ML090840422

Final Calculations of Record for the Confirmatory Environmentally Assisted Fatigue (Cufen) Analyses on the Reactor Pressure Vessel Core Spray (CS) and Recirculation Outlet (RO) Nozzles at Vermont Yankee

ML090840422
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	03/10/2009
From:	Travieso-Diaz M Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, Entergy Operations, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
To:	Karlin A, Wendy Reed, Richard Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-271-LR, ASLBP 06-849-03-LR, RAS M-411
Download: ML090840422 (119)

Text

1) A i , t I ti . COPY 2300 N Street, N.W. Tel 202.663.8000 Washington, D.C. 20037-1 128 F~ax 202.663.8007 www.pillsburylaw.coni MATIAS F. TRAVwEso-DIAZ 202-663-8142 DOCKETED Matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.comn USNRC March 10, 2009 (3:02pm)

March 10, 2009 OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Alex S. Karlin, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge . '

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. William H. Reed Mail Stop T-3 F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-3 F23 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

Docket No. 50-271-LR; ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR Gentlemen:

In accordance with the provisions of the Board's Partial Initial Decision (Ruling on Contentions 2A, 2B, 3, and 4), LBP-08-25, 68 N.R.C. (Nov. 24, 2008), slip op. at 67, and the Board's Order (Clarifying Deadline for Filing New or Amended Contentions) (Mar. 9, 2009),

Entergy has revised and issued its final calculations of record for the confirmatory environmentally assisted fatigue (CUFen) analyses on the reactor pressure vessel core spray (CS) and recirculation outlet (RO) nozzles at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. These revised analyses are presented in the following Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. (SIA) calculations: Calculation No. 0801038.302, Revision 1, "Stress Analysis of Reactor Core Spray Nozzle;" Calculation No. 0801038.303, Revision 1, "Fatigue Analysis of Reactor Core Spray Nozzle;" Calculation No. 0801038.304, Revision 1, "Design Inputs and Methodology for ASME Code Fatigue Usage Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle;" Calculation No.

0801038.305, Revision 1, "Stress Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle;" and Calculation No. 0801038.306, Revision 1, "Fatigue Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle." Calculation 0801038.301, Revision 0, "Design Inputs and Methodology for ASME Code Fatigue Usage Analysis of Reactor Core Spray Nozzle" has not been revised so that the version sent to the parties on January 8, 2009 remains the final calculation of record.

O37~ T-o -5

March 10, 2009 Page 2 Entergy is serving at this time electronic copies of those analyses on the parties to the above captioned proceeding. Hard copies are also being sent today by overnight mail to the NRC Staff, the New England Coalition and the Vermont Department of Public Service.

The methodology applied in the referenced CS and RO confirmatory analyses is in accordance with the approach used in the SIA calculations for the feedwater nozzle that were introduced into evidence in this proceeding, and contains no significantly different scientific or technical judgments from those used in the feedwater nozzle calculations. See Calculation 0801038.301 at 4, n.1 and Calculation 0801038.304 at 4, n. 1.

As set forth in the referenced revised calculations, the limiting calculated CUFenS for the CS and RO nozzles are less than unity and are therefore acceptable.

Sincerely, Matias F. Travieso-Diaz Counsel for Entergy cc: Service List Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing letter were served on the persons listed below by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid; where indicated by an asterisk, by electronic mail; and where indicated by a double asterisk, by both overnight and electronic mail, this 1 0 th day of March, 2009.

• Administrative Judge *Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Esq., Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ask2(@nrc.gov rew(anrc.gov

• Administrative Judge

• Secretary Dr. William H. Reed Att'n: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff 1819 Edgewood Lane Mail Stop 0-16 CI Charlottesville, VA 22902 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission whrcville(ieinbarqmail.com Washington, DC 20555-0001 secy(anrc.gov, hearingdocket(Dnrc. gov

• Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing.Board Mail Stop 0-16 C1 Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 OCAAmaila~nrc.gov

• Lloyd Subin, Esq. **Sarah Hofmann, Esq.

• Susan L. Uttal, Esq. Director of Public Advocacy

• Maxwell C. Smith, Esq. Department of Public Service Office of the General Counsel 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Mail Stop O-15-D21 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sarah.hofinann(state.vt.us Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 LBS3@(cnrc.gov; susan.uttal(ynrc.gov; maxwell.smith(ai)nrc. gov Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

• • Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. **Raymond Shadis National Legal Scholars Law Firm 37 Shadis Road 84 East Thetford Road PO Box 98 Lyme, NH 03768 Edgecomb, ME 04556 aroisman(-,nationalleaalscholars.com shadis(lprexar.comr

• Peter L. Roth, Esq. *Zachary Kahn, Esq.

Office of the New Hampshire Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 33 Capitol Street Mail Stop T-3 F23 Concord, NH 03301 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Peter.roth(adoi.nh.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001 zachary.kalmn(arc. gov

• Matthew Brock, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Matthew.Brocke,state.ma.us Matias F. Tr*avieso-Diaz Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

CALCULATION PACKAGE File No.: 0801038.302 Project No.: 0801038 Quality Program E Nuclear E- Commercial PROJECT NAME:

VY Confirmatory Analysis for the CS and RO Nozzles CONTRACT NO.:

10163217 Amendment 5 CLIENT: PLANT:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station CALCULATION TITLE:

Stress Analysis of Reactor Core Spray Nozzle Document Affected Project Manager Preparer(s) &

DocumentsAfted Revision Description Approval Checker(s)

Revision Pages Signature & Date Signatures & Date 01 - 15 Initial issue.

Gary L. Stevens Tyler D. Novotny Computer Files 01/06/09 01/06/09 Jennifer D. Correa

.01/06/09 1 1-3,7-8,11 Revised per summary / Preparer:

contained in Section 1.1. / &1t@ /

Computer Files Changes are marked with revision handbars" in right-Stevens margin. 03/09/09 Tyler D. Novotny 03/09/09 Checker:

Tim D. Gilman 03/09/09 Page 1 of 15 F0306-O1RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents 1.0 O B JECTIV E ......... ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Changes Made in Revision 1 of this Calculation ........................................................... 3 2.0 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 3 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS / DESIGN INPUTS ..................................................................................... 3 4.0 C A LCU L A T IO N S ........................................................................................................................ 3 4.1 Finite Element Unit Pressure Stress Analysis............................... 3 4.2 Thenr al Transient Stress Analysis ................................................................................ 4 4.3 Determining Critical Stress Paths ................................................................................. .5 4.4 Stress C alculation .......................................................................................................... 5 4 .5 P ip in g L o ad s .............................. ............................................................................................ 7 5.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 8 6.0 RE FEREN C E S ............................................................................................................................ 8 List of Tables Table 1: Pressure Results (1,000 psi) ............................................................................................. 6 Table 2: Stresses Under Unit Pressure Load, psi ................................... 9 Table 3: Membrane Plus Bending Stresses Due to Piping Loads ................................................ 10 Table 4: Example Thermal Stress Result Output, psi ..................................................................... 11 List of Figures Figure 1. Core Spray Nozzle Internal Pressure Distribution ....................... ................................ 12 Figure 2. Core Spray Nozzle Pressure Cap Load & Boundary Condition .................. 13 Figure 3. Core Spray Nozzle Vessel Wall Boundary Condition ........................ 14 Figure 4. Limiting Stress Paths ................................. ..................................................................... 15 FileNo.: 0801038.302 Page 2 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

1.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this calculation package is to obtain stress distributions for the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) core spray (CS) nozzle at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. ANSYS [1]

thernal transient and pressure stress analyses are performed, along with calculation of stresses due to attached piping loads. The stress results will be used for a subsequent ASME Code,Section III NB-3200 [2] fatigue usage calculation.

1.1 Changes Made in Revision 1 of this Calculation Description of changes made in Revision 1 of this calculation:

a. All changes marked throughout this calculation are editorial changes made to the text of the calculation package.

2.0 METHODOLOGY The methodology to be used for this evaluation was established in a previous calculation package

[3]. A previously developed finite element model (FEM) [3] of the CS nozzle is used to perform thermal and pressure stress analyses using ANSYS [1]. A thermal transient analysis is performed for each defined transient. Concurrent with the thermal transients are pressure and piping interface loads. For these loads, unit load analyses (based on finite element analysis for pressure and manual calculations for attached piping loads) are performed. All six components of the stress tensor are determined in the stress calculations.

The fatigue usage calculation and environmental fatigue usage analysis will be performed in a separate calculation package. That subsequent calculation will utilize the thermal and pressure stresses determined in this calculation, along with stresses due to attached piping loads provided in Table 3. The stresses due to pressure and the attached piping loads will be scaled based on the temperature and pressure magnitudes during each individual transient, and the location being analyzed. From the Reference [3] calculation, the FEM includes a factor of two on the modeled RPV radius to account for the 3-D effects of two intersecting cylinders at the nozzle blend radius location.

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS / DESIGN INPUTS Assumptions and design inputs were previously established in Section 3.1 of the Reference [3]

calculation.

4.0 CALCULATIONS 4.1 Finite Element Unit Pressure Stress Analysis A uniform pressure of 1,000 psi was applied to the FEM along the inside surface of the CS nozzle and the RPV wall (Figure 1). A pressure load of 1,000 psi was used because it is easily scaled up or FileNo.: 0801038.302 Page 3 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

down to account for different pressures that occur during transients. In addition, a membrane stress "cap load" was applied to the modeled end of the piping attached to the core spray nozzle safe end.

This membrane stress was calculated as follows:

p* Di2 cap - Do 2 - Di 2 where:

P = Pressure = 1,000 psi unit load Di= Inner Diameter at end of model = 9.834 in Do = Outer Diameter at end of model = 10.815 in Therefore, the membrane stress is 4,774 psi. The calculated value is given a negative sign in order for it to exert tension on the piping end of the model. The FEM geometry input file is taken from the calculation that specifies the design and methodology inputs [3, input file VYCSNGEOMINP].

The ANSYS input file VY 16Q_P.INP, as obtained from Appendix A of Reference [5], contains the pressure loading. Figure 1 shows the applied 1,000 psi internal pressure distribution. At the vessel wall, a symmetric boundary condition is applied. At the piping end of the model, axial displacement is coupled to simulate the effect of the attached piping that is not modeled. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the boundary conditions.

4.2 Thermal Transient Stress Analysis The FEM geometry input file is taken from the calculation that specifies the design and methodology inputs [3, file VYCSNGEOM.INP], and is used as input to the files in which the thermal transient and pressure stress analyses are performed.

For the thermal transient ANSYS analyses, previously defined thernal transients [3, Table 2] are evaluated, applying heat transfer coefficients [3, Tables 4 through Table 18], as appropriate, based on the flow rates for each individual transient.

Each thermal transient is evaluated in ANSYS to determine the resulting temperature distributions.

The thermal results are used as input for the stress analysis for each transient. The boundary conditions used for the pressure load case were also applied to the thermal stress cases. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the application of these boundary conditions.

All ANSYS input files for the thennal analyses, as listed below, are saved in the project computer files:

VY_CSNGEOM.INP: Geometry and material properties VY_16QTRAAN2-T.INP, VY 16QTRAN2-S.INP: Transient 2, thermal and stress analyses VY_16QTRAN3-T.INP, VY 16QTRAN3-S.INP: Transient 3, thermal and stress analyses VTY_ 6QTRAN11-T.INP, VYI 16QTRAN11-S.INP: Transient 11, thermal and stress analyses FileNo.: 0801038.302 Page 4 of 15 Revision: I F0306-O1RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

VY_16QTRAN14-T.JNP, VY 16QTRAN14-S.INP: Transient 14, thermal and stress analyses VYý_]6QTRAN21-23-T.INP, VY_ 6Q_TRAN21-23-S.INP: Transient 21-23, thermal and stress analyses VY_16QTRAN24-T.INP, VY 16QTRAN24-S.JNP: Transient 24, thermal and stress analyses VY_16QTRAN30-T.INP, VY 16QTRAN30-S.INP: Transient 30, thermal and stress analyses 4.3 Determining Critical Stress Paths From Section 4.0 of Reference [5], the critical location in the safe end was determined to be at Node 3719. This location was selected since it possessed the highest stress intensity during the worst case thermal transient.

Also from Section 4.0 of Reference [5], the critical stress location in the nozzle blend radius was chosen based upon the highest pressure stress (which is controlling in the nozzle blend radius). The pressure stress results showed the critical location in the nozzle blend radius to be at Node 2166.

Figure 4 shows the two critical stress paths that will be used to find the linearized stresses at the safe end and nozzle blend radius.

4.4 Stress Calculation Linearized stresses from Node 3719 (safe end inside surface) and Node 2166 (nozzle blend radius inside surface of base metal) are used for the fatigue usage analysis, as shown in Figure 4. For the nozzle blend radius location, the stresses used are for the base metal only; the cladding material is unselected prior to stress extraction.

The pressure stress intensities for the safe end and blend radius paths were extracted using the ANSYS file VY_]6QP.INP. This produced one file, PRESSURE.lin, which contains results of the critical stress paths.

Table 1 shows the final pressure results for the safe end and blend radius. These results are slightly different from those reported in Table 14 of Reference [5] as a result of the revised material properties (i.e., temperature dependent material properties were used in the current evaluation vs. constant material properties in Reference [5]).

FileNo.: 0801038.302 Page 5 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

VStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Table 1: Pressure Results (1,000 psi)

Membrane plus Total Stress Location Bending Stress Intensit Intensity (psi)

(psi)

Safe End 12,030 12,070 Blend Radius 30,720 36,150 Results were also extracted from the vessel portion of the model to verify the accuracy of the results obtained from the ANSYS model, and to check the results due to the use of the 2.0 multiplier on the vessel radius. These results are contained in the file PRESSURE.lin. The radius of the finite element model (FEM) was multiplied by a factor of 2.0 [3] to account for the fact that the vessel portion of the axisymmetric model is a sphere, but the true geometry is the intersection of two cylinders.

The equation for the membrane hoop stress in a sphere is:

(pressure)x (radius) 2 x thickness Considering a vessel base metal radius, R, of 105.906 inches increased by a factor of 2.0, a vessel base metal thickness, t, of 5.4375 inches, and an applied pressure, P, of 1,000 psi, the calculated stress for a sphere is PR/(2t) = 19,477 psi. This compares very well with the remote vessel wall membrane hoop stress from the ANSYS result file, PRESSURE.lin, of 18,960 psi. Thus, considering the peak total pressure stress of 36,150 psi reported above, the stress concentrating effect of the nozzle comer is 36,150/19,477 = 1.86. In other words, the peak nozzle comer stress is 1.86 times higher than nominal vessel wall stress for the axisymmetric model.

The equation for the membrane hoop stress in a cylinder is:

I

((pressure) x (radius))

thickness Based on the previous dimensions, the calculated stress for a cylinder without the 2.0 factor is 19,477 psi. Increasing this by a factor of 1.86 yields an expected peak nozzle comer stress of 36,227 psi, which would be expected from a cylindrical geometry that is representative of the nozzle configuration. Therefore, the result from the ANSYS file for the peak nozzle comer stress (36,150 psi) is close to the peak nozzle comer stress for a cylindrical geometry because of the use of the 2.0 File No.: 0801038.302 Page 6 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-OIRO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

multiplier. This is consistent with SI's experience where a factor of two increase in radius is typical for representing the 3-D effect in an axisymmetric model.

4.5 Piping Loads The piping loads per Reference [4] are as follows:

F, = 2,500 lbs Mx= 264,000 in-lb Fy = 4,600 lbs My= 85,200 in-lb F, = 1,700 lbs Mz= 105,600 in-lb The point of loads application is at the intersection between the safe end-to-pipe weld [4, 61]

Therefore, the safe end critical location is 0.303 inches and the nozzle blend radius is 30.817 inches from the load application point. (The nozzle blend radius location was measured from approximately the middle of the critical stress path for the blend radius and applied to the inside blend radius location along the critical stress path.) From general structural mechanics, the membrane plus bending stresses at the inside surface of a thick-walled cylinder are:

cyzl = axial stress due to axial force = Fz/A cy, = axial stress due to bending moment = Mxy(ID/2)/I (z = Tzl 5"z2

,re = shear stress due to torsion = Mz(ID/2)/J z = shear stress due to shear force = 2Fxy/A, where Fx, Fy, Fz, M,, My, and Mz are forces and moments at the pipe-to-safe end weld M* = moment about x axis translated by length z = -L = M, - Fy L MyL = moment about y axis translated by length z = -L = My + Fx L 2

Mxy = resultant bending moment = (MxL + MyL2)0.5 2

Fxy = resultant shear force = (Fx + Fy2)0.5 ID, OD = inside and outside diameters 2 2

A = area of cross section = (it/4)(OD - ID )

I = moment of inertia = (7/64)(OD 4 - ID 4)

J = polar moment of inertia = (7/32)(0D 4 - ID4)

The piping load stress calculations for these locations are shown in Table 3.

The piping loads tabulated in and pictorially shown in Reference [4] were applied by CB&I at the safe end-to-pipe weld. Refer to Reference [6], page 9 of 13; CB&I RPV Stress Report, Section S7.

FileNo.: 0801038.302 Page 7 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

5.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS A thermal transient analysis for each defined transient, as well as unit pressure stress and piping interface load analyses were performed for the CS nozzle at Vermont Yankee. All six components of the stress tensor were extracted from the ANSYS model at the two limiting path locations. Table 2 provides the unit pressure stress analysis results. The unit pressure load results are used to choose the location to analyze at the nozzle blend radius and will be scaled up or down based on applied pressures for the final fatigue analysis. Table 3 provides the piping stresses at the two critical locations. Table 4 shows an example of thermal stress results. The remaining thermal stress results are contained in the ANSYS output files, listed below, which are saved in the project computer files:

PRESSURE.lin: Unit pressure stress analysis results VY_16QTRAN2-S. lin: Transient 2, thermal stress analysis results VY_ 6QTRAN3-S. lin: Transient 3, thermal stress analysis results VY_16QTRANll-S.lin: Transient 11, thermal stress analysis results VY_16QTRAN14-S.lin: Transient 14, thernal stress analysis results VY_16QTRAN21-23-S. lih: Transient 21-23, thermal stress analysis results VY_16QTRAN24-S. lin: Transient 24, thermal stress analysis results VY_]6Q TRAN3 0-S. lin: Transient 30, thermal stress analysis results A fatigue calculation using the methodology of Subarticle NB-3200 of Section III of the ASME Code [2] and an environmental fatigue usage analysis will be performed in a separate calculation package using the stress results from this calculation.

The results of this calculation are used in a subsequent SIA Calculation No. 0801038.303, "Fatigue Analysis of Core Spray Nozzle."

6.0 REFERENCES

1. ANSYS, Release 8.1 (w/Service Pack 1), ANSYS, Inc., June 2004.

2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsection-NB, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda.

3. SI Calculation No. 0801038.301, Revision 0, "Design Inputs and Methodology for ASME Code Fatigue Usage Analysis of Reactor Core Spray Nozzle."

4. VY Drawing 5920-0024, Revision 11, Sht. No. 7, "Reactor Vessel," (GE Drawing No.

919D294), SI File No. VY-05Q-241.

5. SI Calculation No. VY-16Q-309, Revision 1, "Core Spray Nozzle Green's Functions."

6. Entergy Design Input Record (DIR), Rev. 1, EC No. 1773, Rev. 0, "Environmental Fatigue Analysis for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station," 7/26/07, SI File No. VY- 16Q-209.

FileNo.: 0801038.302 Page 8 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 2: Stresses Under Unit Pressure Load, psi Membrane plus Bending Total Node S SY Sz Sxy Syz Sxz SX S Sz Sxy Syz Sxz SafeEnd 3719 -1011 4829 11010 -104.8 0 0 -1011 4912 11050 -85.31 0 0 Blend Radius 2166 -1052 1657 25960 4886 0 0 -1052 1720 35050 348.9 0 0 FileNo.: 0801038.302 Page 9 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 3: Membrane Plus Bending Stresses Due to Piping Loads Safe End Blend Radius Fx, kip 2.5 2.5 Fy, kip 4.6 4.6 F,, kip 1.7 1.7 Mx, kip-in 264 264 My, kip-in 85.2 85.2 M,, kip-in 105.6 105.6 L, in 0.30 30.82 MxL, kip-in 262.61 122.24 MyL, kip-in 85.96 162.24 MxY, kip-in 276.32 203.14 Fy,, kip-in 5.24 5.24 OD, in 10.82 24.25 ID,in 9.834 12.125 A, in2 15.91 346.40 I, in4 212.46 15914.32 J, in4 424.93 31828.64 a.,, ksi 0.107 0.005 az2, ksi 6.395 0.077 oz, ksi 6.502 0.082 "ro, ksi 1.222 0.020 cz, ksi 0.658 0.030 Note: The axial and shear stresses are expressed in a local coordinate system with r radial (X in ANSYS coordinates), 0 circumferential (Z in ANSYS coordinates), and Z axial (Y in ANSYS coordinates) components with respect to the nozzle centerline.

File No.: 0801038.302 Page 10 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 4: Example Thermal Stress Result Output, psi Membrane Plus Bending Total Transient NodeI I Time (s) I.Sx Sy Sz Sxy Syz Sxz' Sx Sy Sz Sxy Syz Sxz 0 48 288 696 -50 0 0 48 641 -86 0 10.002 49 280 689 -50 0 0 49 -11 630 -86 0 123.23 52 197 644 -53 0 0 52 -131 561 -89 0 1716.1 124 467 1587 -123 0 0 124 -293 1413 -212 0 6984.8 380 1918 5199 -385 0 0 380 -358 4733 -663 0 7946.2 430 2206 5907 -436 0 0 430 -365 5384 -752 0 8919 482 2506 6638 -489 0 0 482 -371 6056 -843 0 16055 845 4684 11830 -857 0 0 845 -352 10830 -1487 0 16164 -849 4707 11880 -861 0 0 849 -352 10880 -1494 0 3719 16304 850 4831 12000 -864 0 0 850 -219 11020 -1500 0 19448 851 5001 12110 -870 0 0 851 -45 11140 -1506 0 20622 851 5002 12110 -870 0 0 851 -44 11140 -1506 0 29155 851 5002 12110 -870 0 0 851 -44 11140 -1506 0 32155 851 5002 12110 -870 0 0 851 -44 11140 -1506 0 40155 851 5002 12110 -870 0 0 851 -44 11140 -1506 0 50155 851 5002 12110 -870 0 0 851 -44 11140 -1506 0 65155 851 5002 12110 -870 0 0 851 -44 11140 -1506 0 66165 851 5002 12110 -870 0 0 851 -44 11140 -1506 0 3

0 86 -140 1025 44 0 87 -1084 -628 -68 0 10.002 87 -141 1030 44 0 109 -1242 -955 -70 0 123.23 109 -210 1224 60 0 310 -3331 -4776 -184 0 1716.1 310 -1469 2676 359 0 794 -9114 -9547 -537 0 6984.8 794 -2777 8114 775 0 882 -10220 -10520 -607 0 7946.2 882 -3032 8912 812 0 973 -11350 -11470 -678 0 8919 973 -3298 9762 859 0 1553 -18930 -18300 -1177 0 16055 1553 -5119 14660 1049 0 1562 -19040 -18390 -1184 0 16164 1562 -5143 14730 1051 0 1545 -18980 -18070 -1190 0 2166 16304 1545 -5079 14620 1032 0 1433 -18220 -14130 -1169 0

.19448 1433 -3608 14270 632 0 1422 -18180 -13900 -1169 0 20622 1422 -3508 14050 566 0 1409 -18140 -13810, -1173 0 29155 1409 -3451 13540 461 0 1409 -18140 -13810 -1173 0 32155 1409 -3452 13520 459 0 1409 -18140 -13810 -1173 0 40155 1409 -3452 13510 458 0 1409 -18140 -13810 -1173 0 50155 1409 -3452 13510 458 0 1409 -18140 -13810 -1173 0 65155 1409 -3452 13510 458 0 1409 -18140 -13810 -1173 0 66165 1409 -3452 13510 458 0 1409 -18140 -13810 -1173 0 Note: Not all time steps are listed in this table.

File No.: 0801038.302 Page 11 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Figure 1. Core Spray Nozzle Internal Pressure Distribution File No.: 0801038.302 Page 12 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

StructuralIntearityAssociates, Inc.

inc.

Integrity Associates,

• Structurai Core Spray Nozzle Finite Element Model Figure 2. Core Spray Nozzle Pressure Cap Load & Boundary Condition File No.: 0801038.302 Page 13 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Core Spray Nozzle Finite Element Model Figure 3. Core Spray Nozzle Vessel Wall Boundary Condition FileNo.: 0801038.302 Page 14 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

V StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

V~~~~rd~N pi3t l~~l dpa

-0:1 NodE2166 C-r $pray :hzerirnre zl--es -o1q, Figure 4. Limiting Stress Paths FileNo.: 0801038.302 Page 15 of 15 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

J V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc. File No.: 0801038.303 Project No.: 0801038, CALCULATION PACKAGE ,Quality Program Z Nuclear L! Commercial PROJECT NAME:

VY Confirmatory Analysis for the CS and RO Nozzles CONTRACT NO.:

10163217 Amendment 5 CLIENT: PLANT:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station CALCULATION TITLE:

Fatigue Analysis of Reactor Core Spray Nozzle, Document Affected Project Manager Preparer(s) &

Revision Pages Revision Description Approval Checker(s)

Signature & Date Signatures & Date 0 1 - 18 Initial issue.

Gary L. Stevens Tyler Novotny Computer Files. 01/06/09 01/06/09 W. F. Weitze 01/06/09 1 1-3, 5-8, 11-12, Revised per summary .. Preparer:

17-18 contained in Section 1.1. / -

Changes are marked with Gary L. Stevens Computer Files. "revision bars" in right-hand margin. 03/09/09 Tyler D. Novotny 03/09/09 Checker:

Tim D. Gilman 03/09/09 Page 1 of 18 F0306-O1RO

VStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents 1.0 O B JEC T IVE ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Changes Made in Revision 1 of this Calculation ........................... 3 2.0 M E TH O D O L O G Y ........................................................................................... ... ................... 3 3.0 D E SIG N IN P U TS ......................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Stress C alculation .......................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Fatigue Usage Analysis, General .................................................................................. 4 3.3 Event Cycles, V ESLFA T ............................................................................................... 4 3.4 M aterial Properties, VESLFA T ..................................................................................... 5 3.5 Stress Indices ............................................................................................................. 5 4.0 C A L C U L A TION S ......................................................................................................................... 6 5.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS ............................................. 7

6.0 CONCLUSION

S AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................... 7 7.0 RE FEREN CE S ............................................................. ............................................................... 8 List of Tables Table 1: Safe End Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT ....................................................................... 9 Table 2: Nozzle Blend Radius Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT ....................................................... 10 Table 3: Temperature-Dependent Material Properties for VESLFAT .................... 11 Table 4: Carbon/Low Alloy Steel and Stainless Steel Fatigue Curves .................... 12 Table 5: Pressure and Attached Piping Unit LoadCase Stress Components ................................. 13 Table 6: Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Safe End (Inconel) ....... ................. 13 Table 7: Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Safe End (Stainless Steel) .......................................... 14 Table 8: Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Nozzle Blend Radius ....................... 15 Table 9: EAF Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Nozzle Blend Radius Location ........................ 16 Table 10: Linearized Stress Files Compiled for VY-StressResults.xls ...................... 18 File No.: 0801038.303 Page 2 of 18 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

VStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.

1.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this calculation package is to perform an ASME Code,Section III fatigue usage evaluation and a plant-specific evaluation of reactor water environmental effects for the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) core spray (CS) nozzle at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

1.1 Changes Made in Revision 1 of this Calculation Description of changes made in Revision I of this calculation:

a. Changed Reference [1] to reflect revision of that document.

b. All other changes marked throughout this calculation are editorial changes made to the text of the calculation package.

2.0 METHODOLOGY The methodology to be used for this evaluation was established in a previous calculation package

[2]. Based on that methodology, thermal stresses, pressure stresses, and attached piping load stresses were developed in the Reference [1] calculation for use in a fatigue calculation. The thermal stresses are added to pressure stresses and attached piping load stresses 1 . Both the pressure and piping' load stresses are scaled based on the magnitudes of the pressure and nozzle temperature during each transient. All six components of the stress tensor from the stress results are used in the fatigue calculation.

The fatigue calculation is performed for both of the limiting safe end and nozzle blend radius locations, as determined in the Reference [1] calculation, and uses the methodology of Subarticle NB-3200 of Section III of the ASME Code [3]. An environmental fatigue usage analysis is also performed in this calculation applying the methodology described in Reference [6].

3.0 DESIGN INPUTS 3.1 Stress Calculation Linearized stress components at Node 3719 (limiting safe end path at inside surface) and Node 2166 (limiting nozzle blend radius path at inside surface) are used for the fatigue usage calculation, as shown in Figure 4 of Reference [1]. For the nozzle blend radius location, the stresses used in the evaluation are for the base metal only; that is, the cladding material is unselected prior to stress extraction. The stress components from the thermal stress analyses are combined with stress components due to pressure and piping loads. The linearized thermal stress components for each Stress components due to piping loads are scaled assuming no stress occurs at an ambient temperature of 70'F and the full values are reached at a reactor design temperature of 575F [2, Assumption 3.1.7]. In addition, design seismic and deadweight loads are also included and scaled in combination with the thermal loads for each transient. This combination, coupled with assigning the stress due to these loads the same sign as the thermal stress, is considered to be a very conservative treatment of the loads overall in that deadweight and design seismic loads are considered and scaled for every transient.

File No.: 0801038.303 Page 3 of 18 Revision: 1 F0306-OIRO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

transient are taken from the relevant output files associated with the Reference [1] calculation (a sample of which was provided in Table 4 of Reference [1]). The unit pressure stress component results are taken from Table 2 of Reference [1]. Piping load stress components are taken from Table 3 of the Reference [I] calculation.

3.2 Fatigue Usage Analysis, General Structural Integrity's VESLFAT program [4] is used to perform the fatigue usage calculation in accordance with the fatigue usage portion of ASME Code Subarticle NB-3200 [3]. VESLFAT performs the analysis required by NB-3222.4(e) [3] for Service Levels A and B conditions defined by the user. The VESLFAT program computes the primary-plus-secondary and total stress ranges for all events and performs a correction for elastic-plastic analysis, if necessary.

The program computes the stress intensity range based on the stress component ranges for all event pairs [3, NB-3216.2]. The program evaluates the stress ranges for primary-plus-secondary and primary-plus-secondary-plus-peak stresses based on all six components of stress (3 normal and 3 shear stresses). If the primary-plus-secondary stress intensity range is greater than 3 Sm, the total stress range must be increased by the simplified elastic-plastic strain correction factor Ke, as described in NB-3228.5 [3]. The design stress intensity, Sm, is specified as a function of temperature. The input maximum temperature for both states of a load set pair is used to determine the temperature that Sm is determined from the user-defined values.

When more than one stress set is defined for either of the event pair loadings, the stress differences are determined for all of the potential stress pairs, saving the maximum for the event pair, based on the pair producing the largest alternating total stress intensity (Salt), including any effects of Ke. The principal stresses for the stress ranges are determined by solving for the roots of the following cubic equation2:

S3 _ (aix "+ aiy +k (iz)S2 -+- ((x (yy + a(y (iz + (iz U, - Sxyz -x2_ 2_-X yz2 )S

- ((Fxa (y Uz + 2rxy Txz T"yz - Uz Cxy -2 (y Txz -_ax Tyz ) 0 The stress intensities for the event pairs are reordered in decreasing order of Salt, including a correction for the ratio of modulus of elasticity (E) from the fatigue curve divided by E from the material evaluated at the maximum event temperature. This allows a fatigue table to be created to eliminate the number of cycles available for each of the transient events. This fatigue table is based on a worst-case progressive pairing of events in order of the most severe alternating stress to the least severe, allowing determination of a bounding fatigue usage per NB-3222.4(e) [3]. For each load set pair in the fatigue table, the allowable number of cycles is determined based on Salt.

3.3 Event Cycles, VESLFAT For the Vermont Yankee CS nozzle analysis, transients that consist of combined stress ramps are split so that each successive ramp is treated separately. Therefore, there are 25 load sets based on the combined stress changes for the safe end, and 27 load sets based on the combined stress changes 2 Note that a., a,, a,, etc. are used synonymously with S,, S,,, S., etc., in this calculation.

File No.: 0801038.303 Page 4 of 18 Revision: 1 F0306-OIRO

V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

for the nozzle blend radius location. The reason the number of load sets are not equal for each path is because the time history stress results of those paths differ. Tables 1 and 2 show the load sets applicable to plant operation, with cycle counts per Table 2 of Reference [2], used as input to VESLFAT for the safe end and nozzle blend radius locations, respectively. The cycle counts of Reference [2] consider 60 years of operation; see Reference [8] for the numbers of cycles. The data from Table I is entered into the VESLFAT input files VY-VFA T-1I. CYC (safe end-Inconel) and VY-VFAT2-1I.CYC (safe end-Stainless Steel), and the data from Table 2 is entered into the. file VY-VFA T-21.CYC (nozzle blend radius).

3.4 Material Properties, VESLFAT Material properties are entered in VESLFAT input files VY-VFAT-]1.FDT (safe end-Inconel), VY-VY-VFAT2-1LFDT (safe end-Stainless Steel) and VY-VFAT-2I.FDT (nozzle blend radius). Table 3 lists the temperature-dependent material properties used in the analysis [5]. Table 4 lists the fatigue curve for the nozzle and safe end materials [3, Appendix I, Table 1-9.1 and Figure 1-9.1 (UTS < 80.0 ksi) for the nozzle blend radius, and Tables 1-9.1 and 1-9.2.2 (Curve C) and Figures 1-9.2.1 and 1-9.2.2 for both safe end locations]. Curve C is selected because it is the most conservative curve among the three extended curves for austenitic steel. VESLFAT automatically scales the stresses by the ratio of E on the fatigue curve to E in the analysis, for purposes of determining allowable numbers of cycles, as required by the ASME Code.

Other material properties are input as follows:

m 1.7, n = 0.3, parameters used to calculate Ke for the safe end location (both materials) [3, Table NB-3228.5(b)-1]

m = 2.0, n = 0.2, parameters used to calculate K, for the nozzle blend radius location [3, Table NB-3228.5(b)-I]

E from fatigue curve = 28,300 ksi [3, Appendix I, Figure 1-9.2] for the safe end locations.

E from fatigue curve = 30,000 ksi [3, Appendix I, Figure 1-9.1 ] for the nozzle blend radius location.

3.5 Stress Indices Stress indices are calculated per Reference [2, Section 3.8]. For the safe end location and using the ANSYS thermal stress results, the membrane plus bending stress results are multiplied by K3 and then are added to the peak thermal stress results to yield total thermal stress, taking guidance from Equation 11 of NB-3600 [3]. The total thermal stresses are then added to the total piping and total pressure stresses.

C1 = C2 = C3 = 1, because the ANSYS model is sufficient to account for the effects of gross structural discontinuity. The path for Node 2166 does not contain a weld and, therefore, does not take the same guidance from NB-3600. However, the path for Node 3719 uses guidance and the following values from NB-3600 for an "as welded girth butt weld":

K1 = 1.2, From Table 3681(a)-I of NB-3600 [3]

K 2 = 1.8, From Table 3681(a)-I of NB-3600 [3]

K 3 = 1.7, From Table 3681(a)-I of NB-3600 [3]

File No.: 0801038.303 Page 5 of 18 Revision: 1 F0306-OIRO

V StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

The K values listed above are used to multiply the Membrane plus Bending stress results of the pressure load and piping load to yield Total Stress. So, Ki * (Memb+Bend)pressure = Total Stresspressure and K2 * (Memb+Bend)piping = Total StressPiping.

4.0 CALCULATIONS Table 5 contains the stress components at the locations of interest for the 1,000 psi unit pressure stress case [1, Table 2]. Table 5 also contains the stress components for the attached piping load unit stress case [1, Table 3], which correspond to a reactor design temperature of 575'F [2, Section 3.1.7].

The attached piping load stress components were applied assuming the same signs as the thermal stress, which yields the largest stress component ranges.

The stress indices for each location and loading scenario are calculated in the previous section. These stress indices are used in the Excel workbooks described below.

The calculations of all of the VESLFAT stress inputs are automated in Excel workbooks VY-VFAT-]i.xls (safe end-both materials) and VY-VFAT-2i.xls (nozzle blend radius). These files are organized with sheets labeled as follows:

• Overview: Contains general information.

• Other Stresses: Contains pressure and attached piping load stresses. As shown in Table 5, the pressure and thermal stresses use the membrane-plus-bending and total stress from the finite element analysis [1], and include stress indices where appropriate.

Rearranger: There are 7 Rearranger sheets, one for each thermal transient as analyzed by ANSYS. In these sheets, thermal stresses are copied from Excel workbook VY-StressResults.xls, and rearranged to conform to VESLFAT input format (including switching the shear stress components Sxz and Syz as required by VESLFAT). VY-StressResults.xls contains the results of the ANSYS stress linearization for each transient. The files contained within this workbook are shown in Table 10. Time-varying scale factors for the attached piping loads (based on path metal temperature) and pressure are determined, and used to scale the unit load case stresses, which are then added to the thermal stresses. Since the attached piping loads can act in any direction, the stresses due to the attached piping loads are assigned the same sign as the thermal stresses to maximize the component stresses.

Algebraic summation of all six stress components is performed for pressure, piping loads, and thermal stresses at each transient time step. The VESLFAT stress input also includes time-varying metal temperature, as obtained from the ANSYS output, which is used to determine temperature-dependent properties from the values in Table 3.

VESLFAT: Contains the VESLFAT stress input, as obtained from the Rearranger sheets.

Load set numbers are entered on this sheet, as defined in Table I and Table 2. These sheets are saved to VESLFAT input files VY-VFAT-]i.STR (safe end-Inconel), VY-VFAT2-1i.STR (safe end-Stainless Steel), and VY-VFAT-2i.STR (nozzle blend radius).

File No.: 0801038.303 Page 6 of 18 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

W StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

5.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 provide the detailed calculated 60-year fatigue usage, as obtained from VESLFAT output files VY-VFAT-11.FAT (safe end-Inconel), VY-VFAT2-1LFAT (safe end-Stainless Steel), and VY-VFAT-2L.FAT (nozzle blend radius). All VESLFAT input and output files are saved in the project computer files associated with this calculation.

From Table 6, the safe end (Inconel) cumulative usage factor (CUF) is 0.000174 for 60 years. From Table 7, the safe end (Stainless Steel) cumulative usage factor (CUF) is 0.000742 for 60 years.

From Table 8, the nozzle blend radius CUF is 0.0171 for 60 years.

From Table 1 of Reference [6], it was determined that hydrogen water chemistry (HWC) is available for 47% of the total 60-year operating period, and normal water chemistry (NWC) is present for the remaining 53% of the total 60-year operating period. From Table 1 of Reference [6], the dissolved oxygen values for the RPV upper vessel region (which is applicable to the CS nozzles) are 97 ppb for HWC conditions and 114 ppb for NWC conditions.

For the safe end location (Inconel), the environmental fatigue factor is determined based on Alloy 600 methodology consistent with Reference [7]. The overall Fen (fatigue life correction factor), per Reference [7], is 1.49 and can be applied to the CS nozzle safe end (Inconel) location based on identical materials, i.e. SB-166. The resulting Environmentally Assisted Fatigue (EAF) adjusted CUF value is 0.000174 x 1.49 = 0.000259, which is less than the allowable value of 1.0 and is therefore acceptable.

For the stainless steel piping, the environmental fatigue factors for post-HWC and pre-HWC are both 8.36 from Table 4 of Reference [6]. The overall environmental multiplier is 8.36. It results in an EAF adjusted CUF of 8.36 x 0.000742 = 0.00620 for 60 years, which is acceptable (i.e., less than the allowable value of 1.0).

Based on the detailed CUF calculation shown in Table 8, a detailed EAF adjusted CUF evaluation on a load-pair basis is provided for the nozzle blend radius location in Table 9. The overall Fen is 8.20.

The resulting EAF adjusted CUF value is 0.0171 x 8.20 = 0.140, which is less than the allowable value of 1.0 and is therefore acceptable.

6.0 CONCLUSION

S AND DISCUSSIONS Detailed fatigue calculations for the Vermont Yankee CS nozzle were performed based on the results of stress analyses previously performed [1]. The thermal stresses were combined with stresses due to pressure and attached piping loads, both of which were scaled based on the magnitudes of the pressure and metal temperature during each thermal transient. All six components of the stress tensor were used for the fatigue calculations. The fatigue calculations were performed at previously-determined limiting locations in the safe end and nozzle blend radius, and used the methodology of Subarticle NB-3200 of Section III of the ASME Code [3].

The 60-year CUF for the safe end location (Inconel) was determined to be 0.000 174, the safe end location (Stainless Steel) was determined to be 0.000742, and the CUF for the nozzle blend radius File No.: 0801038.303 Page 7 of 18 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

location was determined to be 0.0171. All three values are less than the ASME Code allowable value of 1.0, and are therefore acceptable.

Detailed EAF assessments were also performed for the two CS nozzle locations. The 60-year EAF CUF for the safe end location was determined to be 0.000259 using standard Alloy 600 methodology

[7]. The 60-year EAF CUF for the safe end location (Stainless Steel) was determined to be 0.00620.

The 60-year EAF CUF for the nozzle blend radius location was determined to be 0.140 using temperature-dependent Fen multipliers for each load pair. All EAF CUF values are less than the ASME Code allowable value of 1.0, and are therefore acceptable.

7.0 REFERENCES

1. Structural Integrity Associates Calculation No. 0801038.302, Revision 1, "Stress Analysis of Reactor Core Spray Nozzle."

2. Structural Integrity Associates Calculation No. 0801038.301, Revision 0, "Design Inputs and Methodology for ASME Code Fatigue Usage Analysis of Reactor Core Spray Nozzle."

3. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda.

4. VESLFAT, Version 1.42, 02/06/07, Structural Integrity Associates.

5. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section II, Part D-Properties, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda.

6. SI Calculation No. VY-16Q-303, Revision 0, "Environmental Fatigue Evaluation of Reactor Recirculation Inlet Nozzle and Vessel Shell/Bottom Head."

7. EPRI Report No. TR-105759, "An Environmental Factor Approach to Account for Reactor Water Effects in Light Water Reactor Pressure Vessel and Piping Fatigue Evaluations,"

December 1995.

8. Entergy Design Input Record (DIR) EC No. 1773, DIR. Revision 1, "Environmental Fatigue Analysis for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station," 7/26/07, SI File No. VY- 16Q-209.

File No.: 0801038.303 Page 8 of 18 Revision: I F0306-OI RO

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table 1: Safe End Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT VESLFAT Start Temp Change Pressure Change Transient tiee Cycles Load Set Time, sec Tm2 T1_ 0 None None 120 2 Trn2T2_ 0 None Up 120 3 Trn2T3_ 0 None Down 120 4 1Tm3r 0 Up Up 300 5 2Trn3 56.6 Up Up 300 6 I1Tml 1- 0 None Up & Down 10 7 2Trnl 1 5 Down Down 10 8 3Tml 1 26.962 Down None 10 9 4Trn I 1 207.34 Down & Up None 10 10 5TrnIl 1 1734.9 Up & Down Down 10 11 6Trnl 1 2332.6 Down & Up Down & UP 10 12 7Trnl 1 5625.1 Up & Down Up & Down 10 13 8Trnl 1 7125.4 Down & Up Down & Up 10 14 9Trnl 1 14315 Up & Down Up 10 15 1OTrnl 1 16749 Down None 10 16 lTrnl4 0 Down Down 1 17 2Tm14 270 Down Down 1 18 lTrn21 0 Down Down 300 19 2Trn2l 17.00 Down Down 300 20 Tn24_TI_ 0 None None 1 21 Tn24 T2 0 None Up 1 22 Tn24_T3_ 0 None Down 1 23 1Trn3O 0 Down Down 1 24 2Trn3O 12.2 Down Down 1 25 3Trn3O 631 None Down 1 File No.: 0801038.303 Page 9 of 18 Revision: I F0306-0IRO

StructuralIntearity Associates, Inc.

Table 2: Nozzle Blend Radius Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT Start VESLFAT Transient Time, Temp Change Pressure Change Cycles Load Set sec Inc.

Trn2_TI 0 None None 120 Associates, Structurai Integrity Trn2_T2_ 0 None Up 120 Trn2_T3_ 0 None Down 120 1Trn3_ .0 Up Up 300 2Trn3 56.6 Up Up 300 ITrnll1 0 None Up & Down 10 2Trn I1_ 5 Down Down 10 3Trnl 1 142.64 Down & Up None 10 4Trnl 1 1655.2 Up & Down Down 10 5Trnl I 2302.7 Down & Up Down & Up 10 6Trn 11 3193.7 Up & Down Up & Down 10 7Trnl I 7255.1 Down & Up Down 10 8Trnl I 9913 Up Down & Up 10 9Trnll1 12514 Up and Down Up 10 1Trnl4_ 0 Down Down 2Tm14 2Trnl4_ 40 Down Down 3Tm14 1200 Down Down 1Tmn21I 0 Down Down 300 2Tin21I 32.15 Down Down 300 3Tm2l1 6462.7 Down None 300 Tn24_Ti1 0 None None 1 Tn24 T2 0 None Up 1 Tn24_T3_ 0 None Down 1 1Tm30_ 0 None Down 1 2Tmn3O 1.2 Down Down 1 3Tmn30 25 Down Down 1 4Tmn30_ 3331 Down Down 1 File No.: 0801038.303 Page 10 of 18 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table 3: Temperature-Dependent Material Properties for VESLFAT (4)

Material T, OF E x 106 , psi S., ksi Sy, ksi SB-166 Inconel 70 31.0 23.3 35.0

.(safe end(') 200 30.2 23.3 32.0 300 29.8 23.3 31.2 400 29.5 23.3 30.7 500 29.0 23.3 30.3 600 28.7 23.3 29.9 SA-508 Class 2 (5) 70 27.8 26.7 50.0 (Nozzle blend radius (2)) 200 27.1 26.7 47.0 300 26.7 26.7 45.5 400 26.1 26.7 44.2 500 25.7 26.7 43.2 600 25.2 26.7 42.1 SA-312 TP 304 70 28.3 20 30 (Core Spray Piping 27.6 200 20 25 8 x 10 Reducer (3))

300 27.0 20 22.4 400 26.5 18.7 20.7 500 25.8 17.5 19.4 600 25.3 16.4 18.4 Notes:

1. For the safe end material, SB-166 Inconel properties are used (72Ni-15Cr-8Fe), per Reference [2]. Annealed heat treatment is conservatively assumed for Sm and Sy values.

2. For the nozzle blend radius material, SA508 Class 2 material properties are used (3/4Ni-1/2Mo-1/3Cr-V), per Reference [2].

3. For the nozzle safe end extension material, SA-312 TP304 material properties are used (18Cr-8Ni), per Reference [2].

4. All values are taken from Reference [5].

5. SA-508 Class 2 in the Code of Construction is the same as SA-508 Gr. 2 Class 2 in the 1998 ASME Code [5]

File No.: 0801038.303 Page 11I of 18 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

6 StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table 4: Carbon/Low Alloy Steel and Stainless Steel/Nickel Alloy Fatigue Curves Sa, ksi S,, ksi Number of Cycles Carbon/Low Alloy (1) Austenitic/Nickel Alloy 10 580 708 20 410 512 50 275 345 100 205 261 200 155 201 500 105 148 1000 83 119 2000 64 97 5000 48 76 10000 38 64 20000 31 55.5 50000 23 46.3 100000 20 40.8 200000 16.5 35.9 500000 13.5 31 1000000 12.5 28.2 2.E+06 N/A 22.8(2) 5.E+06 N/A 18.4(2) 1.E+07 N/A 16.4(2) 2.E+07 N/A 15.2(2) 5.E+07 N/A 14.3(2) 1.E+08 N/A 14.1(2) 1.E+09 N/A 13.9(2) 1.E+10 N/A 13.7(2) 1.E+311 N/A 13.6(2)

Note:

1. Using UTS _ 80 ksi curve.

2. Using Curve C for austenitic steel/nickel alloy.

File No.: 0801038.303 Page 12 of 18 Revision: I F0306-OIRO

StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table 5: Pressure and Attached Piping Unit Load Case Stress Components Membrane plus Bending (1) Total )

Node S y"(

s) Sy (5) S Sx Sz(s5)

Load (2) Sx SY Sz Sy Sxz S S S Sxz yZ Pressure(3) 3719 -1011 4829 11010 -104.8 0 0 -1011 4912 11050 -85.31 0 0 2166 -1052 1657 25960 4886 0 0 -1052 1720 35050 348.9 0 0 Piping(4) 3719 0 6502 0 658 1222 0 0 11704 0 1184 2200 0 2166 0 82 0 30 20 0 0 82 0 30 20 0

'MnM, 1 All otr*-oc ,an m or* , nnitc nfendf

2. The safe end location is represented by Node 3719, and the nozzle blend radius location is represented by Node 2166.

3. The stresses for both nodes represent the stress due to an applied pressure of 1,000 psig.

4. Piping stresses for both locations represent the stress due to full attached piping loads at an RPV temperature of 575'F.

5. Sy. and S. components have been rearranged from the ANSYS output in order to be in correct order for VESLFAT.

Table 6: Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Safe End (Inconel)

Load Load Salt

1. 1 Desc. #1 #2 Desc. #2 n (cvcles) Sn (psi) Ke (psi) Nallow U 24 2Trn3O 25 3Trn3O_ 1 67883 63663 10260 0.000098 17 2Trn 14 23 1Trn30 1 44360 48903 37919 0.000026 5 2Trn3_ .8 3Trn 1_ 10 26107 18347 5088300 0.000002 5 2Trn3 9 4Trn 11_ 10 25551 17850 6002500 0.000002 5 2Trn3 6 1Trn 11 10 24728 16797 8657500 0.000001 5 2Tm3_ 7 2Tn I I_ 10 24429 16784 8698300 0.000001 5 2Trn3 10 5Trnl 1_ 10 23571 16559 9436700 0.000001 5 2Trn3_ 14 9Trn 1I- 10 23593 16507 9615800 0.000001 5 2Trn3_ 11 6Trnl 1_ 10 23214 16399 10007000 0.000001 5 2Trn3_ 15 1OTrnl 11 10 23358 16262 10800000 0.000001 5 2Trn3_ .12 7Trnl 1 10 23247 15968 12760000 0.000001 4 1Trn3_ 5 2Trn3_ 210 23000 15922 13097000 0.000016 4 1Trn3_ 19 2Trn21l 90 22979 15914 13155000 0.000007 1 Trn2_Ti1 19 2Trn2l_ 120 22979 15899 .13273000 0.000009 19 2Trn2l_ 20 Tn24_TI1 1 22383 15552 16233000 0.000000 19 2Trn2l1 22 Tn24_T3_ 1 22383 15552 16233000 0.000000 3 Trn2_T3_ 19 2Tm2l_ 88 22383 15552 16233000 0.000005 3 Trn2_T3_ 18 1Trn21 32 22389 15549 16263000 0.000002 Total Usage 0.000174 Note: All other load pairs have an alternating stress, Salt, that is below the endurance limit of the fatigue curve. Therefore, they do not contribute to fatigue usage.

File No.: 0801038.303 Page 13 of 18 Revision: 1 F0306-0IRO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 7: Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Safe End (Stainless Steel)

Load Load Salt Desc. #1 Desc. #2 n (cycles) Sn (psi) Ke Nallow U

1. 1 #2 (psi) 24 2Trn3O 25 3Trn3O_ 1 68465 1.47 101779 1699.05 0.000589 17 2Trn 14 23 1Trn30 1 44360 1 54103 22751 0.000044 5 2Trn3 8 3Trn 11_ 10 26107 1 20551 3117000 0.000003 5 2Trn3 9 4Trn 11_ 10 25551 1 19856 3611400 0.000003 5 2Trn3 6 1Trn 11 10 24728 1 18923 4435200 0.000002 5 2Trn3_ 7 2Trnl 1_ 10 24429 1 18905 4453400 0.000002 5 2Trn3_ 14 9Trnl 1_ 10 23593 1 18620 4752000 0.000002 5 2Trn3_ 10 5Trnl 11 10 23626 1 18525 4857700 0.000002 5 2Trn3_ 15 1OTrnl 11 10 23358 1 18336 5106400 0.000002 5 2Trn3_ 11 6Trn 1I- 10 23214 1 18295 5175200 0.000002 4 1Trn3_ 5 2Trn3_ 23000 1 17975 5755400 0.000038 4 1Trn3_ 19 2Trn2l_ 22979 1 17967 5772000 0.000014 1 Trn2 T1 19 2Trn2l_ 22979 1 17949 5806200 0.000021 19 2Trn21 20 Tn24 Ti 22383 1 17557 6632000 0.000000 19 2Trn2l 22 Tn24_T3_ 22383 1 17557 6632000 0.000000 3 Trn2 T3 19 2Trn2l 22383 1 17557 6632000 0.000015 3 Trn2_T3_ 18 1Trn21_ 22 22389 1 17554 6640000 0.000003 Total 0.000742 Usage =

Note: All other load pairs have an alternating stress, Salt, that is below the endurance limit of the fatigue curve. Therefore, they do not contribute to fatigue usage.

File No.: 0801038.303 Page 14 of 18 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table 8: Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Nozzle Blend Radius Load

1. 1 Desc. #1 Load L#2 Desc. #2 n (cycles) Sn (psi) Ke Salt (psi) Nallow U 25 2Trn3O0 26 3Trn3O0 1 51402 1.00 44455 6278 0.0002 8 3Trnl 1_ 13 8Trnl 1_ 10 15961 1.00 39383 8994 0.0011 19 2Trn21 22 Tn24_T2_ 1 39644 1.00 34138 14404 0.0001 7 2Trnl 1 27 4Trn3O0 1 38618 1.00 27466 28999 0.0000 4 1Trn3_ 7 2Trnl 1_ 9 36665 1.00 27150 30048 0.0003 10 5Trn11 _ 19 2Trn21l 10 15935 1.00 26332 33005 0.0003 1 Trn2 TI 6 1Trn 11 10 49693 1.00 25486 36486 0.0003 2 Trn2_T2_ 19 2Trn21, 120 25423 1.00 24010 43822 0.0027 12 7Trnl 1 19 2Trn21 10 13983 1.00 23200 48691 0.0002 1 Trn2_Ti1 9 4Trnl 1 10 47005 1.00 22776 52484 0.0002 4 1Trn3_ 11 6Trn 11_ 10 35885 1.00 22731 53008 0.0002 1 Trn2 T1 5 2Trn3 100 44974 1.00 22190 59737 0.0017 4 1Trn3_ 5 2Trn3_ 200 44974 1.00 22190 59737 0.0033 4 1Trn3_ 24 lTrn30- 1 44912 1.00 22187 59767 0.0000 4 1Trn3_ 18 1Trn21_ 80 44912 1.00 22187 59767 0.0013 17 3Trn14_ 18 1Trn21_ 1 44598 1.00 21478 70216 0.0000 18 1Trn21_ 20 3Trn21_ 219 43608 1.00 21218 74590 0.0029 19 2Trn21_ 20 3Trn21_ 81 43426 1.00 21130 76147 0.0011 3 Trn2_T3_ 19 2Trn21l 78 43219 1.00 21117 76367 0.0010 3 Trn2 T3 14 9Trn 11_ 10 43408 1.00 21016 78221 0.0001 3 Trn2_T3_ 15 1Trn14_ 1 42722 1.00 20993 78639 0.0000 3 Trn2_T3_ 16 2Trn14_ 1 41044 1.00 20341 91957 0.0000 Total 0.0171 Usage =

Note: All other load pairs have an alternating stress, Salt, that is below the endurance limit of the fatigue curve. Therefore, they do not contribute to fatigue usage.

File No.: 0801038.303 Page 15 of 18 Revision: 1 F0306-OIRO

C StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 9: EAF Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Nozzle Blend Radius Location VY CS Nozzle Corner Environmental Fatigue Calculation CUF Calculation from file VY-VFAT-2i.fat:

Index Load #1: Description #1: n1 (cycles) t5) Load #2&Description #2i n 2 (cycles) t5 ycles} 's SK psi t lt (psi} Nallmy U 1 25 2Trn30_ 1 26 i 3Trn3O_ 1 1 51402 1.00 44455 6278 0.0002 2 8 i 3Trnl_ 10 13 i 8Trn11_ i 10 10 15961 1-00 39383 8994 0.0011 3 19 i 2Trn21 300 22 Tn24 T2 ' 1 1 39644 1.00 34138 14404 0-0001 4 7 2Trnl1 10 27 4Trn30 1 1 38618 1-00 27466 28999 0.0000 5 4 1Trn3 300 7 2Trn11- 9 9 36665 1.00 27150 30048 0.0003 6 10 5Trn11 10 19 2Trn21 299 10 15935 1.00 26332 33005 0.0003 7 1 1 Trn2 TI 120 6 iTrnl 1 10 10 49693 1.00 25486. 36486 0.0003 8 2 Trn2 T2 120 19 2Trn2l 289 120 25423 1.00 24010 43822 0.0027 9 12 7Tlr 11 i 10 19 i 2Trn21- 169 10 13983 1.00 23200 48691 0.0002 10 1 ITrn2 Ti 110 9 4Trn11 10 10 47005 1.00 22776 52484 0.0002 11 4 1Trn3 291 11 6Trn11- 10 10 35885 1.00 22731 53008 0.0002 12 1 Trn2 T1 100 5 2Trn3 300 100 44974 1.00 22190 59737 0.0017 13 4 1Tr,3 281 2Trn3 200 200 44974 1.00 22190 59737 0.0033 14 4 1Trn3 81 24 OTrn3_ 1 1 44912 1.00 22187 59767 0.0000 15 4 lTrn3 80 18 1 Trn21 300 80 44912 1.00 22187 59767 0.0013 16 17 3Trn14 1 18 1Trn21_ 220 1 44598 1.00 21478 70216 0.0000 17 18 1Trn21 i 219 20 i 3Trn21 i 300 219 43608 1.00 21218 74590 0.0029 18 19 2Trn21 159 20 i 3Trn21 81 81 43426 1.00 21130 76147 0.0011 19 3 Trn2 T3 120 19 2Trn21 78 78 43219 1.00 21117 76367 0.0010 20 3 Trn2 T3 42 14 9Trn11- 10 10 43408 1.00 21016 78221 0.0001 21 3 Trn2 T3 32 15 1Tm14- 1 1 42722 1.00 20993 78639 0.0000 22 3 Trn2 T3- 31 16 1 2Trn14 1 1 41044 1.00 20341 91957 0.1000 Total, U = 0.0171 File No.: 0801038.303 Page 16 of 18 Revision: I F0306-0IRO

Structural Integrity Associates, -Inc.

Table 9 (Continued): EAF Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Nozzle Blend Radius Location EAF Calculations: HWC DO HWC D0O (00 and HWCINWC inputs fromTable 1 of Reference [6}) 97 114 ppb Transient Maximum Temperatures:  %, HWC = 0.47 0.53 =%NWC Frnm "V'Y-VtFAT-2i AlII '

Index Load #1 Desc. #1 Load #21 Desc.#2 Line # Ti (4) si(4) T2(4) s2(4] Sn (psi) T (IF) (1) TMAX -F) (1) TMAX ('C) HWC Fen (2)NWC Fen (2) Uenv (3) 1 25 2Trn30- 26 3Trn3O 591851 25 15 26 30 51402 543 543 2.54 6.49 10.65 0.002 2 B 3Trnhl _ 13 UTrnh1 - 127122 8 30 13 14 15961 3D1 391 199 3.68 4.22 0.005 3 19 2Trn21 22 Tn24 T.2 574137 19 20 22 39644 359 389 1 5'8 3.54 4.17 01.000 4 7 2Trnl 1 27 4Trn30 107543 7 32 27 17 3561t 465 145 241 I 5.65 6.62 0.000 5 4 lTrn3_ 7 2Trnill 3921 4 1 7 32 36f665 465 465 241 5.63 6.62 0.002 6 10 5Trn 1- 19 2Trn2l 24a,706 10 67 19 20 15935 389 359 198 3.84 4.17 0.001 7 1 Trn2 Tl 6 lTrn 1. 70 1 1 6 4 49693 526 526 274 7.78 9.60 D.002 5 2 Trn2 T2_ 19 2Trn21_ 2028 2 1 19 20 25423 389 389 198 3.64 4.17 0.011 9 12 Tfrn 1I- 19 2Trn2i_ 391806 12 30 .19 20 13983 3&9 359 198 3.84 4.17 0.001 10 .1 Trn2_Ti1 9 4Trnll 161 1 1 9 1 47005 434 434 223 4.34 5.48 01.001 11 4 1Trn3_ 11 6Trnl 11 5546 4 1 11 1 35655 348 345 176 3.11 3.25 01.001 12 1 Trn2_TI_ 5 2Trn3_ 56 1 1 5 42 44974 549 549 267 8.76 11.05 0.017 13 4 lTrn3 5 2Trn3_ 3475 4 t1 5 42 44974 549 549 287 6.76 11.05 0.033 14 4 iTrn3_ 24 1Trn30_ 10815 4 1 24 1 44912 549 549 287 8.76 11.05 01.000 15 4 ITrn3_ i 15 Trn21_ 1016 4 1 18 1 44912 549 549 257 6.76 11.05 U..013 16r 17 3Trn14_ 18 1Trn21_ 53601 3 17 111 16 1 44596 549 549 287 8.76 11.05 .0.000 17 15 lTrn2i_ 20 3Trn21 571713 18 1 20 39 43605 549 549 287 8.76 11.05 0.029 15 19 2Trn21 20 3Trn21 573512 19 1 20 39 43426 549 549 297 6.76 11.05 0c.011 19 3 Trn2 T3 19 2Trn21_ 3151 3 1 1,9 1 43219 549 549 287 8.76a 11.05 01.010 524 273 7.70 49 0.001 20 3 Trn2 T3 14 9Trnll_ 296-5 3 1 14 155 43405 524 21 3 Trn2 T3 15 lTrn14 2979 3 1 15 1 42722 526 526 274 7.75 9.60 0.000 22 3 Trnm2T3 16 , 2Trn 14_ 2953 3 1 16 1 41044 524, 524 273 7.70 9.89 01.000 Total. U = 0.140 Notes: 1.Tv,,., is the maximum temperature of the two paired load states, and represents the metal (nodal) temperature at the location Overall Fen 8.20 being analzed. This, which is include-d as 'T in the'Transient Maximum Temperatures7' table above. determined from the VESLFAT

2. F, values computed using the low alloy steel equation from Section 3.0 of Reference [61 with S' conservatively set to a maximum value of 0.0 15. and the transtformed strain rate conservat~rely set to a minimum value of In (0.00t1) = 508 for all load

3. U*, = [U x HWC F, x % HWCI [U x NWC F_. x % NWC1.

4. T1 and 72 represent the load number for Load #1 and Load #2, respectively, and sl and s2 represent the state number for each

5. For each load pair, nj is the number of available cycles for Load #1, n- is the number of available cycles for Load #2, and n is the available number of cycles for the load pair (i.e., the minimum of nj and n.).

File No.: 0801038.303 Page 17 of 18 Revision: 1 F0306-OI RO

SStructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 10: Linearized Stress Files Compiled for VY-StressResults.xls Filename Description vyl 6qtran2-s.csv Transient 2 linearized stress vyl 6q_tran3-s.csv Transient 3 linearized stress vy_l 6q_tranl 1-s.csv Transient 11 linearized stress vyl 6q_tran 14-s.csv Transient 14 linearized stress vyl 6q_tran21-23-s.csv Transients 21-23 linearized stress vyl 6q_tran24-s.csv Transient 24 linearized stress vyl 6q_tran30-s.csv Transient 30 linearized stress Note: All files are from the supporting computer files associated with Reference [1].

File No.: 0801038.303 Page 18 of 18 Revision: I F0306-OIRO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc. File No.: 0801038.304 CALCULATION PACKAGE Project No.: 0801038 Quality Program: Z Nuclear [ Commercial PROJECT NAME:

VY Confirmatory Analysis for CS and RO Nozzles CONTRACT NO.:

10163217 Amendment 5 CLIENT: PLANT:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station CALCULATION TITLE:

Design Inputs and Methodology for ASME Code Fatigue Usage Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle Document Affected Project Manager Preparer(s) &

Documen afe Revision Description Approval Checker(s)

Revision Pages Signature & Date Signatures & Date 01 - 20, Initial issue. Preparers:

Appendix: Gary L. Stevens Michael J. Minard A- I - A-23 01/07/09 01/07/09 Computer files. Tyler D. Novotny 01/07/09 Checker:

Terry J. Herrmann 01/07/09 1 1-8,10,11, Revised per summary. / Preparer:

13-20, contained in Section 1.1. 0(,. 11Z64-A-2 Changes are marked with "revision bars" in Gary L. Stevens right-hand margin. 03/09/09 Tyler D. Novotny 03/09/09 Checker:

William Weitze 03/09/09 Page 1 of 20 F0306-01 RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents 1.0 OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Changes M ade in Revision 1 of this Calculation .......................................... 4 2.0 M ETHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 4 3.0 ASSUM PTIONS / DESIGN INPUTS ....................................................................... 5 3.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................... .. 5 3.2 ASM E Code Edition ..................................................................................... 5 3.3 Transients ...................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Heat Transfer Coefficients ............................................................. ...... 6 3.5 Finite Element M odel .................................................................................. 8 3.6 Nozzle Blend Radius Pressure Stress .......................................................... 8 3.7 Piping Interface Loads............................................................................... ......... 8 3.8 SCFs, Safe End ............................................................................................ 9 3.9 Environmental Fatigue M ultipliers ................................................................ 9 4.0 CALCULATIONS ............... .................................................................................. 13 4.1 Piping Interface Loads .................................... 13 5.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 18

6.0 REFERENCES

........................................................................................................ 19 APPENDIX A: ANSYS INPUT FILE: RON VY.INP ................................................. A-1 FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page 2 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01!

VStructural integrity Associates, Inc.

List of Tables Table 1: Vessel and Nozzle/Safe End Transients ............................................................. 10 Table 2: H eat Transfer Coefficients ....................................................................................... 11 Table 3: Temperature-Dependent Material Properties ........................................................... 11 Table 4: Recirculation Outlet Nozzle Attached Piping Loads and Dimensions [9, 11] ......... 14 Table 5: Membrane Plus Bending Stresses Due to Piping Loads .................................... 14 Table 6: 0% Flow Regions I and 3 Heat Transfer Coefficients ....................................... 15 Table 7: 0% Flow Region 5 Heat Transfer Coefficient ................................................... 16 List of Figures Figure 1: Nozzle and Vessel Wall Thermal Boundaries ................................................... 12 Figure 2: Coordinate System for Forces and Moments ..................................................... 17 Figure 3: RO Nozzle and Safe End Geometry [20] .......................................................... 17 File No.: 0801038.304 Page 3 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01I

VStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.

1.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this calculation package is to establish the design inputs and methodology to be used for an ASME Code,Section III fatigue usage calculation of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) recirculation outlet (RO) nozzle at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) 1 .

This calculation, along with subsequent calculations for stress and fatigue, are being performed to assess the impact of using finite element analysis using all six components of stress in lieu of the Green's Function approach used in SI project VY-16Q [4, 7, and 11]. Therefore, to the extent possible, inputs from that project will be maintained and used.

1.1 Changes Made in Revision 1 of this Calculation Description of changes made in Revision I of this calculation:

a. Transient 9 described in Table 1 was changed to more precisely match the Green's Function analysis.

b. All remaining changes marked throughout this calculation are editorial changes made to the text of the calculation package.

2.0 METHODOLOGY A detailed fatigue usage calculation of the RO nozzle will be performed using the methodology of Subarticle NB-3200 of Section III of the ASME Code [1]. The 1998 Edition includingthe 2000 Addenda of the ASME Code [10] is also used for material properties. Only the fatigue calculation portion of the ASME Code methodology will be used and the analysis will be a fatigue assessment only, not a complete ASME Code analysis.

Finite element analysis will be performed using a previously-developed axisymmetric finite element model (FEM) of the RO nozzle [7]. Thermal transient analysis will-be performed using the FEM for each defined transient. Concurrent with the thermal transients are pressure and piping interface loads; for these loads' unit load analyses (finite element analysis for pressure, and manual calculations for piping loads) will be performed. The stresses from these analyses will be scaled appropriately based on the magnitude of the pressure and piping loads during each thermal transient, and combined with stresses from the thermal transients. Other stress concentration factors (SCFs) will be applied as appropriate.

All six components of the stress tensor will be used for stress calculations. The stress components for the non-axisymmetric loads (shear and moment piping loads) can have opposite signs depending upon which side of the nozzle is being. examined. Therefore, when combining stress components from these loads with stress components from thermal transients and other loads, the signs of the stress components will be adjusted to maximize the magnitude of the stress component ranges. The fatigue analysis will be performed at locations that were determined in a previous calculation [4]. Stresses will be linearized at these locations.

The methodology described and applied herein and in the two additional recirculation outlet nozzle fatigue calculations is in accordance with the approach used in the SIA calculations for the feedwater nozzle [16, 17, 18] and contains no significantly different scientific or technical judgments used in those calculations.

File No.: 0801038.304 Page 4 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01:

StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

The linearized primary plus secondary membrane plus bending stress will be used to determine the value of Ke to be used in the simplified elastic-plastic analysis in accordance with ASME Code NB-3200 methodology. Environmental fatigue multipliers will be applied in accordance with NUREG/CR-6583 [2]

for the low alloy steel forging and NUREG/CR-5704 [15.] for the stainless steel safe end.

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS / DESIGN INPUTS 3.1 Assumptions

1. Extended power uprate (EPU) effects are considered as being applied to the entire 60-year period of operation. The higher pressures, flows, and temperatures at uprate conditions are used in determining and applying heat transfer coefficients [4, Section 3.2] [11, Section 4.1].

2. The Boltup transientdoes not affect the RO nozzle because there is no pressure or temperature change, and the nozzle is sufficiently removed from the vicinity of the flange such that stresses due to head stud tensioning are insignificant at the nozzle location [8]. The Boltup transient is therefore excluded from the transients analyzed.

3. For the blend radius and safe end transient definitions, steady state condition time steps were assumed to be 5,000 seconds for Transients 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 40,000 seconds for Transients 1, 2, 4, 7, 10.

4. The effect of non-uniform geometries is judged to be insignificant for flow inside the safe end, because of the smooth transition and small, geometry changes, as shown in Figure 3. The nominal inner diameter for all heat transfer regions was used to calculate heat transfer coefficients.

5. Density, p, and Poisson's ratio, v, used in the FEM are assumed typical values of p = 0.283 lb/in 3 and v = 0.3, respectively.

6. For purposes of linearizing stress at the nozzle blend radius, the cladding is ignored'.

7. Stress components due to piping loads are scaled assuming no stress occurs at an ambient temperature of 707F and the full values are reached at reactor design temperature, 575°F, as was done in the previous analysis [11, Section 3.4].

8. Consistent with Reference [4], 12% of the available temperature difference (AT) between the fluid and surface was assumed for all natural convection thermal heat transfer coefficients.

9. The instant temperature change for transients is assumed as a 1-second time step.

3.2 ASME Code Edition The analysis will be performed in a manner consistent with the fatigue usage rules in NB-3200 of Section III of the ASME Code; the 1998 Edition with Addenda through 2000 [1] will be used, for consistency with the previous analysis [11].

File No.: 0801038.304 Page 5 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01I

VStructural integrity Associates, Inc.

3.3 Transients Previously developed thermal and pressure transients [11 Tables 2 and 3] are used for this analysis. The transients to be evaluated are shown in Table 1. For each transient, the time, nozzle fluid temperature, RPV pressure, percent reactor recirculation flow rate, and number of cycles are included. In some cases, flow rates and nozzle temperature values from the nozzle thermal cycle diagram [8, Attachment 1, p. 4] are used' to reduce excess conservatism. Note that the only difference between the vessel and the safe end/nozzle transients is the temperature difference between the two regions for Transient 9.

At the inside surface of the RPV, the Region B or BI bulk fluid temperature from the reactor thermal cycle diagram [8, Attachment 1, p. 2] shall be applied.

3.4 Heat Transfer Coefficients Heat transfer coefficients are calculated at 300' F, as in the previous analysis [4]. The heat transfer coefficients for the 100% flow and 50% flow cases were calculated from Reference [5] as follows:

K =0.8 ( 0.2 S3 h°-25 DDf Where:

hDf= the heat transfer coefficient at a Diameter and flow rate h 300 = the heat transfer coefficient from Reference [5] at 300°F,f= 25 ft/sec, and D= 26" =,4,789 BTU/hr-ft2_OF fif= the flow velocity corresponding to hDf (ft/sec)

DDf= the diameter corresponding to hDf(in)

The heat transfer coefficients for 0% flow were calculated in spreadsheet HTCOEF.xls for natural convection and are shown in Tables 6 and 7.

As shown in Figure 1, the following heat transfer coefficients were applied:

Region 1 The heat transfer coefficient, h, for 100% flow is 4789 17-36) "82-0.82 =3583 BTU/hr-ft2-°F at 300TF, where 17.364 ft/sec is converted from 28,294 GPM and 25.8 in ID [20].

The heat transfer coefficient, h, for 50% flow is 4789 -

(8.6821~0(

26 J

>0.2

= 2058 BTU/hr-ft2 -

'F at 300TF, where 8.682 ft/sec is converted from 14,147 GPM and 25.8 in ID [20].

The heat transfer coefficient, h, for 12% flow is 4789 (-2.084) 08 26 0.82 =657 BTU/hr-ft2-°F at 300'F, where 2.084 ft/sec is converted from 3,395 GPM and 25.8 in ID [20].

FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page 6 of 20 Revision: I F0306-01

VStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.

The heat transfer coefficient, h, for 0% flow is 112 BTU/hr-ft 2-°F at 300'F. (Table 6, for natural convection)

Region 2 The heat transfer coefficient for Region 2 is linearly transitioned from the value of the heat transfer coefficient used in Region I to the value used for Region 3.

Region 3 (the point between Region 2 and Region 4)

The inside diameter of Region 3, as measured on the ANSYS model, is 35.49 inches.

The heat transfer coefficient, h, for 100% flow is 4789 (9.176_0.g (26 ) 2018 BTU/hr-ft2-25__ 35.49 OF at 300'F, where 9.176 ft/sec is converted from 28,294 GPM and 35.49 in. ID.

The heat transfer coefficient, h, for 50% flow is 4789 4.5) 08 26 0.2 = 1159 BTU/hr-ft2-

___25 35.49)I OF at 300TF, where 4.588 ft/sec is converted from 14,147 GPM and 35.49. in. ID.

. for 12% flow is 4789 \ ~~~~25 The heat transfer coefficient, h, ) 35-.49 =7BU/-f2°

- 370 BTU/hr2ft -.F at 300°F, where 1.101 ft/sec is converted from 3,395 GPM and 35.49 in. ID.

The heat transfer coefficient, h, for 0% flow is 112 BTU/hr-ft2-°F at 300'F. using the same HTC as Region 1 (Table 6, for natural convection)

Region 4 The heat transfer coefficient for Region 4 (Nozzle Blend Radius).is linearly transitioned from the value of the heat transfer coefficient used in Region 3 to the value used in Region 5.

Region 5 A value of 0.5 x Region 1 HTC from Reference [5, page I-T9-4, 6] is used to simulate the interior of the RPV shell for all conditions.

The heat transfer coefficient, h, for 100% flow is 0.5 x 3583.3 = 1,792 BTU/hr-ft 2-OF at 300 0 F.

The heat transfer coefficient, h, for 50%flow is 0.5 x 2058.1 1029 BTU/hr-ft2-OF at 300 0 F.

The heat transfer coefficient, h, for 12% flow is 0.5 x 657.2= 329 BTU/hr-ft 2-OF at 300 0F.

The heat transfer coefficient, h, for 0% flow is 101 BTU/hr-ft 2 -OF at 300°F. (Table 7, for natural convection) by using 40 in. hydraulic diameter [5].

File No.: 0801038.304 Page 7 of20 Revision: 1 F0306-011

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Region 6 The heat transfer coefficient, h, is 0.4 BTU/hr-ft2 -OF [5].

A summary of the heat transfer coefficients (HTC) to be used is shown in Table 2.

3.5 Finite Element Model The ANSYS program [6] will be used to perform the finite element analysis. A previously developed axisymmetric model will be used [7, file RONVYINP], except that temperature-dependent material properties will be used. Table 3 shows the applicable material properties [10].

Stresses will be extracted and linearized at two locations, both on the inside surface of the model, one at the safe end, and one at the blend radius, as was done previously [4].

3.6 Nozzle Blend Radius Pressure Stress The axisymmetric model has the effect of modeling the cylindrical RPV as spherical. The following paragraphs describe the details of the modeling used to account for the differences in this approximation and the actual geometry of two intersecting cylinders.

The radius of the vessel in the finite element model was multiplied by a factor of 2 to account for the fact that the vessel portion of the axisymmetric model is a sphere, but the true geometry is a cylinder. The equation for the membrane hoop stress for a sphere is:

(pressure) x (radius) 2 x thickness The equation for the membrane hoop stress in a cylinder is:

(pressure)x (radius) thickness The factor of two was verified in Reference [4], where actual stress results were compared to the results of this analytical form.

The pressure stress components for the safe end and blend radius paths will be extracted using ANSYS [6].

3.7 Piping Interface Loads Per Reference [9, 11], the RO nozzle piping loads, which conservatively use the design loads for the seismic, thermal and deadweight load combination, are stated in Table 4 along with relevant dimensions.

The coordinate system used for these are shown in Figure 2 and is consistent with Reference [9]. The finite element model coordinate system is shown in Figure 1.

File No.: 0801038.304 Page 8 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01

StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

3.8 SCFs, Safe End At the safe end inside surface, guidance is taken from the piping analysis rules in Subarticle NB-3600 of Section III of the ASME Code [1]. The stresses caused by the piping will be hand calculated and require a stress concentration factor, if appropriate. The stress concentration factor for the safe end location is 1.53 [5, page I-S9-4E, Table 5]. This value is conservatively used for both the C 2 and K2 values required by the ASME code [1, NB-3600]. The piping loads are relatively minor in comparison to the other loads this nozzle experiences so the conservative C2 and K 2 values will have a small impact on the analysis.

These factors are conservatively applied to all six components of the stress tensor.

3.9 Environmental Fatigue Multipliers The environmental fatigue multipliers for the safe end will be calculated in accordance with NUREG/CR-5704 methodology [15], and the environmental fatigue multipliers for the nozzle blend radius will be calculated in accordance with NUREG/CR-6583 methodology [2].

File No.: 0801038.304 Page 9 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01.

Structural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table 1: Vessel and Nozzle/Safe End Transients Transient Time Temp Time Step Pressure Flow Rate Transient Time Temp Time Step Pressure Flow Rate Number LS L U *psg)

La} (GPMI Number JLM

("F L"s Lpsi (GPM)

1. Normal Startup with 0 100 0 14147.0 6. Reactor Overpressure 0 526 1010 28294 0

Heatup at 10 *F/hr 16164 549 16164 1010 (50%) 1 Cycle (1,2) 2 526 2 1375 (100%)

300 Cycles (2) 56164 549 40000 1010 32 526 30 940

2. Turbine Roll and 0 549 1010 28294 1832 526 1800 940 Increase to Rated Power 1 542 1 1010 (100%) 2252 549 420 1010 300 Cycles (1, 2) 601 542 600 1010 2312 549 60 1010 602 526 1 1010 2313 542 1 1010 40602 526 40000 1010 1 2913 542 600 1010

3. Loss of Feedwater 0 526 1010 28294 2914 526 1 1010 Heaters 1800 542 1800 1010 (100%) 7914 526 5000 1010 Turbine Trip 25% Power 2100 542 300 1010 7. SRV Blowdown 0 526 1010 28294 10 Cycles (2) 2460 526 360 1010 1 Cycle (2) 600 375 600 170 (100%)

3060 526 600 1010 11580 70 10980 50 3960 542 900 1010 51580 70 40000 50 4260 542 300 1010 8. SCRAM Other 0 526 1010 28294 6060 526 1800 1010 228 Cycles (1, 2) 15 526 15 940 (100%)

11060 526 5000 1010 1815 526 1800 940

4. Loss of Feedwater 0 526 1010 0 2235 549 420 1010 Pumps 3 526 3 1190 (0%) 2295 549 60 1010 10 Cycles (1,2) 13 526 10 1135 2296 542 1 1010 233 300 220 1135 2356 542 60 1010 2213 500 1980 1135 2357 526 1 1010 2393 300 180 885 7357 526 5000 1010 6773 500 4380 1135 9. Improper Startup 0 526 1010 3395 7193 300 420 675 14147 1 Cycle (1, 2) 1 130O 1 1010 (12%)

7493 300 300 675 (50%) 27 130 26 1010 11093 400 3600 240 28 526 1 1010 16457 549 5364 1010 5028 526 5000 1010 16517 549 60 1010 10. Shutdown 0 549 1010 14147 16518 542 1 1010 28294 300 Cycles (2) 6264 375 6264 170 (50%)

17118 542 600 1010 (100%) 6864 330 600 88 17119 526 1 1010 16224 70 9360 50 57119 526 40000 1010 56224 70 40000 50

5. Turbine Generator Trip 0 526 1010 28294 11. Design Hydrostatic -- 100 0 1981 60 Cycles (1, 2) 10 526 10 1135 (100%) Test 1100 (7%)

15 526 5 1135 120 Cvcles (2) 50 30 526 15 940 12. Hydrostatic Test - 100 - 50 1981 1830 526 1800 940 1 Cycle (2) I ______ j 15633 50 ____

(7%)

549 420 1010 _________________ _____

2250 2310 549 60 1010 2311 542 1 1010 2911 542 600 1010 2912 526 1 1010 7912 526 5000 1010

1. The instant temperature change is assumed as 1-second time step.

2. The number of cycles is for 60 years [8].

3. 130'F is the Region I temperature for Transient 9, whereas the blend radius is at 268°F and the vessel is at 2687F, as was modeled previously [ 11].

File No.: 0801038.304 Page 10 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table 2: Heat Transfer Coefficients Flow Rate Thermal Region 100% 50% 12% 0% (Natural 1 Convection)

Region 1 3583 2058 657 112 Region 2 Linear transition from Region 1 and Region 3 values Region 3 2018 1159 370 112 Region 4 Linear transition from Region 3 and Region 5 values Region 5 1792 1029 329 101 Region 6 0.4 for all flow rates Note: All Heat transfer coefficients are in units of BTU/hr-ft2 -°F and are evaluated at 300'F.

Table 3: Temperature-Dependent Material Properties Mean Young's Coefficient of Conductivity, Specific Heat, Diffusivity, Material Tempera- Modulus, Thermal k cp Description ture, *F E x 106 d No. Expansion, (BTU/hr-ft-°F) (BTU/ibm-*F)

(ft2/hr)

(psi) ax 10,6 (see Note 1) (see Note 4)

(in/in- 0 F) 4 SA533 Grade B, 70 29.2 7.0 23.5 0.458 0.105

[Vessel Wall] .200 28.5 7.3 23.6 0.425 0.114 (Mn-1/2AMo-1/2/2Ni) 300 28.0 7.4 23.4 0.401 0.119 400 27.4 7.6 23.1 0.378 0.125 500 27.0 7.7 22.7 0.356 0.130 600 26.4 7.8 22.2 0.336 0.135 2 SA-508 Class 2 70 27.8 6.4 23.5 0.458 0.105

[Nozzle Forging] 200 27.1 6.7 23.6 0.425 0.114 300 26.7 6.9 23.4 0.401 0.119 400 26.1 7.1 23.1 0.378 0.125 500 25.7 7.3 22.7 0.356 0.130 (See Note 2) 600 25.2 7.4 22.2 0.336 0.135 1,3 SA 240 Type 70 28.3 8.5 8.6 0:151 0.116 304, SS Clad, 200 27.6 8.9 9.3 0.156 0.122 SA 182 Type 300 27.0 9.2 9.8 0.160 0.125 F316 400 26.5 9.5 10.4 0.165 0.129

[Clad, Safe End] 500 25.8 9.7 10.9 0.170 0.131 (see Note 3) 600 25.3 9.8 11.3 0.174 0.133 Notes: 1. Convert to BTU/see-in-°F for input to ANSYS.

2. Properties of A508 Class II are used (3/4Ni-I/2Mo-1/3Cr-V).

3. Properties of 18Cr - 8Ni austenitic stainless steel are used.

4. Calculated as [k/(pd)]/122.

FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page 11 of 20 Revision: I F0306-01I

V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

AFLEAS 10*.T NULN APP, 19 2007 13:35:14 Region 5 Region 6 Region 4 RegRion 2 Region 1 Region 3 x

Recirc Outlet Nozzle Finite Element Model Figure 1: Nozzle and'Vessel Wall Thermal Boundaries File No.: 0801038.304 Page 12 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

4.0 CALCULATIONS 4.1 Piping Interface Loads From general structural mechanics [14], the membrane plus bending stresses at the inside surface of a thick-walled cylinder are:

az, = axial stress due to axial force = Fz/A cz, = axial stress due to bending moment = Mxy(ID/2)/I cz = czI + cyz2 TrO =.shear stress due to torsion = Mz(ID/2)/J Trz = shear stress due to shear force = 2Fxy/A, where F,, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, and M, are forces and moments at the pipe-to-safe end weld MxL = moment about x axis translated by length z = -L = M, - Fy L MyL = moment about y axis translated by length2 z0 =5 -L = My + Fx L Mxy = resultant bending moment2 = (MxL2 + MyL )

Fxy = resultant shear force = (Fx F y2)0'5 ID, OD = inside and outside diameters A = area of cross section = (n/4)(OD 2 - ID 2)

I = moment of inertia = (ir/64)(OD4 - ID 4)

J = polar moment of inertia = (70/32)(0D 4 - ID4)

The shear stresses are expressed in a local coordinate system with r radial (X in ANSYS coordinates), 0 circumferential (Z in ANSYS coordinates), and Z axial (Y in ANSYS coordinates). Tables 4 and 5 show the calculation of stresses; ID, OD, and L are taken from the previous piping load stress calculations [11, Section 3.4]. Forces and moments are taken from Reference 11, Table 1. Note that the IDs shown in Table 4 for the safe end and nozzle blend radius (25.938" and 37.368", respectively) represent the two most limiting locations for the nozzle (See Figure 3), and therefore do not represent the ID values where the HTCs were calculated.

File No.: 0801038.304 Page 13 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01:

StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table 4: Recirculation Outlet Nozzle Attached Piping Loads and Dimensions [9, 11]

Safe End Nozzle Blend Radius Fx, kip 20.0 20.0 Fy, kip 20.0 20.0 F,, kip 30.0 30.0 Mx, kip-in 2004.0 2004.0 My, kip-in 3000.0 3000.0 Mz, kip-in 2004.0 2004.0 L, in 4.25 42.77 OD, in 28.38 55.88 ID, in 25.938 37.368 Table 5: Membrane Plus Bending Stresses Due to Piping Loads Safe End Blend Radius MxL, kip-in 1919.00 1148.60 MyL, kip-in 3085.00 3855.40 Mxy, kip-in 3633.15 4022.86 F,,, kip-in 28.28 28.28 A, in2 4 104.18 1355.76 I, in 4 9624.85 382912.48 J, in 19249.69 765824.95 UYzi, ksi 0.288 0.022 az, ksi 4.895 0.196 cz, ksi 5.183 0.218

'rrO, ksi 1.350 0.049 Tz, ksi 0.543 0.042 FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page 14 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01.

V StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 6: 0% Flow Regions 1 and 3 Heat Transfer Coefficients Pipe Inside Diameter, D =: L.. inche- = 2.150 ft

\ ' 0.655 mn Outer Pipe, Inside radius, r.=, 12.9 inches = 1.075 ft 0.328 m Inner Pipe Outside Diameter, D inches 0.000 ft

-" 0.000 mi Inner Pipe, Outside radius, r, = 0 inches 0.000 ft 0.000 m Fluid Velocity, V = 0.000 Itsec

• eOoo*' gpm= 0 . rlb/br Characteristic Length, L = D = r 2.150 ft = 0.655 m T.. --.. AT : assumed to be 12% of fluid temperature = 0.40 8 12.00 r 24.00 36.00 40.00 60.00 72.00 "F

= 4.67 6.67 13.33 20.00 26.67 33.33 40.00 TC Value at Fluid Temperature. T [121 Units Conversion 70 100 200 300 400 500 600 F Water Property Factor [19] 21.11 37.78 93.33 148.89 204.44 260.00 315.56 2C k 1.7307 0.5997 0.6300 0.67B4 0.63,- 0.6611 0.6040 0.5071 W/rr-C (Termal .................

Conductivity) ...... k*......... 0.3640 0.3465 *..........o:

0.30920 0.3950s ".........:*0.382D.*............*.o.

0.3490 .........

2 o .........

02930 f .L.r.:.-.'...

Btulhr-ft-'F c; 4.109 4.165 4,179 4.229 4.313 4.522 4.902 6.322 kJlkg-=C

~ ~~~ ~

~ (Seii~a)1.000

............. ~~~~~~~~-09

~ ~ ~s!!.e.t...........................o........... ........ ...

oo.........1.030 1.010 o.3.o......... 1,080 .........1.190

........ =.9o....  !.=o. ..............

.......1.510 u..........

Btu/Ibnn.F 97.1 004.7

.916.01 982.7 917.6 650.6 784.9 679.2 t'gIm3

.o*. *.......................... ...........................

................. (Density) *62.3

. .. 60.1,:................ 57.3

. 662.1:............ ........... . 5............

53.6 f49.0.o..................

. .... 42.4............ *.. ..........

lbrnift 1.8 1.896E-04 3.24E-04 6.66E-04 1.016-03 1.40E-03 1.90E-03 3.15E-03 n*i:'_C

.....f(Volumetric:

.o........ * .o.t Rate Iof Expansion).

..

• n....

.... ..... ........................... ....1:05E-04

,.o o.f...... ......................................................

1.80E-04 3.70E-04 15.60E-04 * .. .........

7.800E-04 o*..

1.10E-03  ?*........ !.*........

1.756E-03 . ..F*...

........ .*.felft- ---..

1 0.3046 9.006 9.80f 9.,06 9.806 9.306 9.606 ME.606 Ms (Gravitational Constant) 32.17 32.17 32.17 32.17 :32.17 32.17 32.17 *s; M 1.4681 9.86E-04 6.926-04 3.07E-04 1.93E-04 1.38-04 1.04E-04 8.62E-015 lgm-s

...................*t V...o...................

(Dy~namic Viscosity) ........................... ....**EO. ....................

6.869-04 4.58E-04 0..-...

2.06E-04 .*O................O-.

1.306-04 9.306-05 7.O.................

7.006-05 SZ*.5.

5.796-05......... lbnrdft-s 0.......

Pr 6.980 4.510 1.910 1.220 0.950 0.859 1.070 -

(Prandtl Number)

Calculated Parameter Formula 70 100 200 300 4S0 500 T00 ReynoldMs Number, Re pVO/ft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

GrasheofNumber. Gr gATL-/(Ip} 2441754517 1.2,97E+10 2.417E÷11 1.252E+12 3.9768E+12 1.034-+13 2.16049E+13 -

Grashof Number, Gr, gAAT(r.-rj)-'/(u~p- 3.05E+08 1.506+D9 3.026+10 1.576+11 4.97E+11 1.29E612 2.70E+12 -

Rayleigh Number. Ru GrPr 170434-46531 5.7265E÷10 4.616.+11 1.528ME12 3.77770+12 8.8836+12 2.311726+13 -

Rayleigh Number, Ru GrPr 2.1356-09 7.16E+09 5.77E+10 1.91E611 4.72E+11 1.116+12 2.696.12 -

From [19):

Inside Surface NaturalConvection Heat TransferCoefficient:

Case: Enclosed cylinder C n==fl n'0.55l H*, C(OrPr)7'IL 181.85 258.65 46934 637.80 7"/'73.57 875.17 933.22 Wnr-'C 32.03 45.55 82.66 ,i-,112.34U,. 136.24 154.13 164.35 Btufhr-ft:-*F FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page 15 of 20 Revision: I F0306-01.

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table 7: 0% Flow Region 5 Heat Transfer Coefficient Pipe Inside Diameter, D = .40..O0OW?Ž inches = 3.333 ft

= 1.016 m Outer Pipe, Inside radius, r, = 20 inches = 1.667 ft 0.508 m Inner Pipe Outside Diameter, D = inches = 0.000 ft

= 0.600 m Inner Pipe, Outside radius, r, = 0 inches = 0.000 ft 0.000 m Fluid Velocity, V = 00,00 fusec 0 D pm= 0 Mitlhr Characteristic Length, L = D = 3.333 ft = 1.016 m T_ T Lt = assumed to be 12% of fluid temperature = 0.40 12,00 24.00 3M.00, 46.00, 60.00 72.00 'F 4.67 6.67 13.33 20.00 25.67 33.33 40.00 =C Value at Fluid Temperature, T [121 Units Conversion 70 100 200 300 400 000 600 'F Water Property Factor [19] 21.11 37.78 93.33 140.89 204.44 260,00 3105.6 'C k 1.7307 0.5997 0.6300 0.6784 0.6636 0.6M11 0.6040 0.5071 W/M-lC

...................... *. . ).

. .. cConductivity)

.(Thermal ............................................. o0.a4605  :** o..........:*.*.........z*

0.36.40 ...........0.3020 0.39500. ........

0.3E20Lo 0.3.* . ..............

0.3490 0.29300 . * ........

• ~,

tu/tir-ft-'F

c. 4.1069 4.185 4.179 4229 4.313 4.522 4.002 6.322 Ij/Vg-'C

...................... Heat)

(Specific................................ 1.000 0.990 1.010 1.030

...................................................................................................... 1.050 1.190

• ........................... Btu'lbm-'F 1.510 ........................

O 16.018 997.1 994.7 S62.7 917.8 056.6 784.0 679.2 kginý (Density) 62.3 62.1 60.1 57.3 5316 49.0 42.4 lbn~fe

,-- 1.0 -:24- 1.0E-04 6..66-04 1.01E-03 1.400-03 1.9-SE3. 3.15E-03 m r/m,C (Volumetric Rate of E*pansion) 1.05E-04 1.00E-04 3.730-34 5.605-04 7.80E-04 1.1OE-03 1.7zE-03 '/f-=F 9 0.3042 9.5,06 9.006 .9.006 9.006 9.806 9.805 9.606 tV':

(Graygaittinal

....................... Constant)

/4"...........1.

..................... 14...........

S 32.17 E0 32.17 2 -4 30 32.17 6 0 .32.17 3 -4 99 1.32.17 32.17E-E-4"..................................1.

,.....":" is.

32.17 ..... ..................

A1.4081 9.96E-114 6.82f-04 3.07E0-4 1.93E-04 1.38E-04 1.0,4E-D4 8.62E-05 kg~nm-s 1.30E-04 9.300-05 1.19E-01 infft-s

. .P....

... ..Viscosity) namic r .......................................... 6.69E-04 6............. 4.56E0-4

"...1"..........

.......... 2.06E--04

....... *b Y* *

......... 6* "........7.00--05

.......... "7*.......... ....  ;*.............. .............

Pr6.900 4.5110 1.910 1.220 0.9150 0.659 1.00 (Prandtl Number)

Calculated Parameter Formula 70 100 200 300 400 500 600 'F Reynold's Number, Re pVDat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GrashofNumb*er, Or g*ATL=/r4p}u 90S'9,61160- 4.73190410 9.006E011 4.667E.ý12 1,.461S9E'13 3.854E+13 6.05143E+13 --

Grashof Number, Gr, gALT(rr,-?/(ta)a 1.14E49 5.915049 1.13E011 5.083011 1.85,+12 4.825-12 1.01E-13 -

Rayleigh Number, Ra GrPr 63515209008 2.134t1611 1.72E-12 5.69305÷12 1,40755413 3.315013 8.61503E+13 -

Rayleigh Number, Ra Gr5 Pr 7.94E01- 2.67E+10 2.15E-11 7.12E011 1.76E+12 4.145-12 1.08E+13 -

From f191:

Inside Surface Natural Convection Hleat Transfer Coefficient:,

Case: Enclosed cylinder C= n (1 -. ,.-3-°' .*)-." .

H. . C(GrPrY65WL 162*97 231.79 420.60 571.E6 ' 693.25 704.30 836.32 W .r.--C 2&.70 40.82 74.07 .103.6.O . 122.09 138.13 147.29 Btu/hr-ft:_F File No.: 0801038.304 Page 16 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

I+

, "* I .- "-,- - _

tMz Y, S7Z Z

Figure 2: Coordinate System for Forces and Moments SST CLAD 103.00 R MIN LOW ALLOY

- STEEL NOZZLE REPLACEMENT PIPE SA 508 CL IIt SUPPLIED BY OTHERS 2.50 R ,

I25.40 MIN 0 25.93 '_:'0, NOTE: NOZZLE DIMENSIONS ARE REFERENCE DIMENSIONS IN INCHES 14 -EXISTING SST (308 LI OVERLAY Figure 3: RO Nozzle and Safe End Geometry [201 File No.: 0801038.304 Page 17 of 20 Revision: I F0306-01

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

5.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS This calculation package specifies the ASME Code Edition, finite element model, thermal and pressure transients (Table 1), and HTCs (Table 2) to be used in a fatigue usage calculation of the RO nozzle at Vermont Yankee. Thermal transient and pressure stress components will be calculated using ANSYS [6]

and will be combined with piping loads in subsequent calculations.

Linearized stress components will be used for the fatigue usage calculation. For the nozzle blend radius location, the stresses used in the evaluation will be for the base metal only; that is, the cladding material will be unselected prior to stress extraction consistent with ASME Code rules and Reference [13].

The fatigue usage calculation will consider all six stress components, and will be performed using the rules of Subarticle NB-3200 of Section III of the ASME Code [1]. Calculated fatigue usage factors will be multiplied by the appropriate environmental fatigue multipliers computed for each location.

The results of this calculation are to be used in SIA calculations: No. 081038.305, Stress Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle and No. 081038.306, Fatigue Analysis of Recirculation Outlet Nozzle File No.: 0801038.304 Page 18 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01I

V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

6.0 REFERENCES

1. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsection NB, 1998 Edition, with Addenda through year 2000.

2. NUREG/CR-6583 (ANL-97/18), "Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design Curves of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels," March 1998.

3. J. P. Holman, "Heat Transfer," 5th Edition, McGraw Hill Inc.; 1981.

4. Structural Integrity Associates Calculation No. VY-16Q-305, Revision 0, "Recirculation Outlet Stress History Development for Nozzle Green Function."

5. CB&I, RPV Stress Report Sections S9 "Stress Analysis Recirculation Outlet Nozzle Vermont Yankee Reactor Vessel." and T9 "Thermal Analysis Recirculation Outlet Nozzle Vermont Yankee Reactor Vessel." CB&I Contract 9-620 1, SI File No. VY-16Q-204.

6. ANSYS, Release 8.1 (w/Service Pack 1), ANSYS, Inc., June 2004.

7. Structural Integrity Associates Calculation No. VY-16Q-304, Revision 0, "Recirculation Outlet Nozzle Finite Element Model."

8. Entergy Design Input Record (DIR), Rev. 1, EC No. 1773, Rev. 0, "Environmental Fatigue Analysis for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station," 7/26/07, SI File No. VY-16Q-209.

9. GE Drawing No. 919D294, Revision 11, Sheet 7, "Reactor Vessel, Spec. Control," SI File No. VY-05Q-241.

10. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section II, Part D, 1998 Edition, with Addenda through year 2000.

11. Structural Integrity Associates Calculation No. VY-1 6Q-306, Revision 0, "Fatigue Analysis of Recirculation Outlet Nozzle."

12. N. P. Cheremisinoff, "Heat Transfer Pocket Handbook," Gulf Publishing Co., 1984.

13. NUREG/CR-6260 (INEL-95/0045), "Application of NUREG/CR-5999 Interim Fatigue Curves to Selected Nuclear Power Plant Components," March 1995.

14. Warren C. Young, "Roark's Formulas for Stress & Strain," Sixth Edition, McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1989.

15. NUREG/CR-5704, "Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design Curves of Austenitic Stainless Steels," April, 1999.

FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page 19 of 20 Revision: 1 f0306-01i

V StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

16. SI Calculation No. VY-19Q-301, Revision 0, "Design Inputs and Methodology for ASME Code Confirmatory Fatigue Usage Analysis of Reactor Feedwater Nozzle."

17. SI Calculation No. VY-19Q-302, Revision 0, "ASME Code Confirmatory Fatigue Evaluation of Reactor Feedwater Nozzle."

18. SI Calculation No. VY-19Q-303, Revision 0, "Feedwater Nozzle Environmental Fatigue Evaluation."

19. J. P. Holman, "Heat Transfer," 4th Edition, McGraw Hill Inc., 1976.

20. GE Stress Report 23A4316, Revision 0, "Stress Report-Reactor Vessel Recirculation Outlet Safe End," SI File No. VY-16-204.

File No.: 0801038.304 Page 20 of 20 Revision: 1 F0306-01

V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

APPENDIX A:

ANSYS Input File: RONVY.INP FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page A-I of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-O1F

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

ANSYS Input File: RONVY.INP finish

/clear, start

/prep7

/title, Recirc Outlet Nozzle Finite Element Model

/com, PLANE42, 2-D Solid et,1,PLANE42,,,1 !Axisymmetric

/com, ****************************

/com, Material Properties

/corn, ****************************

MPTEMP, , 70,200,300,400,500,600 tmp = 3600*12  ! hr-ft to sec-in

/COM, Material #1 Safe-End and Portion of Piping (SA-182 F316) (18Cr-8Ni)

MPDATA,EX ,1, , 28.3e6, 27.6e6, 27.0e6, 26.5e6, 25.8e6, 25.3e6 MPDATA,ALPX,I, , 8.5e-6, 8.9e-6, 9.2e-6, 9.5e-6, 9.7e-6, 9.8e-6 MPDATA, KXX,1I,, 8.6/tmp, 9.3/tmp, 9.8/tmp, 10.4/tmp, 10.9/tmp, 11.3/tmp MPDATA, C,1, , 0.116, 0.122, 0.125, 0.129, 0.131, 0.133 mp, nuxy, 1, 0. 3 mp, dens, 1,0.283

/COM, Material #2 (Nozzle Forging) SA-508 Class 2 (3/4Ni-I/2Mo-I/3Cr-V)

MPDATA,EX ,2, , 27.8e6, 27.1e6, 26.7e6, 26.1e6, 25.7e6, 25.2e6 MPDATA,ALPX,2, , 6.4e-6, 6.7e-6, 6.9e-6, 7.le-6, 7.3e-6, 7.4e-6 MPDATA, KXX,2, , 23.5/tmp, 23.6/tmp, 23.4/tmp, 23.1/tmp, 22.7/tmp, 22.2/tmp MPDATA, C,2, , 0.105, 0.114, 0.119, 0.125, 0.130, 0.135 mp, nuxy, 2, 0. 3 mp, dens, 2,0.283

/COM, Material #3 (Cladding) SA-240 Type 304 (18Cr-8Ni)

MPDATA,EX ,3, , 28.3e6, 27.6e6, 27.0e6, 26.5e6, 25.8e6, 25.3e6 MPDATA,ALPX,3, , 8.5e-6, 8.9e-6, 9.2e-6, 9.5e-6, 9.7e-6, 9. 8e-6 MPDATA, KXX,3, , 8.6/tmp, 9.3/tmp, 9.8/tmp, 10.4/tmp, 10.9/tmp, 11.3/tmp MPDATA, C,3, , 0.116, 0.122, 0.125, 0.129, 0.131, 0.133 mp, nuxy, 3, 0.3 File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-2 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-01I

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

mp, dens, 3,0.283

/COM, Material #4 (Vessel) SA-533, GR. B (Mn-1/2Mo-1/2Ni)-

MPDATA,EX 14, , 29.2e6, 28.5e6, 28.0e6, 27.4e6, 27.0e6, 26.4e6 MPDATA,ALPX,4, , 7.0e-6, 7.3e-6, 7.4e-6, 7.6e-6, 7.7e-6, 7.8e-6 MPDATA, KXX,4, , 23.5/tmp, 23.6/tmp, 23.4/tmp, 23.1/tmp, 22.7/tmp, 22.2/tmp MPDATA, C,4, , 0.105, 0.114, 0.119, 0.125, 0.130, 0.135 mp, nuxy, 4, 0. 3 mp,dens,4, 0.283

• AFUN, DEG

/com, *** Geometric Parameters *

• set,vira, (103+3/16) !Actual Vessel Inner Radius to base metal used for model

• set,vir,2.0*vira !2.0 time of Vessel Inner Radius to base metal used for model

• settvw,5+5/8-3/16 !Vessel Wall Thickness

• set, ril, 25.75/2

• setrol 28.375/2

• set,L1,5

• set, ro2,28.375/2

• set, L2,4.25

• set, ro3,28.875/2

• set, ro4,48.75/2

• set, L3, 1.5

• set, L4, 5.25

• set, L5,7+1/16

• set, L6, 12+13/16

• setL7,9+7/8

• set,L8, 9+3/8

• set,L9, 31+15/16

• set, L0, L9-12-13/16-tvw

• set, ra, 7

• set, rb, 1

• set, rc, 5.25

• set, rd, 2.5

• set, tv, 3/16

• set,dimA,vir-(tv*2.0)+L9+11+Ll !Vessel Centerline to End of Safe End used for model

• set,L21,1

• set, L22,4.25

• set,ri21, (25+15/16)/2

/com, Geometry File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-3 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-01,

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

local, 13,0, , dimA, , .

csys, 13

/com, Begin at end of Safe-End - Carbon Section k, 9, ril, -1*(dimA) k, 2,f ril+tv, -l*(dimA) k, 3, rol, -!*(dimA) k, 4, ril, -l*(dimA-Ll) k, 5, ril+tv, -l*(dimA-Ll) k, 6, rol, -l*(dimA-Ll) k, 7, ril, -T*(dimA-Ly-L2) k, 8, ril+tv, -1*(dimA-L5-L2) k, 9f ro2, -r*(dimA-Li-L2) k, 10, ril, -I*(dimA-LI-L2-,L3) k,22, ril+tv, -I*(dimA-LI-L2-L3) k, 12, 1o3, -r*(dimA-Lb-L2-L3) k, 13, ril, -1*(dimA.Ll-L2-L3-L4) k, 24, ril+tv, -I*(dimA-LI-L2-L3-L4) k, 15, ro3, -1*(dimA-Lt-L2-L3-L4) k, 16, ril, -1*(dimA-Lt-L2-L3-L4-L5) k, 17, ril+tv, - t*(dimA-Ln-L2-L3-L4-L5) k, 18, ro3, -1*(dirtA-LP-L2-L3-L4-L5) k,19, ro4, -0*(dimA-LI-L2-L3-L4-L5-L7)!Temporary Point 1, 19, 18 1,18,15 fillc, 29,i3,2,ira k,22, ro4+(LS+6)*tan(15), -I*(dimA-LI-L2-L3-L4-L5-L7-(L8+6) 1, 19, 22 LFILLT, 1i, 4, rb k, 25, ril, -I*(dimA-LI-L2-L3-L4-L6) k, 26, ril+tv, -I*(dimA-Ll-L2-L3-L4-L6) k, 27, ril+(Ll0+tvw+ltv+4)*tan(15), -l*(vir-tv-4) k, 28, ril+tv+(L10+tvw+t~v+4)*tan(15), -l*(vir-tv-4) k,29, (vir+tvw+tv) tsin (45) . -l* (vir+tvw+tv) *cos (45) k,30, 0, -l*(vir+tvw+tv) !Temporary Point k,31., 0, 0 ! Temporary Point larc, 29, 30, 31, vir+tvw+tv k,32, (.vir+tv)*sin(45), -1*(vir+tv)*cos(45)

File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-4 of A-23 Revision: I F0306-01I

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

k,33, 0, -1*(vir+tv) Temporary Point larc, 32, 33, 31,vir+tv k,34, vir*sin(45), -1*vir*cos(45) k,35, 0, -l*vir Temporary Point larc, 34,35,31,vir LSTR, 4, 5 LSTR, 5, 6 LSTR, 6, 9 LSTR, 9, 12 LSTR, 12, 15 LSTR, 5, 8 LSTR, 4, 7 LSTR, 7, 10 LSTR, 8, 11 LSTR, 11, 14 LSTR, i0, 13 LSTR, 13, 16 LSTR, 14, 17 LSTR, 16, 25 LSTR, 17, 26 LSTR, 26, 28 LSTR, 25, 27 LSTR, 4, 1 LSTR, 1, 2 LSTR, 2, 3 LSTR, 3, 6 LSTR, 5, 2 LSTR, 7, 8 LSTR, 8, 9 LSTR, 12, 11 LSTR, 11, 10 LSTR, 13, 14 LSTR, 14, 15 FLST, 2,2,4, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 2,4 FITEM, 2, 6 LPTN, P51X FLST, 2,2, 4, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 2,8 FITEM, 2,25 LPTN, P51X FLST, 2,2,4,ORDE, 2 FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page A-5 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-01

V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

FITEM, 2, 7 FITEM, 2,24 LPTN, P51X FLST, 2, 6, 4, ORDE, 6 FITEM, 2, 6 FITEM, 2,25 FITEM, 2,37 FITEM, 2,40 FITEM, 2,42 FITEM, 2,44 LDELE,P51X, , .1 LFILLT,4,41,rd, ,

1*

LFILLT, 43, 8, rd, .

LFILLT, 39, 38, rc, FLST, 2,3, 4,ORDE, 3 FITEM, 2,1 FITEM, 2,3 FITEM, 2,5 LCOMB,P51X, ,0 LSTR, 16, 17 LSTR, 17, 21 LSTR, 25, 26 LSTR, 26, 24 LSTR, 22, 30 LSTR, 30, 35 LSTR, 27, 28 LSTR, 28, 33 LSTR, 29, 32 LSTR, 32, 34 k,39, 0, -1*(vir+tvw+tv)

!Create Areas FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,27 FITEM, 2,30 FITEM, 2,26 FITEM, 2, 9 AL, P51X, FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,28 File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-6 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-011

V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

FITEM, 2,29 FITEM, 2, 10 FITEM, 2,30 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2, 11 FITEM, 2,32 FITEM, 2, 10 FITEM, 2, 14 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2, 15 FITEM, 2, 14 FITEM, 2, 9 FITEM, 2, 31 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM,2,32 FITEM, 2,33 FITEM, 2, 12 FITEM, 2, 17 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2, 16 FITEM, 2, 17 FITEM, 2,31 FITEM, 2,34 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,36 FITEM, 2, 13 FITEM, 2,33 FITEM, 2, 18 AL, P51X FLST, 2, 4, 4 FITEM, 2, 19 FITEM, 2, 18 FITEM, 2,35 FITEM, 2,34 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,2 FITEM, 2, 5 FITEM, 2,36 FITEM, 2,21 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-7 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-01

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

FITEM, 2,20 FITEM, 2, 21 FITEM, 2, 3 FITEM, 2,35 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2, 1 FITEM, 2,37 FITEM, 2,23 FITEM, 2,5 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,22 FITEM, 2,23 FITEM, 2,25 FITEM, 2,3 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,38 FITEM, 2,42 FITEM, 2,37 FITEM, 2, 8 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2, 4 FITEM, 2,8 FITEM, 2,25 FITEM, 2,40 AL, PSIX FLST, 2,4,,4 FITEM, 2,24 FITEM, 2,45 FITEM, 2,7 FITEM, 2,42 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2, 6 FITEM, 2, 7 FITEM, 2,44 FITEM, 2,40 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2, 41 FITEM, 2,43 FITEM, 2, 47 FITEM, 2,44 AL, P51X File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-8 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-01.

VStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.

FLST, 2, 4,4 FITEM, 2,39 FITEM, 2, 46 FITEM, 2, 45 FITEM, 2,43 AL, P51X define materials FLST, 5,8,5, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 5,1 FITEM, 5, -8 CM, Y,AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X CM, Y1,AREA CMSEL,S,_Y 1*

CMSEL,S, _YI AATT, 1, , 1, 0, CMSEL,S, Y CMDELE, Y CMDELE, Y1 1*

FLST, 5,5,5, ORDE, 5 FITEM, 5,9 FITEM, 5,11 FITEM, 5,13 FITEM, 5,15 FITEM, 5,18 CM, _Y,AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,AREA CMSEL,S, Y I*

CMSEL,S, Y1 AATT, 2, , 1, 0, CMSEL,S, Y CMDELE, _Y CMDELE, Y1 FLST, 5,5,5, ORDE, 5 FITEM, 5,10 FITEM, 5,12 FITEM, 5,14 FITEM, 5,16 FITEM, 5, -17 CM, _Y,AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-9 of A-23 Revision: I F0306-01:

V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

CM, _Y, AREA CMSEL, S, _Y CMSEL,S,_YI AATT, 3, , 1, 0, CMSEL, S, _Y CMDELE, Y CMDELE, Y1 I*

!/com, Map mesh areas FLST, 5,10,4,ORDE, 10 FITEM, 5,5 FITEM, 5, 10 FITEM, 5,28 FITEM, 5,32 FITEM, 5,-33 FITEM, 5,36 FITEM, 5,-37 FITEM, 5,42 FITEM, 5,45 FITEM, 5, -46 CM, _Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, Y1,LINE CMSEL,, _Y LESIZE, Y1, , ,15, , , ,i 1*

FLST, 5,10,4, ORDE, 10 FITEM, 5,3 FITEM, 5,9 FITEM, 5,25 FITEM, 5,27 FITEM, 5,31 FITEM, 5,34 FITEM, 5,-35 FITEM, 5,40 FITEM, 5, 44 FITEM, 5,47 CM, Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, YI,LINE CMSEL,, _Y I*

LESIZE, .Y1,

, ,2, , ,

1*

File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-10 of A-23 Revision: I F0306-011

VFLST, Structural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

5,3,4, ORDE, 3 FITEM., 5, 39 FITEM, 5, 41 FITEM, 5,43 CM, _Y, LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,LINE CMSEL,, _Y LESIZE, YI, ,80, , , , l 1*

FLST,5,3,4,ORDE,3 FITEM, 5,6 FITEM, 5, -7 FITEM,5,24 CM, _Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,LINE CMSEL,, _Y LESIZE, Y1, , ,20, , , ,

1*

FLST, 5,3,4, ORDE, 3 FITEM, 5,4 FITEM, 5,8 FITEM, 5,38 CM, _Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, Y1,LINE CMSEL,,__Y 1*

LESIZE,_Y1, , ,40, , , , fl FLST, 5,3,4,ORDE, 3 FITEM, 5,1 FITEM, 5,22 FITEM, 5, -23 CM, _Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,LINE CMSEL,, _Y LESIZE, Y1, , ,30, , , , .

FLST, 5, 6,4,ORDE, 6.

FITEM, 5,2 FITEM, 5,20 FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page A-I I of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-011

0 StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

FITEM, 5, -21 FITEM, 5,26 FITEM, 5,29 FITEM, 5, -30 CM, _Y, LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,LINE CMSEL,, _Y 1*

LESIZE, Y1, , ,40, , , , ,I 1*

FLST, 5, 9, 4, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 5, 11 FITEM, 5, -19 CM, Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,LINE CMSEL,,__Y 1*

LESIZE, Y1, , ,20, , , , ,i 1*

Meshing FLST, 5, 18,5, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 5,1 FITEM, 5, -18 SCM, _Y,AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,AREA CHKMSH, 'AREA' CMSEL,S,_Y 1*

MSHKEY, 1 AMESH, Y1 MSHKEY, 0 i*

CMDELE, Y CMDELE, _Y1 CMDELE, Y2 1*

!Modify the safe end ID FLST, 2, 6, 5, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 2,1 FITEM, 2, -6 ACLEAR, P51X FLST, 2, 6, 5, ORDE, 2 File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-12 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-01

V StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

FITEM, 2, 1 FITEM, 2, -6 ADELE, P51X FLST,2,9, 4,ORDE,7 FITEM, 2,9 FITEM, 2,14 FITEM, 2, -17 FITEM, 2,26 FITEM, 2, -27 FITEM, 2,30 FITEM, 2, -31 LDELE,P51X, , .1 FLST, 2,3,4,ORDE, 3 FITEM, 2,10 FITEM, 2,28 FITEM, 2,32 LDELE,P51X, , .1 FLST, 3,2,3, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 3,3 FITEM, 3,6 KGEN,2,P51X, , ,-ro2+ri2l, , , ,0 FLST, 3,1, 3,ORDE, 1 FITEM, 3,2 KGEN,2,P51X, , , ,L22, , ,0 FLST, 3, 3,3, ORDE, 3 FITEM, 3,1 FITEM, 3, -2 FITEM, 3, 4 KGEN,2,P51X, , ,tv, , , ,0 FLST, 3,2, 3, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 3, 10 FITEM, 3,-li KGEN,2,P51X, , , ,-(L3-L21), , ,0 FLST, 3, 1, 3, ORDE, 1 FITEM, 3,23 KGEN,2,P51X, , ,5, , , ,0 LSTR, 23, 40 FLST,2,2,4,ORDE,2 FITEM, 2,9 FITEM, 2,12 LPTN, P51X LDELE, 16, , ,i FLST, 2,4,3 FITEM, 2, 11 FITEM, 2,23 FITEM, 2,41 FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page A-13 of A-23 Revision: I F0306-0t1

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

FITEM, 2,12 A, P51X FLST, 2,4,3 FITEM, 2,23 FITEM, 2, 8 FITEM, 2, 9 FITEM, 2,41 A, P51X FLST,2, 4,3 FITEM, 2, 8 FITEM, 2, 7 FITEM, 2, 6 FITEM, 2, 9 A, P51X FLST, 2, 4,3 FITEM, 2,7 FITEM, 2, 5 FITEM, 2,3 FITEM, 2, 6 A, P51X FLST, 2,4,3 FITEM, 2, 10 FITEM, 2,20 FITEM, 2,23 FITEM, 2, 11 A, P51X FLST, 2,4,3 FITEM, 2,20 FITEM, 2, 4 FITEM, 2,8 FITEM, 2,23 A, P51X FLST, 2,4,3 FITEM, 2, 4 FITEM, 2,2 FITEM, 2,7 FITEM, 2, 8 A, P51X FLST, 2, 4,3 FITEM, 2,2 FITEM, 2, 1 FITEM, 2, 5 FITEM, 2,7 A, P51X FLST,5,8,5,ORDE, 4 FITEM, 5,1 FITEM, 5, -6 File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-14 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-OL

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

FITEM, 5, 19 FITEM, 5,-20 CM, _Y, AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,AREA CMSEL,S, Y 1*

CMSEL,S, Y1 AATT, i, , 1, 0, CMSEL,S, Y CMDELE, _Y CMDELE, Y1 1*

FLST, 5, 4,4,ORDE, 4 FITEM, 5, 15 FITEM, 5, -16 FITEM, 5,26 FITEM, 5, 28 CM, _Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, Y1,LINE CMSEL,,_Y i*

LESIZE, YI, , ,15, , , , ,i 1*

FLST, 5,4,4,ORDE, 4 FITEM, 5,31 FITEM, 5,48 FITEM, 5,50 FITEM, 5,52 CM, Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,LINE CMSEL,, _Y 1*

LESIZE, Y1, , ,2, , , , 1 FLST, 5,6, 4,ORDE, 6 FITEM, 5,9 FITEM, 5,-l0 FITEM, 5, 12 FITEM, 5, 14 FITEM, 5, 30 FITEM, 5,32 CM, _Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, Y1,LINE FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page A-15 of A-23 Revision: I F0306-01!

V StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

CMSEL,, _Y 1*

LESIZE, Y1, , , 6, , , , ,i 1*

FLST, 5,3,4, ORDE, 3 FITEM, 5, 11 FITEM, 5, 17 FITEM, 5,49 CM, _Y, LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,LINE CMSEL,, _Y LESIZE, Y1, , ,12, , , , ,i 1*

FLST, 5,3, 4,ORDE, 3 FITEM, 5,27 FITEM, 5,29 FITEM, 5,51 CM, _Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,LINE CMSEL,,__Y LESIZE, Y1, , ,25, , , , ,i 1*

FLST, 5, 8, 5, ORDE, 4 FITEM, 5,1 FITEM, 5, -6 FITEM, 5,19 FITEM, 5,-20 CM, _Y,AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,AREA CHKMSH, 'AREA' CMSEL,S, _Y 1*

MSHKEY, 1 AMESH, Y1 MSHKEY, 0 i*

CMDELE, Y CMDELE, _Y1 CMDELE, Y2 1*

FLST, 2,2,5, ORDE, 2 FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page A-16 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-01

V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

FITEM, 2,17 FITEM, 2, -18 ACLEAR,P51X csys, 0 k, 51,62/2,0,0 k, 52,62/2,60,0 LSTR, 51, 52 FLST, 2,2,5, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 2,17 FITEM, 2, -18 ADELE, P5IX iplo FLST, 2,4,4, ORDE, 4 FITEM, 2,39 FITEM, 2,41 FITEM, 2,43 FITEM, 2,53 LPTN, PSIX FLST, 2,2,4, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 2,60 FITEM, 2, -61 LDELE,P51X, , .1 FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,54 FITEM, 2, 62 FITEM, 2,55 FITEM, 2,44 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,55 FITEM, 2,63 FITEM, 2,58 FITEM, 2,45 AL, P51X FLST,2,4,4 FITEM, 2,63 FITEM, 2,56 FITEM, 2,57 FITEM, 2,46 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,47 FITEM, 2,59 FITEM, 2,57 FITEM, 2,62 AL, PSIX File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-17 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-01

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

CM, _Y, AREA ASEL, , , , 18 CM, _Y1,AREA CMSEL, S, _Y 1*

CMSEL,S, Y1 AATT, 2, , 1, 0, CMSEL, S, _Y CMDELE, Y CMDELE,, Y1 FLST, 5,2,5, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 5, 17 FITEM, 5,22 CM, _Y, AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,AREA CMSEL,S, _Y 1*

CMSEL,S, Y1 AATT, 3, r 1, 0, CMSEL, S, _Y CMDELE, _Y CMDELE, __Y CM, Y, AREA ASEL, . . . 21 CM, _Y1,AREA CMSEL, S, Y CMSEL,S, Y1 AATT, 4, j 1, 0, CMSEL, S, _Y CMDELE, Y CMDELE, _YI 1*

FLST, 5,3,4,ORDE, 3 FITEM, 5,54 FITEM, 5, -55 FITEM, 5,58 CM, _Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, Y1,LINE CMSEL,,__Y LESIZE, Y1, , ,8, , , , ,i File No.: 0801038.304 Page A- 18 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-011

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

FLST, 5,3,4,ORDE, 3 FITEM, 5, 56 FITEM, 5,-57 FITEM, 5,59 CM, _Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,LINE CMSEL,, _Y 1*

LESIZE, YI, , ,40, , , , ,i FLST, 5,2,5, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 5,17 FITEM, 5,-18 CM, Y,AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,AREA CHKMSH, 'AREA' CMSEL,S, Y MSHKEY, 1 AMESH, Y1 MSHKEY, 0 L*

CMDELE, Y CMDELE, _Y1 CMDELE, Y2 I*

FLST, 5,2,5, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 5,21 FITEM, 5, -22 CM, Y,AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X CM, Y1,AREA CHKMSH, 'AREA' CMSEL,S, Y i*

MSHKEY, 1 AMESH, Y1 MSHKEY, 0 CMDELE, Y CMDELE, Y1 CMDELE, Y2 1*

File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-19 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-01

VStructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

!Simulating Butter FLST, 2,2,5,ORDE, 2 FITEM,2,9 FITEM, 2, -10 ACLEAR, P51X FLST, 2,2,5, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 2,9 FITEM, 2, -10 ADELE, P51X KGEN,2,15, , , ,11/16, , ,0 KGEN,2,44, , , ,-0.25, , ,0 KGEN,2,14, , , ,11/16-1.375*tan(7.5) , 0 KGEN,2,46, , , ,-0.25, , ,0 FLST, 2, 3, 4,ORDE, 3 FITEM, 2,2 FITEM, 2,20 FITEM, 2, -21 LDELE, P51X LSTR, 21, 44 LSTR, 44, 45 LSTR, 45, 15 LSTR, 17, 46 LSTR, 46, 47 LSTR, 47, 14 LSTR, 46, 44 LSTR, 45, 47 LSTR, 13, 16 FLST, 3,2, 3,ORDE, 2 FITEM, 3,46 FITEM, 3,-47 KGEN,2,P51X, , ,-0.25, , ,0 LSTR, 48, 46 LSTR, 49, 47 FLST, 2,3,4,ORDE, 3 FITEM, 2,61 FITEM, 2,64 FITEM, 2, -65 LPTN, P51X FLST, 2,2,4,ORDE, 2 FITEM, 2,70 FITEM, 2, -71 LDELE,P51X, , .1 FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2, 67 FITEM, 2,39 File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-20 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-01

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

FITEM, 2,68 FITEM, 2, 3 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,39 FITEM, 2, 5 FITEM, 2, 2 FITEM, 2,53 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,20 FITEM, 2, 60 FITEM, 2,53 FITEM, 2, 41 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,72 FITEM, 2,68 FITEM, 2,69 FITEM, 2,41 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,21 FITEM, 2,60 FITEM, 2,36 FITEM, 2,43 AL, P51X FLST, 2,4,4 FITEM, 2,66 FITEM, 2,69 FITEM, 2,35 FITEM, 2,43 AL, P51X CM, _Y, AREA ASEL, , , , 10 CM, Y1,AREA CMSEL, S, _Y 1*

CMSEL,S, Y1 AATT, 2, , 1, 0, CMSEL, S, _Y CMDELE, Y CMDELE, Y1 1*

FLST, 5,3,5, ORDE, 3 FITEM, 5, 9 FileNo.: 0801038.304 Page A-21 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-011

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

FITEM, 5,23 FITEM, 5,-24 CM, Y, AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X CM, Y1,AREA CMSEL,S, _Y 1*

CMSEL,S, __Y AATT, 3, , 1, 0, CMSEL,S, Y CMDELE, Y CMDELE, _Y1 FLST, 5,2, 5, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 5,25 FITEM, 5, -26 CM, Y,AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,AREA CMSEL,S, Y 1,

CMSEL,S, _YI AATT, i, , i, 0, CMSEL,S, _Y CMDELE, Y CMDELE, Y1 1*

FLST, 5,3,4,ORDE, 3 FITEM, 5,2 FITEM, 5,39 FITEM, 5,67 CM, Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X CM, Y1,LINE CMSEL,, _Y i*

LESIZE, YI, , ,10, , , ,

FLST, 5, 6, 4,ORDE, 6 FITEM, 5,20 FITEM, 5,-21 FITEM, 5,41 FITEM, 5,43 FITEM, 5,66 FITEM, 5,72 CM, Y,LINE LSEL, , , ,P51X File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-22 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-O.

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

CM, _Y1, LINE CMSEL, , _Y LESIZE, Y1, , ,2, , , , ,i 1*

FLST, 5, 2, 5, ORDE, 2 FITEM,5, 9 FITEM, 5,-i0 CM, _Y,AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X CM, Y1,AREA CHKMSH, 'AREA' CMSEL,S, _Y 1*

MSHKEY,1 AMESH, _Y1 MSHKEY, 0 CMDELE,1Y CMDELE, Y1 CMDELE, _Y2 I*

FLST, 5,4,5, ORDE, 2 FITEM, 5,23 FITEM, 5, -26 CM, _Y,AREA ASEL, , , ,P51X CM, _Y1,AREA CHKMSH, 'AREA' CMSEL,S, _Y MSHKEY, 1 AMESH, Y1 MSHKEY, 0 1*

CMDELE, Y CMDELE, _YI CMDELE, Y2 1*

save finish File No.: 0801038.304 Page A-23 of A-23 Revision: 1 F0306-01,

StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc. File No.: 0801038.305 CALCULATION PACKAGE Project No.: 0801038 Quality Program Z Nuclear [] Commercial PROJECT NAME:

VY Confirmatory Analysis for the CS and RO Nozzles CONTRACT NO.:

10163217 Amendment 5 CLIENT: PLANT:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station CALCULATION TITLE:

Stress Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle Project Manager Preparer(s) &

Document Affected Revision Description Approval Checker(s)

Revision Pages Signature & Date Signatures & Date 01 - 16 Initial issue. Preparer:

Gary L. Stevens Computer Files 01/07/09 Tyler Novotny 01/07/09 Checker:

R. D. Dixon 01/07/09 1 1-9, 11, 15 Revised per summary Preparer:

contained in Section 1.1.

Changes are marked with revision bars" in right- 0 9 TlrDNnt hand margin. 03/09/09 Tyler D. Novotny 03/09/09 Checker:

Tim D. Gilman 03/09/09 Page 1 of 16 F0306-OIRO

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table of Contents 1.0 OB JEC TIV E ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Changes Made in Revision 1 of this Calculation ........................................................... 3 2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 3 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS / DESIGN INPUTS ..................................................................................... 4 4.0 CA LCU LA TION S ........................................................................................................................ 4 4.1 Finite Element Unit Pressure Stress Analysis ................................................................. 4 4.2 Thermal Transient Stress Analysis .................................................................................. 4 4.3 Determining Critical Stress Paths .................................................................................. 5 4.4 Stress C alculation ........................................................................................................... . .6 4.5 Piping L oads ............................................................................................................... 7 5.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 8 6.0 REFEREN C E S ............................................................................................................................. 9 List of Tables Table 1: Pressure Stress Intensity Results (1,000 psi) ...................................................................... .7 Table 2: Stresses Under Unit Pressure Load, psi .................................. 10 Table 3: Example Thermal Stress Result Output, psi ......................................................................... 11 List of Figures Figure 1. RO Nozzle Internal Pressure Distribution ...................................................................... 12 Figure 2. RO Nozzle Pressure Cap Load & Boundary Condition ................................................. 13 Figure 3. RO Nozzle Vessel Wall Boundary Condition ............................................................... 14 Figure 4. Safe End Critical Thermal Stress Intensity Location .......................................................... 15 Figure 5. Nozzle Blend Radius Limiting Pressure Stress Intensity Location ................................. 16 Figure 6. Limiting Stress Paths ..................................................................................................... 16 FileNo.: 0801038.305 Page 2 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-OIRO

1.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this calculation package is to obtain stress distributions for the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) recirculation outlet (RO) nozzle at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

ANSYS [1] thermal transient and pressure stress analyses are performed, along with calculation of stresses due to attached piping loads. The stress results will be used for a subsequent ASME Code,Section III NB-3200 [2] fatigue usage calculation.

1.1 Changes Made in Revision 1 of this Calculation Description of changes made in Revision 1 of this calculation:

a. Transient 9 described in Section 4.3 was changed to more precisely match the Green's Function analysis. This also required modification of the input files VY_RONTRAN9-T.INP and VY RON TRAN9-S.INP.

b. The input files VY_RON_TRAN2-T.INP and VY_RONTRAN2-S.INP were modified to include a finer time step around 601 seconds.

c. A Kt value of 1.53 that was conservatively applied to piping loads at blend radius was changed to Kt = 1.0 to match the Green's Function analysis.

d. Table 3 was revised because the input file VYRONTRAN4-T.INP was updated to correct a conservative misapplication of a temperature ramp rate.

e. Figure 4 was revised because Transient 9, which produced Figure 4, was modified.

f. All remaining changes marked throughout this calculation are editorial changes made to the text of the calculation package.

2.0 METHODOLOGY The methodology to be used for this evaluation was established in a previous calculation package

[3]. A previously developed finite element model (FEM) [3] of the RO nozzle is used to perform thermal and pressure stress analyses using ANSYS [1]. A thermal transient analysis is performed for each defined transient. Concurrent with the thermal transients are pressure and piping interface loads. For these loads, unit load analyses (based on finite element analysis for pressure and manual calculations for attached piping loads) are performed. All six components of the stress tensor are determined in the stress calculations.

The fatigue usage calculation and environmental fatigue usage analysis will be performed in a separate calculation package. That subsequent calculation will utilize the thermal and pressure stresses determined in this calculation, along with stresses due to attached piping loads provided in Tables 4 and 5 of Reference [3]. The stresses due to pressure and the attached piping loads will be scaled based on the temperature and pressure magnitudes during each individual transient, and the location being analyzed. The appropriate nozzle blend radius effects factor will also be applied to the total stresses for the nozzle blend radius location.

FileNo.: 0801038.305 Page 3 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS / DESIGN INPUTS Assumptions and design inputs were previously established in Section 3.0 of the Reference [3]

calculation. Assumption 3.1.3 of Reference [3] was verified in this calculation package by plotting the stress components of each transient in ANSYS. If the stress components plot did not contain a step change at the end of the transient, the steady state portion, the steady state time step assumed was determined to be adequate.

4.0 CALCULATIONS 4.1 Finite Element Unit Pressure Stress Analysis A uniform pressure of 1,000 psi was applied to the FEM along the inside surface of the RO nozzle and the RPV wall (Figure 1). A pressure load of 1,000 psi was used because it is easily scaled up or down to account for different pressures that occur during transients. In addition, a membrane stress "cap load" was applied to the modeled end of the piping attached to the RO nozzle safe end. This membrane stress was calculated as follows:

PD.

PDi 2 P

Pcap = 2 2 where:

P = Pressure = 1,000 psi unit load Di= Inner Diameter at end of model = 25.9375 in Do = Outer Diameter at end of model = 28.375 in Therefore, the membrane stress is 5,082 psi. The calculated value is given a negative sign in order for it to exert tension on the piping end of the model. The FEM geometry input file is taken from the calculation that specifies the design and methodology inputs [3, input file RONVY.INP]. The ANSYS input file VY RON P.INP contains the pressure loading. Figure 1 shows the applied 1,000 psi internal pressure distribution. At the vessel wall, a symmetric boundary condition is applied. At the piping end of the model, axial displacement is coupled to simulate the effect of the attached piping that is not modeled. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the boundary conditions.

4.2 Thermal Transient Stress Analysis The FEM geometry input file is taken from the calculation that specifies the design and methodology inputs [3, file RONVY.INP], and is used as input to the files in which the thermal transient and pressure stress analyses are performed.

For the thermal transient ANSYS analyses, previously defined thermal transients [3, Table 1] are evaluated, applying heat transfer coefficients [3, Table 2], as appropriate, based on the flow rates for each individual transient.

Each thermal transient is evaluated in ANSYS to determine the resulting temperature distributions.

The thermal results are used as input for the stress analysis for each transient. The boundary FileNo.: 0801038.305 Page 4 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

conditions used for the pressure load case were also applied to the thermal stress cases. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the application of these boundary conditions.

All ANSYS input files for the thermal analyses, as listed below, are saved in the project computer files:

RON VYINP: Geometry and material properties VYRON TRAN]-T.INP, VYRONTRAN]-S.INP: Transient 1, thermal and stress analyses VYRONTRAN2-TINP, VY_RONTRAN2-S.INP: Transient 2, thermal and stress analyses VY_RON TRAN3-T.INP, VYRONTRAN3-S.INP: Transient 3, thermal and stress analyses VYRONTRAN4-T.INP, VY RONTRAN4-S.INP: Transient 4, thermal and stress analyses VYRONTRAN5-T.INP, VYRONTRAN5-S.INP: Transient 5, thermal and stress analyses VY RON TRAN6-T.INP, VY RON TRAN6-S.INP: Transient 6, thermal and stress analyses VYRONTRAN7-T.INP, VYRONTRAN7-S.INP: Transient 7, thermal and stress analyses VYRONTRAN8-T.INP, VY RON TRAN8-S.INP: Transient 8, thermal and stress analyses VYRONTRAN9-TINP, VYRONTRAN9-S.INP: Transient 9, thermal and stress analyses VYRONTRANIO-T.INP, VY RON TRANIO-S.INP: Transient 10, thermal and stress analyses VYRON_TRAN))-T.INP, VYRONTRAN1-US.INP: Transient 11, thermal and stress analyses VYRON_TRAN12-T.INP, VYRONTRAN12-S.INP: Transient 12, thermal and stress analyses 4.3 Determining Critical Stress Paths The thermal transient that is to be used in determining the critical stress path at the safe end was determined by the most severe temperature difference over the shortest amount of time. This transient, Transient 9, is intended to represent the worst case thermal transient. This occurs during the Improper Startup cycle per Reference [3, Table 1]. The thermal transient conditions are:

• 12% flow rate heat transfer coefficients.

Thermal shock from 526°F to 130'F along the inside surface of the nozzle safe end and piping and a blend radius and lower vessel thermal shock from 526 0F to 2680 F.

• Constant temperatures from previous step for 26 seconds

• Thermal shock from 130'F to 526°F along the inside surface of the nozzle safe end and piping and a blend radius and lower vessel thermal shock from 268'F to 526°F.

• Steady state temperature conditions following thermal shocks.

• Constant temperature of 120'F on the outside surface of the model.

The ANSYS input files for the analysis, as listed below, are saved in the project computer, files:

RONVYINP. Geometry and material properties VYRONTR4N9-T.INP, VYRONTRAN9-S.INP: Thermal and stress analysis for the worst case transient for the safe end An interactive review of the worst case thenral stress results (which are controlling for the safe end) showed the critical location in the model to be at Node 6395. The location of Node 6395 is shown in FileNo.: 0801038.305 Page 5 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

Figure 4. This location was selected since it possessed the highest stress intensity during the worst case thermal transient. This is the same location evaluated in Reference [4].

A critical stress location in the nozzle blend radius will also be analyzed. This location is chosen based upon the highest pressure stress (which is controlling in the nozzle blend radius) in the base metal. An interactive review of the pressure stress intensity results showed the critical location in the nozzle blend radius to be at Node 3829 (Figure 5). This is the same location evaluated in Reference [4].

Figure 6 shows the two critical stress paths that will be used to extract the linearized stresses at the safe end and nozzle blend radius.

4.4 Stress Calculation Linearized stresses from Node 6395 (safe end inside surface) and Node 3829 (nozzle blend radius inside surface of base metal) are used for the fatigue usage analysis, as shown in Figure 6. For the nozzle blend radius location, the stresses used are for the base metal only; since the cladding is of the integrally bonded type and is less than 10% of the total thickness of the section the material is unselected prior to stress extraction, per NB-3 122.3 [2].

The pressure stress intensities for the safe end and blend radius paths were extracted using the ANSYS file VY/RONP.INP. This produced one file, ROPRESSURE.lin, that contains results of the critical stress paths.

Table 1 shows the final pressure stress intensity results for the safe end and blend radius. The results at the blend radius are slightly different from those reported in Table 2 of Reference [4] as a result of the revised material properties (i.e., temperature dependent material properties were used in the current evaluation vs. constant material properties in Reference [4]).

Results were also extracted from the vessel portion of the model to verify the accuracy of the results obtained from the ANSYS model, and to check the results due to the use of the 2.0 multiplier on the vessel radius. These results are contained in the file RO PRESSURE.lin. The radius of the finite element model (FEM) was multiplied by a factor of 2.0 [4] to account for the fact that the vessel portion of the axisymmetric model is a sphere, but the true geometry is the intersection of two cylinders.

The equation for the membrane hoop stress in a thin wall sphere is:

0 (pressure)x (radius))

S 2 x th~ickes Considering an actual vessel base metal radius, R, of 105.906 inches increased by a factor of 2.0, a vessel base metal thickness, t, of 5.4375 inches, and an applied pressure, P, of 1,000 psi, the calculated stress for a thin wall sphere is PR/(2t) = 19,477 psi. This compares very well with the remote vessel wall membrane hoop stress from the ANSYS result file, ROPRESSURE.lin, of FileNo.: 0801038.305 Page 6 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-O1 RO

18,070 psi. Thus, considering the peak total pressure stress of 31,270 psi, the stress concentrating effect of the nozzle blend radius is 31,270/19,477 = 1.61. In other words, the peak nozzle blend radius stress is 1.61 times higher than nominal vessel wall stress for the axisyimnetric model.

The equation for the membrane hoop stress in a thin wall cylinder is:

(radius)

((pressure)x k thickness j" Based on the previous dimensions, the calculated stress for a cylinder without the 2.0 factor is 19,477 psi. Increasing this by a factor of 1.61 yields an expected peak nozzle blend radius stress of 31,358 psi, which would be expected from a cylindrical geometry that is representative of the nozzle configuration. Therefore, the result from the ANSYS file for the peak nozzle blend radius stress (31,270 psi) is close to the peak nozzle blend radius stress for a cylindrical geometry because of the use of the 2.0 multiplier. This is consistent with SI's experience where a factor of two increase in radius is typical for representing the 3-D effect in an axisymmetric model.

4.5 Piping Loads The piping loads were taken from Table 4 of Reference [3]. To determine the piping load stresses, the distances from the applied piping loads to the limiting stress locations were first determined. The limiting stress path locations from Section 4.3 are in the same locations assumed in Table 4 of Reference [3]; this means that no reconciliation of the lengths in Table 4 of Reference [3] is needed.

Reference [3, Section 4.1 ] methodology was used to calculate the piping load stresses. The piping loads and piping load stresses are found in Table 4 and Table 5 of Reference [3].

Table 1: Pressure Stress Intensity Results (1,000 psi)

Membrane plus Total Stress Location Bending Stress Intensity Intensity (psi)

(psi)

Safe End 11,350 11,490 (Path 1 Inside)

Blend (h2nd Radius (Path 2 Inside) 30,540 31,270 FileNo.: 0801038.305 Page 7 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

5.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS A thennal transient analysis for each defined transient, as well as unit pressure stress and piping interface load analyses were performed for the RO nozzle at Vermont Yankee. All six components of the stress tensor were extracted from the ANSYS model at the two limiting path locations, which are the same two locations previously evaluated [4]. Table 2 provides the unit (1,000 psig) pressure stress analysis results. The unit pressure load results are used to choose the location to analyze at the

• nozzle blend radius and will be scaled up or down based on applied pressures in the fatigue analysis.

Table 5 of Reference [3] provides the piping stresses at the two critical locations. Table 3 shows an example of thermal stress results. The remaining thermal stress results are contained in the ANSYS output files, listed below, which are saved in the project computer files:

ROPRESSURE.lin: Unit pressure stress analysis results VYRONTRAN]-S.lin: Transient 1, thermal stress analysis results VYRONTRAN2-S.lin: Transient 2, thermal stress analysis results VYRON TRAN3-S.lin: Transient 3, thermal stress analysis results VY RONTRAN4-S.lin: Transient 4, thermal stress analysis results VYRONTRAN5-S.lin: Transient 5, thermal stress analysis results VYRON TRAN6-S. lin: Transient 6, thermal stress analysis results VYRONTRAN7-S. lin: Transient 7, thermal stress analysis results VYRONTRAN8-S.lin: Transient 8, thermal stress analysis results VYRON TRAN9-S. lin: Transient 9, thermal stress analysis results, VYRONTRAN]O-S.lin: Transient 10, thermal stress analysis results VYRONTRAN]1-S.lin: Transient 11, thermal stress analysis results VYRONTRAN12-S.lin: Transient 12, thermal stress analysis results A fatigue calculation using the methodology of Subarticle NB-3200 of Section III of the ASME Code [2] and an enviromnental fatigue usage analysis will be performed in a separate calculation package using the stress results from this calculation.

The results of this calculation are to be used in SI Calculation No. 081038.306, "Fatigue Analysis of Recirculation Outlet Nozzle."

File No.: 0801038.305 Page 8 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

6.0 REFERENCES

1. ANSYS, Release 8.1 (w/Service Pack 1), ANSYS, Inc., June 2004.

2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsection NB, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda.

3. SI Calculation No. 0801038.304, Revision 1, "Design Inputs and Methodology for ASME Code Confirmatory Fatigue Usage Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle."

4. SI Calculation No. VY-16Q-305, Revision 0, "Recirculation Outlet Stress History Development for Nozzle Green Function."

File No.: 0801038.305 Page 9 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table 2: Stresses Under Unit Pressure Load, psi Membrane plus Bending Total Node S Sz, S SY Syz Sx x SY Sz Sxy Syz Sxz SE 6395 -955.2 4420 10390 15.26 0 0 -955.2 4912 10530 -222.6 0 0 BR 3829 -718.7 -951.7 25000 4708 0 0 -718.7 206.2 30150 733.2 0 0 FileNo.: 0801038.305 Page 10 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table 3: Example Thermal Stress Result Output, psi Total Transient Node Time Membrane Plus Bending (s) Sx Sy Sz Sxy Syz Sxz Sx Sy Sz Sxy Syz Sxz 0 -33 -3379 196 351 0 0 3539 139 209 0 0 3 -33 -3367 207 351 0 0 3518 160 209 0 0 13 -33 -3340 231 350 0 0 3493 180 208 .0 0 233 180 11400. 12840 210 0 0 180 16290 17350 -536 0 0 2213 -74 -5983 -2660 293 0 0 7056 -3558 322 0 0 2393 149 8475 9884 164 0 0 149 12580 13670 -416 0 0 6773 -51 -4443 -1020 320 0 0 5018 -1463 256 0 0 7193 231 12680 13780 145 0 0 231 17340 18140 -588 0 0 6395 7493 10 -142 2054 221 0 0 10 164 2398 45 0 0 11093 -40 -3276 -654 256 0 0 3669 -954 192 0 0 16457 -47 -4080 -479 352 0 0 4491 -773 244 0 0 16517 -41 -3813 -231 351 0 0 4095 -404 230 0 0 16518 -28 -3689 -110 350 0 0 3383 297 199 0 0 17118 -33 -3241 307 349 0 0 3393 255 204 0 0 17119 3 -2918 623 348 0 0 3 -1521 2098 125 0 0 57120 -33 -3283 279 350 0 0 3439 223 206 0 0 0 3078 2100 4262 554 0 0 3078 4281 5859 577 0 0 3 3078 2100 4262 554 0 0 3078 4280 5856 577 0 0 13 3078 2099 4263 554 0 0 3078 4278 5853 576 0 0 233 823 6811 -8426 -847 0 0 823 12480 38540 5953 0 0 2213 3002 -447 2916 683 0 0 3002 1782 -3944 -735 0 0 2393 799 3298 -10540 -506 0 0 799 9988 25870 4515 0 0 6773 2953 -85 3049 980 0 0 2953 2409 -2931 -397 0 0 7193 1539 6354 -2971 49 0 0 1539 9542 24620 4575 0 0 3829 7493 1642 7294 6946 137 0 0 1642 6282 20660 2675 0 0 11093 2290 364 2825 500 0 0 2290 2225 882 -131 0 0 16457 3195 285 3758 754 0 0 3195 3045 526 -230 0 0 16517 3191 304 3705 753 0 0 3191 3131 687 -181 0 0 16518 3182 300 3699 752 0 0 3182 3120 680 -180 0 0 17118 3157 1120 3848 706 0 0 3157 3802 3273 233 0 0 17119 3127 1109 3832 704 0 0 3127 3771 3247 235 0 0 57120 3077 2085 4216 543 0 0 3077 4274 5877 573 0 0 Note: Not all time steps are listed in this table.

File No.: 0801038.305 Page 11 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

U StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

1-, ft WE PRES- NORM xw%

11- ý Figure 1. RO Nozzle Internal Pressure Distribution File No.: 0801038.305 Page 12 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-OIRO

StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

....... AN

.......... 2...............

Figure 2. RO Nozzle Pressure Cap Load & Boundary Condition File No.: 0801038.305 Page 13 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-01 RO

StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Figure 3. RO Nozzle Vessel Wall Boundary Condition FileNo.: 0801038.305 Page 14 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

I M ,y , = R-.-..;, -R.

Figure 4. Safe End Critical Thermal Stress Intensity Location File No.: 0801038.305 Page 15 of 16 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

NODAL SOLUTION AM.N STEp=1

.0114 (AVG~)

DMV4~~9 S3P4

'/4 Figure 5. Nozzle Blend Radius Limiting Pressure Stress Intensity Location Figure 6. Limiting Stress Paths File No.: 0801038.305 Page 16 of 16 Revision: I F0306-O1RO

V StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc. File No.: 0801038.306 CALCULATION PACKAGE Project No.: 0801038 Quality Program Z Nuclear E] Commercial PROJECT NAME:

VY Confirmatory Analyses for CS and RO Nozzles CONTRACT NO.:

10163217 Amendment 5 CLIENT: PLANT:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station CALCULATION TITLE:

Fatigue Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle D Project Manager Preparer(s) &

Document Affected Revision Description Approval Checker(s)

Revision Pages Signature & Date Signatures & Date 01 - 18 Initial issue.

Gary L. Stevens Tyler Novotny Computer Files 01/07/09 01/07/09 Jennifer E. Smith 01/07/09 1 1-4,6-12, 14-19 Revised per summary ,/ Preparer:

contained in Section 1.1.

LL .'t44 P a Computer Files Changes are marked with "revision bars" in right- Gary L Stevens hand margin. 03/09/09 Tyler D. Novotny 03/09/09 Checker:

William F. Weitze 03/09/09 Page 1 of 19 F0306-OIRO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents 1.0 O B JEC TIVE ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Changes Made in Revision I of this Calculation ........................................................... 3 2.0 M ETH OD OLO G Y .............................................................................................................. 3 3.0 D ESIG N IN PU TS ......................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Stress C alculation .......................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Fatigue Usage Analysis, General ................................................................................... 4 3.3 Event Cycles, VESLFA T .............................................................................................. 5 3.4 Material Properties, VESLFAT ...................................... 5 3.5 Stress Indices .............................................................................................................. ý6 4.0 C A L C U L A TION S ......................................................................................................................... 6 5.0 RESULTS OF AN ALY SIS ..................................................................................................... 7

6.0 CONCLUSION

S AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................... 7 7.0 R EFER EN C ES ............................................................................................................................. 8 List of Tables Table 1: Safe End Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT ....................................................................... 9 Table 2: Nozzle Blend Radius Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT ....................... I1......

Table 3: Temperature-Dependent Material Properties for VESLFAT (3) ............................ 12 Table 4: Carbon/Low Alloy Steel and Stainless Steel Fatigue Curves ......................................... 13 Table 5: Pressure and Attached Piping Unit Load Case Stress Components ................................ 14 Table 6: Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Safe End ................................. 15 Table 7: Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Nozzle Blend Radius ................................................. 16 Table 8: EAF Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Nozzle Blend Radius Location ....................... 17 Table 9: Linearized Stress Files Compiled for VY-RO-StressResults.xls ...................................... 19 File No.: 0801038.306 Page 2 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

1.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this calculation package is to perform an ASME Code,Section III fatigue usage evaluation and a plant-specific evaluation of reactor water environmental effects for the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) recirculation outlet (RO) nozzle at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

1.1 Changes Made in Revision 1 of this Calculation Description of changes made in Revision I of this calculation:

a. Editorial changes were made to Table 1 to more precisely describe the transient load sets.

b. All but one of the changes made to Table 2 were editorial to more precisely describe the portions of the transients. The one non-editorial change was to move a time split in Transient 9 to better catch a stress peak or stress valley.

c. Table 3 and the corresponding VESLFAT input file were revised to reflect actual material properties for the safe end. Revision 0 of this calculation tabulated SA-1 82 F304 (18Cr -8Ni) properties, but actually used properties for an Alloy 600 material.

d. Table 5 was changed to eliminate the application ofKt = 1.53 to the nozzle corner piping loads.

e. Tables 6, 7, and 8 were revised to reflect the new fatigue usage and environmental assisted fatigue summaries as a result of the changes associated with Bullets b and c above.

f. Table 8 was revised for editorial changes.

g. The results of various sensitivity studies on fatigue usage were added to Section 5.0.

h. Revision of CUF values in Sections 5.0 and 6.0 to reflect revised analyses.

i. All remaining changes marked throughout this calculation are editorial changes made to the text of the calculation package.

2.0 METHODOLOGY The methodology to be used for this evaluation was established in a previous calculation package

[2]. Based on that methodology, thermal stresses, pressure stresses, and attached piping load stresses were developed in the Reference [1 ] calculation for use in this fatigue calculation. The thermal stresses are added to pressure stresses and attached piping load stresses'. Both the pressure and piping load stresses are scaled based on the magnitudes of the pressure and nozzle fluid temperature during each transient. All six components of the stress tensor from the stress results are used in the fatigue calculation.

Stress components due to piping loads are scaled assuming no stress occurs at an ambient temperature of 70'F and the full values are reached at a reactor design temperature of 575'F [2, Assumption 3.1.7]. In addition, design seismic and deadweight loads are also included and scaled in combination with the thermal loads for each transient. This combination, coupled with assigning the stress due to these loads the same sign as the thermal stress, is considered to be a very conservative treatment of the loads overall in that deadweight and design seismic loads are considered and scaled for every transient.

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 3 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-01RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

The fatigue calculation is performed for both the limiting safe end and nozzle blend radius locations, as determined in the Reference [1] calculation, and uses the methodology of Subarticle NB-3200 of Section III of the ASME Code [3]. An environmental fatigue usage analysis is also performed in this calculation applying the methodology and associated environmental fatigue multipliers described in Reference [6].

3.0 DESIGN INPUTS 3.1 Stress Calculation Linearized stress components at Node 6395 (limiting safe end path at inside surface) and Node 3829 (limiting nozzle blend radius path at inside surface) are used for the fatigue usage calculation, as shown in Figure 6 of Reference [1]. For the nozzle blend radius location, the stresses used in the evaluation are for the base metal only; that is, the cladding material is unselected prior to stress extraction. The stress components from the thermal stress analyses are combined with stress components due to pressure and piping loads. The linearized thermal stress components for each transient are taken from the relevant output files in the Reference [1] calculation (a sample of which was provided in Table 3 of Reference [1]). The unit pressure stress component results are taken from Table 2 of Reference [1]. Piping load stress components are taken from Table 5 of the Reference [2] calculation.

3.2 Fatigue Usage Analysis, General Structural Integrity's VESLFAT program [4] is used to perform the fatigue usage calculation in accordance with the fatigue usage portion of ASME Code,Section III, Subarticle NB-3200 [3].

VESLFAT performs the analysis required by NB-3222.4(e) [3] for Service Levels A and B conditions defined by the user. The VESLFAT program computes the primary-plus-secondary and total stress ranges for all events and performs a correction for elastic-plastic analysis, if necessary.

The program computes the stress intensity range based on the stress component ranges for all event pairs [3, NB-3216.2]. The program evaluates the stress ranges for primary-plus-secondary and primary-plus-secondary-plus-peak stresses based on all six components of stress (3 normal and 3 shear stresses). If the primary-plus-secondary stress intensity range is greater than 3 Sm, the total stress range must be increased by the simplified elastic-plastic strain correction factor, Ke, as described in NB-3228.5 [3]. The design stress intensity, Sm, is specified as a function of temperature. The input maximum temperature for both states of a load set pair is used to establish the S,, value used in the fatigue calculations from the user-defined input values.

When more than one stress set is defined for either of the event pair loadings, the stress differences are determined for all of the potential stress pairs, and the pair producing the largest alternating total stress intensity (Salt), including any effects of Ke, is used. The principal stresses for the stress ranges are determined by solving for the roots of the following cubic equation2:

S3 _ (Tx -+- yY+ O-z)S2 + (C3x Cy -+ C7 a, z + a,-7 - ,y2 _ Sxz2 _ Syz2)s 2Note that cy., ay, az, etc. are used synonymously with Sx, S,, S,, etc., in this calculation.

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 4 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-OIRO

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

- (Cy"Gy a, + 2 rxy Tz "*yz - CTz Ty2 _ *y , 2 _ Cx TyZ2 o The stress intensities for the event pairs are reordered in decreasing order of Sait, including a correction for the ratio of modulus of elasticity (E) from the fatigue curve divided by E from the material evaluated at the maximum event temperature. This allows a fatigue table to be created to eliminate the number of cycles available for each of the transient events. This fatigue table is based on a worst-case progressive pairing of events in order of the most severe alternating stress to the least severe, allowing determination of a bounding fatigue usage per NB-3222.4(e) [3]. For each load set pair in the fatigue table, the allowable number of cycles is determined based on Salt.

3.3 Event Cycles, VESLFAT For the Vermont Yankee RO nozzle analysis, transients that consist of combined stress peaks or valleys are split so that each successive peak or valley is treated separately. Therefore, there are 61 load sets based on the combined stress changes for the safe end, and 46 load sets based on the combined stress changes for the nozzle blend radius location. The reason the number of load sets are not equal for each path is because the time history stress results of those paths differ. Tables 1 and 2 show the load sets applicable to plant operation, with cycle counts per Table I of Reference [2].

These are used as input to VESLFAT for the safe end and nozzle blend radius locations, respectively. The cycle counts of Reference [2, 7] consider 60 years of operation. The data from Table 1 is entered into the VESLFAT input files VY-RO-VFAT-1i.CYC (safe end) and the data from Table 2 is entered into the file VY-RO- VFAT-21. CYC (nozzle blend radius).

3.4 Material Properties, VESLFAT Material properties are entered in VESLFAT input files VY-RO-VFAT-]I.FDT (safe end) and VY-RO-VFAT-2I.FDT (nozzle blend radius). Table 3 lists the temperature-dependent material properties used in the analysis [5]. Table 4 lists the fatigue curve for the nozzle blend radius and safe end materials

[3, Appendix I, Table 1-9.1 and Figure 1-9.1 (UTS < 80.0 ksi) for the nozzle blend radius, and Tables 1-9.1 and 1-9.2.2 (Curve C) and Figures 1-9.2.1 and 1-9.2.2 for the safe end location]. Curve C is selected for the safe end location because it is the most conservative curve among the three extended curves for austenitic steel. VESLFAT automatically scales the stresses by the ratio of E on the fatigue curve to E in the analysis, for the purposes of determining allowable numbers of cycles, as required by the ASME Code.

Other material properties are input as follows:

m = 1.7, n = 0.3, parameters used to calculate Ke for the safe end location [3, Table NB-3228.5(b)-1]

m = 2.0, n = 0.2, parameters used to calculate Ke for the nozzle blend radius location [3, Table NB-3228.5(b)-1]

E from fatigue curve = 28,300 ksi [3, Appendix 1, Figure 1-9.2] for the safe end location.

E from fatigue curve = 30,000 ksi [3, Appendix I, Figure 1-9.1] for the nozzle blend radius location.

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 5 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-OIRO

StructuralIntegrityAssociates, Inc.

3.5 Stress Indices The limiting stress path for the RO nozzle safe end is defined in Reference [1]. The stresses caused by the piping were hand calculated and do require a stress concentration factor, if appropriate. The stress concentration factor for the safe end location is 1.53 [2, Section 3.8]. This value is conservatively used for both the C2 and K2 values required by the ASME Code [3, NB-3600]. The piping loads are relatively minor in comparison to the other loads this nozzle experiences so the conservative C2 and K2 values will have a small impact on the analysis. Table 5 shows the piping loads after applying the C2 and K2 values as appropriate.

4.0 CALCULATIONS Table 5 contains the stress components at the locations of interest for the 1,000 psi unit pressure stress case [1, Table 2]. Table 5 also contains the stress components for the attached piping load unit stress case [2, Table 5], which correspond to a reactor design temperature of 575°F [2, Section 3.1.7].

The attached piping load stress components were applied assuming the same signs as the thermal stress, which yields the largest stress component ranges.

The calculations of all of the VESLFAT stress inputs are automated in Excel workbooks VY-RO-VFAT-li.xls (safe end) and VY-RO-VFAT-2i.xls (nozzle blend radius). These files are organized with sheets labeled as follows:

• Overview: Contains general information.

• Other Stresses: Contains pressure and attached piping load stresses. As shown in Table 5, the pressure stresses use the membrane-plus-bending and total stress from the finite element analysis [1].

• Rearranger: There are 12 Rearranger sheets, one for each thermal transient as analyzed by ANSYS. In these sheets, thermal stresses are copied from Excel workbook VY-RO-StressResults.xls, and rearranged to conform to VESLFAT input format (including switching the shear stress components Sx, and Sy, as required by VESLFAT). VY-RO-StressResults.xls contains the results of the ANSYS stress linearization for each transient. The files contained within this workbook are shown in Table 9. Time-varying scale factors for the attached piping loads (based on path metal temperature) and pressure are determined, and used to scale the unit load case stresses, which are then added to the thermal stresses. Since the attached piping loads can act in any direction, the stresses due to the attached piping loads are assigned the same sign as the thermal stresses to maximize the component stresses.

Algebraic summation of all six stress components is performed for pressure, piping loads, and thermal stresses at each transient time step. The VESLFAT stress input also includes time-varying metal temperature, as obtained from the ANSYS output, which is used to determine temperature-dependent properties from the values in Table 3.

• VESLFAT: Contains the VESLFAT stress input, as obtained from the Rearranger sheets.

Load set numbers are entered on this sheet, as defined in Table 1 and Table 2. These sheets are saved to VESLFAT input files VY-RO-VFAT-li.STR (safe end) and VY-RO-VFAT-2i.STR (nozzle blend radius).

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 6 of 19 Revision: I F0306-O1RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

5.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Table 6 and Table 7 provide the detailed calculated 60-year fatigue usage, as obtained from VESLFAT output files VY-RO-VFAT-11.FAT (safe end) and VY-RO-VFAT-2LFAT (nozzle blend radius). All VESLFAT input and output files are saved in the project computer files associated with this calculation.

From Table 6, the safe end cumulative usage factor (CUF) is 0.00308 for 60 years. From Table 7, the nozzle blend radius CUF is 0.0 175 for 60 years.

From Table 1 of Reference [6], it was determined that hydrogen water chemistry (HWC) is available for 47% of the total 60-year operating period, and normal water chemistry (NWC) is present for the remaining 53% of the total 60-year operating period. From Table 1 of Reference [6], the dissolved oxygen values for the recirculation line (which is applicable to the RO nozzle) are 48 ppb for HWC conditions and 122 ppb for NWC conditions.

For the stainless steel piping, the environmental fatigue factors for post-HWC and pre-HWC are 15.35 and 8.36 from Table 2 of Reference [6]. The overall environmental multiplier is found by (15.35 x 47% + 8.36 x 53%), which equals 11.645, conservatively rounded upto 11.7. Therefore, the overall environmental multiplier is 11.7, which results in an EAF adjusted CUF of 11.7 x 0.00308 0.0360 for 60 years, which is acceptable (i.e., less than the allowable value of 1.0).

Based on the detailed CUF calculation shown in Table 7, a detailed EAF adjusted CUF evaluation on a load-pair basis is provided for the nozzle blend radius location in Table 8. The EAF usage from Table 8 is 0.111 for 60 years, which is less than the allowable value of 1.0 and is therefore acceptable. The effective overall Fen is 0.111/0.0175 = 6.32.

As a part of fatigue analysis calculations, it was noted that using Fy = -20 kips in the piping loads caused a slightly higher total stress intensity. However, the change was determined to have an insignificant effect on fatigue usage results. In addition, the effect of modeling the distinct material properties of both Type F304 and Type F316 in the ANSYS analysis (as opposed to using 18Cr-8Ni properties) was determined to have an insignificant effect on fatigue usage results. Finally, the effect of applying a minimum temperature of 130'F for thermal boundary Region 2 (see Figure 1 of Reference [2]) was determined to have an insignificant effect on fatigue usage results. These investigations and associated results are contained in the project files.

6.0 CONCLUSION

S AND DISCUSSIONS Detailed fatigue calculations for the Vermont Yankee RO nozzle were performed based on the results of stress analyses previously performed [1]. The thermal stresses were combined with stresses due to pressure and attached piping loads, both of which were scaled based on the magnitudes of the pressure and metal temperature during each thermal transient. All six components of the stress tensor were used for the fatigue calculations. The fatigue calculations were performed at previously-determined limiting locations in the safe end and nozzle blend radius, and used the methodology of Subarticle NB-3200 of Section III of the ASME Code [3].

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 7 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

The 60-year CUT for the safe end location was'determined to be 0.00308 and the CUF for the nozzle blend radius location was determined to be 0.0175. Both values are less than the ASME Code allowable value of 1.0, and are therefore acceptable.

Detailed EAF assessments were also performed for the two RO nozzle locations. The 60-year EAF CUF for the safe end location was determined to be 0.0360. The 60-year EAF CUF for the nozzle blend radius location was determined to be 0.111 using temperature-dependent Fen multipliers for each load pair. Both values are less than the ASME Code allowable value of 1.0, and are therefore acceptable.

7.0 REFERENCES

1. Structural Integrity Associates Calculation No. 0801038.305, Revision 1, "Stress Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle."

2. Structural Integrity Associates Calculation No. 0801038.304, Revision 1, "Design Inputs and Methodology for ASME Code Fatigue Usage Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle."

3. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda.

4. VESLFAT, Version 1.42, 02/06/07, Structural Integrity Associates.

5. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section II, Part D-Properties, 1998 Edition with 2000 Addenda.

6. SI Calculation No. VY-16Q-303, Revision 0, "Environmental Fatigue Evaluation of Reactor Recirculation Inlet Nozzle and Vessel Shell/Bottom Head."

7. Entergy Design Input Record (DIR) EC No. 1773, DIR. Revision 1, "Environmental Fatigue Analysis for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station," 7/26/07, SI File No. VY-1 6Q-209.

8. Deleted (not used in this calculation).

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 8 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-OIRO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 1: Safe End Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT VESLFAT Start ties Transient Time, see Temp Change Pressure Change Cycles Load Set 1 lTrnl 0 Up Up 300 2 2Tml 1616.4 Up Up 300 3 1Tm2 0 Down None 300 4 2Trn2_ 0.4 Down None 300 5 3Trn2 301 Down None 300 6 4Trn2_ 601.4 Down None 300 7 1Trn3 0 Up None 10 8 2Trn3 250 Up None 10 9 3Tm3_ 2050 Down None 10 10 4Tm3_ 2960 Up & Down None 10 11 5Trn3_ 5560 Down None 10 12 lTrn4_ 0 None Up 10 13 2Trn4 2 None Up & Down 10 14 3Trn4_ 7 Down Down 10 15 4Tm4_ 46 Down & Up None 10 16 5Tn4_ 992 Up & Down Down 10 17 6Tin4 2294 Down & Up Down & Up 10 18 7Trn4_ 3050 Up & Down Up & Down 10 19 8Trn4_ 6899 Down & Up Down 10 20 9Trn4 7745 Up Down 10 21 1OTm4_ 8645 Up Down 10 22 11Trn4_ 11057 Up Up 10 23 12Tin4 16166 Up & Down Up 10 24 13Tm4_ 16818 None None 10 25 14Trn4 17118 Down None 10 26 1Tn5_ 0 None Up 60 27 2Trn5 1.5 None Up & Down 60 28 3Trn5 24 Up Down & Up 60 29 4Trn5 2310 Down None 60 30 5Trn5 2611 None None 60 31 6Trn5 2911.4 Down None 60 32 1Trn6 0 None Up 1 33 2Trn6 0.6 None Up & Down 1 34 3Trn6 20 Up Down & Up 1 35 4Trn6_ 2312 Down None 36 5Tm6_ 2613 None None 37 6Tin6 2913.6 Down None File No.: 0801038.306 Page 9 of 19 Revision: I F0306-O1RO

VStructural IntegrityAssociates, Inc.

Table 1 (continued): Safe End Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT VESLFAT Start ties Transient Time, see Temp Change Pressure Change Cycles Load Set 38 lTmn7 0 Down Down 39 2Trn7 37.5 Down Down 40 3Trn7 600 Down Down 41 4Trn7 4443 Down Down 42 1Trn8 0 None Down 228 43 2Tm8_ 3 Up Down & Up 228 44 3Trn8_ 2295 Down None 228 45 4Trn8 3927 None None 228 46 1Trn9 0 Down None 47 2Trn9 0.12 Down & Up None 48 3Trn9 27.92 Up None 49 4Trn9 290.15 None None 50 1TmlO_ 0 Down Down 300 51 2Trnm0 730.8 Down Down 300 52 3TmlO_ 6314 Down Down 300 53 4Tm 10 6844 Down Down 300 54 5TrnlO 9555 Down Down 300 1

55 6TrnlO 14937 Down Down 300 10 56 1Trnl 1 0 None None 120 57 2Tml 1- 0 None Up 120 58 3Trnl 1 0 None Down 120 59 1Trnl2 0 None None 1 60 2Trnl2 0 None Up 61 3Trnl2 0 None Down File No.: 0801038.306 Page 10 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-0IRO

V StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 2: Nozzle Blend Radius Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT Start VESLFAT Transient Time, Temp Change Pressure Change Cycles Load Set sec 1 1Tml 0 Up Up 300 2 2Tml 808.2 Up Up 300 3 1Trn2 0 Down None 300 4 2Trn2_ 0.4 Down None 300 5 3Trn2_ 401 Down None 300 6 1Trn3_ 0 Up None 10 7 2Trn3 250 Up & Down None 10 8 3Trn3 2325 Down & Up None 10 9 4Trn3_ 3510 Up & Down None 10 10 5Trn3_ 5060 Down None 10 11 1Trn4_ 0 None Up 10 12 2Trn4_ 2 None Up & Down 10 13 3Trn4_ 7 Down Down 10 14 4Trn4_ 46 Down & Up None 10 15 5Trn4_ 1091 Up & Down Down 10 16 6Trn4_ 2348 Down & Up Down & Up 10 17 7Trn4_ 3269 Up & Down Up & Down 10 18 8Tm4_ 6983 Down & Up Down 10 19 9Trn4_ 7745 Up Down & Up 10 20 1OTrn4_ 13839 Up & Down Up 10 21 l1Trn4_ 16918 Down None 10 22 12Tn4_ 18986 None None 10 23 1Tn5_ 0 None Up & Down 60 24 2Tn5_ 24 Up & Down Down & Up 60 25 3Trn5_ 2611 Down None 60 26 1Trn6_ 0 None Up 1 27 2Tm6_ 0.6 None Up & Down 1 28 3Trn6_ 20 Up & Down Down & Up 29 4Trn6_ 2663 Down None 30 lTrn7 0 Down Down 31 2Trn7_ 37.5 Down Down 32 3Trn7_ 2247 Down Down 33 1Trn8 0 None Down 228 File No.: 0801038.306 Page 11 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-0IRO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 2 (continued): Nozzle Blend Radius Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT Start VESLFAT Transient Time, Temp Change Pressure Change Cycles Load Set sec 34 2Trn8_ 3 Up & Down Down & Up 228 35 3Trn8_ 2025 Down None 228 36 1Trn9_ 0 Down None 1 1

37 2Trn9_ 9 Up None 38 3Trn9_ 58 None None 1 39 0 Down Down 300 1I1Tml0I Trnl 0 40 2Tml0 313.2 Down Down 300 41 1Trnl 1 0 None None 120 42 0 None Up 120 3Trnll 120 43 0 None Down 44 1Trnl2 0 None None 1 45 2Trnl2_ 0 None Up 1 46 3Trnl2_ 0 None Down 1 Table 3: Temperature-Dependent Material Properties for VESLFAT (3)

Material T, 'F E x 106, psi S., ksi Sy, ksi SA-508 Class 2 70 27.8 26.7 50.0 (nozzle blend radius(2)) 200 27.1 26.7 47.0 300 26.7 26.7 45.5 400 26.1 26.7 44.2 500 25.7 26.7 43.2 600 25.2 26.7 42.1 SA-182 F316 70 28.3 20 30 (Safe End (1)) 200 27.6 20 25.9 300 27.0 20 23.4 400 26.5 19.3 21.4 500 25.8 18.0 20.0 600 25.3 17.0 18.9 Notes:

1. For the safe end material, SA-182 F316 (16Cr- 12Ni- 2Mo) austenitic stainless steel properties are used.

2. For the nozzle blend radius material, SA508 Class 2 material properties are used (3/4Ni-1/2Mo-1/3Cr-V), per Reference [2].

3. All values are taken from Reference [5].

4. SA-508 Class 2 in the Code of Construction is the same as SA-508 Gr. 2 Class 2 in the 1998 ASME Code [5].

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 12 of 19 Revision: I F0306-0IRO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 4: Carbon/Low Alloy Steel and Stainless Steel Fatigue Curves Sa, ksi Sa, ksi Number of Cycles Carbon/Low Alloy (1) Austenitic 10 580 708 20 410 512 50 275 345 100 205 261 200 155 201 500 105 148 1000 83 119 2000 64 97 5000 48 76 10000 38 64 20000 31 55.5 50000 23 46.3 100000 20 40.8 200000 16.5 35.9 500000 13.5 31 1000000 12.5 28.2 2.E+06 N/A 22.8(2) 5.E+06 N/A 18.4(2) 1.E+07 N/A 16.4(2) 2.E+07 N/A 15.2(2)

]4.3 (2) 5.E+07 N/A 1.E+08 N/A 14.1(2) 1.E+09 N/A 13.9(2) 1.E+10 N/A 13.7(2) 1.E+1I N/A 13.6(2)

Note:

1. Using UTS _ 80 ksi curve.

2. Using Curve C for austenitic steel.

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 13 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-OIRO

VStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Table 5: Pressure and Attached Piping Unit Load Case Stress Components Node Membrane plus Bending (1) Total (1) t 5 t 5 d(2) SY S S, yz S" SY. S z Sx Sxz ) SyZ )

Pressure (3) 6395 -955.2 4420 10390 15.26 0 0 -955.2 4912 10530 -222.6 0 0 3829 -718.7 -951.7 25000 4708 0 0 -718.7 206.2 30150 733.2 0 0 4

ping( ) 6395 0 7930 0 831 2066 0 0 12133 0 1271 3160 0 3829 0 218 0 42 49 0 0 218 0 42 49 0 Nuotes: I. All stress values are in uILts o psI.

2. The safe end location is represented by Node 6395, and the nozzle blend radius location is represented by Node 3829.

3. The stresses for both nodes represent the stress due to an applied pressure of 1,000 psig.

4. Piping stresses for both locations represent the stress due to full attached piping loads at an RPV temperature of 575'F.

5. Syz and S_ components have been rearranged from the ANSYS output in order to be in correct order for VESLFAT.

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 14 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-0IRO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 6: Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Safe End Load Desc. Load Desc. Salt

1. a #1 #2 #2 n (cycles) Sn (psi) Ke Si) Nallow

1. 1 #1 #2 #2 (psi) U 47 2Trn9 48 3Trn9_ 1 79715 2.62 169777 331.52 0.00302 15 4Trn4_ 49 4Trn9_ 1 30275 1 23722 1757500 0.00000 15 4Trn4_ 28 3Trn5 9 29755 1 23610 1784800 0.00001 19 8Trn4 28 3Trn5 10 26926 1 21352 2647400 0.00000 17 6Trn4_ 28 3Trn5_ 10 25213 1 20492 3155800 0.00000 28 3Trn5_ 39 2Trn7_ 1 20321 1 16926 8269400 0.00000 18 7Trn4 28 3Trn5_ 10 19961 1 16731 8866300 0.00000 28 3Trn5 44 3Trn8_ 20 4606 1 16450 9819700 0.00000 34 3Trn6_ 44 3Trn8 1 4606 1 16450 9819700 0.00000 43 2Trn8_ 44 3Trn8_ 207 4606 1 16450 9819700 0.00002 6 4Trn2_ 43 2Trn8_ 21 4028 1 16176 11335000 0.00000 6 4Trn2_ 35 4Trn6_ 1 3519 1 15752 14441000 0.00000 6 4Trn2 29 4Trn5 60 3484 1 15637 15446000 0.00000 6 4Trn2_ 22 11Trn4_ 10 11783 1 15613 15666000 0.00000 6 4Trn2_ 23 12Trn4_ 10 3202 1 15588 15895000 0.00000 2 2Trnl_ 6 4Trn2_ 198 3193 1 15583 15936000 0.00001 2 2Trnl 31 6Trn5 60 3319 1 15531 16430000 0.00000 2 2Trnl 37 6Trn6 1 3319 1 15531 16430000 0.00000 2 2Trnl1 25 14Trn4_ 10 1702 1 15055 23098000 0.00000 2 2Trnl_ 40 3Trn7_ 1 18894 1 14987 24732000 0.00000 2 2Trnl_ 16 5Trn4_ 10 5069 1 14487 41157000 0.00000 33 2Trn6 52 3Trnl_0 1 12380 1 14460 42317000 0.00000 13 2Trn4 52 3Trnl0 10 10470 1 13875 1.336E+09 0.00000 50 1Trnl0_ 52 3Trnl0_ 289 9634 1 13841 1.968E+09 0.00000 50 1TrnlO 53 4Trnl0 11 18796 1 13770 4.465E+09 0.00000 3 1Trn2 53 4Trnl0 289 18795 1 13769 4.491E+09 0.00000 Total 0.00308 Usage =

Note: All other load pairs have an alternating stress, Saft, that is below the endurance limit of the fatigue curve. Therefore, they do not contribute to fatigue usage.

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 15 of 19 Revision: I F0306-O1RO

V StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 7: Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Nozzle Blend Radius Load Desc. Load Desc. n Salt Nallow U

1. 1 #1 #2 #2 (cycles) S (psi) Ke (psi) 1Trnl1 14 4Trn4_ 10 21902 1.00 43085 6889 0.0015 1Trnl_ 37 2Trn9_ 1 21390 1.00 32177 17617 0.0001 12 1Trn1_ 16 6Trn4_ 10 15100 1.00 31137 19701 0.0005 1 1Trnl_ 27 2Trn6_ 1 42381 1.00 27020 30496 0.0000 2 2Trnl_ 45 2Trn12_ 1 45773 1.00 26852 31084 0.0000 1 1Trnl_ 15 5Trn4_ 10 18457 1.00 26707 31604 0.0003 2 lTrnl_ 18 8Trn4_ 10 13066 1.00 26562 32139 0.0003 1 1Trnl_ 36 1Trn9_ 1 28617 1.00 24546 40947 0.0000 2 34179 1.00 24042 43643 0.0002 1 1Trn1_ 13 3Trn4_ 10 1 1Trnl_ 38 3Trn9_ 1 25904 1.00 23939 44218 0.0000 1 1Trn1_ 12 2Trn4_ 10 36762 1.00 23612 46129 0.0002 1 1Trnl_ 23 1Trn5_ 60 35051 1.00 22617 54348 0.0011 11 1Trn1_ 17 7Trn4_ 10 22210 1.00 22533 55358 0.0002 2 1Trnl_ 5 3Trn2_ 166 29847 1.00 22312 58126 0.0029 2 2Trnl_ 5 3Trn2_ 134 29301 1.00 22309 58168 0.0023 2 2Trnl_ 28 3Trn6_ 1 33856 1.00 22227 59234 0.0000 2 2Trn 1 11 1Trn4_ 10 33460 1.00 21959 62919 0.0002 2 2Trnl1 26 1Trn6_ 1 32908 1.00 21661 67330 0.0000 2 2Trnl_ 25 3Trn5_ 68 29068 1.00 21226 74454 0.0008 2 2Trnl1 29 4Trn6_ 1 29068 1.00 21226 74454 0.0000 2 2Trnl1 8 3Trn3_ 10 29847 1.00 21214 74661 0.0001 2Trnl_ 4 2Trn2_ 82 30245 1.00 21092 76819 0.0011 4 2Trn2_ 41 1Trn 11 120 32229 1.00 20851 81328 0.0015 4 2Trn2_ 32 3Trn7_ 1 30983 1.00 20125 96967 0.0000 4 2Trn2_ 40 2Trn 10_ 97 30982 1.00 20124 96981 0.0010 10 5Trn3_ 40 2Trn 10_ 10 31344 1.00 20033 99198 0.0001 35 3Trn8_ 40 2Trn 10_ 193 29931 1.00 19888 102050 0.0019 35 3Trn8_ 43 3Trnl 1_ 35 29651 1.00 19696 105678 0.0003 9 4Trn3_ 43 3Trn 11_ 10 30915 1.00 19357 112494 0.0001 7 2Trn3_ 46 3Trn12_ 1 30523 1.00 19349 112655 0.0000 7 2Trn3_ 44 1Trn12_ 1 30523 1.00 19349 112655 0.0000 7 2Trn3_ 43 3Trn 11 8 30523 1.00 19349 112655 0.0001 3 1Trn2_ 43 3Trn 11_ 67 31236 1.00 19331 113042 0.0006 3 1Trn2_ 19 9Trn4_ 10 23810 1.00 16958 181219 0.0001 31 2Trn7_ 42 2Trnl I 1 27376 1.00 11515 infinite 0.0000 Total 0.0175 Usage =

Note: All other load pairs have an alternating stress, Salt, that is below the endurance limit of the fatigue curve. Therefore, they do not contribute to fatigue usage.

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 16 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 8: EAF Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Nozzle Blend Radius Location VY RO flozzle Corner Environmental Fatique Calculation CUF Calculation from file NrY-RO-VFAT-2i.fat:

Index Load.#1: Description#1 1 (cycles)(5 Load#21Description#2':n2Icycles)(5) (cycles) (5: Sr,(pi) K S.(psi) 1`.1 U S I Trn_ 300 14 i 4Trn4_

4 10 10 21902 1.00 43085 6889 0.0015 2 1Trn1_ 290 3r 2Trn9 1 1 21390 1.00 32177 17617 0.0001 3 1 1Trnl I 289 16 i 6Trn4_ 10 10 15100 1.00 31137 19701 0.0005 4 1 lTrnl 279 27 2Trn6 i 1 1 42381 1.00 .27020 30496 0.0000 5 2 27rnl 30G 451 2Trn 12 1 45773 1.00 26852 31054 0.0000 6 1 1Trnl_

l -78 18s 5Trn_4 i 10 10 18457 1.00 26707 31604 0,0003 7 1 1Trnt 268 18 i 8Trn4_ i 10 10 13066 1.00 26562 32139 0.0003 8 1n 125nl L8 36 1Trn9 1 1 28617 1.00 24546 40947 0.0000 9 '1 lTrn i 257 13 3Trn 4- 10 10 34179 1.00 24042 43643 0.0002 10 1i 1Trnl_ 247 38 3Trn 9_ 1 1 25904 1.00 23939 44218 0.0000 11 1 Trl 246 12 1 2Trn4 10 10 36762 1.00 23,612 46129 0.0002 12 1 Trnl 2 23 I1Trn5_ i 60 60 35051 1.00 22617 4348 0.0011 13 1 ITrnl 176 17 7Trn_ 10 10 22210 1.00 22533 55358 0.0002 14 1 ITrnl 16,6 3Trn2 300 166 29847 1.00 22312 58126 0.0029 15 :2 2Trnl 299 5 3Trn2 134 134 29301 1.00 22309 E5168 0.0023 16 2 27rnl 165 28 3Trn6 1 1 33856 1.00 22227 59234 0.0000 17 2 .2Trnl 1 1S4 11 1Trn4 1 10 10 33460 1.00 21959 62919 0.0002 18 2 2Trnl 1 26 1 rn6 1 1 32908 1.00 21661 67330 0.0000 19 2 2Trnl1 153 25 3TrnS 60 60 29068 1.00 21226 74454 0.0008 20 2 2T rn i 93 29 dTrn6_ 1 1 29068 1.00 21226 74454 0.0000 21 2 27rnl R2 8 i 3Trn3 10 10 29847 1.00 21214 74661 0.0001 22 2 2Trnl 82 4 2Trn2 300 82 30245 1.00 21092 76819 0.001.1 23 4 m 2rn2_ 218 41 1 1Trn11- 1 120 120

• 32229 1.00 20851 81328 0.0015 24 4 2Trn2 98 32 3Trn7 1 1 30983 1.00 20125 06967 0.0000 25 .4 2Trn2 Q7 40 1 O 2Trnl10- 300 97 30082 1.00 20124 n- 1 0.0010 26 10 5Trn3 10 do 2Trn10_ i 203 10 31344 1.00 20033 99198 0.0001 27 35 7 mTrn 228 40 2Trn 10 193 193 29931 1.00 19589 102050 0.0019 28 35- 3Trn_ 35 43 3Trnh1 120 35 29651 1.00 19698 105678 0.0003 29 9 4Trn3 10 43 3Trn11 1 85 10 30915 1.00 19357 112494 0.0001 4

30 7 2Trn3 10 3Trn12 i 1 1 30523 1.00 19349 112655 0.0000 31 7 2Trn3 9 44 1Trn12i 1 1 30523 1.00 19349 112655 0.0000 32 7 2Trn3 8 43 J3Trnl1 75 8 30523 1.00 19349 112655 0.0001 33 3 lTrn2 300 43 3Trn11 67 67 31236 1.00 19331 113042 0.0006 34 3 tTrn2 233 19 9Trn4 i 10 10 23810 1.00 16958 181219 0.0001 35 , 31 2Tmn_ 1 42 2T1rn1_ 1 120 1. 27376 1.00 11515 infinte 0.0000 Total, U = 0.0175 File No.: 0801038.306 Page 17 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-O1RO

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Table 8 (continued): EAF Fatigue Usage Calculation for the Nozzle Blend Radius Location EAF Calcuatina IIWC DO rIlVLC 00 ndW8~,"uskumTh I.'4.r~/FI 48 122 ppb Transient Maximum Temperatures:  % HWC= 47% 53% =% IIWc

~'~iY..OA..~JFAT.Ji ~i I TMAX (TF)(1) TMAX (-1 Fen (Z)

(3)

Uanv (3) -

Index Load #1I Desc. #1 Load #2 Desc #2 Line# T 1(4) st1(4 72(4) s2 (4) Sn (psi) T Fi)(1) Uenv 1 1 lTrnl_ 14 4Trn4 176 "1 3 14 18 21902 339 2 1 ITrnl 37 2Trn9_ 6065 / 3 37 62 21390 437 3 1 ITrnl _ 16 6Trne_ 1060 I 3 16 7 15100 329 4 1 1Trn 1 27 2Trn6_ 3734 1 3 27 8 42301 526 5 2 2Trnl_ 45 2Trn12 20'1558 2 1 45 1 45773 120 2.45 6 1 iTrno 15 is 5Tro4 4 1927 1 3 15 49 13457 394 201 2-45 4.46 0.001 7 1Trnn 10 -

0Trn 223M I 3 18 10 1300* 335 335 100 2.45 3.04 0.001 8 I 1Trn 1 36 1Trn_ 5657 1 3 3M 41 20617 405 495 257 2.45 0.50 0.000 9 1 1Trn I 13 3Trn 4 1651 1 3 13 15 34179 516 516 269 2.45 9.03 0.001 10 1 iTrnl _ 30 3-rnS 6657

- I 3 38 1 25904 490 490 254 2.45 8.31 0U000 4 526 274 2.45 10.49 0.001 11 I ITrnl 12 2Trn _ 1599 1 3 12 3 36762 526 12 1 1Trnl_ 23 1Trn5 311t5 1 3 23 27 35051 526 520 274 2.45 10.49 0.007 13 1 1Trnl_ 17 7Trn4 2152 1 3 17 5& 22210 426 426 219 2.45 5.4. 0.001 14 1 ITrnl_ 5 3Trn2_ 952 1 3 5 80 29847 530 530 277 2.45 10.76 0.020 15 2 2TrnI 1 ITrr2_ 8718 2 1 5 79 29301 530 530 277 2.45 10.76 0.016 16 2 2Trn1l 20 5Trno_ 9R727 2 1 28 1 33856 526 526 274 2.45 10.49 0.000 17 2 2Trn 1 _ 11 ITrn4 _ 42455 2 1 11 4 33460 526 526 274 2.40 10.49 0.001 18 2 2Trn1_ 26 ITrn6_ 98465 2 1 26 3 32900 526 52, 274 2.45 10.49 0.000 2Trn I_ 25 3irn5 89557 2 1 25 22 29068 529 520 276 2.45 10.60 0.005 19 2 20 2 2Trn I 29 4Trn_ 105503 2 1 29 21 29060 529 520 276 2.45 10.69 0.000 21 2 2Trn 1 8 3Trn3_ 35.741 2 1 8 5 29047 528 520 276 2.45 10.63 0.001 T 204 2.45 11.71 0.008 22 2 2 rnl_ 4 2Trn2_ 7777 2 1 4 7 30245 5-43 543 23 4 2Trn2 41 1Trnl 233450 4 7 41 1 32229 543 543 204 2.45 11.71 0.011 24 4 2Trn2 32 3Trn7_ 223647 4 7 32 126 30983 543 543 204 2.45 11,71 0.000 543 543 2M4 2.45 11.71 0.007 25 4 2Trn2_ 40 2-r7ln10- 232587 4 7 40 209 30982 26 '10 5Trn 3 40 2Trnl 0 1138571 10 21 40 209 31344 527 527 275 2.45 10.56 0.001 27 35 3TrnO 40 2Trn10_ 28?1140 35 51 40 209 2S931 528 520 276 2.45 10.63 0.013 20 35 3Trn. 43 3Trohl _ 2910647 35 51 43 1 29651 520 528 276 2.45 10.63 0.002 29 9 4Trn_ 43 3Trn 11- 106932C C 28 43 1 30915 536 536- 280 2.45 11.19 0.001 2Trn3 46 3Trn 12_ 066274 7 42 46 1 30523 536 536 280 2.45 11.19 0.000 30 7 31 7 2Trn 3 44 1Trn12 860190 7 42 44 1 30523 536 536 260 2.45 11.19 0.000 32 7 27rn 3 43 3Trn11 860148 7 42 43 I 30523 536 536 280 2.45 11.19 0.001 33 3 1Trn2_ 43 3TrolI 206618 3 1 43 1 31236 549 549 257 2.45 12.18 0.005 34 3 1Trn2 19 9T"rn _ 203153 3 1 19 94 23810 549 549 267 2.45 12.18 0.000 35 31 2Trtn 42 2Trnl 1 26255.22 :31 809 42 1 27376 339 339 171 2.45 3.12 0.000 Total, U = 0.411 Overall Fen = 0,32 Notes: 1. T,,- is the maximum temperature of the two paired load states, and represents the metal (nodal) temperature at the location being analyzed. This.

which is included as '" in the'Translent Maximum Temperatures" table above. determined from the VESLFAT output.

2. F_ values computed using the low alloy steel equation from Section 3.0 of Reference [6], with S* conservatively set to a maximuinvalue of 0.015, and tha transformed strain rate conservatively set to a minirmumvalue of In (0.001) =-6.90, for ali load pairs.

3. U_, = [U x HIWCF_ x % HWC) + (Ux NIWCF.,x % NWVC1.

4. T1 and T2 represent the load number for Load #1 and Load #2, respectively, and s l and s2 represent the state number for each of those loads.

5. For each load pair, n- is the number of available cycles for Load #1, n. is the number of available cycles for Load 62. and n Lsthe available number of cycles for the load pair (i.e.. the minimum of n, and nz).

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 18 of 19 Revision: I F0306-01 RO

StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 9: Linearized Stress Files Compiled for VY-RO-StressResults.xls Filename Description VY RONTRAN1-S.csv Transient 1 linearized stress VYRONTRAN2-S.csv Transient 2 linearized stress VY RON TRAN3-S.csv Transient 3 linearized stress VY RON TRAN4-S.csv Transient 4 linearized stress VY RON TRAN5-S.csv Transient 5 linearized stress VY RON TRAN6-S.csv Transient 6 linearized stress VY RONTRAN7-S.csv Transient 7 linearized stress VY RON TRAN8-S.csv Transient 8 linearized stress VY RON TRAN9-S.csv Transient 9 linearized stress VYRON_ TRAN1O-S.csv Transient 10 linearized stress VY RON TRAN11-S.csv Transient 11 linearized stress VY RONTRAN12-S.csv Transient 12 linearized stress Note: All files are from the Reference [1] supporting computer files.

File No.: 0801038.306 Page 19 of 19 Revision: 1 F0306-OIRO

Hearing Docket From: Travieso-Diaz, Matias F. [matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com]

Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:02 PM To: Alex Karlin; Richard Wardwell; whrcville@embarqmail.com; secy@nrc.gov; Hearing Docket; Susan Uttal; Lloyd Subin; Maxwell Smith; Sarah.hofmann@state.vt.us; aroisman@nationallegalscholars.com; peter.roth@doj.nh.gov; Matthew.Brock@state.ma.us; Zachary Kahn; Mr. Raymond Shadis; OCAAMAIL Resource Cc: Lewis, David R.; Nelson, Blake J.

Subject:

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-271-LR, ASLBP No. No. 06-849-03-LR (Part 1 of 3)

Attachments: Letter to ASLB enclosing revised calculations .pdf In accordance with the provisions of the Board's Partial Initial Decision (Ruling on Contentions 2A, 2B, 3, and 4), LBP-08-25, 68 N.R.C. _ (Nov. 24, 2008), slip op. at 67,.and the Board's Order (Clarifying Deadline for Filing New or Amended Contentions) (Mar. 9, 2009), Entergy has revised and issued its final calculations of record for the confirmatory environmentally assisted fatigue (CUFen) analyses on the reactor pressure vessel core spray (CS) and recirculation outlet (RO) nozzles at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. These revised analyses are presented in the following Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. (SIA) calculations: Calculation No.

0801038.302, Revision 1, "Stress Analysis of Reactor Core Spray Nozzle;" Calculation No. 0801038.303, Revision 1, "Fatigue Analysis of Reactor Core Spray Nozzle;"

Calculation No. 0801038.304, Revision 1, "Design Inputs and Methodology for ASME Code Fatigue Usage Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle;" Calculation No.

0801038.305, Revision 1, "Stress Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle;" and Calculation No. 0801038.306, Revision 1, "Fatigue Analysis of Reactor Recirculation Outlet Nozzle." Calculation 0801038.301, Revision 0, "Design Inputs and Methodology for ASME Code Fatigue Usage Analysis of Reactor Core Spray Nozzle" has not been revised so that the version sent to the parties on January 8, 2009 remains the final calculation of record. Entergy is serving at this time electronic copies of those analyses on the parties to the above captioned proceeding.

The methodology applied in the referenced CS and RO confirmatory analyses is in accordance with the approach-used in the SIA calculations for the feedwater nozzle that were introduced into evidence in this proceeding, and contains no significantly different scientific or technical judgments from those used in the feedwater nozzle calculations. See Calculation 0801038.301 at 4, n.1 and Calculation 0801038.304 at 4, n.1.

As set forth in the referenced revised calculations, the limiting calculated CUFenS for the CS and RO nozzles are less than unity and are therefore acceptable.

Hard copies are also being sent today by overnight mail to the NRC Staff, the New England Coalition and the Vermont Department of Public Service.

1

This submittal comprises three electronic messages. This first message, attaching Entergy's cover letter, is being transmitted to the entire service list. The second message, comprising the calculation package for the CS nozzle, is being transmitted only to the parties (including interested States). The third message, comprising the calculation package for the RO nozzle, is being forwarded only to the parties (including interested States).

If you have any difficulty opening this attachment, please contact me at the number below.

Matias F. Travieso-Diaz I Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Tel: 202.663.8142 I Fax: 202.663.8007 I Cell: 703.472.6463 2300 "N"Street, NW I Washington, DC 20037-1122 Email: matias.travieso-diaz(cpillsburylaw.com-Bio: www.pillsburylaw.com/matias.travieso-diaz

• Internal Revenue Service regulations generally provide that, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties, a taxpayer may rely only on formal written advice meeting specific requirements. Any tax advice in this message does not meet those requirements. Accordingly, any such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties that may be imposed on you or for the purpose of promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters.

2

Received: from mail .nrc.gov (148.184.176.41) by TWMS01 .nrc.gov (148.184.200.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.291.1; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:01:59 -0400 X-Ironport-ID: mail1 X-SBRS: 5.3 X-MID: 278153 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:

AjOCAEVWtknM4/81mWdsb2JhbACCJhMYkIOBAQEBAQg LCgcRrlAJjwiCSxCBMQZh X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,337,1233550800";

d="pdf ?scan'208,217";a="278153" Received: from sfmms08.pillsburywinthrop.com (HELO sfemf02.PillsburyWinthrop.com) ([204.227.255.8]) by maill.nrc.gov with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2009 15:01:54 -0400 Received: from [172.17.1.202] by sfemf02.PillsburyWinthrop.com with ESMTP (SFPWSP SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:01:38 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: C488EB2B-C670-400C-9182-92FFDA1BD321 Received: from dcxm0l .PillsburyWinthrop.com ([172.16.2.42]) by sfxims0l.PillsburyWinthrop.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:01:37 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Return-Receipt-To: "Travieso-Diaz, Matias F."

<matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Disposition-Notification-To: "Travieso-Diaz, Matias F."

<matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com>

Subject:

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No.

50-271-LR, ASLBP No. No. 06-849-03-LR (Part 1 of 3)

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:01:32 -0400 Message-ID:

<91 E8D41 B43905C4BB96FF78D93B1 ED3FO4ED919D@dcxm0l.PillsburyWinthrop.com>

X-MS-Has-Attach:

X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:

Thread-Topic: Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No.

50-271-LR, ASLBP No. No. 06-849-03-LR (Part 1 of 3)

Thread-Index: AcmhsqBNEl E/xb+NRnSr5e7LFNXrig==

From: "Travieso-Diaz, Matias F." <matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com>

To: <ask2@nrc.gov>, <rew@nrc.gov>, <whrcville@embarqmail.com>, <secy@nrc.gov>,

<hearingdocket@nrc.gov>, <susan.uttal@nrc.gov>, <Ibs3@nrc.gov>,

<maxwell.smith@nrc.gov>, <Sarah.hofmann@state.vt.us>,

<aroisman@nationallegalscholars.com>, <peter.roth@doj. nh.gov>,

<Matthew. Brock@state.ma.us>, <zachary.kahn@nrc.gov>, "Mr. Raymond Shadis"

<shadis@prexar.com>, <OCAAMAIL@nrc.gov>

CC: "Lewis, David R." <david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com>, "Nelson, Blake J."

<blake.nelson@pillsburylaw.com>

Return-Path: matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2009 19:01:37.0810 (UTC)

FILETIME=[A39E9720:01 C9A1 B2]

X-WSS-ID: 65A86698220669178-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----.=NextPart_001_01 C9A1B2.AOA9441 B"