ML13191B128
| ML13191B128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/2013 |
| From: | GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC MD990, TAC ME3145 DRF 0000-0120-9647, NEDO-33820, Rev 0 | |
| Download: ML13191B128 (37) | |
Text
L-MT-13-059 ENCLOSURE 5 GENERAL ELECTRIC-HITACHI NEDO-33820, REVISION 0 NON-PROPRIETARY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT UPPER SHELF ENERGY EVALUATION FOR PLATE C2220 MATERIAL FOR 54 EFPY 34 pages follow
0 HITAGHI GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy NEDO-33820 Revision 0 DRF 0000-0120-9647 June 2013 Non-proprietary Information - Class I (Public)
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Upper Shelf Energy Evaluation for Plate C2220 Material for 54 EFPY Copyright 2013 GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC All Rights Reserved
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE This is a non-proprietary version of the document NEDC-33820, Revision 0, from which the proprietary information has been removed. Portions of the document that have been removed are identified by white space within double square brackets, as shown ((
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefully The design, engineering, and other information contained in this document are furnished for the purposes of supporting Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant extended power uprate in proceedings before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The only undertakings of the GEH respecting information in this document are contained in the contract between Northern States Power - Minnesota (NSPM) and GEH, and nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing the contract. The use of this information by anyone other than NSPM, or for any purpose other than that for which it is intended, is not authorized; and, with respect to any unauthorized use, GEH makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information contained in this document, or that its use may not infringe privately owned rights.
ii
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYM S & ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................
vi EXECUTIVE SUM MARY..........................................................................................................
vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1 1.1 Historical Background................................................................................................
1 1.2 MNGP Beltline Plate Heat C2220..............................................................................
2 2.0 S C O P E.................................................................................................................................
3 3.0
SUMMARY
OF ANALYSIS RESULTS......................................................................
4 4.0 MNGP RPV PLATE DATA............................................................................................
5 4.1 Plate Heat C2220 Unirradiated Upper Shelf Energy..................................................
5 4.2 Plate Heat C2220 End of License Upper Shelf Energy.............................................
5 4.3 F luence............................................................................................................................
6 4.4 Plant-Specific Transients...........................................................................................
6 5.0 USE MARGIN EVALUATION M ETHODOLOGY..........................................................
7 5.1 Acceptance Criteria....................................................................................................
7 5.2 Calculation of Applied J-Integral...............................................................................
8 5.2.1 Internal Pressure Loading.......................................................................................
8 5.2.2 Heatup/Cooldown Loading.....................................................................................
8 5.2.3 Effective Flaw Depth.............................................................................................
9 5.2.4 J-Integral Calculation..............................................................................................
9 6.0 SELECTION OF MATERIAL J-R CURVES...................................................................
10 7.0 EVALUATION OF LEVEL A & B CONDITIONS....................................................
12 7.1 Level A and B Service Loadings..............................................................................
12 7.2 Level A and B Conditions Evaluation.....................................................................
12 8.0 EVALUATION OF LEVEL C & D CONDITIONS.....................................................
17 8.1 Level C Service Loading...........................................................................................
17 8.2 Level C Service Evaluation......................................................................................
18 8.3 Level D Service Loading.........................................................................................
21 8.4 Level D Service Evaluation....................................................................................
22 9.0 SUM MARY & CONCLUSIONS................................................................................
25
10.0 REFERENCES
26 iii
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 5-1:
Figure 6-1:
Figure 7-1:
Figure 7-2:
Figure 8-1:
Figure 8-2:
Figure 8-3:
Figure 8-4:
Figure 8-5:
Illustration of Ductile Crack Growth Stability Evaluation.................................
7 M N GP J-Integral Resistance Curves....................................................................
11 J0 1 Criterion Evaluation for Axial Flaw and MNGP Plate J-R Curve.............. 14 Flaw Stability Criterion Evaluation for Axial Flaw with MNGP Plate J-R Curvel6 Pressure & Temperature Conditions During Improper Start of Cold Recirculation Loop Transient for Limiting Level C Event...................................................
18 J0 1 Evaluation for Level C Condition...............................................................
20 Crack Growth Stability Criterion Evaluation for Level C Condition.............. 21 Lim iting Level D Transient..............................................................................
22 Crack Growth Stability Criterion Evaluation for Level D Condition.............. 24 iv
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
TABLE OF TABLES Table 4-1: Equivalent Margin Analysis for Plate Heat C2220.................................................
6 Table 7-1: Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for 1.15 x Accumulation Pressure............. 13 Table 7-2: Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for 1.25 x Accumulation Pressure......
15 Table 8-1: Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for Level C Transient.............................
19 Table 8-2: Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for Level D Transient...........................
23 V
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS Short Version Definition 1/4T
/4 Depth into the Vessel Wall from the Inside Diameter (Clad Is Not Considered)
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME Code MNGP was fabricated in accordance with the 1965 Edition, including Summer Edition 1966 Addenda.
BWR Boiling Water Reactor BWROG BWR Owners' Group BWRVIP BWR Vessel & Internals Program CMTR Certified Material Test Report CVN Charpy V-Notch USE (ft-lbs)
EMA Equivalent Margin Analysis EOL End of License EPRI Electric Power Research Institute EPU Extended Power Uprate ft-lb Foot-pound GE General Electric GEH GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, LLC ISP Integrated Surveillance Program JO. 1 J-Integral from Applied Loads at a Ductile Crack Growth of 0.1 inch Depth into the Vessel Wall Japplied J-Integral from Applied Loads (in-lb/in 2)
Jmaterial Material's J-Integral Fracture Resistance J-R Curve (in-lb/in 2)
JR J-Integral Fracture Resistance Curve J-R J-Integral Fracture Resistance ksi psi/1000 MF Margin Factor MNGP Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant n/cm2 Neutrons/ centimeter squared (measure of fluence)
NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (sometimes US NRC) psi Pounds per Square Inch RAI Request for Additional Information Region B Vessel Region from the Bottom of the Jet Pump to the Bottom of the Feedwater Nozzle RG Regulatory Guide RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel RTNDT Reference Temperature of Nil-Ductility Transition S
Sulphur SF Safety Factor USE Upper Shelf Energy wt%
Weight Percent (Elemental Content) vi
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
10CFR50 Appendix G [1] states that the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) must maintain upper shelf energy (USE) of no less than 50 ft-lbs throughout its life, unless it is demonstrated in a manner approved by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, that lower values of USE will provide margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI the ASME Code [2]. The BWR Owners' Group (BWROG) developed a licensing topical report, NEDO-32205-A, [3] on equivalent margin analysis for low USE BWR/2 through BWR/6 RPVs, which was reviewed and approved by the NRC for use by individual utilities. The NEDO-32205-A report was updated to represent 54 EFPY in BWRVIP-74-A [4], which was used in this analysis.
In their Extended Power Uprate (EPU) submittal, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) provided an Equivalent Margin Analysis (EMA) for USE.
The evaluation considered all surveillance data that was available at the time. During NRC review, a Request for Additional Information (RAI) (ML13150A255) specifically requested that this calculation be updated to include additional surveillance data that has been published in BWRVIP-135, Revision 2 [5].
The results presented for EPU demonstrated that the plate material, heat C2220, was bounded by the EMA, as the 22.5% decrease was bounded by the 23.5% decrease allowed for 54 EFPY.
However, the data from the first surveillance capsule demonstrated that an adjustment would be required, once a second set of credible surveillance data became available. At that time, only one set of surveillance data was available; therefore Position 2.2 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.99
[6] was not required. Considering the second set of surveillance data that became available when BWRVIP-135, Revision 2 was issued, an adjustment must now be performed.
Considering the second data set of surveillance data for heat C2220, in accordance with MTEB 5-2, a Branch Technical Position for Fracture Toughness Requirements [7] that provides a summary and clarification of the requirements of IOCFR50 Appendix G and Appendix H, the unirradiated USE reported in BWRVIP-135, Revision 2 was reduced by a factor of 0.65. The MNGP plate minimum end of license (EOL) USE is determined to be 48 f-lIbs, less than the 50 ft-lb requirement. Therefore, to demonstrate the acceptability of the plate USE, a J-Integral Fracture Resistance (J-R) Integral evaluation was performed.
This USE evaluation follows the methodology outlined in ASME Code Case N-512-1 [8],
Appendix K of ASME Section XI [9], and RG 1.161 [10]. The evaluation shows that the Level A/B Condition is governing.
Based on the results of this plant-specific evaluation, it is concluded that the plate materials in the MNGP RPV meet the margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI the ASME Code and RG 1.161. This conclusion is valid for operation including Extended Power Uprate conditions and a 60-year plant license (54 EFPY).
vii
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This report will demonstrate that the MNGP plate material exhibits sufficient tear resistance and ductile stability for Levels A, B, C, and D operating conditions. The Upper Shelf Energy (USE) margin evaluation methodology used in this report is consistent with that prescribed in Code Case N-512-1 [8],Section XI Code Non-Mandatory Appendix K [9], and RG 1.161 [10].
Although Code Case N-512 [11], [8], and [9] were in development at the same time that the topical report [3] was being developed, and [10] was published later, a review of the methodology used in [3] indicated that in almost all respects, it is consistent with [8, 9, and 10].
If there were any small differences, such as that in the selection of J-R curves, the topical report used a conservative approach. The methodology prescribed in [10] is exclusively followed in this report.
The BWROG topical report [3] clearly defines an NRC-approved J-R curve methodology, including the use of specific transients applicable to BWRs, and is therefore cited throughout this report.
1.1 Historical Background The nuclear reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) are typically made of low-alloy ferritic steels (e.g.,
SA302B; or SA533, Grade B, Class 1). They are exposed to high energy neutrons in the beltline region; as a result, the constituent parts (i.e., the plates, forgings, and welds) can experience degradation of material properties: yield and ultimate tensile strengths increase, brittle-to-ductile transition temperature increases, and the upper shelf toughness decreases. The last two effects are the most important from the point of view of structural margins during operation of an RPV.
The impact of low Charpy USE on the MNGP RPV integrity analyses is the subject of this report.
IOCFR50 Appendix G [1] states that the RPV must maintain USE of no less than 50 ft-lbs throughout its life, unless it is demonstrated in a manner approved by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, that lower values of USE will provide margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI the ASME Code [2].
In September 1992, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in discussing the preliminary review of the responses to Generic Letter 92-01, strongly recommended the equivalent margin analyses (EMA) be performed by the Owners' Group.
In response to this, the BWROG developed a licensing topical report on equivalent margin analysis for low USE BWR/2 through BWR/6 vessels [3] that was reviewed and approved by the NRC [12]. This topical report was updated to represent 54 EFPY in BWRVIP-74-A [4].
The topical report, which could be referenced by utilities as part of their licensing basis, can be used to address compliance with the 50 ft-lb requirement. Appendix B of the topical report presents the steps required to show that the USE requirements presented in the report can be applied to individual BWR plants. The plants always have the option to perform a plant-specific USE margin evaluation.
The topical report followed the methods provided in the then-draft Appendix X of the ASME Code, which has since become Code Case N-512 [11] and subsequently revised as Code Case N-512-1 [8].
This Code Case was incorporated in the Section XI Code as Non-Mandatory Appendix K [9]. The NRC staff reviewed the analysis methods in Appendix K and found them to be technically acceptable but not complete with respect to information on the selection of 1
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public) transients, and the selection of material properties. As a result the NRC issued RG 1.161 [10]
providing specific guidance on these issues.
1.2 MNGP Beltline Plate Heat C2220 Plate heat C2220 from the MNGP RPV is included in the Integrated Surveillance Program.
Initial, or unirradiated, USE is defined in BWRVIP-135 [5] as ((
)) ft-lbs. Because the data was not identified as being in the strong or weak direction, the USE was assumed to be in the strong direction, and was reduced using a factor of 0.65 in accordance with MTEB 5-2 [7].
Therefore, the minimum initial USE for the plate was ((
)) ft-lbs. The end of license USE values did not meet the minimum required value of 50 ft-lbs defined in IOCFR50 Appendix G or the acceptance criterion provided in BWRVIP-74-A [4]. Therefore, a plant-specific evaluation was conducted to show compliance.
The plant-specific evaluation followed the methodology consistent with the requirements of Section XI Code Case N-512-1 [8], Appendix K [9], and RG 1.161 [10]. Also, the selection of transients was justified in relation to the MNGP vessel transients for Levels A through D operating conditions. The most limiting transients were considered for Levels A, B, C, and D, in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 of RGI.161, as discussed in more detail in the following sections.
2
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public) 2.0 SCOPE The objective of the analysis documented in this report is to demonstrate that the MNGP RPV plate materials meet the margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by IOCFR50 Appendix G.
This will be accomplished by demonstrating, by a plant-specific equivalent margin analysis, that a USE less than 50 ft-lbs maintains the required margin of safety against fracture, thereby meeting the requirements of IOCFR50 Appendix G.
3
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public) 3.0
SUMMARY
OF ANALYSIS RESULTS 10CFR50 Appendix G states that the RPV must maintain USE throughout its life of no less than 50 ft-lbs, unless it is demonstrated in a manner approved by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, that lower values of USE will provide margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI the ASME Code. The BWROG developed a licensing topical report on equivalent margin analysis for low USE BWR/2 through BWR/6 RPVs, which was reviewed and approved by the NRC for use by individual utilities.
This MNGP USE evaluation followed the methodology outlined in ASME Code Case N-512-1
[8], Appendix K of ASME Section XI [9], and RG 1.161 [10]. The evaluation showed that the Level A/B Condition was governing.
Based on the results of this plant-specific evaluation, it is concluded that the plate material in the MNGP RPV meets the margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI the ASME Code. This conclusion is valid for operation at EPU conditions for 60 years (54 EFPY).
4
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public) 4.0 MNGP RPV PLATE DATA 4.1 Plate Heat C2220 Unirradiated Upper Shelf Energy The MNGP vessel was purchased to the 1965 Edition of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, with Addenda up to and including Summer 1966. At that time, requirements for determining USE had not yet been established. The MNGP plate heat C2220 is identified in BWRVIP-135, Revision 2 [5] as having an initial USE of ((
)) fl-lb. This report does not include definition sufficient to determine whether these results are based on longitudinally-oriented or transversely-oriented specimens. Therefore, the conservative assumption is made that the specimens were longitudinally-oriented, and are converted to the equivalent of transversely-oriented results by factoring the USE by 0.65 [7].
The plate heat C2220 initial USE is conservatively determined to be:
Initial USE:
((
)) ft-lb (assumed longitudinal)
Factor:
0.65 (to convert to transverse USE)
Initial USEconverted:
--((
4.2 Plate Heat C2220 End of License Upper Shelf Energy BWRVIP-135, Revision 2 defines the weight percent copper to be ((
)).
- However, MNGP plate heat C2220 has previously been evaluated for 0.17% copper. The end of license 54 EFPY predicted decrease defined by RG1.99 [6] at a 1/4T fluence of4.75e1 7 n/cm2 is 22.5%.
The first capsule specimen test results demonstrate that the USE after exposure to a fluence of 2.93e17 n/cm 2 is ((
)) ft-lbs.
This indicates a measured decrease of ((
)).
The RG1.99 predicted decrease for this fluence and 0.17% copper is 11.5%.
As the measured decrease exceeds the predicted, an adjustment is required as defined in Position 2.2 of RG1.99.
Similarly, the second capsule test results demonstrate that the USE after exposure to a fluence of
((
)) n/cm2 is ((
)) ft-lb. This indicates a measured decrease of ((
fl.
The RG1.99 predicted decrease for this fluence and ((
)) copper [5] is 14.5%. Again, the measured decrease exceeds the predicted, and an adjustment is again required.
The adjusted decrease in USE was determined in accordance with RG1.99, Position 2.2, and resulted in a decrease of 44%. Therefore, reducing ((
)) ft-lbs by 44% results in an end of license USE of 48 ft-lbs. As this value does not meet the 50 ft-lb end of license criterion, a J-R fracture mechanics evaluation is performed. The data set and results are shown in Table 4-1.
5
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
Table 4-1: Equivalent Margin Analysis for Plate Heat C2220 4.3 Fluence This calculation is based upon a license of 60 years, considering 54 EFPY. The peak surface fluence applied in the MNGP USE evaluation is 6.43e18 n/cm 2; this is representative of a calculation that was performed using the GEH fluence methodology [13]. The 1/4T fluence was calculated in accordance with RG 1.99, Revision 2, resulting in a fluence of4.75e 18 n/cm 2 [14].
4.4 Plant-Specific Transients The limiting transients for each level of operating conditions were selected for this evaluation in accordance with Section 4 of RGI.161. The limiting Level A and B condition is the 100°F/hr heatup/cooldown; limiting for Level C is the "Improper Start of a Cold Recirculation Loop"; and limiting for Level D is the "Pipe Rupture and Blowdown". These are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
6
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public) 5.0 USE MARGIN EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The USE margin evaluation methodology used in this report is consistent with that prescribed in
[8, 9, and 10]. Although [8, 9 and 11] were in development at the same time that the topical report [3] was being developed, and [10] was published later, a review of the methodology used in [3] indicated that in almost all respects, it is consistent with [8, 9, and 10]. If there were any small differences, such as that in the selection of J-R curves, the topical report used a conservative approach.
The methodology prescribed in [10] is exclusively followed in this report.
The acceptance criteria and the equations for the calculation of J applied values are described in this section. The selection of appropriate J-R curves is described in the next section.
5.1 Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria for Level A & B Normal/Upset conditions are described as:
Japplied < Jo.1 (1)
(2) aJapplied/aa < aJmaterial/aa, load held constant at Japplied = Jmaterial Equation (2) assures stability under ductile crack growth as demonstrated in Figure 5-1 below:
J a0 a
Figure 5-1:
Illustration of Ductile Crack Growth Stability Evaluation Both axial and circumferential flaws are postulated. For all operating conditions, the flaws are considered to be semi-elliptical surface flaws with an aspect ratio of 6:1 surface length to flaw depth. The assumed crack is 1A of the thickness of the base metal wall.
The acceptance criteria for Level C conditions are provided in Section 3.1.2 of [3] and are essentially the same as Equations (1) and (2) above. For Level C, however, the postulated flaw 7
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public) depth is 1/10 of the thickness of the base metal wall plus the clad thickness, with total depth
< 1.0 inch. A safety factor of 1.0 is considered for applied pressure loading.
For Level D conditions, only the ductile crack growth stability is evaluated. The flaw depth is the same as that for Level C, and the material J-Integral resistance curve is based on best estimate. Level D also uses a safety factor on applied loading equal to 1.0.
5.2 Calculation of Applied J-Integral The calculation of the applied J-Integral consists of three steps:
" Step I is to calculate the K, values from pressure and heatup/cooldown loadings;
" Step 2 is to calculate the effective flaw depth, which includes a plastic zone size correction; and
" Step 3 is to calculate the J-Integral for small-scale yielding based on this effective flaw depth.
The calculated K, values are in the units of ksi~in.
5.2.1 Internal Pressure Loading For an axial flaw with depth 'a', the stress intensity factor from internal pressure, Pa, with a safety factor, (SF), on pressure using Equation (3) below, is obtained from [10]:
KipAxial.
= (SF) Pa [1 + (Ri/t)] (ira)°5 F1 (3)
F1
= 0.982 + 1.006 (a/t)2 For a circumferential flaw with depth 'a', the stress intensity factor from internal pressure, Pa, with a safety factor, SF, on pressure using Equation (4), is obtained from [10]:
KipCircum" (SF) Pa [1 + {Ri/(2t)}] (nra)° 5 F2 (4)
F2
= 0.885 + 0.233 (a/t) + 0.345 (a/t)2 5.2.2 Heatup/Cooldown Loading For an axial or circumferential flaw with depth 'a', the "steady state" (time independent) stress intensity factor from radial thermal gradients is obtained by using Equation (5), obtained from
[10]:
Kit
= (CR/1000) t2 5 F3 (5)
F3
= 0.69 + 3.127 (a/t) - 7.435 (a/t) 2 + 3.532 (a/t)3 The above equation for Kit is valid for 0 < CR < 100°F/hr.
For the transients in which the heatup/cooldown rates are greater than 1000 F/hr,* [3] used finite element analysis to determine the stress distribution through the RPV wall and the K, values were then calculated using the Raju-Newman method as described in [3].
8
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public) 5.2.3 Effective Flaw Depth The effective flaw depth for small-scale yielding, ae, was based on Equation (6), obtained from
[10]:
a, = a + { 1/(6-n)} [(Kip + Klt)/cy ] 2 (6)
The topical report [3] identifies the yield strength as 69 ksi; the average MNGP plate heat C2220 CMTR value of cyy for SA533 Grade B Class I is approximately ((
)) ksi at room temperature. The ASME Code value from the MNGP Code of Construction is determined to be
((
)) ksi at ((
)). The Code value at operating temperature was scaled by the Code value at room temperature (100'F) and the measured room temperature value from the CMTRs.
Therefore, cy of approximately ((
)) ksi was used in this evaluation.
5.2.4 J-Integral Calculation The J-Integral from the K, values was calculated using Equation (7), obtained from [10]:
Japplied = 1000 (K'lp + K'It) 2/E' (7) where the K'I values are stress intensity factors based on effective flaw depth and E' is E/(1-v 2).
The value of v was taken as 0.3 and is consistent with [3]; the value of E was determined to be 2
27900 ksi at room temperature, obtained from the ASME Code. The units of J are in-lb/in.
9
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public) 6.0 SELECTION OF MATERIAL J-R CURVES The generic J-Integral fracture resistance curve equation is given as Equation (8), obtained from
[10]:
JR (MF) {C1 (Aa)C2 exp [C3 (Aa)C4]}
(8)
Section 3.3 (Reactor Pressure Vessel Base (Plate) Materials) of [10] is used to calculate the values of various constants in the preceding equation. Section 3.3 of [10] provides different equations based upon the Sulphur (S) wt% content of the materials being evaluated. NEDO-24197 [15] documents the maximum S content as 0.014 wt%. Therefore, Section 3.3.1 (High-Toughness Model for S < 0.018 wt%) of [10] is used.
10
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
For analyses addressing Service Levels A, B, and C, the margin factor (MF) was set to 0.749 as defined in Section 3.3.1 of [10]. For analyses addressing Service Level D, the value of MF was set to 1.0. The mathematical expressions for other constants are given by Equations (9) through (12), obtained from [10]:
C1
= exp [-2.44 + 1.13 In (CVN) - 0.00277T]
(9)
C2
= 0.077 + 0.116 In C I C3
= -0.0812 - 0.0092 In C1 (10)
(11)
(12)
C4
= -0.409 The term 'CVN' is the Charpy USE. As indicated above, the EOL Charpy USE for the MNGP plate is 48 ft-lbs. This value was used in calculating the value of constant Cl. The normal operating temperature for region B (that contains the beltline region) of the vessel is specified as
((
)) [16]; for EPU this temperature was revised to ((
)) [17]. Therefore, this value was used in calculating the value of constant C 1.
The calculated J-Integral resistance curves for the various operating conditions are shown in Figure 6-1 below.
MNGP Plate C-2220 J-R Curves, CVN=48 ft-lb, T=548*F 1400 1200 1000 800 600
-r 400 200 0
0.00 0.30
- 11.1 Figure 6-1:
MNGP J-Integral Resistance Curves 11
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public) 7.0 EVALUATION OF LEVEL A & B CONDITIONS Key steps in this evaluation are the calculation of the applied J-Integral and the flaw stability evaluation.
7.1 Level A and B Service Loadings The two loadings to be considered are internal pressure and thermal heatup/cooldown rates. The Level A and B heatup/cooldown rates for the MNGP RPV are specified in the associated reactor thermal cycle diagram [16] amended by the EPU certified design specification [17]. The topical report [3] also analyzed an additional transient identified as "Loss of Feedwater Pumps" that is specified for BWR/6 standard plants in their RPV thermal cycle drawing. However, the analysis in the topical report showed that the 100°F/hr case was still bounding compared to this transient.
The MNGP plant-specific thermal cycle diagram was reviewed; it was determined that the heatup/cooldown case is bounded by the evaluation presented in the topical report.
The RPV geometry considered in the topical report (R= 126.7 inches and t= 6.19 inches) bounds the MNGP RPV geometry (R=((
)) inches and t= 5.06 inches); therefore, use of the topical report in terms of the calculated thermal transient stress is conservative.
Thus, the conclusion reached in [3] was also determined to be valid for the MNGP case and only the 100°F/hr case was considered in this evaluation.
The specified design pressure for the MNGP RPV is 1250 psi, defined in [17]. Consistent with the NRC-approved topical report, the accumulation pressure is 1.1 times the design pressure and is, thus, equal to 1375 psi. The internal pressure value used in the J01 criterion is 1.15 times the accumulation pressure (i.e., 1375
- 1.15 or 1581 psi). Similarly, the internal pressure value used in the flaw stability criterion is 1.25 times the accumulation pressure or 1719 psi.
The MNGP RPV wall thickness in the beltline region is 5.06 inches. RGI.161 states that, for Levels A and B, the evaluation is to postulate a semi-elliptical surface flaw with an a/t = 0.25 and with an aspect ratio of 6:1 surface length to flaw depth. Clad thickness is not required for this calculation. Therefore, the postulated 1/4T flaw has a depth of (5.06
- 0.25) or 1.27 inches.
7.2 Level A and B Conditions Evaluation Table 7-1 below shows the calculated values of the applied J-Integral for 1.15 accumulation pressure at several crack depths beginning with the 1/4T depth. The calculations for the axial flaw are shown first, followed by those for the circumferential flaw. For the J0 1 criterion, the applied J-Integral values at a = 1.37 inches are relevant. A review of this table indicates that the applied J-Integral values for the axial flaw case bound those for the circumferential flaw case.
Therefore, the J01 criterion check was conducted only for the axial flaw case. Figure 7-1 shows a comparison between the calculated applied J-Integral value for the axial flaw and the MNGP plate J-R curve. It is seen that the J01 criterion is satisfied for the limiting case of an axial flaw.
12
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
Table 7-1: Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for 1.15 x Accumulation Pressure Pressure (psi)=
Vessel Ri (in.)=
Vessel Th (in.)=
Cooling Rate (F/Hr)=
aO (in.)=
E (ksi)=
YS (ksi)=
1581 103.1875 5.06 100 1.265 27900 55.4 a
(in) 1.27 1.32 1.37 1.42 1.47 1.52 1.57 1.62 1.67 1.72 1.77 1.82 1.87 1.92 1.97 2.02 2.07 2.12 2.17 2.22 2.27 AXIAL FLAW CALCULAfl' Aa F1 F3 Kp Kt (in)
(ksi-in 112) (ksi-in 112) 0.00 1.045 1.062 70.45 6.12 0.05 1.050 1.062 72.18 6.12 0.10 1.055 1.062 73.91 6.12 0.15 1.061 1.060 75.64 6.11 0.20 1.066 1.058 77.37 6.09 0.25 1.072 1.055 79.11 6.07 0.30 1.078 1.050 80.86 6.05 0.35 1.084 1.045 82.62 6.02 0.40 1.091 1.040 84.39 5.99 0.45 1.098 1.033 86.17 5.95 0.50 1.104 1.026 87.96 5.91 0.55 1.111 1.018 89.76 5.86 0.60 1.119 1.009 91.58 5.81 0.65 1.126 1.000 93.42 5.76 0.70 1.134 0.990 95.27 5.70 0.75 1.142 0.979 97.14 5.64 0.80 1.150 0.968 99.03 5.57 0.85 1.158 0.956 100.94 5.51 0.90 1.166 0.943 102.86 5.43 0.95 1.175 0.930 104.81 5.36 1.00 1.184 0.917 106.78 5.28 ae Fl' F3' Kjtotal J~app (in)
(ksi-in 112)
(in-lb/in2) 1.366 1.055 1.062 80.07 209.10 1.421 1.061 1.060 81.95 219.04 1.476 1.068 1.057 83.83 229.22 1.531 1.074 1.053 85.72 239.67 1.585 1.081 1.048 87.62 250.39 1.640 1.088 1.043 89.52 261.40 1.696 1.095 1.036 91.44 272.71 1.751 1.102 1.028 93.37 284.35 1.806 1.110 1.019 95.32 296.32 1.862 1.118 1.010 97.28 308.65 1.917 1.126 1.000 99.26 321.35 1.973 1.135 0.988 101.26 334.45 2.029 1.144 0.976 103.29 347.97 2.085 1.153 0.963 105.34 361.91 2.141 1.162 0.949 107.41 376.32 2.198 1.172 0.935 109.52 391.20 2.254 1.182 0.920 111.65 406.59 2.311 1.192 0.904 113.82 422.51 2.368 1.202 0.887 116.01 438.98 2.425 1.213 0.870 118.24 456.04 2.482 1.224 0.852 120.51 473.70 CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW CALCULATION a
Aa F2 F3 Kp Kt ae FI' F3' Ktotal J'app (in)
(in)
(ksi-in 2) (ksi-in 12)
(in)
(ksi-in" ) (in-lb/in2) 1.27 0.00 0.965 1.062 34.05 6.12 1.293 0.967 1.063 40.62 53.81 1.32 0.05 0.969 1.062 34.86 6.12 1.344 0.971 1.062 41.45 56.03 1.37 0.10 0.973 1.062 35.67 6.12 1.395 0.975 1.061 42.26 58.25 1.42 0.15 0.977 1.060 36.47 6.11 1.446 0.980 1.059 43.07 60.50 1.47 0.20 0.981 1.058 37.27 6.09 1.497 0.984 1.056 43.87 62.77 1.52 0.25 0.986 1.055 38.07 6.07 1.549 0.989 1.052 44.66 65.05 1.57 0.30 0.990 1.050 38.86 6.05 1.600 0.993 1.047 45.44 67.36 1.62 0.35 0.995 1.045 39.65 6.02 1.651 0.998 1.041 46.22 69.69 1.67 0.40 0.999 1.040 40.45 5.99 1.702 1.002 1.035 47.00 72.04 1.72 0.45 1.004 1.033 41.24 5.95 1.753 1.007 1.028 47.76 74.41 1.77 0.50 1.008 1.026 42.03 5.91 1.805 1.012 1.020 48.53 76.81 1.82 0.55 1.013 1.018 42.82 5.86 1.856 1.017 1.011 49.29 79.23 1.87 0.60 1.018 1.009 43.61 5.81 1.907 1.022 1.001 50.04 81.68 1.92 0.65 1.023 1.000 44.40 5.76 1.958 1.027 0.991 50.80 84.16 1.97 0.70 1.028 0.990 45.19 5.70 2.010 1.032 0.980 51.55 86.67 2.02 0.75 1.032 0.979 45.98 5.64 2.061 1.037 0.969 52.30 89.20 2.07 0.80 1.038 0.968 46.78 5.57 2.112 1.042 0.957 53.04 91.77 2.12 0.85 1.043 0.956 47.58 5.51 2.164 1.048 0.944 53.79 94.37 2.17 0.90 1.048 0.943 48.37 5.43 2.215 1.053 0.930 54.53 97.00 2.22 0.95 1.053 0.930 49.17 5.36 2.266 1.059 0.916 55.28 99.67 2.27 1.00 1.058 0.917 49.98 5.28 2.318 1.064 0.902 56.02 102.37 13
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
Normal & Upset Condition Evaluation
£
-r C1 0,a C
-T 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 4-0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Aa (In) 0.60 Figure 7-1:
J0.1 Criterion Evaluation for Axial Flaw and MNGP Plate J-R Curve Table 7-2 shows the calculated values of applied J-Integral for 1.25 accumulation pressure at several crack depths beginning with 1/4T depth. The calculations are shown for both the axial and the circumferential flaws. However, a review of this table indicates that the axial flaw case is governing. Figure 7-2 shows the plot of the applied J-Integral curve and the MNGP plate material J-R curve. Flaw stability at a given applied load is assured when the slope of the applied J-Integral curve is less than the slope of the material J-R curve at the point on the J-R curve where the two curves intersect (see Figure 5-1). It is seen that the stability criterion is satisfied with the limiting EOL USE of 48 ft-lbs for the MNGP plate material. (Note: In the stability evaluation, the J applied at Aa = 0.1 inch is not a concern; only the slope of the J applied curve is of importance.)
Review of the J0. 1 criterion was performed to determine the minimum required USE; this was determined to be 12.5 ft-lbs. Material stability was evaluated demonstrating the minimum required USE to be 15 ft-lbs. It can therefore be seen that the minimum USE of 48 ft-lbs determined using RG 1.99 is significantly greater than the critical USE of 15 ft-lbs, with a margin of 33 ft-lbs, determined using RG1.161.
14
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
Table 7-2: Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for 1.25 x Accumulation Pressure Pressure (psi)=
1719 Vessel Ri (in.)=
103.1875 Vessel Th (in.)=
5.06 Cooling Rate (F/Hr)=
100 a0 (in.)=
1.265 E (ksi)=
27900 YS (ksi)=
55.4 a
(in) 1.27 1.32 1.37 1.42 1.47 1.52 1.57 1.62 1.67 1.72 1.77 1.82 1.87 1.92 1.97 2.02 2.07 2.12 2.17 2.22 2.27 a
(in) 1.27 1.32 1.37 1.42 1.47 1.52 1.57 1.62 1.67 1.72 1.77 1.82 1.87 1.92 1.97 2.02 2.07 2.12 2.17 2.22 2.27 Aa (in) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Aa (in) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.i 1.'
1) 1)
1.'
1) 1)
1.'
1:
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
AXIAL FLAW CALCULATION Fl F3 Kp Kt (ksi-in'1 2) (ksi-in 112) 045 1.062 76.60 6.12 050 1.062 78.48 6.12 055 1.062 80.36 6.12 061 1.060 82.24 6.11 066 1.058 84.13 6.09 072 1.055 86.02 6.07 078 1.050 87.92 6.05 084 1.045 89.83 6.02 091 1.040 91.75 5.99 098 1.033 93.69 5.95 104 1.026 95.64 5.91 111 1.018 97.60 5.86 119 1.009 99.58 5.81 126 1.000 101.57 5.76 134 0.990 103.59 5.70 142 0.979 105.62 5.64 150 0.968 107.67 5.57 158 0.956 109.75 5.51 166 0.943 111.84 5.43 175 0.930 113.96 5.36 184 0.917 116.10 5.28 ae (in) 1.383 1.439 1.494 1.550 1.606 1.662 1.718 1.774 1.830 1.887 1.943 2.000 2.057 2.114 2.171 2.229 2.287 2.345 2.403 2.461 2.520 1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Fl' F3' K,total J,app (ksi-in1 12) (in-lb/in 2) 057 1.061 87.16 247.77 063 1.059 89.23 259.71 070 1.056 91.31 271.97 076 1.052 93.40 284.55 083 1.046 95.50 297.48 090 1.040 97.61 310.78 098 1.033 99.74 324.46 106 1.025 101.88 338.55 114 1.015 104.04 353.08 122 1.005 106.23 368.05 130 0.994 108.43 383.51 139 0.983 110.67 399.46 148 0.970 112.93 415.95 158 0.956 115.22 432.99 167 0.942 117.54 450.61 177 0.927 119.89 468.85 187 0.911 122.29 487.74 198 0.894 124.71 507.31 209 0.877 127.18 527.59 220 0.858 129.69 548.62 231 0.840 132.25 570.44 iON Fl' F3' K,total J,app (ksi-in 12)
(in-lb/in 2) 967 1.063 43.71 62.30 972 1.062 44.61 64.90 976 1.061 45.50 67.52 980 1.059 46.38 70.16 985 1.055 47.25 72.82 989 1.051 48.12 75.51 994 1.046 48.98 78.23 998 1.041 49.83 80.98 003 1.034 50.67 83.76 008 1.027 51.52 86.56 013 1.019 52.35 89.40 018 1.010 53.19 92.27 022 1.000 54.02 95.17 028 0.990 54.84 98.11 033 0.979 55.67 101.08 038 0.967 56.49 104.09 043 0.955 57.31 107.15 049 0.942 58.14 110.24 054 0.928 58.96 113.37 059 0.914 59.78 116.55 065 0.899 60.60 119.77 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.1.,
1.,
1.(
1.(
1.(
1.(
1.(
1.
1.(
1.
1.(
1.
CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW CALCULAT F2 F3 Kp Kt ae (ksi-in 1 2) (ksi-in1 12)
(in) 965 1.062 37.02 6.12 1.297 0.
969 1.062 37.90 6.12 1.348 0.
973 1.062 38.78 6.12 1.400 0.
977 1.060 39.65 6.11 1.451 0.
981 1.058 40.52 6.09 1.503 0.
986 1.055 41.39 6.07 1.554 0.
990 1.050 42.25 6.05 1.605 0.
995 1.045 43.11 6.02 1.657 0.
999 1.040 43.98 5.99 1.708 1.
004 1.033 44.84 5.95 1.760 1.
008 1.026 45.70 5.91 1.811 1.
013 1.018 46.55 5.86 1.862 1.
018 1.009 47.41 5.81 1.914 1.
023 1.000 48.27 5.76 1.965 1.
028 0.990 49.14 5.70 2.017 1.
032 0.979 50.00 5.64 2.069 1.
038 0.968 50.86 5.57 2.120 1.
043 0.956 51.73 5.51 2.172 1.
048 0.943 52.60 5.43 2.223 1.
053 0.930 53.47 5.36 2.275 1.
058 0.917 54.34 5.28 2.326 1.
15
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
Normal & Upset Condition Evaluation 1000 900 700 C4 sou 400
/
I
/
l
-II-Applied J (Stability), Nor' 0.u0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 Figure 7-2:
Flaw Stability Criterion Evaluation for Axial Flaw with MNGP Plate J-R Curve 16
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public) 8.0 EVALUATION OF LEVEL C & D CONDITIONS The postulated flaw depth for the evaluation of Level C and D loadings is one-tenth the base metal wall thickness, plus the clad thickness, but with total depth not to exceed 1.0 inch. The plate thickness in the beltline region is 5.06 inches.
The nominal thickness of the clad is R
)) inch. Therefore, the postulated crack depth is (5.06
- 0.1 + ((
))) or
((
)) inch.
8.1 Level C Service Loading The MNGP RPV thermal cycle drawing [16] amended by [17] specifies Level C events. The topical report [3] used an RPV thermal cycle drawing to select a limiting Level C transient (or event).
It was determined that for the BWR/3-6 product lines, the "Improper Start of a Cold Recirculation Loop" transient is the most limiting Level C transient. Figure 8-1 shows this transient, which is identified without nomenclature in the MNGP vessel thermal cycle diagram
[16] (Transient 24 in [3]), amended by [17].
(Note that the pressure shown in Figure 8-1 specifies 1050 psig. The MNGP EPU pressure is ((
)) psig; as the difference is small and the evaluation used is bounding, it therefore remains applicable to the MNGP evaluation.) Since the geometry differences between the MNGP RPV and the RPV geometry analyzed in the topical report show the topical report to be bounding (as previously discussed), the K, values calculated in the topical report were also used in this evaluation.
This meant using the same Kt fit coefficients as shown in Table 6-lb of the topical report. The MNGP plant-specific thermal cycle diagram was reviewed; it was determined that the Level C event defined in [16] is bounded by the evaluation presented in the topical report.
Section 6.1.3 of [3] discusses the calculation method for the K1 values due to cladding. The same technical approach and clad stress were used in this report.
17
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
Emergency Condition Ca.
w I.
-S I-0.
I-600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 528 K
1- 050 1000 Figure 8-1:
Pressure & Temperature Conditions During Improper Start of Cold Recirculation Loop Transient for Limiting Level C Event 8.2 Level C Service Evaluation Table 8-1 shows the calculated values of the Level C condition applied J-Integral for axial and circumferential flaws. Since the internal pressure did not change during the thermal transient (see Figure 8-1), only one set of applied J-Integral calculations (shown in Table 8-1) was performed to evaluate the J01 and the flaw stability criteria. As expected, the axial flaw case is governing. The material J-R curve for the Level C condition is the same as that for the Level A and B conditions. The J0.1 criterion and the flaw stability evaluations are graphically shown in Figures 8-2 and 8-3, respectively. It is seen that both the criteria are satisfied.
18
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
Table 8-1: Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for Level C Transient Emeraencv Condition: Transient Event 24 Pressure (psi)=
Vessel Ri (in.)=
Vessel Th (in.)=
Clad thickness (in.)=
aO (in.)=
E (ksi)=
YS (ksi)=
1050 103.188 5.06 0.1875 0.6935 Kt Coefficients a=
8.831288 b=
74.92595 C=
-107.681 Clad Stress S (ksi)=
6 27900 d=
63.6289 55.4 e=
-14.3416 AXIAL FLAW CALCULATION a
Aa F1 Kt Kp Kclad (in)
(in)
(ksi-in 1 2',(ksi-in112) (ksi-in 112) 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.84 0.89 0.94 0.99 1.04 1.09 1.14 1.19 1.24 1.29 1.34 1.39 1.44 1.49 1.54 1.59 1.64 1.69 0.00 1.001 26.91 0.05 1.004 26.78 0.10 1.007 26.59 0.15 1.010 26.34 0.20 1.013 26.06 0.25 1.017 25.74 0.30 1.021 25.41 0.35 1.025 25.06 0.40 1.029 24.70 0.45 1.033 24.32 0.50 1.038 23.94 0.55 1.043 23.55 0.60 1.048 23.14 0.65 1.053 22.71 0.70 1.058 22.24 0.75 1.064 21.73 0.80 1.070 21.16 0.85 1.076 20.52 0.90 1.082 19.79 0.95 1.088 18.95 1.00 1.095 17.97 33.19 34.46 35.70 36.93 38.14 39.33 40.51 41.68 42.84 44.00 45.15 46.30 47.44 48.59 49.74 50.89 52.04 53.20 54.37 55.54 56.72 2.13 2.05 1.97 1.91 1.85 1.79 1.74 1.69 1.65 1.61 1.57 1.54 1.51 1.48 1.45 1.42 1.39 1.37 1.35 1.33 1.30 ae (in) 0.760 0.813 0.865 0.917 0.969 1.021 1.073 1.124 1.176 1.228 1.280 1.332 1.383 1.435 1.487 1.538 1.590 1.641 1.692 1.743 1.793 F1' K't K'p K'clad Ktotal Japp (ksi-in112)(ksi-in 12) (ksi-in112) (ksi-in112) (in4b/in 2) 1.005 26.72 34.88 1.008 26.50 36.18 1.011 26.23 37.45 1.015 25.91 38.70 1.019 25.58 39.93 1.023 25.22 41.15 1.027 24.85 42.36 1.032 24.47 43.56 1.036 24.08 44.75 1.041 23.67 45.94 1.046 23.26 47.13 1.052 22.81 48.32 1.057 22.34 49.50 1.063 21.82 50.69 1.069 21.24 51.89 1.075 20.59 53.08 1.081 19.85 54.28 1.088 18.99 55.48 1.094 18.00 56.68 1.101 16.86 57.89 1.108 15.53 59.09 2.02 1.95 1.88 1.82 1.76 1.71 1.67 1.63 1.59 1.55 1.52 1.48 1.45 1.42 1.40 1.37 1.35 1.33 1.31 1.29 1.27 63.63 64.62 65.55 66.43 67.27 68.08 68.87 69.65 70.41 71.16 71.90 72.61 73.30 73.94 74.53 75.04 75.47 75.80 75.99 76.03 75.89 132.05 136.22 140.16 143.94 147.59 151.18 154.71 158.22 161.71 165.18 168.61 171.97 175.22 178.31 181.16 183.69 185.80 187.39 188.34 188.54 187.86 CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW CALCULATION a
Aa F2 Kt Kp Kclad ae (in)
(in)
(ksi-in1 /2 (ksi-in11 2) (ksi-in 1 2)
(in) 0.69 0.00 0.923 26.91 16.02 2.13 0.729 0.74 0.05 0.927 26.78 16.65 2.05 0.779 0.79 0.10 0.930 26.59 17.26 1.97 0.830 0.84 0.15 0.933 26.34 17.86 1.91 0.880 0.89 0.20 0.937 26.06 18.45 1.85 0.931 0.94 0.25 0.940 25.74 19.03 1.79 0.981 0.99 0.30 0.944 25.41 19.61 1.74 1.031 1.04 0.35 0.948 25.06 20.17 1.69 1.082 1.09 0.40 0.951 24.70 20.73 1.65 1.132 1.14 0.45 0.955 24.32 21.29 1.61 1.182 1.19 0.50 0.959 23.94 21.83 1.57 1.232 1.24 0.55 0.963 23.55 22.38 1.54 1.282 1.29 0.60 0.967 23.14 22.92 1.51 1.333 1.34 0.65 0.971 22.71 23.46 1.48 1.383 1.39 0.70 0.975 22.24 23.99 1.45 1.433 1.44 0.75 0.980 21.73 24.52 1.42 1.483 1.49 0.80 0.984 21.16 25.05 1.39 1.533 1.54 0.85 0.988 20.52 25.58 1.37 1.582 1.59 0.90 0.993 19.79 26.11 1.35 1.632 1.64 0.95 0.997 18.95 26.64 1.33 1.682 1.69 1.00 1.002 17.97 27.16 1.30 1.731 F2' K't K'p K'clad Ktotal (ksi-in112)(ksi-in 112) (ksi-in1/2) (ksi-in 112) (in-lb/in2)
Japp 0.926 26.83 16.46 0.929 26.65 17.09 0.932 26.42 17.70 0.936 26.14 18.30 0.940 25.83 18.89 0.943 25.49 19.46 0.947 25.14 20.04 0.951 24.78 20.60 0.954 24.41 21.16 0.958 24.03 21.71 0.962 23.64 22.26 0.966 23.23 22.80 0.970 22.80 23.34 0.974 22.34 23.88 0.979 21.84 24.41 0.983 21.29 24.94 0.987 20.66 25.47 0.992 19.96 25.99 0.996 19.15 26.52 1.001 18.22 27.03 1.005 17.14 27.55 2.07 1.99 1.92 1.86 1.80 1.75 1.70 1.66 1.62 1.58 1.55 1.51 1.48 1.45 1.43 1.40 1.38 1.35 1.33 1.31 1.29 45.36 45.73 46.04 46.30 46.52 46.71 46.88 47.04 47.19 47.32 47.44 47.55 47.63 47.67 47.68 47.63 47.51 47.30 46.99 46.56 45.99 67.12 68.22 69.13 69.91 70.58 71.17 71.70 72.18 72.63 73.04 73.42 73.74 73.98 74.13 74.14 73.99 73.62 72.98 72.03 70.71 68.98 19
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
Emergency Condition J0.1 Evaluation
(
.0
-I.
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0-0.00 J0.1 Evaluation for Level C Condition Figure 8-2:
20
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
Emergency Condition Stability Evaluation 1000 900 800 700 r
-T n
600 500 400 300 200 100 04-0.00 Crack Growth Stability Criterion Evaluation for Level C Condition Figure 8-3:
8.3 Level D Service Loading The limiting Level D transient is the "Pipe Rupture and Blowdown" event, identified as Transient 27 in [3].
The pressure temperature profile is shown in Figure 8-4.
Since the geometry differences between the MNGP RPV and the RPV geometry analyzed in the topical report [3] show the topical report to be bounding (as previously discussed), the K1 values for Transient 27 calculated in the topical report were also used in this evaluation. Section 6.2.2 of [3]
describes the fracture mechanics methodology used in the derivation of the K, values. The Kt fit coefficients shown in Table 6-2 of the topical report were therefore also used in this evaluation.
The MNGP plant-specific thermal cycle diagram was reviewed; it was determined that the Level D event defined in [16] is bounded by the evaluation presented in the topical report.
21
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
Faulted Condition
~I.
0 I..
6)0.
0I-600 600 450 400 350 300 260 L.
tV 1200 1000 8oo 600 200 02 Figure 8-4:
Limiting Level D Transient 8.4 Level D Service Evaluation Table 8-2 shows the calculated values of the Level D condition applied J-Integral for axial and circumferential flaws. The internal pressure at the end of the transient was used in the applied J-Integral calculations. The axial flaw case is governing. The material J-R curve for Level D conditions is based on the MF of 1.0 as specified in [10]. Figure 8-5 graphically shows the flaw stability evaluation. It is seen that the ductile flaw crack growth stability criterion is satisfied.
22
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
Table 8-2: Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for Level D Transient Faulted Condition: Transient Event 27 Pressure (psi)=
Vessel Ri (in.)=
Vessel Th (in.)=
Clad thickness (in.)=
a0 (in.)=
E (ksi)=
YS (ksi)=
20 103.19 Kt Coefficients 5.06 a=
14.01 0.188 b=
130.91 0.694 c=
-155.73 27900 d=
89.845 55.4 e=
-20.64 AXAL FLAW CALCULATION Clad Stress S (ksi)=
16.5 a
Aa F1 Kt Kp Kclad ae (in)
(in)
(ksi-inl12)ksi-in11 2(ksi-in11 2) (in)
Fl' Kt K'p K'clad Ktotal Japp (ksi-inl/2Yksi-inII2*,(ksi-in'12) (ksi-inll2) (in-lb/in2) 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.84 0.89 0.94 0.99 1.04 1.09 1.14 1.19 1.24 1.29 1.34 1.39 1.44 1.49 1.54 1.59 1.64 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.001 1.004 1.007 1.010 1.013 1.017 1.021 1.025 1.029 1.033 1.038 1.043 1.048 1.053 1.058 1.064 1.070 1.076 1.082 1.088 55.09 0.63 55.88 0.66 56.54 0.68 57.10 0.70 57.59 0.73 58.00 0.75 58.36 0.77 58.66 0.79 58.92 0.82 59.13 0.84 59.29 0.86 59.40 0.88 59.45 0.90 59.43 0.93 59.32 0.95 59.11 0.97 58.78 0.99 58.30 1.01 57.64 1.04 56.79 1.06 5.86 0.759 5.63 0.810 5.43 0.861 5.24 0.912 5.07 0.963 4.92 1.014 4.78 1.064 4.66 1.115 4.54 1.165 4.43 1.215 4.33 1.265 4.23 1.315 4.14 1.365 4.06 1.415 3.98 1.465 3.91 1.514 3.84 1.563 3.77 1.612 3.71 1.661 3.65 1.709 1.005 56.09 1.008 56.74 1.011 57.29 1.015 57.75 1.018 58.14 1.022 58.48 1.026 58.77 1.031 59.01 1.035 59.20 1.040 59.35 1.045 59.43 1.050 59.45 1.055 59.40 1.061 59.25 1.066 58.99 1.072 58.60 1.078 58.06 1.084 57.35 1.090 56.44 1.097 55.30 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.07 1.09 5.56 5.36 5.18 5.02 4.87 4.73 4.61 4.49 4.38 4.29 4.19 4.11 4.02 3.95 3.88 3.81 3.74 3.68 3.63 3.57 62.32 62.79 63.18 63.50 63.77 64.00 64.18 64.33 64.43 64.50 64.52 64.47 64.36 64.15 63.84 63.41 62.83 62.07 61.13 59.96 126.68 128.59 130.18 131.52 132.64 133.58 134.35 134.97 135.42 135.69 135.76 135.57 135.08 134.23 132.94 131.14 128.74 125.68 121.87 117.26 CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW CALCULATION a
Aa F2 Kt Kp Kclad ae (in)
(in)
(ksi-in 112)ksi-in 12(ksi-in 112 (in)
F2' Kt K'p K'clad Ktotal Japp (ksi-in/11 2Yksi-in11 2, (ksi-in 11 2) (ksi-in1" 2) (in-lb/in2) j 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.84 0.89 0.94 0.99 1.04 1.09 1.14 1.19 1.24 1.29 1.34 1.39 1.44 1.49 1.54 1.59 1.64 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.923 0.927 0.930 0.933 0.937 0.940 0.944 0.948 0.951 0.955 0.959 0.963 0.967 0.971 0.975 0.980 0.984 0.988 0.993 0.997 55.09 0.31 55.88 0.32 56.54 0.33 57.10 0.34 57.59 0.35 58.00 0.36 58.36 0.37 58.66 0.38 58.92 0.39 59.13 0.41 59.29 0.42 59.40 0.43 59.45 0.44 59.43 0.45 59.32 0.46 59.11 0.47 58.78 0.48 58.30 0.49 57.64 0.50 56.79 0.51 5.86 0.758 5.63 0.810 5.43 0.861 5.24 0.911 5.07 0.962 4.92 1.013 4.78 1.063 4.66 1.114 4.54 1.164 4.43 1.214 4.33 1.264 4.23 1.314 4.14 1.364 4.06 1.414 3.98 1.464 3.91 1.513 3.84 1.562 3.77 1.611 3.71 1.660 3.65 1.708 0.928 0.931 0.935 0.938 0.942 0.945 0.949 0.953 0.957 0.961 0.965 0.969 0.973 0.977 0.981 0.986 0.990 0.994 0.999 1.003 56.08 56.73 57.28 57.74 58.14 58.48 58.77 59.01 59.20 59.34 59.43 59.45 59.40 59.25 58.99 58.61 58.07 57.37 56.46 55.33 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52 5.57 5.36 5.18 5.02 4.87 4.73 4.61 4.49 4.39 4.29 4.19 4.11 4.03 3.95 3.88 3.81 3.74 3.68 3.63 3.57 61.97 62.43 62.80 63.12 63.38 63.59 63.76 63.90 64.00 64.05 64.06 64.00 63.88 63.66 63.34 62.90 62.31 61.55 60.60 59.42 125.26 127.11 128.65 129.94 131.00 131.89 132.61 133.18 133.58 133.81 133.83 133.60 133.08 132.19 130.87 129.05 126.64 123.57 119.77 115.17 23
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
Faulted Condition Stability Evaluation 1400 -______
1200 1000 S 800 --
-s-
~
J-R Curve, USE=48 fl-lb Applied J (Stability), Level D Condition 600 40 00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 Figure 8-5:
Crack Growth Stability Criterion Evaluation for Level D Condition 24
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public) 9.0
SUMMARY
& CONCLUSIONS 10CFR50 Appendix G states that the RPV must maintain USE of no less than 50 ft-lbs throughout its life, unless it is demonstrated in a manner approved by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, that lower values of USE will provide margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI the ASME Code.
For the MNGP EPU evaluation for 60 years (54 EFPY), the beltline plate material was evaluated using RG 1.99, Revision 2 [6]; the minimum predicted EOL USE value (48 ft-lbs) did not meet the required value of 50 ft-lbs defined in [1] or the acceptance criterion provided in BWRVIP-74-A [4]. Therefore, the calculation in this report documents a plant-specific evaluation that was conducted to show compliance with the USE requirements using RG 1.161 [10] and ASMIE Appendix K [9].
This MNGP plate USE evaluation followed the methodology outlined in ASME Code Case N-512-1 [8], Appendix K of ASME Section XI [9], and RG 1.161 [10]. The evaluation shows that the Level A and B Condition is governing.
Based on the results of this plant-specific evaluation, it is concluded that the plate materials in the MNGP RPV meet the margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI the ASME Code.
25
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public) 10.OREFERENCES
- 1. "Fracture Toughness Requirements," Appendix G to Part 50 of Title 10, the Code of Federal Regulations, July 1983.
- 2. ASME, "Fracture Toughness Criteria for Protection Against Failure," Appendix G to Section XI of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, 2004 Edition.
- 3. GE Nuclear Energy, "10CFR50 Appendix G Equivalent Margin Analysis for Low Upper Shelf Energy in BWR/2 through BWR/6 Vessels," NEDO-32205-A, Revision 1, February 1994.
- 4. EPRI, "BWRVIP-74-A:
BWR Vessel and Internals Project BWR Reactor Pressure Vessel Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines for License Renewal," 1008872, June 2003.
- 5. EPRI, "BWRVIP-135, Revision 2 BWR Vessel and Internals Project Integrated Surveillance Program (ISP) Data Source Book and Plant Evaluations,"
- 1020231, October 2009.
- 6. USNRC, "Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials," Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, May 1988.
- 7. USNRC, Branch Technical Position - MTEB 5-2, "Fracture Toughness Requirements",
Revision 1, July 1981.
- 8. Code Case N-512-1, "Assessment of Reactor Vessels with Low Upper Shelf Charpy Impact Energy Levels,"Section XI, Division 1 Code, August 24, 1995.
- 9. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "Assessment of Reactor Vessels with Low Upper Shelf Charpy Impact Energy Levels," Appendix K, A93, pp. 482.1-482.15,Section XI, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components", 1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda, New York, December 1993.
- 10. USNRC, "Evaluation of Reactor Pressure Vessels with Charpy Upper-Shelf Energy Less Than 50 ft-lb," Regulatory Guide 1.161, June 1995.
- 11. Code Case N-512, "Assessment of Reactor Vessels with Low Upper Shelf Charpy Impact Energy Levels,"Section XI, Division 1 Code, February 12, 1993.
- 12. James T. Wiggins (US NRC) to Lesley A. England (Gulf States), "Acceptance for Referencing of Topical Report NEDO-32205, Revision 1, 'IOCFR50 Appendix G Equivalent Margin Analysis for Low Upper Shelf Energy in BWR/2 through BWR/6 Vessels'," December 08, 1993.
- 13. GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, "Monticello Neutron Flux and Fluence Evaluation for Extended Power Uprate," 0000-0076-7052-RO, Revision 0, December 2007.
26
NEDO-33820 Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information - CLASS I (Public)
- 14. GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, "Pressure-Temperature Curves for Nuclear Management Company LLC Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant," NEDC-33307P, Revision 0, February 2008.
- 15. GE Nuclear Energy, "Information on Reactor Vessel Material D Surveillance Program prepared for Northern States Power Company," NEDO-24197, Revision 1, October 1979.
- 16. GE Nuclear Energy, "Monticello Reactor Pressure Vessel Purchase Specification,"
21A1 112, Revision 6, March 1969
- 17. GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, "Certified Design Specification for Monticello, "Reactor Vessel - Extended Power Uprate," 26A7209, Revision 0, March 2008.
27
L-MT-13-059 ENCLOSURE 6 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION This Enclosure provides Supplemental information related to statements made in the Power Uprate Safety Analysis Report (PUSAR) to document replacement of equipment.
Discussion The PUSAR (Reference 6-1, Enclosure 5) indicated that pressure transmitters would be replaced due to EPU conditions. The purpose of this supplement is to clarify that the transmitters to be replaced are actually level transmitters instead of pressure transmitters, and to report that this replacement has been completed.
In Reference 6-1, Enclosure 5, NSPM indicated that two pressure transmitters will be replaced due to EPU conditions outside of containment affecting the qualification of the pressure transmitters. In Reference 6-2, Enclosure 1, Item 27, NSPM indicated that level transmitters LT-7338A/B were replaced for compliance with the Equipment Qualification (EQ) program under EPU conditions.
In a recent discussion, the NRC staff requested NSPM clarify that the proposed modification was completed.
Description of change NSPM has completed the replacement of LT-7338A/B. The level transmitters use a differential pressure signal to determine level in the Torus. Therefore, the level transmitters stated as being replaced in Reference 6-2, Enclosure 1, Item 27 are the pressure transmitters originally described as requiring replacement in Reference 6-1,. Attached is a marked-up page from Reference 6-1, Enclosure 5 indicating completion of the replacement.
References 6-1 Letter from T J O'Connor (NSPM) to Document Control Desk (NRC), "License Amendment Request: Extended Power Uprate (TAC MD9990)," L-MT-08-052, dated November 5, 2008. (ADAMS Accession No. ML083230111) 6-2 Letter from M A Schimmel (NSPM) to Document Control Desk (NRC), "Monticello Extended Power Uprate: Supplement for Gap Analysis Updates (TAC MD9990)," L-MT-12-114, dated January 21, 2013. (ADAMS Accession No. ML130390220)
Page 1 of 2
NEDC-33322P, Revision 3 Inside Containment EQ for safety-related electrical equipment located inside the containment is based on MSLB and/or DBA/LOCA conditions and their resultant temperature, pressure, humidity, and radiation consequences, and includes the environments expected to exist during normal plant operation.
Normal temperatures are expected to increase slightly, but remain bounded by the normal temperatures used in the EQ analyses. The post-accident peak and long-term temperature and pressure for CLTP conditions increase slightly for EPU. However, the increase was determined not to adversely affect the qualification of safety-related electrical equipment.
The current radiation levels under normal plant conditions were evaluated to increase in proportion to the increase in RTP. The accident radiation levels increase above the levels used in the current EQ Program. The total integrated doses (normal plus accident) for EPU conditions were determined not to adversely affect qualification of the equipment located inside containment.
Outside Containment Accident temperature, pressure, and humidity environments used for qualification of equipment outside containment result from an MSLB, or other HELBs, whichever is limiting for each plant area. The temperature, pressure and humidity profiles that are not bounded by the CLTP conditions were evaluated and do not adversely affect the qualification of safety related electrical equipment.
level w e The accident temperature resulting a LOCA/MSLB inside cont ment increased for some Reactor Building areas due to the a di 'onal heat load resulting fro e increase in drywell and wetwell temperatures.
However the increase in long-term p t-ccident temperatures was evaluated and determined not t adv ly affect the qualific o
f safety-related electrical equipment with the exception two pr*,,stre transmitters th witllbe replaced. The normal temperature, pressure, and hu dity conditions do not chan significantly as a result of EPU.
The current normal and post ccident radiation levels we evaluated to increase. The total integrated doses (normal plu accident) for EPU conditio were evaluated and determined not to adversely affect qualifi ion of the EQ equipment cated outside of containment with the exception of the two transmitters that replaced.
The evaluation of the environmental parameter changes for EPU is provided separately.
Conclusion NSPM has evaluated the effects of the proposed EPU on the environmental conditions for the qualification of electrical equipment. The evaluation indicates that the electrical equipment will continue to meet the relevant requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 following implementation of the proposed EPU. Therefore, the proposed EPU is acceptable with respect to the EQ of electrical equipment.
2-76 jPage 2 of 2