j--
San OnorNula
=
_t tL
- L-
- -L -- :
1l J
L L
Generating Station 2 & 3 0
[ JL IIq 0.
0.
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
time (year)
Figure 7-4b Example Problem 4 (See also Figure 7-4a)
Summary and Example Problems January 2004 Revision 1
7-11 Example Orientation Crack Tip Circumferential Penetration Length Depth Wall at Penetration Source No.
__Location Location Row (2c)
(a)
Thickness a
No.
Figure T
uAhial- 04Welod° Downhill 7.80 N/A N/A 0.66 1" N/A 3
6-13 W a ll I__
I__
I__
2.5-Locality Angle from Table 1-1:
Nozzle 2.0 No.
Type Angle l
3 CEDM 7.8 g
0 E
/
- 0.
0.0 U.
0.5 Servie fe=.
Y asI
-1.0 0
12 3
4 5
6 Period (Effective Full Power Year)
Figure 7-5 Example Problem 5 Summary and Example Problems January 2004 Revision I
8-1 8
REFERENCES
- 1.
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 5h International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems-Water Reactors," August 25-29, 1991, Monterey, California.
4A.
Crack Growth and Microstrtctural Characterization of Alloy 600 PIVR 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 Weld 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 (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 i Nuclear Power Systems-Water Reactors (Newport Beach, CA, August 1-5, 1999), Edited by R 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 (Proprietary to Studsvik).
4G
]a.c,c 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:, November 2002. 1006695.
- 41.
"Crack Growth Rate Tests of Alloy 600 in Primary PWR Conditions," Communication from M.
L. Castaflo (CIEMAT) to J. Hickling (EPRI), March 25, 2002.
4J.
Gdmez-Bricefio, D., J. Lapefia, and F. Bldzquez. "Crack Growth Rates in Vessel Head Penetration Materials," Proceedings of the International Symposiuim Fontevraud 111: Contribution of Materials Investigation to the Resolution of Problems Encountered in Pressurized Mater Reactors (Chinton, France, September 12-16, 1994), French Nuclear Energy Society, Paris, 1994, pp.
209-214.
References January 2004 Revision I
8-2 4K.
G6mez-Bricefio. D. and J. Lapefia. "Crack Growth Rates in Vessel Head Penetration Materials."
Proceelings: 1994 EPRI Morkslol) on PIVSCC oJ Ailloy 600 i PR (Tampa. FL. November 15-17, 1994). EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. TR-105406, August 1995. pp. E4-1 through Fi4-15.
4L.
Gomez-Bricefio. D.. et al. "Crack Propagation in Inconel 60() Vessel Head Penetrations."
Eurocorr 96. Nice. France. September 24-26. 1996.
4M1.
Castaflo. M. L.. D. Gmez-Bricefio.
M9. Alvarez-de-Lara. F. 131.izquez. M. S. Garcia. F.
Hermindez. and A. Largares. "Effect of Cationic Resin Intrusions on IGAISCC of Alloy 600 Under Primary Water Conditions." Proceefligs of tile hitermuitionil SInosiuim Fontevral IV:
Contribution of Materials Ivestigaition to tlLe Resolution j Problems En oiuniterei'l ill,le.ssurized Witer Reactors (France. September 14-18. 1998), French Nuclear Energy Society, Paris. 1998.
Volume 2. pp. 925-937.
5A.
Newman, J. C. and Raju, 1. S.. "Stress Intensity Factor Influence Coefficients for Internal and External Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Vesscls," in Aspects of Fracture Mechanics in Pressure Vessels and Piping, IVP Vol. 58. ASME, 1)82. pp. 37-48.
5B.
Hiser. Allen. "Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessments," presentation at NRC/Ilndustry/ACRS meeting, November 8, 2001.
6A.
I 6B.
I
- 7.
USNRC Letter. NV. T. Russell to W. Raisin. NUMARC. "Safety Evaluation for lotential Reactor Vessel Head Adapter Tube Cracking." November 19. 1993.
- 8.
USNRC Letter. A. G Hansen to R. E. Link. "Acceptance Criteria for Control Rod
)rive INechanism Penetrations at Point Beach Nuclear Plant. Unit I," March 9. 1994.
- 9.
Materials Reliability Program Response to NRC Bulletin 2001-01 EPRI MRI' Report 48 (TP 1006284), August 2001.
- 10.
"CEOG Report # CEN-614, "Safety Evaluation of the Potential for and Consequences of Reactor Vessel Head Penetration Alloy 600 OD initiated Nozzle Cracking", December 1993.
II.
"CEOG Program to Address Alloy 600 Cracking of CEDNI Penetrations Subtask I Nozzle Evaluation," CE NSPD-903-P. CEOG Task 730, Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG). February 1993.
- 12.
USNRC Letter. R. Barrett to A. Niarion, "Flaw Evaluation Guidelines." April II. 2003
- 13.
"Materials Reliability Program Generic Evaluation of Examination Coverage Requirements for Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles (IRP-95)," EPRI. alo Alto. CA:. September 2003. 1009129.
- 14.
"The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook", Hiroshi Tada, 21 Edition.
References January 2004 Revision I
8-3
- 15.
"Effect of Strain Rate on SCC in High Temperature Primary Water, Comparison between Alloys 690 and 600, ANS 11h Environmental Degradation Meeting, August 2003, K. M. Boursier et al (EDF).
- 16.
1
] a,c.c References January 2004 Revision I
A-I APPENDIX A CEDMICI HOOP STRESS VS DISTANCE FROM BOTTOM OF WELD PLOTS In this section, CEDM and ICI hoop stresses are plotted against corresponding distance from the bottom of weld for 55.3 degrees, 49.7 degrees, 29.1 degrees, 7.8 degrees and the center location penetration rows on both the downhill and uphill sides.
Appendix A January 2004 Revision I
A-2 Figure A-I Hoop Stress Distribution Below te Weld I)ownhill and Uphill Side
()° CEI)M Penetration Nozzle) 70,000 60,000 50.000 40,000
'A
'2 30,000
'A
- a. 20.000 00 10.000 0
-10.000
-20,000 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Distance from Bottom of Weld (in)
Einside -- Outside Appendix A January 2004 Revision I
A-3 Figure A-2 Hoop Stress Distribution Below the Weld Downhill Side (7.80 CEDM Penetration Nozzle) 70,000 60.000 -
50,000 -
40,000 0.Z 0 30,000 ia. 20,000 0
10,000 0
-10,000
-20,000 X~~~~~
________J___________
1-----------
F --~~~~-
II I
F s---
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~--
I
- +/-
I
~
~
~~~~~~~~I I
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Distance from Bottom of Weld (in)
-_nside -- Outside 2.5 3.0 Appendix A January 2004 Revision I
A-4 Figure A-3 Hoop Stress )istribution Blow the Weld Uphill Side (7.80 CEDII Penetration Nozzle) 70,000 -
60,000 50,000 40,000 0
co 30,000 to C
20,000 00 10,000 0
-10,000
-20,000 0A X
~
~~~
~~~~~~~
- - --~~
~
~
X~~~
~~ ~
)o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Distance from Bottom of Weld (in)
Ejnsi(e
- Outside 3.5 Appendix A January 2004 Revision I
A-5 Figure A-4 Hoop Stress Distribution Below the Weld Downhill Side (29.10 CEDM Penetration Nozzle) 90,000 80,000-70,000-60,000-c 50,000 0 40,000-U' 30,000-0 I
20,000-10,000-0-
-10,000-
-20,000 J - -
L - - -
- - I-IJ J - - -- - -
L -
- -J L - - - - - - - - - - -I
- - - - - - - -r I-- -
- I-
.J
~~L
-L j
I I
I~~--
- --J
- - - - - - - -I I-
-L--
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Distance from Bottom of Weld (in)
I -Inside --
Outside 2.5 3.
Appendix A January 2004 Revision I
A-6 FigtOre A-5 Hoo) Stress Distribution Below the Weld Uphill Side (29.1° CEI)M IPenctrafion Nozzle) 70.000 60.000 50.000 40,000 Q. 30.000 (0
g 20,000 con o
1 0.000 0
-10.000
-20.000
-30.000 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Distance from Bottom of Weld (in)
Ef lnside -a-Outside 5.0 6.0 Appendix A January 2004 Revision I
A-7 0
Figure A-6 Hoop Stress Distribution Below the Weld Downhill Side (49.70 CEDM Penetration Nozzle) 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 v,
40,000 0.
Un 30,000 0
=
20,000 10,000 0
-10,000
-20,000 -
-30,000
F-------------
\\
~~~I III
\\
~
~
~I III
\\
~
~I III
\\
~
~I III
\\
~
~I III
\\
~
~I III
r -------------
______\\_____--------------------------------------------F-------------
I III I
III I
III I
III I
I, I
III
__n__-
I I
I II_
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Distance from Bottom of Weld (In) l-4--Inside -- Outside Appendix A January 2004 Appendix A January 2004 Revision I
A-8 Figure A-7 Hoop Stress Distribution Below the Weld Uphill Side (49.70 CEDNI Penetration Nozzle) 0.
Q*a C*
0.00 b0,uu 50,000 40,000 -
30,000 20,000 10,000 0A
-10,000
-20,000
-30,000
-40,000 0.
I I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I I~~~~~-
II I
I--
T I
I I
I~~~~~
--I I
I I~~~~~~~-
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Distance from Bottom of Weld (in) l--Inside ---
OutsideI 6.0 7.0 8.0 Appendix A January 2004 Revision I
A-9 Figure A-8 Hoop Stress Distribution Below the Weld Downhill Side (55.30 ICI Penetration Nozzle) 80,000 70,000 1 60,000 -
50,000 -
c 40,000 -
C 30,000 -
0 (n 20,000 -
C.00 X 10,000-0 -
-10,000 -
-20,000 -
-30,000-I I
.0
~~0.1 0
j_________.
I.
I_________W I.
Z T-----_ _ _
t - -------- _
T-----_ _ _
~~~~~~~I I__________
l~~~~~~~
L _
_ J _
l~~~~~~~
l~~~~~~~
W________~~I__________
l~~~~~~~
l~~~~~~~
I
~
~
~
~~~~
L___~~~~~
I__________
l I
~
~~~~~~
I
~~~~~I I
_ _ J _
l~~~~~~~
l~~~~~~~
l~~~~~~~
+
+
0.
0.2 0.3 0.4 Distance from Bottom of Weld (in)
-+-Inside -u-Outsidel 0.5 0.6 0.7 Appendix A January 2004 Appendix A January 20W Revision
A-10 Figure A-9 Hoop Stress Distribution Below the Weld Uphill Side (55.30 ICI Penetration Nozzle) 60,000 50.000 40.000 30,000
'a 20,000
- 4. 10,000 0o 0
-10,000
-20,000 -
-30,000 -
-40,000-
-I
- -I
-I
- - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - --
~~~I I
- - - - - - - - - - -~~
~~~~~~~
- - - - - - -~ ~~ ~
I I-
~ ~~~ ~
I**
I I*I***
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Distance from Bottom of Weld (in)
I -- Inside -- Outsidel 2.5 3.0 Appendix A January 2004 Revision I
B-1 APPENDIX B COMPARISON OF THE HOOP STRESS DISTRIBUTION BELOW THE WELD BETWE EN THE AS-BUILT AND AS-DESIGNED J-WELD GEOMETRY [16]
Appendix B January 2004 Appendix B January 2004 Revision I
B-2 Figure B-1 Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (00 CEDM Nozzle Downhill and Uphill Case) 0.
0.
0r 00
-.6-Design ID As Built ID Design OD a As Built OD
-3.00
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 Nozzle Bottom Axial Height with respect to Weld Bottom (inches)
Nozzle Top Appendix B Cz@
January 2004 Revision I
B-3 Figure B-2 Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (7.80 CEDM Nozzle Downhill Case)
E I
00M
- Design ID As Built ID Design OD A As Built OD
-3.00
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50 0.00 Nozzle Bottom Axial Height with respect to Weld Bottom (inches) 0.50 1.00 1.50 Nozzle Top C'27 Appendix B January 2004 Revision I
B-4 Figure B-3 Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (7.8° CEDM Nozzle Uphill Case) 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 c
40,000 0
6 2 30,000 (n
a.
40 00 20,000 10,000 0
-10,000
-'U-Design ID As Buit ID Design OD A-As Built OD
-20,000 I
-3.50
-3.00
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50 0.00 Nozzle Bottom Axial Height with respect to Weld Bottom (inches) 0.50 1.00 1.50 Nozzle Top Appendix B January 2004 Revision 1
B-5 Figure B-4 Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (29.10 CEDM Nozzle Downhill Case) 5f 00
- U - Design ID As Built ID Design OD A*As Built OD
-20,000 I I
-3.00
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 Nozzle Bottom Axial Height with respect to Weld Bottom (inches) 1.00 1.50 2.00 Nozzle Top Appendix B January 2004 Revision I
B-6 Figure B-5 Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (29.10 CEDM Nozzle Uphill Case) 0.
0a Design ID As Built ID
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00 0.00 Axial Height with respect to Weld Bottom (inches)
Appendix B C3d ?
January 2004 Revision 1
B-7 Figure B-6 Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (49.7° CEDM Nozzle Downhill Case) 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 0
2 30,0004 8
20,000 10,000
-a-Design ID As Built ID
-10,000
-20,000
-30,000
-40,000
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 Nozzle Bottom Axial Height with respect to Weld Bottom (inches) 1.50 2.00 2.50 Nozzle Top Appendix B Cup January 2004 Revision 1
B-8 Figure B-7 Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (49.7° CEDM Nozzle Uphill Case) a.
I 00 U-Design ID
-As Built ID Design OD As Built OD
-50,000 1 I
-8.0 -7.5 -7.0 -6.5 -6.0 -5.5 -5.0 -4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Nozzle Bottom Axial Height with respect to Weld Bottom (inches)
Nozzle Top Appendix B January 2004 Revision
B-9 Figure B-8 Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (55.3° ICI Nozzle Downhill Case) cL 0.
a.0 0) 2!
'Z
- A-Design ID U
As Built ID Design OD A-As Built OD
-1.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 Nozzle Bottom Axial Height with respect to Weld Bottom (inches) 2.50 Nozzle Top Appendix B C155 January 2004 Revision I
B-10 Figure B-9 Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (55.3° ICI Nozzle Uphill Case) 0.r 00M
- Design ID As Built ID Design OD
As Built OD
-40,000
-3.00
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 Nozzle Bottom Axial Height with respect to Weld Bottom (inches)
Nozzle TOD January 2004 Revision 1 Appendix B
C-l APPENDIX C THROUGH-WALL FLAW GROWNTH BELOW THE WELD CHARTS (LIMITING CASE)
Note that in Figures C-I through C-5, the initial through-wall flaw size is determined by assuming that the lower extremity of the flaw is located on the penetration nozzle where either the inside or outside surface hoop stress drops below 0 ksi.
Appendix C January 2004 Appendix C January 2004 Revision I
C-2 Figure C-I Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the Center CEDNI (0.0 Degrees) Penetration e
.5 Z;
0 E
02 in S2 a0C!q A!
a
.LL I.-
P I
L Q.
- 3 3:3 U.
I- -
_4 I
I I
1-J _I 2.0 2:
Z E_ :r 1
,~..-L--
I I
A, 0-
__---r--l~~n~~n~~n~I--
-I-
_5 r
L
--- -LZ IE N-z-
-zl ed-Region I
A - -
L L
L.
-I- - -r - - -- -
l - - -
r-L L
- I-
---r -
l 2
r r
rL L
I j
T I.(
C -- --- - -
-E t - -
r - --r
_1
- -: 3 X Z Z~v Z Z-r-
-L
.1 L
L sf 1 -
L-L~
-L - -' -
-I
__C
-I--
l
_-l--------3--
0.0.
-0.5 z ZEZZ;::::::3:: 3:
D tz El I- - - - - -
Z 3
7 I
I-- -
-4 4
I- - -
4 -- 4--
-t.0 0
2 3
4 5
Period (Effective Full Power Year)
Appendix C January 2004 Revision I
C-3 Figure C-2 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 7.8 Degrees Row of CEDI Penetrations Downhill Side 2.5r 2.
-1 E
0 E
1.
C iL I
-o a
i0.
am
. -I-.
.4------
0 4...
1-I..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I-i- -
--L
-J -
4
-L.-
L
- I-
- ~:
- - I -LI L
I I
-. a:
L:
I C::
5 CEDM Nozzle Weld Region r----
C IL- - - -
2-2 2
I I:
C C -C
- I I
f a3 -
!E E
_ _ _ L _
_ J _ _
_ 4 _ _
_ _ L _
I
_I _ _ I _ _
J _ _ >
w _ _ X
_ _ L _
I
-- r-r-l-___nnn-T~r-r~r-r~l-CZ:C:-:C:-D::Dr-r----o---
-r---l-l v--S--T-
-r - -
-r----
-l-v-
-1.
0 1
2 3
4 5
Period (Effective Full Power Year)
Appendix C January 2004 Revision I
C4 Figure C-3 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 29.1 Degrees Row of CEDI Penetrations Downhill Side S
0 0-m aA a
9 0.
n3 a
U.
2.0
- - L -
-I.-J..............L--L.'
u--l
-J
-l-
__W_1__1_____qq----1_1____4-;--------
-_4
_--Ws L j
J I
I I
L L~
I1 J
.4 U I I
L L.~~~JW...'
L I I I
T r
r r
-- I--
l l--d--n-----4--------------
10 _______________J__
___L__L______J_
0.5 0.0
-0.5
-- 1---1---1---i-H-A--e 1 -----
1---I------4 t_
-r
____I__.
~ -r
-l--n--n--n-5~~T--r--rr l~n~-
-r -
-r W -
_------D--J------_L-----_-_--
L --
-L-
__ I _J J__
_4
-__I-L_
I
_ ___l__
_J_
f
__L
__L I
I I
I:---,-----
CEDMNo--leWeldRegio -r--r--,-~~'~~',~~D4--__
I----_]-l-l---l--z-D--a--l--Z--
-- 4---l--
D 1
1 -
1:
I:
- -) -I 4--
I--T I
I m
m n ? T r r
r I
J
.j II I
I I
I I
T 44.._._L__
_I J
7 L
__J
.....__L__
w~~~~ - - - -
___I I
-1.0 0
2 3
4 5
Period (Effective Full Power Year)
Appendix C January 2004 Revision I
C-5 Figure C4 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 49.7 Degrees Row of CEDM Penetrations Downhill Side 3.0 2.5 C
2.0 ci 0E0 o 1.5 m
E e
02 1.0 a
L
.5
-0.5 2
a- 0.0 a
-0.5
-1.0 I
-I-C I
--I---
-t--r--
t
-r F-I--I-
-l-
-I-
-w-
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-t__:-I-'-
l:
4 -C 6.--
1-J J. -C --
CCD g
-I--l-S___--r-
¶_---r-rl-r-,-,;-'-r-r-p-
-i-,-r-r-p-lS---r-i
-i---rr--
-i
-I--1----I----
1-4J-F--4,44--
4-4-4-4---- --
I- --
+^-r-F-F--
4-+-F-F 1
-l-~I:
-::~-
_~~
l:-::ln m
t-
--~-I-
-F F-r*F-- -,-N-+-F-1<
F1 H
H -r-a a
m a_
1
- _I___2__
-I:,_
X_2~~~
~_
- _IJ_._L~
- I ~
rCEDM Noate Weld Region 21- :-
+--F-1--I-I-
=t= 3 2 ~Ir -C 7= Z C-C M-=-
-r I
CED o2:::eldRegon:
-.- -- - - - -I-I.-=
=, -
-4
-I-
- f r-
,= -
I C =I=
t-t=F -I-
- I
=I I-I I :-C :I: =:
I: C:I
- =1
:
I-
- c
-l D-
- r-C
-- -l 2-
-C :--':-
t
_ 1
1-
-I _
C F-----I-t 1
- I--
- -I-=I:
C -F 1-
- r-CF C =I_ D :1=I
- C:
C 3-I ::: 4-4.2~~
- L;t__ 42 2
- C I_}-l-JZ Z L I
- ZI l-Z)-
-J l
-I_
-C zi
-L Z
-m_
l -
z z-E
-l-j Z
nC L
- c' C
- J.
Z
-2
- x
- r :C
-L L
I
-L -
~~~~~~~-__-,-_---_-----
.t.-rl-----r----r-r-,-¶lzwr
_t-F F--I-
-.-- F-1--I _ _l _ t-1- -F
-I--I-
-I-F-I--I-
-I -,t-, -F-I-
-I-0 2
3 4
5 7
8 Period (Effective Full Power Year)
Appendix C January 2004 Revision I
C-6 Figure C-5 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 55.3 Degrees Row of ICI Penetrations Downhill Side 3.0 -.
2.5 C
B 2.0 0
E0 o
1.5 m
E a
_W 0.5 I
4) 10 L.0. 0 3C Er
-0.5
-1.0 D
C Z
=t D
_-I-'_,r-4-r4
-_4 Z4.
D C
_t--r-1
=
Z Z =
- 1
=I I
=1
- --r1 ID-C
-C
-4 =_I IDZLC I
=1 = t
- , r
- _I_;
D l _ C
- 1 Z r
_* 4._--_-
- 4. Z 1_
- 4L _4 1_
I:n W4.-I-'-
C,
_I_
I _
- I_
-'-I.
,4 -y L
= =' r
- : r.
-I-=
L = C;
- =C:
rZ-r DC:
D -r J
L D
D _ I_
-I-'-
L 1
+ z L _
tI t r 1_I z _, _::
=I -l--
- 1 CI:
t :
C
-1=
=1
_ _ c
=1
= I= w q
- 1
_ _ c
-4 = - - -
O--fr4 L _
L _ _
1-4-r -.
1i z-l-r
. V 7
a -
a fi -
fi J -
4 3 -
fl 2 -
4 4--,
3 _
2 _ _
J _
] _
4 _,
] _ 1_
2 _, _.
4-_.
] _: _
] _ _
t -I-
- _ I _
ID-C:
~_t
,4 I-=C:
D= C:
f<-t Ij _L.
I
= C I _
C
=!:
-l---
r: -c
- I r
' r:
D l
r--r-¶
- = I
_ I.
I:
D =L=IC4 r -l I-I
_4-I I.
_lC D _u.
-14..--C tr
-1C I )_C:
I I
DLwJ c
-J CZ I C J
- l __
I
_CIa
= I 3 2
-C I
t I-fri
=_
=:
_I
-l D
r:
-I=-C
' =
.4..'.I_
L ID:
t-1-Ir I
f I
m I I I fl I I I fl I I I fl a. a m a
- i:c In2 :': r Z: :c
- n:: :I =1:
- :c :::
I z: C r*--r-I-r"4--4-1 4f-1v-1rHr 1 7-=CIZ
i=C.' =iC M =i
3 =i=C I:!=C:=
3=i=
-C:
- :-c E:
- c
- D Z
r Z: -
- 1 4W-r*i-Ifr-I.-
- -i---------,-
fr-frq
._crZ I I:E4=C I=::
- :'::ED:c r :-,- c
- IC I: DC ID:::
- c I:
CI C
DI E
- c
- ! ::_I::
t D _
- I: "
I II
-=-
Z :=I::'::D:=
D::ED:CI::I:
-tC: -l_
_ =
C I C r __
- c_:1 tC' 22 r:-
Z CE C ::
c In:'::
C-IC Z D= C I: D:
4.fr3-Il-3 I
-C IZ=
-frI fr= I-l-
=1 E'-I--'Z-CI
-I---'-I=-I-D-I-+---
IDI C IDIC
- l-r
- :1 n::znl-r c
a 4 -
4 I 4-=.
- - -1 + 4 1.
4 ---
4 -4f r
- -l I 4--
4-I -I I-l -- 4 14 ".f
[ -1 zD-C:D:-IIDD IC E
D: :E D:l I:C E:::
- I
- DCIE D:Dn-C 4 " 4 I:DIC--:-n E-D-
- E-C :
tr sr lr--
r r D ' : Drt
_ I E
- d E D I : C D
d n I I Il r E t-~--w~z
.7-4-5-4.
fW 4.4 1
W 4
L 1
_ L4-41_
-I 1_LfrI 4
-14.-I_
f 4 _
_s**-**--
_ c
-___avcIa_l_
C
- DCI 0
I 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 Period (Year)
Appendix C January 2004 Revision I
C-7 Figure C-6 Through-Wall Axial Flaws Located in the 55.3 Degrees Row of ICI Penetrations Uphill Side 2.0-Mb C
r-0 E1.0 CO t.
co E
e 0
4, c 0.5 0
.L-0.0 e
C -0.5
-- t-~~
~~~
-r-S-
-r-r v
r
-I-
- -r-f
-_D-2 C
I-D
-L
_I
- -2
- C
-I-r
--<--I--1- -
I-_,_4 --._
I I
--4-_____
A--,___I_
I-- ~~~~~~~~~~~D -
-- 2 n--r--l--n--r-n--r--l--n--r T
l-n-r n-r--l-n--
_D__L--I--I--CLD--L-I- -.
4- [---.--I-L L ---r-I-
-4 LD-1
__1L_-__D__L J
I L I L :
I II
__L 1:
~
i _: _I I ::;
I
_:__LJ__
I
_w__LJ__
I-
-+ -
t -- F-1 F --I
- r - -
-t
- r - - - -
- -l__
I__
I--4~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~4 4
6.4 4.
D=---- -----k--
4--h------
_D--T--l--7--c-D--r--l--5~~-
cD-l-- -- r r
r T
l----r-J L _J__L_l J
_ _ L_
J I
_L J__
L I
l-w L _J__
L _
__I L _ J L__
- ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I
_r
_I ;
=;
-1 r
- -j
- -T - -r
,i 1
.. _W _
z __ I__
4
_ L_
_1_ _;_
_1 _ 4_ _
_ z_
I_
L J
L JL__.
J 1_
_I
.1
_L;_W__
1__4__
I L
-- m--t--l-----r-C--t--l--r--r-e--t--l--S--r-e--tO~-l-----l-r-r-2
-~~--+--1--4--
F - < - -. -N=_--4Z1-l-F. -
6-A I
_LJ__l_t___
L I
I_
L _
I I
I L JI L I
-- ^--+--I--e--F-e--+--l--*'T-
- r--
-i-
- r-i
- -i--
-- - r-r-
r
-F-C
-r-
_J:
4-L.
1 F-g--F-H
-I Z
4 L
F-l -- - -F -
H-e l
-1.0 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Period (Year)
Appendix C January 2004 Revision I SCE Responses to NRC Request for Additional Information Summary Information Regarding Relaxation Requests 1 and 2 SCE Drawing S023-901-89
THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR
- FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:
DRAWING NO. 234-582, "CLOSURE HEAD INSTRUMENT NOZZLE DETAILS" WITHIN THIS PACKAGE... OR BY SEARCHING USING THE DOCUMENT/REPORT NO.
234-582 D-01 SCE Responses to NRC Request for Additional Information Summary Information Regarding Relaxation Requests 1 and 2 SCE Drawing S023-901-225