ML110950312

Calculation 32-9138066-001, Revision 015, NMP-1 CRD Housing Idtb Weld Anomaly Analysis, Attachment 3

ML110950312
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	03/17/2011
From:	Mahmoud S, Noronha S, Wiger T AREVA NP
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
1ISI-004 32-9138066-001, Rev 15
Download: ML110950312 (40)

Text

ATTACHMENT 3 AREVA DOCUMENT NO. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD HOUSING IDTB WELD ANOMALY ANALYSIS (NON-PROPRIETARY)

Certain information, considered proprietary by AREVA NP Inc., has been deleted from this Attachment.

The deletions are identified by pairs of braces ("{ }").

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC March 25, 2011

0402-01-FOl (20697) (Rev. 015, 10/1812010)

A CALCULATION SUIRMARY SHEET (CSS)

AREVA Document No. 32 - 9138066 - 001 Safety Related: 1 Yes E: No Title NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis PURPOSE AND

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS:

This document is a non-proprietary version of AREVA NP Document number 32-9138065-002. AREVA NP proprietary Information removed from 32-9138065-002 are Indicated by pairs of braces "{ )".

The purpose of this analysis is to perform a fracture mechanics evaluation of a postulated anomaly in the NMP-1 CRD housing penetration contingency modification. According to the design specification document (1], this anomaly is postulated to be a 0.1 inch flaw extending 360 degrees around the circumference at the "triple point" location where there is a confluence of three materials; the stainless steel CRD housing, the new stainless steel IDTB weld, and the low alloy steel RV lower head. Several potential flaw propagation paths are considered in the flaw evaluations. Flaw acceptance is based on the 2004 ASME B&PV Code Section XI criteria (3] for applied stress intensity factor (IWB-3612) and limit load (IWB-3642).

The purpose of Revision 001 is to correct the linear elastic fracture mechanics acceptance criterion for final flaw in head material. The conclusions from Rev 001 remain unchanged.

The results of the analyses demonstrate that the 0. 10 inch weld anomaly is acceptable for a 40 year design life of the NMP-1 CRD housing weld repair. The minimum fracture toughness margins were found to be ( } for normal/upset condition and { } for emergency/faulted conditions which are larger than the required margins of 4J10 for normal/upset conditions and 4/2 for emergency/faulted conditions per Section XI, IWB-3612 (Reference

[3]). The maximum final flaw size is about { } inch (considering all flaw propagation paths). A limit load analysis with stable crack extension (Z-factors) was performed considering the ductile repair weld material along flaw propagation Paths 1 & 2. The analysis showed that for the postulated circumferential flaw the minimum margin on applied stress was { }. For the axial flaw the minimum margin on flaw depth was { }.

THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS ASSUMPTIONS THAT SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING COMPUTER CODES HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS DOCUMENT: VERIFIED PRIOR TO USE CODENERSION/REV CODENERSION/REV F] YES AREVACGC 5/0 Z NO Page 1 of 35

0402-01-FOl (20697) (Rev. 015, 10/18/2010)

AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Review Method: v\ Design Review (Detailed Check) ri] Alternate Calculation Signature Block PIRIA Name and Title and Pages/Sections (printed or typed) Signature LPILR Date Prepared/RevlewedlApproved S.J. Noronha LP All Engineer IV '3 1, 11 S.H. Mahmoud LR All (Detailed check)

EngineerlVW/ i3I T. M. Wiger A Unit Manager All Note: P/R/A designates Preparer (P), Reviewer (R), Approver (A);

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

Project Manager Approval of Customer References (NIA if not applicable)

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

Page 2

A 0402-01-FOl (20697) (Rev. 015, 10/18/2010)

AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Record of Revision Revision PageslSectionsl No. Date Paragraphs Changed Brief Description I Change Authorization 000 2/2011 ALL Original 001 3/2011 CSS The purpose of revision added.

Sec 1.0 The purpose of revision added.

Sec. 2.4 The LEFM acceptance criteria for normal and upset conditions Kic changed to KIl,,.

Sec. 4.4.2 Table 4-3 updated Sec. 5.1.2 Section updated with loads from Stuck Rod Load instead of SESNB Sec. 5.3.2 Table 5-12 updated Sec. 6.3 Data under the heading RV Lower Head updated Also the subtitles corrected.

Sec 7.2 Table 7-1 updated with New files for path 5 & 6.

Sec 8.0 References updated 4 4.

Page 3

A AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Table of Contents Page SIGNATURE BLOCK ................................................................................................................................ 2 RECORD OF REVISION .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. ............................ 7

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.......................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 CRD Housing Penetration Modification ........................................................................................... 8 1.2 Potential Weld Anomaly ......................................  !............................................................................ 8 1.3 Postulated Flaws ..................................................................  :........................... ............................ 12 2.0 ANALYTICAL M ETHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 13 2.1 Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) Solutions ...................................................................................... 13 2.2 Fatigue Crack Growth Laws ........................................................................................................ 15 2.3 Fatigue Crack Growth Calculations ........................................................................................... 16 2.4 Acceptance Criteria .................................................................................................................... 16 3.0 ASSUM PTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Unverified Assumption ............................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Justified Assumption .............. ....................................................................................................... 17 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS ........................................................................................................................ 17 4.1 Geometry ........................................................................................................................................ 17 4.2 Material Strength ............................................................................................................................ 18 4.3 Fracture Toughness ....................................................................................................................... 18 4.3.1 Low Alloy Steel RV Head Material .............................................................................. 18 4.3.2 { IMaterials .................................................................................................... . 18 4.4 Applied Stresses Intensity Factor Calculation ........................................................................... 19 4.4.1 Transient Stresses ........................................................................................................ 19 4.4.2 External Loads ............................................................................................................. 20 4.4.3 Residual Stresses ........................................................................................................ 20 5.0 CALCULATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 20 Page 4

A AR EVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Table of Contents (continued)

Page 5.1 Circumferential Flaw for Paths 1 & 2 .......................................................................................... 20 5.1.1 Circumferential Flaw Growth Analysis (Paths 1 & 2) .................................................. 20 5.1.2 Flaw Evaluation for OD Circumferential Flaw (Paths 1 & 2) ....................................... 21 5.2 Axial Flaw for Paths 1 & 2 .............................................................................................................. 22 5.2.1 Axial Flaw Growth Analysis (Paths 1 & 2) ....................................................................... 22 5.2.2 Flaw Evaluation for OD Axial Flaw (Paths 1 & 2) ............................................................ 25 5.3 Cylindrical Flaw for Paths 3 - 6 ................................................................................................. 26 5.3.1 Cylindrical Flaw Growth Analysis (Paths 3 - 6) ......................................................... 26 5.3.2 Fracture Toughness Margin for Cylindrical Flaw (Paths 3 - 6) .................................. 28 6.0

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 28 6.1 Fatigue Crack Growth of Continuous External Circumferential Flaw ............................................. 28 6.2 Fatigue Crack Growth of Semi-Circular External Axial Flaw .......................................................... 28 6.3 Fatigue Crack Growth of Continuous Cylindrical Flaw along ......................................................... 29 7.0 COM PUTER USAGE .................................................................................................................. 30 7.1 Validation ........................................................................... 30.................................

30 7.2 Computer Files ............................................................................................................................... 30

8.0 REFERENCES

............................................................................................................................. 31 APPENDIX A : VERIFICATION OF SIF FOR CYLINDRICAL FLAW ............................................................ 32 APPENDIX B: RTNoT FOR REACTOR VESSEL LOW ALLOY STEEL AND THE HEAT AFFECTED ZONE... 34 Page 5

A AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis List of Tables Page Table 4-1: Material Strength .................................................................................................................. 18 Table 4-2: Load Combinations and Cycles ....................................................................................... 19 Table 4-3: Stresses due to External Loads ............................................................................................ 20 Table 5-1: Crack Growth for 3600 Circumferential Flaw .................................................................. 21 Table 5-2: Individual Transient Contribution to Crack Growth for 3600 Circumferential Flaw ........... 21 Table 5-3: End of Life Evaluation for Continuous External Circumferential Flaw (Limit Load) ...... 22 Table 5-4: Crack Growth for Axial Flaw ........................................................................................... 23 Table 5-5: Individual Transient Contribution to Crack Growth for Axial Flaw ......................................... 24 Table 5-6: End of Life Evaluation for External Axial Flaw (Limit Load) .................................................. 25 Table 5-7: Initial Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 3 .......................................................... 26 Table 5-8: Initial Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 4 .......................................................... 26 Table 5-9: Initial Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 5 .......................................................... 27 Table 5-10: Initial Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 6 .................................................. 27 Table 5-11: Final Crack Depth for Cylindrical Flaw ......................................................................... 27 Table 5-12: LEFM Margin for Cylindrical Flaw .................................................................................. 28 Table7-1: Computer Files for Crack Growth Evaluation............................................ ............................ 30 Page 6

A AR EVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis List of Figures Page Figure 1-1: CRD Penetration (Initial Configuration) ........................................................................ 10 Figure 1-2: Modified CRD Penetration .............................................................................................. 11 Figure 1-3: Illustration of Crack Propagation Paths ......................................................................... 13 Figure 2-1: OD, Partial Through-Wall, 3600 Circumferential Flaw .................................................... 14 Figure 2-2: OD, Partial Through-Wall, Semi-elliptical Axial Flaw ....................................................... 14 Page 7

AR AVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis 1.0 INTRODUC71ON AREVA plans to perform modification to the CRD housing penetration at the Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 (NMP-1). According to the design specification document (Reference [1]), each penetration consists of a stainless steel stub tube that is attached to the inside surface of the Reactor Vessel (RV) bottom head with a NiCrFe weld and an inner stainless steel CRD housing attached to the top end of the stub tube with a stainless steel weld, as shown in Figure 1-1. During RV fabrication, the stainless steel stub tube became furnace sensitized due to a post weld stress relief heat treatment. Through-wall cracking has occurred in some stub tubes during service. The cracking has resulted in reactor coolant leakage from the RV through the gap between the CRD housing outside surface and the RV bottom head penetration bore. Repairs have been previously performed by roll expanding the CRD housing in the bore to eliminate the gap and stop or limit the reactor coolant leakage. In the event that roll expansion does not seal the CRD housing penetration and stop the leak, AREVA shall perform a contingency modification on the CRD housing penetration as shown in Figure 1-2.

The purpose of this analysis is to perform a fracture mechanics evaluation of a postulated anomaly in the NMP-1 CRD housing penetration contingency modification. According to the design specification document [1], this anomaly is assumed to be a 0.1 inch semi-circular flaw extending 360 degrees around the circumference at the "triple point" location where there is a confluence of three materials; the stainless steel CRD housing, the stainless steel new weld, and the low alloy steel RV lower head.

Several potential flaw propagation paths are considered in the flaw evaluations. The purpose of Revision 002 is to correct the linear elastic fracture mechanics acceptance criterion for final flaw in head material.

1.1 CRD Housing Penetration Modification The CRD housing modification is described by the design drawing [2]. This modification involves adding a new weld that will become a part of the pressure boundary. The steps involved in the modification design are listed below.

• Weld prep machining and NDE

• Welding of repair weld

• Machining/grinding and NDE During the welding process, a maximum 0.1 inch weld anomaly may form due to lack of fusion at the "triple point", as shown in Figure 1-2. The anomaly is conservatively postulated to be a "crack-like" defect 3600 around the circumference at the "triple point" location. The design specification document

[1] provides additional details of the weld repair procedure. The purpose of the present fracture mechanics analysis is to provide justification, in accordance with Section XI of the ASME B&PV Code

[3], for operating with the postulated weld anomaly at the triple point. Predictions of fatigue crack growth are based on a design life of 40 years.

1.2 Potential Weld Anomaly The anomaly could be located in the triple point region as shown in Figure 1-2. The region is called a "triple point" since three materials intersect at this location. The materials are:

Page 8

A AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis

" The CRD housing material, SA-312 OR SA376 TP 304 111.

• The new weld filler material, { }111.

" The RV lower head material, SA-302 Grade B [1].

Page 9

A Document No. 32-9138066-001 AREVA NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Figure 1-1: CRD Penetration (Initial Configuration)

CRD SHOWN IN RETRACTED LATCH POSITION CRGT BASE tD HOUSING -- THERMAL SLEEVE 2 OR SA-376 (STAINLESS STEEL)

TP304\

STAINLESS STEEL S308 OR 308L Page 10

A Document No. 32-9138066-001 AREVA NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Figure 1-2: 'Aodified CRD Penetration Page 11

A AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis 1.3 Postulated Flaws The triple point weld anomaly is postulated to be semi-circular in shape with an initial depth of 0.1", as indicated in Figure 1-2. It is further assumed that the anomaly extends 3600 around the new repair weld. Three flaw types are postulated to simulate various orientations and propagation directions for the weld anomaly. A circumferential flaw and an axial flaw at the outside surface of the new weld would both propagate in the horizontal direction toward the inside surface of the new weld. A cylindrically oriented flaw along the interface between the weld and RV lower head would propagate upward between the two components. The horizontal and vertical flaw propagation directions are represented in Figure 1-3 by separate paths for the downhill and uphill sides of the CRD housing, as discussed below. For both these directions, fatigue crack growth will be calculated considering the most susceptible material for flaw propagation.

Horizontal Direction (Paths I and 2):

Flaw propagation is across the CRD housing wall thickness from the OD to the ID of the CRD housing.

This is the shortest path through the component wall, passing through the new SS weld material (Figure 1-3).

For completeness, two types of flaws are postulated at the outside surface. of the tube. A 3600 continuous circumferential flaw, lying in a horizontal plane, is considered to be a conservative representation of crack-like defects that may exist in the weld anomaly. This flaw would be subjected to axial stresses in the tube. An axially oriented semi-circular outside surface flaw is also considered since it would lie in a plane that is normal to the higher circumferential stresses. Both of these flaws would propagate toward the inside surface of the tube.

Vertical Direction (Paths 3 throuah 6):

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

This flaw, driven by radial stresses, may propagate along either the new SS weld material or the low alloy steel RV head material. Flaws along Paths 3 and 4 are postulated in the weld and flaws along Paths 5 and 6 are postulated in the low alloy steel RV lower head (Figure 1-3).

Page 12

A Document No. 32-9138066-001 AREVA NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Figure 1-3: Illustration of Crack Propagation Paths 2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY This section presents several aspects of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and limit load analysis (used to address the ductile SS weld materials) that form the basis of the present flaw evaluations. As discussed in Section 1.3, flaw evaluations are performed for the flaw propagation paths defined in Figure 1-3.

2.1 Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) Solutions Three flaw types are postulated for the current evaluation of the weld anomaly defect at the triple point.

For paths I and 2 both 3600 circumferential and axial surface flaws at the OD of the IDTB weld are postulated. The solutions for both types of flaws are available in the AREVACGC (4] code which implements the Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) evaluation for these types of flaws using the weight function method. AREVACGC performs the fatigue crack growth calculations. The schematics for both the 3600 circumferential and axial flaws postulated at the OD of the IDTB weld are illustrated in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2, respectively.

For the vertical paths (3 through 6), a cylindrical flaw is postulated along the interface between the new repair weld and the RV head material. The potential for flaw propagation along this interface is likely if radial stresses are significant between the weld and head. This assessment utilizes an SIF solution for a continuous surface crack in a flat plate from Appendix A of the 2004 Edition of Section XI of the ASME B&PV Code [3]. Flat plate solutions are routinely used to evaluate flaws in cylindrical components such as the repair weld. The flat plate solution is inherently conservative for this Page 13

A AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis application since the added constraint provided by the cylindrical structure reduces the crack opening displacements. Crack growth analysis is performed considering propagation through the SS weld metal or the low alloy steel head material. To facilitate the calculation of the SIF for the cylindrical flaw, a visual basic code, Kledge, was developed based on the theory in Appendix A of the 2004 Edition of Section Xl of the ASME B&PV Code [31. Appendix A of this document provides verification of the Kl_edge visual basic function against hand calculations.

Figure 2-1: OD, Partial Through-Wall, 3600 Circumferential Flaw Postulated 3600 Circumferential Flaw at the OD

/

IDTB Weld Figure 2-2: OD, Partial Through-Wall, Se*mi.elliptkall Axial Flaw Flaw Propagation Path Ia I

where, a= initial flawdepth = 0. 100inch I = 2c = flaw length = 0.200 inch t = wall thickness ={ ) inch Page 14

A Document No. 32-9138066-001 AREVA NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis 2.2 Fatigue Crack Growth Laws Flaw growth due to fatigue is characterized by da =C ,(A*K I)n dN where C, and n are constants that depend on the material and environmental conditions, AKI is the range of applied stress intensity factor in terms of ksi'din, and da/dN is the incremental flaw growth in terms of inches/cycle. For the embedded weld anomaly considered in the present analysis, it is appropriate to use crack growth rates for an air environment. Fatigue crack growth is also dependent on the ratio of the minimum to the maximum stress intensity factor; i.e.,

R = (K1 ).mjn I(K1 )m SA-302 Grade B Low Alloy Steel Material (RV Lower Head)

From Article A-4300 of the 2004 Edition with No Addendum of Section XI [3], the fatigue crack growth constants for flaws in an air environment are:

n = 3.07 C. = 1.99 x 10-10 S S is a scaling parameter to account for the R ratio and is given by S = 25.72 (2.88 - R)-3 0 7, where 0 5 R

< 1 and AK1 = K.. - Ki,.. For R < 0, AKI depends on the crack depth, a, and the flow stress, af. The flow stress is defined by af = Y2(cy + au,), where a,, is the yield strength and cu, is the ultimate tensile strength. For -2 < R 5 0 and Krx - Kmn < 1.12 otf'/a, S=1 and AKI = Kx. For R < -2 and Km,, - Kmin <

1.12 cyr 4na, S=1 and AK1= (1 - R) Kxl3. For R < 0 and K,,, - Kmin >1.12 a,'qna, S = 1 and AKI = Kx -

Kmin.

I IWeld Metal Fatigue crack growth rates for austenitic stainless steels are used to predict flaw growth in the stainless steel { ) repair weld. From Article C-8410 of the 2004 Edition with no Addendum of Section XI of the ASME B&PV Code [3], the fatigue crack growth constants for flaws in an air environment are:

n= 3.3 C.= CX S 2 3

]

where C = 10[ -10.009 + 8.12E-4xT - 1.13E-6xT + 1.02E-gxT S= 1.0 for R<0

=1.0 + 1.8R for 0 < R* 0.79

= -43.35 + 57.97R for 0.79 < R < 1.0 Page 15

A Document No. 32-9138066-001

-0 AREVA NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis 2.3 Fatigue Crack Growth Calculations For the flaw types postulated along paths 1 and 2, the AREVACGC [4] EXCEL based program will be used to perform the fatigue crack growth calculation and estimate the final flaw size.

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

2.4 Acceptance Criteria For postulated axial and circumferential flaws in the { } repair weld the acceptance criteria in IWB-3642 [3] is used. IWB-3642 [3] states that "piping containing flaws exceeding the acceptance standards of IWB-3514.1 may be evaluated using analytical procedures described in Appendix C and is acceptable for continued service during the evaluated time period when the critical flaw parameters satisfy the criteria in Appendix C." Based on Figure C-4210-1 of Reference [3], for a flaw in austenitic weld material that uses flux welds, Section C-6000 [3] is to be used for flaw evaluation.

For the postulated cylindrical flaw in the low alloy steel RV lower head material and in the { }

IDTB repair weld, IW-B-3612 acceptance criteria of Section Xl [3] is used. According to IWB-3612 a flaw is acceptable if the applied stress intensity factor for the flaw dimension af satisfy the following criteria.

(a) For normal and upset conditions:

K, < KI. /410 where K, = applied stress intensity factor for normal, upset, and test conditions for the flaw dimension af.

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

K, < Kc I'42 K, = fracture toughness based on crack initiation for the corresponding crack-tip temperature Page 16

A Document No. 32-9138066-001 AR EVA NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS This section discusses assumptions and modeling simplifications applicable to the present evaluation of NMP-1 strain induced corrosion crack growth.

3.1 Unverified Assumption

1) This document contains no unverified assumptions.

3.2 Justified Assumption

1) The anomaly is postulated to include a "crack-like" defect, located at the "triple-point" location.

For analytical purposes, a continuous circumferential flaw is located in the horizontal plane.

Another continuous flaw is located in the cylindrical plane between the weld and Reactor Vessel (RV) lower head.

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

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

4.0 DESIGN INPUTS The region of interest for the present flaw evaluations is the triple point, where three different materials intersect. These materials are the CRD housing material, the new IDTB repair weld material and the RV lower head material. The NMP-1 CRD housing is made from SA-312 OR SA-376 TP304 material to ASME specification [1]. The new weld, as noted in Section 1.2, is made from { } [1]. The RV lower head is fabricated from SA-302 Grade B [1].

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

Paths I & 2 The following dimensions are used for evaluating the 3600 circumferential flaw and axial flaw postulated along paths 1 &2 Outside Diameter, D. = { } in (2]

Inside Diameter, Di = { } in [2]

Thickness, t = ( } in Initial flaw depth, ai = 0.1 in [1]

Paths 3 throuaqh 6 The cylindrical flaws postulated along paths 3 through 6 propagate along the interface between the repair weld and the RV head. The length of this interface is taken as { } inches [2]. The initial flaw depth is postulated to be 0.1 inches [1].

Page 17

A Document No. 32-9138066-001 AR EVA NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis 4.2 Material Strength Reference [5) provides the material strength pertinent for the flaw evaluation assessment of the weld anomaly in this document. Table 4-1 lists the values of yield strength (ay), ultimate strength (GUft), and the flow strength (crf), taken as the average of the ultimate and yield strengths.

Table 4-1: Material Strength Temperature Yield Srnt Ultimate t Flow Material Component Strength, oy Strength, a,lt Strength, af (OF) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)

SA 302 RV Lower ( } { } { } { }

Grade B Head Low Alloy Steel

{ I { 1 { I { I Weld Filler IDTB Weld { } { } ( } { }

{ER309L}

{ I { I { I { I

{ I { } { } { }

4.3 Fracture Toughness 4.3.1 Low Alloy Steel RV Head Material As discussed in Appendix B, the RTNDT for the low alloy steel RV head is { O

°F, however, an RTNDT value of { } OF is used in this document for added conservatism. Fracture toughness curves for SA-533 Grade B Class 1, SA-508 Class 2 and Class 3 materials are illustrated in Figure A-4200-1 of Reference [3]. The RV head material SA-302 GR B has material strength properties identical to that of SA-533 GR B and hence fracture toughness curve from Figure A-4200-1 is used. At an operating temperature of about { } OF, the KI, fracture toughness values for this material (using an assumed RTNDT of { ) OF) are above 200 ksi'in. An upper bound value of 200 ksiqin will be conservatively used for the present flaw evaluations.

4.3.2 { ) Materials Brittle fracture is not a credible failure mechanism for ductile materials such as { 1, the failure mechanism for the { ) materials is limit load or ductile crack extension (EPFM). A value of 200 ksi4in will be conservatively used for the fracture toughness of { }. This will be used to evaluate the IWB-3612 acceptance criteria for the cylindrical flaw postulated in the repair weld since a limit load solution is not available in the ASME B&PV CODE [3] for such a flaw.

Page 18

"A Document No. 32-9138066-001 AREVA NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis 4.4 Applied Stresses Intensity Factor Calculation As mentioned in Section 2.1, the weight function method implemented in AREVACGC [4] was used to calculate the SIF for the continuous OD circumferential and axial surface flaws, For the cylindrical flaw, the SIF solution given in Appendix A of the 2004 Edition of Section Xl [3] was used to calculate the SIF solution.

4.4.1 Transient Stresses The cyclic operating stresses that are needed to calculate fatigue crack growth are obtained from a thermo-elastic finite element analysis [6], These cyclic stresses are developed for all the transients at a number of time points to capture the maximum and minimum stresses due to fluctuations in pressure and temperature. Per References [5,7], the number of RCS design transients is established for 40 years of design life. Cyclic operating stresses were generated in Reference [6] for the transients listed in References [5,7]. The transients that have trivial contribution to fatigue are not considered per Reference [6]. The transient cycle counts used in this calculation are obtained from References [5,7].

The operating transients are listed in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2: Load Combinations and Cycles Service Transient/Condition Loading Design Level Cycles Level A _"__

Level A Level A Level A Level A Level B Level B Level B Level B Level B Level C Level C

' SENSB is SCRAM End of Stroke, No Buffer see next section for numerical value 2 { } cycles were used for this transient. Results will be conservative.

Page 19

A Document No. 32-9138066-001 AREVA NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis 4.4.2 External Loads Stresses due to external loads (dead weight (DW), Seismic, and Stuck Rod Load) were calculated in Reference [6]. Table 4-3 shows the external loads and the stresses due to the external loads. Theses stresses are applicable to the 3600 circumferential flaw. For fatigue crack growth the seismic stress are superimposed on the steady state stresses at the end of startup transient. { } cycles of seismic are used for the fatigue crack growth.

Table 4-3: Stresses due to External Loads External Load Type Load Stress Dead Weight (DW) { } lb { } psi Seismic Axial Load (DW + Seismic) { llb { }) psi Seismic Bending moment { ) in-lb +{ } psi Stuck Rod Load { )lb { }psi 4.4.3 Residual Stresses A three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite element analysis (8] was performed to simulate the sequence of steps involved in arriving at the configuration of the weld repair of CRD housing at the lower head of reactor vessel of Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP-1). The residual stress analysis [8] simulated welding of the weld repair with { }. Operation at steady state temperature and pressure conditions and return to zero load conditions was also simulated after the completion of the weld simulation.

5.0 CALCULATIONS Assessment of a flaw like triple point anomaly in the NMP-1 CRD housing repair was completed using three flaw types that were postulated to form in the vicinity of the triple point. For every postulated flaw type a crack growth analysis was conducted to determine the final flaw size after 40 years of operation.

After the final flaw size is determined, the flaw is assessed to determine the safety margins and compliance with the flaw acceptance criteria outlined in Section 2.4.

5.1 Circumferential Flaw for Paths I & 2 5.1.1 Circumferential Flaw Growth Analysis (Paths I & 2)

AREVACGC [4] was used to determine the final flaw depth due to fatigue crack growth. A summary of the final flaw depths is given in Table 5-1 for paths 1 & 2. Contribution of the individual transients to crack growth is given in Table 5-2.

Page 20

A Document No. 32-9138066-001 AR.EVA NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Table 5-1: Crack Growth for 3600 Circumferential Flaw Path Path1 Path2 Initial Flaw Depth (in) = 0.1000 0.1000 Initial alt ratio = 0.1695 0.1695 Final Flaw Depth (in) = { } { }

Final alt ratio== } { }

Total Amount of Fatigue Crack Growth (in) = * } ..

Table 5-2: Individual Transient Conrribution to Crack Growth for 3600 Circumferential Flaw qr Path Path 1 7-....Path2 Trans. Growth (in) Percent Growth (in) Percent Normal Startup Normal Shutdown Blowdown Design Pressure Test SCRAM Loss of CRD Cooling Water Attempt Drive Withdrawal Loss of Feed water Pump Emergency Cooldown Shutdown Cooling Level C Definition 1 Level C Definition 2 Seismic _ _ ......

5.1.2 Flaw Evaluation for OD Circumferential Flaw (Paths I & 2)

As mentioned in Section 2.4, Article C-6000 of Reference [3] contains the appropriate flaw evaluation procedure for the end of life OD circumferential flaw. Since the final flaw depth along path1 ({ ) in) is greater that for path 2 ({ ) in), the final flaw depth for path 1 was used for the end of life flaw evaluation. Table 5-3 shows details of the end of life flaw evaluation analysis performed to assess the postulated continuous circumferential flaw. It is seen from Table 5-3 that the allowable stress is higher than the applied membrane stress by { }.

Page 21

AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Table 5-3: End of Life Evaguation5'or Continuous External Circumferential Flaw (Limit Load)

Yield strength, o*= { } ksi Ultimate strength, c= { } ksi Pressure, p= { } psi Outside Radius, R,= { } in Inside Radius, Rj= { ) in Mean Radius, Rm= { } in Thickness, t= ( } in 2

Area, A=r(Ro -Ri )=

2

{ } in2 4

Moment of Inertia, 1=x/4(Ro -Ri )=

4

{ } in4 Final Flaw Depth, ar= { } in Flow strength, ar { } ksi DW+SENSB+Seismic Axial Load, Paxag= { ) lb Seismic Bending { } in-lb 0b=MbRo/I= { } ksi 0m=pDo/4t + P xi 81 /A= { } ksi Safety Factor, SFb= { }

Safety Factor, SFm= {

P=(nI(2-a/t)[1-a/t-a/at] { I rad abc =(2aGht)[2-(a/t)j sin(p) { } ksi Z=1.30 [( 1+ 0.010( NPS - 4)] { }

• o= { }

S=1/(SFb)[abe/Z-cre]-am[ 1-/Z(SFm)]= { ) ksi 0= } rad amC =o1[1-(a/t)(e/t)-2¢/t]= { } ksl

• =arcsin[0.5(a/t)sine]= ( r}ad St=SC/ZSF. { } ksi Margin, Sc/G*b {

Margin, SiTam .

5.2 Axial Flaw for Paths I & 2 5.2.1 Axial Flaw Growth Analysis (Paths I & 2)

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

Page 22

A Document No. 32-9138066-001 AREVA NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Table 5-4: Crack Growth for Axdal Flaw Radial Axial Path Path I Path2 PathI Path2 Initial Flaw Depth (in) = 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 Initial aft ratio = 0.1695 0.1695 0.1695 0.1695 Final Flaw Depth (in) =

Final aft ratio =

Total Amount of Fatigue Crack Growth (in) = L Page 23

A Document No. 32-9138066-001

'AREVA NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Table 5-5: Individual Transient Contribution to Crack Growth for Axial Flaw Radial Growth Axial Growth Path 1 Path2 Path 1 Path2 Trans. Growth (in) Percent Growth (in) Percent Growth (in) Percent Growth (in) Percent Normal Startup Normal Shutdown Blowdown Design Pressure Test SCRAM Loss of CRD Cooling Water Attempt Drive Withdrawal Loss of Feed water Pump Emergency Cooldown Shutdown Cooling Level C Definition 1 Level C Definition 2 Page 24

A AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis 5.2.2 Flaw Evaluation for OD Axial Flaw (Paths 1 & 2)

As mentioned in Section 2.4, Article C-6000 of Reference [31 contains the appropriate flaw evaluation procedure for the end of life OD axial flaw. As shown in Table 5-4 the maximum flaw depth is { }

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

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

Yield strength, oy= { ) ksi Ultimate strength, a,= { ) ksi Flow strength, y= { } ksi Pressure, p= { } psi Outside Radius, R,= { } In Inside Radius, Rj= { } In Mean Radius, Rm= { } In Thickness, t= { } In Final Flaw Depth,a= a { In Final Flaw Length,r= 4} {

ah=pRrt= { } ksi 5

/=.=l.58(Rmt)' V[(h Iot)-1]°1 = { In M2=11 +(1.61/4Rmt)/4)]= { }

Safety Factor, SFr,= {

Stress Ratio =ch/af= { }

Non-dimensional Flaw Length, 4/4Rmt= }

Allowable alt = { } TABLE C-6410-1 Reference [3]

Allowable Flaw Depth, aanou = { > { }

Margin, a.,

31 Ja,= _

Page 25

A

.AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis 5.3 Cylindrical Flaw for Paths 3 - 6 5.3.1 Cylindrical Flaw Growth Analysis (Paths 3 - 6)

For the cylindrical flaws crack growth was calculated in accordance with Section 2.3. Crack growth for one year is shown in Table 5-7 through Table 5-10 for paths 3 through 6, respectively. The maximum crack depth for the postulated cylindrical flaws after 40 years of operation was found to be { I Inches along path 3. Final crack depths for the cylindrical flaws for all paths is shown in Table 5-11 Table 5-7: initial Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 3 Transient Ka= Kqn AK AN Aa=AN Co(AK)n (ksi*/in) (ksi*/in) (ksi'4in) (Cycle/year) (in)

Normal Startup Normal Shutdown Blowdown Design Pressure Test SCRAM Loss of CRD Cooling Water Attempt Drive Withdrawal Loss of Feed water Pump Emergency Cooldown Shutdown Cooling Level C Definition 1 Level C Definition 2 Table 5-8: Initial Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 4 Transient K.. K. AK AN Aa=AN C0(AK)'

(ksi'4in) (ksi*/in) (ksi'/in) (Cyclelyear) (in)

Normal Startup Normal Shutdown Blowdown Design Pressure Test SCRAM Loss of CRD Cooling Water Attempt Drive Withdrawal Loss of Feed water Pump Emergency Cooldown Shutdown Cooling Level C Definition 1 Level C Definition 2 Page 26

A

-AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Table 5-9: Initial Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Pvlh 5 Transient K=x K.. AK AN Aa=AN Co(AK)'

(ksi*/in) (ksi'/in) (ksibin) (Cycle/year) (in)

Normal Startup Normal Shutdown Blowdown Design Pressure Test SCRAM Loss of CRD Cooling Water Attempt Drive Withdrawal Loss of Feed water Pump Emergency Cooldown Shutdown Cooling Level C Definition 1 Level C Definition 2 Table 5-10: Initial Crack Growth for Cylindrical Flaw along Path 6 Transient K. K. AK AN Aa=AN Co(AK)n (ksi'/in) (ksi'/in) (ksi/in) (Cycle/year) (in)

Normal Startup Normal Shutdown Blowdown Design Pressure Test SCRAM Loss of CRD Cooling Water Attempt Drive Withdrawal Loss of Feed water Pump Emergency Cooldown Shutdown Cooling Level C Definition 1 Level C Definition 2 Table 5-11: Final Crack Depth for Cylindrical Flaw Crack Depth

__ (in)

Path3 Path4 Path5 Path6 Page 27

A AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis 5.3.2 Fracture Toughness Margin for Cylindrical Flaw (Paths 3 - 6)

As mentioned in Section 2.4, for the postulated cylindrical flaw in the low alloy steel RV lower head material and in the IDTB weld ({ER30gL}), IWB-3612 acceptance criteria of Section Xl [3] is used.

According to IWB-3612 a flaw is acceptable if the applied stress intensity factor for the flaw dimension at satisfy the criteria that K, < K,8 /410 for normal/upset conditions and K, < K, /N2 for emergency/faulted conditions. To determine the fracture toughness margin, the maximum applied stress intensity factor for all time points is determined for each flaw path. The effective stress intensity factor is then determined based on the theory in Reference (3]. The temperature (T) is the minimum (limiting) temperature of each transient. The minimum temperatures of most limiting transients are shown along with corresponding K,8's are shown in Table 8-12. In Table 5-12, it is shown that the calculated minimum LEFM margins are { } for service level A and B and { } for service level C, and are thus higher than the required margin of 410 and 42, respectively.

Table 5-12: LEFM Margin for Cylindrical Flaw Path Limiting at K.ff Temperature K1, Margin Transients (in) (ksi-'in) (OF) (ksikin) K81K*,f I

3 (Weld)

Levels 4 (Weld)

A&B 5 (Head) 6 (Head)

LevGl C

3 (Weld) 4 (Weld) 5 (Head) 6(Head)

(kslAn) KIc/KoSff I

6.0

SUMMARY

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

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

Initial flaw size, ai = 0.100 in.

Final flaw size, at = }in.

b) End of Life (Limit load) analysis:

Margin, St/am-' { }

6.2 Fatigue Crack Growth of Semi-Circular External Axial Flaw a) Fatigue crack growth analysis:

Page 28

A AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Hou3ing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Initial flaw size, ai = 0.100 in.

Final flaw size, af = { } in.

b) End of Life (Limit load) analysis:

Margin, aa~owar= f }

6.3 Fatigue Crack Growth o7 Continuous Cylindrical Flaw along RV Lower Head Initial flaw size, a1 = 0.100 in.

Final flaw size, at= { } in.

Level A and B Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, Keff = { }ksi~in Level A and B Fracture toughness K13 = { }ksi4ifl Level A and B Fracture toughness margin, Kia /Klef ={ J> q10 Level C Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, K4.ff= { } ksiqin Level C Fracture toughness KIc = 200 ksiVin Level C Fracture toughness margin, KI*c /Kff=( }> 2 RV IDTB Weld Initial flaw size, a1 = 0.100 in.

Final flaw size, at = { } in.

Level A and B Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, Keff= ( } ksi/in Level A and B Fracture toughness Ka = 200 ksi/in Level A and B Fracture toughness margin, K3 I/Kl. ={ })> qlo Level C Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, Keff= { }ksiqin Level C Fracture toughness Kic = 200 ksi4in Level C Fracture toughness margin, Kic /Keff =( }> q2 The results of the analysis demonstrate that a 0.10 inch weld anomaly is acceptable for a 40 year design life of the NMP-1 CRD housing weld repair. Significant fracture toughness margins have been demonstrated for the postulated cylindrical flaw. The minimum fracture toughness margins for flaw propagation Paths 3 through 6 have been shown to be acceptable as compared to the required margins of 410 for normal/upset conditions and 42 for emergency/faulted conditions per Section Xl, IWB-3612 (Reference [3]). The maximum final flaw size is about { } inch (considering all flaw propagation paths). A limit load analysis with stable crack extension (Z-factors) was performed considering the ductile weld repair material along flaw propagation Path 1 & 2. The analysis showed that for the postulated circumferential flaw the minimum margin on allowable stress is { ). For the axial flaw the minimum margin on allowable flaw depth is { }.

Page 29

A AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housino IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis 7.0 COMPUTER USAGE 7.1 Validation To validate the installation of AREVACGC 5.0 [4], Test Case 1 provided in Reference [4] (contained in TestCasel.xls) was executed. The installation of the software on a PC workstation is documented below.

Computer program tested: AREVACG 5.0 Computer hardware used: Dell Precision 470 Workstation Tag # SN 69BVCH1 Name of person running test: S H. Mahmoud Date of test: 1-6-2011 Acceptability: Results agree with those documented for the corresponding test case in References [4].

7.2 Computer Files Microsoft@ Office Excel, along with the Excel macro program AREVACGC version 5.0, is used in the crack growth and SIF calculation. All computer analyses were run on Microsoft XP Professional Version 2002 Service Pack 3. The hardware is Intel Xeon E5420 with 2.49 GHz, and 3.25 GB of RAM. Computer files for all analysis contained in this document are listed in Table7-1. These files have been stored in COLDSTOR server within the directory "\cold\41304\32-9138065-001\official. All files were uploaded to COLDSTOR on 03/15/2011.

Table7-1: Computer Files for Crack Growth Evaluation Date File Name Modified Cheksum Description Circumferential flaw NMPCircSZ(axial).xls 3/1512011 44738 evaluation with

___ - -AREVACGC

_ _ 3185 53185 Axial flaw evaluation ARevaCG NMPAxialSY(Hoop).xls 1/5/2011 with AREVACGC NMP EdgeSRP3.xls 1/6/2011 05851 Cylindrical Flaw Evaluation Path 3 NMPEdgeSRP4.xls 1/6/2011 55757 Cylindrical Flaw Evaluation Path 4 NMPEdgeSRP5.xls 3/15/2011 60899 Cylindrical Flaw Evaluation Path 5 NMPEdgeSRP6.xls 3/15/2011 59330 Cylindrical Flaw Evaluation Path 6 Test case for verifying TestCasel.xls 6/29/2010 17753 that AREVCGC 5.0

- executes properly Verification of K1l..edge KledgeVerification.xls 1/6/2011 41940 fuction function Page 30

A AR EVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis

8.0 REFERENCES

1. AREVA NP Document 08-9132350-002, "Design Specification for Nine Mile Point 1 Control Rod Drive Housing Modification."

2. AREVA NP Drawing 02-8041446D-004, "Design for CRD Housing Modification Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (Penetration UI-U8)."

3. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, 2004 Edition with no Addenda.

4. AREVA NP Document 32-9055891-005, "Fatigue and PWSCC Crack Growth Evaluation Tool AREVACGC."

5. AREVA NP Document 32-9133260-005, "Design Input Document to Support Structural Analysis of NMP-1 CRDH Repair."

6. AREVA NP Document 32-9141306-002, 'Nine Mile Point Unit 1 CRDH Weld Repair - Finite Element Analysis."

7. AREVA NP Document 51-9134937-003, 'Transients for Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Weld Repair of CRD Nozzles."

8. AREVA NP Document 32-9138064-003, "NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Residual Stress Analysis."

Page 31

A, AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis APPENDIX A: VERIFICATIOil OF SIF FOR CYLINDRICAL FLAW This Appendix provides verification of the Excel macro Kledge used to calculate the SIF intensity factor for the cylindrical flaw (single edge notch). Also, the Excel macro Kleffedge which considers plasticity correction is verified. The test case considered in this appendix used a=0.05 inch, t=0.5 inch, a//=-0, and cyy=41.45 ksi.

Basis: Analysis of Flaws, 2004 ASME Code, Section X1, Appendix A, Reference J3]

KI [Ao Go + Ai GI + A 2 G2 + A 3 G3 ]%*r(=a/Q) where Q = 1 + 4.593 (all) 1 65 - qy and q,= I(AoGo+A 2 1 G1 +A 2 G 2 +A 3 G 3)Ics1 /6 For a/l = 0.0 (continuous flaw) a/t<= 0.1 Go = 1.195 G= 0.773 G2 = 0.600 G3=

0.501 Stresses are described by a third order polvnomial fit over the flaw depth, 2 3 S(x) = Ao + A1(x/a) + A2(xla) + A3(xla)

For given residual and transient stresses Wall Residual Transient Total Position, x Stress Stress Stresses (in.) (ksi) (ksi) 0.000 12.73 0.132 12.859 0.042 14.69 0.131 14.826 0.083 16.66 0.129 16.792 0.125 16.48 0.127 16.603 0.167 16.29 0.123 16.412 0.208 16.13 0.118 16.248 0.250 15.97 0.116 16.082 0.292 17.28 0.104 17.382 0.333 18.59 0.092 18.678 0.375 17.08 0.078 17.157 0.417 15.57 0.043 15.615 0.458 28.48 -0.029 28.453 0.500 41.39 -0.2940 41.100 Page 32

A AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis Stress over crack face Interpolated x/a x Stress 0.00 0.000 12.859 A3= -0.00107 0.10 0.005 13.095 A2= 0.001203 0.20 0.010 13.331 A1= 2.359832 0.30 0.015 13.567 AO= 12.85911 0.40 0.020 13.803 0.50 0.025 14.039 0.60 0.030 14.275 0.70 0.035 14.511 0.80 0.040 14.747 0.90 0.045 14.983 1.00 0.050 15.219 K=[ Ao Go + A, G + A2 G 2 + A3 G3 ](Ra/Q)= 6.811 6.811 KIedge= 6.811 0.0% Difference= 0.0%

qy =[(Ao Go + A1 G1 + A 2 G 2 + A3 G 3) I/ ]2 6= 0.029 Plasticity Q=1 + 4.593 (a/l) 16. 5 _qy 0.971 Correclion K=[ Ao Go + A1 G1 + A2 G 2 + A3 G 3 1] 4(7a/Q)= 6.911 Kleffedge= 6.911 Difference= 0.0%

Page 33

A AREVA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis APPENDIX B: RTNDT FOR REACTOR VESSEL LOW ALLOY STEEL AND THE HEAT AFFECTED ZONE The currently proposed CRD repair includes the low alloy steel reactor vessel, {

} [a]. Due to the CRD repair location at the bottom of the reactor vessel, the low alloy steel and the heat affected zone (HAZ) from the repair welding are not expected to experience large amounts of fluence, and therefore a shift of RTNDT due to irradiation is negligible.

The weld procedure qualification for the CRD repair was documented in Reference [b]. {

}, as allowed by the applicable ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code

[c]. ASME Section IX, paragraph QW-256 points the reader to ASME Section IX paragraph QW-403 for base metal. Paragraph QW-403.5 requires welding procedure specifications to be qualified using a base metal listed in the same P Number and Group Number in Table QW/QB-422 as the base metal used in production welding. {

1.

Additionally, Paragraph QW-403.11 requires base metals specified in the welding procedure specification be qualified by a procedure qualification test that was made using base metals in accordance with paragraph QW-424. Paragraph QW-424 requires that welding of one metal from a P Number to any metal from any other P Number qualifies any metal assigned to the first P Number to any metal assigned the second P Number. {

}.

}[d].

B.1 Appendix B References

a. AREVA Document 08-9132350-002, "Nine Mile Point 1 Control Rod Drive Housing Modification."

b. AREVA Document 55-PQ7297-000, "Procedure Qualification Records, PQ7297-000", January 2011.

c. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section IX, 2007 Edition with 2009 Addenda.

d*. Engineering Specification for the Nine Mile Point Reactor Pressure Vessel, 21A1 194, Revision 0, January 1964.

• This reference is not available for retrieval from the AREVA NP document control system.

This reference is retained in the Owners document control system and information therein is cited in this document, as required for design and analyses, in accordance with terms and Page 34

A ARE VA Document No. 32-9138066-001 NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis condition of the non-disclosure agreement between the AEVA NP and the Owner. Therefore this is an acceptable reference for use per AREVA NP procedure 0402-01, and document number L.500164/T1.1.

Project Manger Signature -, Date Page 35

ATTACHMENT 4 AFFIDAVIT FROM AREVA NP INC. JUSTIFYING WITHHOLDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC March 25, 2011

AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )

) ss.

COUNTY OF CAMPBELL )

1. My name is Sandra M. Sloan. I am Manager, Regulatory Affairs for New Plants, for AREVA NP Inc. and as such I am authorized to execute this Affidavit.

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

3. I am familiar with the AREVA NP information contained in, "32-9138065-002, CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis," and "32-9146818-000, NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation," and referred to herein as "Documents." Information contained in these Documents have been classified by AREVA NP as proprietary in accordance with the policies established by AREVA NP for the control and protection of proprietary and confidential information.

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

5. These Documents have been made available to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in confidence with the request that the information contained in these Documents be withheld from public disclosure. The request for withholding of proprietary information is made in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. The information for which withholding from disclosure

is requested qualifies under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(4) "Trade secrets and commercial or financial information".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. In accordance with AREVA NP's policies governing the protection and control of information, proprietary information contained in these Documents have been made available, on a limited basis, to others outside AREVA NP only as required and under suitable agreement providing for nondisclosure and limited use of the information.

8. AREVA NP policy requires that proprietary information be kept in a secured file or area and distributed on a need-to-know basis.

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

SUBSCRIBED before me this 2' day of 2011.

Kathleen A. Bennett NOTARY PUBLIC, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 8/31/2011 Reg. #110864 KATHLEEN ANN SENNETT

, Notary Public Commonwealth of Virginia 110864 M Commission Expires Aug 31, 2011