ML18040A140
| ML18040A140 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1994 |
| From: | Sylvia B NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17059A579 | List: |
| References | |
| NMP1L-0888, NMP1L-888, NUDOCS 9412290176 | |
| Download: ML18040A140 (51) | |
Text
n PRIGRITY 1
ACCELERATED RIDS PROCI SSliG REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR: 9412290176 DOC. DATE: 94/12/20 NOTARIZED:
NO FACIL:50-220 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Ni'agara Powe AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION SYLVIA,B.R.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
DOCKET N
05000220
SUBJECT:
Forwards response to request for addi info related to proposed changes to Nine Mile Point Unit 1 re pressure-temp limits.Nonproprietary version of Final Rept MPM-59401-NP encl also.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
AOOID COPIES RECEIVED:LTR J ENCL Q SIZE: cP 5++3 TITLE: OR Submittal:
General Distribution NOTES'ECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD1-1 LA BRINKMAN,D.
INTERNAL: ACRS NRR/DRCH/HICB NRR/DSSA/SPLB NUDOCS-ABSTRACT EXTERNAL: NOAC COPIES RECIPIENT LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME 1
1 PD1-1 PD 1
1 6
6 ~
CENTER~@ 1 1
1 RR/DSSA/SCSB 1
1 NRR/DSSA/SRXB 1
1 OGC/HDS3 1
1 NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 NOTE TO ALL>>'RlDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE iVKSTE!CONTACT'I'HE DOCL'iIE4 I CONTROL DESK. ROO!1! Pl-37 (EXT. 504. 083 ) I 0 ELIS!INKTE YOI.'R iAi!L'ROX!
DIS'I'RIDUTIONLIS'I'S I'OR DOCI.'z IEN'I'S YOI'ON"I'L'I'.D!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 18 ENCL 17
C 1
0 0
I
NIAGARAMOHAWKPOWER CORPORATION/NINE MILEPOINT, PO. BOX63, LYCOMING,NY 13093/TELEPHONE (315) 349-2882 "B. Raiph Sylvia Executive Vice President Nuclear December 20, 1994 NMP1L 0888 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 RE:
Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Docket No. 50-220 DPR-
Subject:
Proposed License Amendment - Neiv Pressure-Temperature Limit Curves,
Response
to Request for AddMonal information Gentlemen:
In a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated September 1, 1994 (NMP1L 0858), Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) proposed a Technical Specification amendment to Section 3.2.2 changing the pressure-temperature limitcurves in Figures 3.2.2.a, b, c, d, and e.
During the Staff's review of the proposed amendment, they determined that additional information is required to complete their review.
The additional information was specified in a November 21, 1994 letter to NMPC and clarified in a telephone conference on December 1, 1994.
Qn December 5, 1994, NMPC submitted to the NRC a proprietary copy of the "Plant Specific Charpy Shift Model for Nine Mile Point Unit 1."
This letter contains additional information requested in NRC's November 21, 1994 letter.
Attached to this letter are:
- 1) Response to NRC Additional Information Request Related to Proposed Changes to Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP-1) Pressure-Temperature Limits; 2) a non-proprietary version of the "Plant Specific Charpy Shift Model for Nine MilePoint Unit 1"; and 3) a waiver of Copyright Restrictions for the non-proprietary report.
NMPC has provided a copy this response to the appropriate state representative.
Very truly yours, B. Ralph Sylvia Executive Vice President - Nuclear BRS/RLM/lmc Attachments 9412290176 941220 PDR ADGCK 05000220 P
J
Page 2 xc:
Regional Administrator, Region I Mr. L. B. Marsh, Director, Project Directorate I-l, NRR Mr. D. S. Brinkman, Senior Project Manager, NRR Mr. B. S. Norris, Senior Resident Inspector Ms. Donna Ross Division of Policy Analysis and Planning New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223 Records Management
' Response to NRC Additional Information Request Related to Proposed Changes to Nine Mile Point Vnit 1 (MUG-1) Pressure-Temperature Limits Information Request A - "For the surveillance plate material, Criteria 1 of RG 1.99, Rev. 2 was not met because the limiting material (upper plate G-307-4) is not the surveillance material.
Criteria 3 was not met because the method described in Regulatory Position 2.1 was not used to obtain the best-fit line of the plant-specific data.
Verify and provide the basis for determining that the surveillance data are credible."
NMPC Response
- Prior to the development of the plant-specific Charpy shift model, NMPC took steps to bring the NMP-1 surveillance program into conformance with the current version of ASTM E185 and with Section IIIof the ASME code.
The program modifications were fullydescribed in Reference [Ma92] along with a discussion of how the upgraded surveillance program data satisfies the five criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.99 (Rev. 2) (RG 1.99(2)).
With regard to Criterion 1, it was pointed out in [Ma92] that the Cu and Ni content of the surveillance plate materials closely matches the plate G-307-4 chemistry and a small chemistry adjustment factor, based on the RG1.99(2) model, was used in the past to represent the G-307-4 behavior.
However, as a result of the development of the plant-specific model, it was observed that Cu does not play a significant role at fast fluences below
-2xl0" n/cm. Therefore, there is no need for a chemistry adjustment and the NMP-1 surveillance data are credible in terms of their representation of the G-307-4 behavior under irradiation.
With regard to Criterion 3, the RG1.99(2) model was used in the past to demonstrate the credibility of the NMP-1 surveillance data in terms of its scatter about the mean.
A discussion of this analysis using the RG1.99(2) model was provided in Reference [Ma92].
As shown in Figure 4-14 of Reference [Ma94], the NMP-1 data fall within the scatter of the plant-specific data.
Therefore, the NMP-1 surveillance data are credible with regard to RG1.99(2) Criterion 3 under the plant-specific analysis as well.
Information Request B - "For equation (2-2) on Page 5 of the submittal (calculation of d,RT~T for the beltline plate material);
(1) Identify all raw data used to arrive at this equation."
Page 1
'4122901-76:
NMPC Response - The NRC's Power Reactor Embrittlement Database (PR-EDB) was the source of all data used to obtain equation (2-2) on Page 5 of the submittal.
The data used in the regression analysis are listed in Table 4-1 of Reference [Ma94].
Information Request C - "Figure 2-1 on Page 11 of the submittal compares the RG 1.99, Rev. 2 model with the plant specific AT~ model.
For each data point:
(1) Provide the copper and nickel content, (2) Identify the plant from which each data point was obtained, and (3) Identify which data were not used in development of the curve."
NMPC Response
- The Cu and Ni content of the data plotted in Figure 2-1 on Page ll of the submittal is given in Table 1.
The Cu content of the data in Table 1 was plotted versus the square root of fluence in Figures 4-10 through 4-12 of Reference [Ma94]. These plots demonstrate the lack of Cu dependence at fluences below -2x10" n/cm'.
The data used in the regression model included fluences up to 4xl0" n/cm. These data are indicated in Table 1.
Information Request D - "Provide the basis and data used to conclude that "... most BWRs operate at fluences below the fluence threshold for significant Cu precipitation." (Page 3 of submittal)"
NMPC Response
- Since radiation damage in RPV steels causes an increase in yield and ultimate tensile stress, tensile data analysis is an effective means for studying the microstructural evolution under irradiation.
Irradiation produces both shearable (Mn/Cu/Ni and possibly Si rich clusters, depleted zones, and vacancy loops) and non-shearable (MAC) hardening defects, and it is important to resolve whether the shearable or non-shearable contribution is greater in order to be able to adequately model the effect on fracture behavior.
For this purpose, a study of tensile data trends, originally reported in Reference
[Ma92b] and later expanded in [Ma94b] and [Ma94c], is particularly relevant.
Figure 1 shows that elevation of the yield strength occurs for Cu levels above -0.1 weight percent.
This is consistent with the Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), Atom Probe-Field Ion Microscopy (APFIM), and Small Angle Neutron Scattering (SANS) data reported in Reference [Au94]. The change in yield strength as a function of fluence and Cu content is shown in Figures 2 through 5.
As shown in Figure 3, for fluences ( 1x10" n/cm~, there is no significant dependence of Cu level on the yield strength elevation.
Figure 6 shows the ET,Q and AUSE correlation with elevation of yield strength (hn). The correlation of howith bT,Q is a reflection of the neutron induced formation of fine scale dislocation obstacles which increase the flow stress and produce more intense localized plastic zones at elevated temperature.
This correlation is physically meaningful.
- However, the correlation of USE with b,o is an indirect correlation.
The drop in USE is not directly related with hardening.
Rather, flow localization due to the introduction of shearable defects is the most plausible explanation for the shelf drop [Ma94b]. The fact that the dUSE correlates with ho is merely a reflection that d,o is proportional to the number density of shearable defects.
Figures 7 through 9 are the trends for strain hardening.
Figure 7 shows that the yield stress and the ultimate stress are elevated by approximately the same amount.
There is a small trend for the irradiated yield stress to increase more than the irradiated ultimate stress.
Page 2
The uniform strain trend is shown in Figure 8.
Overall, the change in uniform strain after irradiation is small and there is a trend toward decrease in ductility after irradiation.
As shown in Figure 9, there does not appear to be a significant change in the strain hardening.
The data in Figure 9 were obtained by idealizing the flow curve as a bilinear approximation.
The negligible change in strain hardening suggests that the primary hardening defects are shearable (e,g., vacancy loops, solute clusters).
Non-shearable particle (e.g., Mo,C) distributions are apparently not significantly changed or the particles formed during irradiation are not sufficiently large to cause dislocation looping.
In addition to the tensile data trends, further evidence of a lack of Cu dependence at fluences below -2x10" n/cm is shown in Figures 10-12.
There is no apparent trend in Charpy shift with fast fluence in these figures.
Finally, APFIM studies [Au94, Mi88, Mi88b] have shown definitively that the concept of a pure copper precipitates in RPV steels is incorrect.
These studies have shown that clusters, or "clouds", of elements like Ni, Mn, Si, and Cu actually form. It has been shown that Cu only plays a minor role. In Reference [Au94], it was concluded that clustering occurred in the first stage of formation at a fluence of 4.6x10" n/cm. Therefore, based on APFIM results, future generic trend curves should consider the effect of other elements such as Si, Mn, and P, and should account for an incubation dose for significant clustering effects on mechanical behavior.
In the absence of physically correct generic trend curves, an accurate approach is to develop a plant-specific trend curve as described in
[Ma94].
Information Request E - "Provide the basis for using a margin of 17'F as opposed to 34'F as specified in RG 1.99 in the calculation of the adjusted reference temperature for the beltline plates."
NMPC Response
- The RG1.99(2) 0; term for plates was taken to be 0 because the initial RT>>~ was determined based on measured data as described in Reference [Ma92].
The 0~ term prescribed in RG1.99(2) adds conservatism to the ART>>T to account for uncertainty in the Charpy shift regression model.
This uncertainty comes from test method variation and from variation in the fracture behavior of the material.
Therefore, since the 0~
term of 17'F for the base metal was determined using a large data population, this value was used in the calculation of the RG1.99(2) margin term since it is expected to represent Charpy data scatter better than that obtained from a small data population.
Under Section 2.1 of RG1.99(2), the 0~ term may be cut in half for plants which have 2 or more credible data
- sets, Since the plant-specific model developed is consistent with the intent of Section 2.1 of RG1.99(2), the RG1.99(2) 0~ term was halved.
Information Request F - "Provide applicable information, with respect to questions 1-6 above, regarding the beltline welds."
NMPC Response - This request was deleted during a telephone conference with the NRC on December 1, 1994.
Page 3
Information Requested During Telephone Conference on December 1, 1994 The NRC requested the following information:
~
0, and 0~ used for the weld margin term calculation.
~
Standard deviation for the plant-specific plate model.
NMPC Response
- As discussed in Reference [Ma92], o, for welds was taken to be 17'F and 0~ was one-half of the hRTN ~.
In response to the NRC request, the standard deviation (0) for the plant-specific plate model was calculated and found to be 32'F.
The mean regression line and 20 confidence limits are shown in Figure 13. It is NMPC's position that the most appropriate 0~ is that'f RG1.99(2) (17'F) because it was calculated based on a large data population and more accurately reflects the uncertainty in Charpy shift (ET30) measurement and material variation.
Further justification for use of the RG1.99(2) 0~ term is provided by considering the variation in the NMP-1 surveillance data.
The average for the three NMP-1 ET,os is 48.5'F.
The difference between this average and the peak ET,O is 30.8'F.
The difference between the average and the lowest ET,O is 37.3'F.
These data, along with the data presented in Table 1, demonstrate the lack of dependence on Cu in the low fluence range and also suggest that the RG1.99(2) 20 limit(34'F) reasonably represents the uncertainty for the NMP-1 beltline plates.
Page 4
Table 1 Cu and Ni Content of Data Plotted in Figure 2-1 of the Submittal Plant ID Big Rock Point Big Rock Point Big Rock Point Haddam Neck Haddam Neck Haddam Neck Garigliano Garigliano Garigliano Garigliano Oyster Creek Point Beach 1
Point Beach 1
Point Beach 1
Point Beach 1
San Onofie 1
San Onofie 1
Material A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B A302B CQ (vvt.%)
0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.18 Ni (ivt.%)
0.18 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Charpy Shift hT~
(ft.-lbs.)
15 15 35 85
.80 106 167 115 126 151 72 90 100 90 105 130 100 Square Root of Best Estimate Fluence x 10'nlcm')
12.00 12.00 12.00 14.39 14.39 20.10 27.15 68.19 47.01 33.17 73.96 22.89 48.68 48.58 58.99 41.83 Used in Regression Model yes no no no no no no no no no no
Table 1 Cu and Ni Content of Data Plotte m Figure 2-1 of the Submittal (Cont'd)
Plant ID San Onofre 1 San Onofre 1 San Onofre 1 Material A302B A302B Cu (wt.%)
0.18 0.18 0.18 Ni (wt.%)
Charpy Shift hT~
(ft.-lbs.)
110 120 Square Root of Best Estimate Huence x 10'n/em
)
41.83 58.99 62.05 Used in Regression Model no no no Indian Point 3 Indian Point 3 Indian Point 3 Indian Point 3 Indian Point 3 Indian Point 3 Indian Point 3 Millstone 1 Nine MilePoint 1 Nine Mile Point 1 Nine Mile Point 1 Palisades Palisades A302M A302M A302M A302M A302M A302M A302M A302M A302M A302M A302M 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.&
0.21 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.49 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.59 0.56 0.51 0.51 0.53 0.53 150 137 150 89 118 155 170 58 79 55 205 175 32.25 17.66 26.91 17.66 17.66 32.25 32.25 5.70 6.91 6.91 6.00 67.08
- 33. 17 no no no no no no
Table 1 Cu and Ni Content of Data Plotte in Figure 2-1 of the Submittal (Cont'd)
Plant ID Palisades Palisades Peach Bottom 2 Peach Bottom 3 Material A302M A302M CQ (wt.%)
0.&
0.&
0.10 0.13 Ni (wt.%)
0.53 0.53 0.54 0.62 Charpy Shift hT3, (ft:lbs.)
155 30 16 Square Root of Best Estimate Fluence x 10'n/cm
)
66.33 33.62 4.96 4.03 Used in Regression Model no no Beaver Valley 1 Beaver Valley 1 Beaver Valley 1 Beaver Valley 1 Beaver Valley 1 Beaver Valley 1 Calvert Cliffs 1 Calvert Cliffs2 Donald C. Cook 1 Donald C. Cook 1 Donald C. Cook 1 Cooper Crystal River 3 A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.22 0.20 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.65 0.65 0.49 0.49 0.65 0.76 0.54 130 150 185 120 135 88 128 70 60 60 74 128 16.76 30.22 30.22 16.76 25.57 25.57
&.29 28.53 16.40 16.40 16AO 32.86 no no no no no no no
Table 1 Cu and Ni Content of Data Plotted in Figure 2-1 of the Submittal (Cont'd)
Plant ID Crystal River 3 Crystal River 3 Crystal River 3 Crystal River 3 Duane Arnold 1
Joseph M. Farley 2 Joseph M. Farley 2 Joseph M. Farley 2 Joseph M. Farley 2 Joseph M. Farley 2 Joseph M. Farley 2 Fort Calhoun 1
James A. Fitzpatrick Edwin L Hatch 1
Millstone 2 Maine Yankee Maine Yankee Pilgrim Unit 1
Material A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B Cu (ivt.%)
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.13 Ni (ivt.%)
0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.67 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.65 0.63 0.67 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.63 Charpy Shift hT3o (ft;lbs.)
21 126 97 127 42 180 165 165 133 103 190 58 141 150 160 Square Root of Best Estimate Fluence r 10'n/cm')
10.25 25.61 27.39 25.61 8.83 54.96 40.87 40.87 24.74 24.74 54.96 21.91 6.48 6.16 29.73 36.06 35.36 4.79 Used in Regression Model no no no no no no no no no no no no no ycs
Table I Cu and Ni Content of Data Plotted in Figure 2-1 of the Submittal (Cont'd)
Plant ID Salem Unit 1
Salem Unit 1 Salem Unit 1
Salem Unit I Salem Unit I Salem Unit 1
Salem Unit 1 St. Lucie 1
St. Lucie 2 St. Lucie 2 Vermont Yankee Zion 1
Zion 1
Zion 1
Zion 2 Zion 2 Zion 2 Material A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B A533B Cu
(>vt.%)
0.22 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.16 Ni (svt.%)
0.51 0.52 0.51 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.65 0.57 0.57 0.66 0.49 0.49 0.65 0.51 0.51 0.65 Charpy Shift hT~o (ft;Ibs.)
110 100 125 100 170 165 75 110 35 21 19 60 66 38 49 50 Square Root of Best Estimate Fluence x 10'n/cm')
35.07 16.00 30.50 16.00 30.50 30.50 16.00 26.76 12.65 12.65 2.07 18.03 18.03 18.03 16.79 16.79 16.79 Used in Regression Model no no yes no no no yes yes
150 zI-(9Z liJKI-co 0
llJ 0-O UJ
<C O
CCK D
100 50 n
0 0
0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 WEIGHT,PERCENT COPPER
> A533B 0, A302M
~
A302B 150 zI-C9Z IIJKI-N O
IJJ O
UJ O
KK 100 50 C
I n:
Q 0
0 O
6< +I Sdk
- r'0 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 024 0.30 WEIGHT PERCENT COPPER
> A533B 0 A302M A302B Figure 1 Unirradiated (Top) and Irradiated (Bottom) YieMStrength vs. Weight Percent Copper
0
50 co 4p Z
(9 30 CO o
20 1P (9Z 0
-10 0
0
""" - ";"",".~"""o"~ ~"
8 4 y
~ >b,:
0
~ a 0
o h
p p
0
~ ~
< A533B 0 A302M
~
A302B 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 WEIGHT PERCENT COPPER Figure 2 Yield Strength Increase as a Function of Cu Content (AllFluences)
50 40 30 CI3 o
20 10 C9 o
-10 6
0 0
Q pbbs Bp! p p
phPAl
> A5338 0 A302M
~
A3028
'0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 WEIGHT PERCENT COPPER Figure 3 Yield Strength Increase as a Function of Cu Content (For Fluences c 1x10is n/cd)
50 40 z
30 CO a
20 10 C9Z 0
-10 h
~p~
u8 0
> A533B 0 A302M
~
A302B 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 WEIGHT PERCENT COPPER Figure 4 Yield Strength Increase as a Function of Cu Content (For Fluences in the Range Ixlp" n/cm' ft 4 Ix1p" g/cm')
50 40 zI-C9 30 CO o
20 z
10 (9z 0
-10 o
q
> A533B 0 A302M
~
A302B 0.00
.0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 WEIGHT PERCENT COPPER Figure 5 Yield Strength Increase as a Function of Cu Content (For Fluences >
~ Ix10" n/cm')
0
300 Q)
CUhCl E
Q>I-CO COC COI-A5 I
v O
C9 CL O
200 100 0
'W:
d v
o
- ~
V w%a..
z wi~'I V
..O.....:..
.Q.............'.........
"100-10 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 Irradiation IndUced Change in Yield Strength a) v A5338 0 A302M
~
A3028 1.0 UJ CO z
UJ CO K
O D
Z0 0
Q.
0.8 0.6 0.4 02 0.0 95% CONFIDENCE I UMIT g
~
w
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~ (
~
~
~:
ODETTE b) 0, 100 200 INCREASE IN YIELD STRENGTH (MPa)
Figure 6 Correlation of Yield Strength Elevation With a) Charpy Shift and b)
Fractional Decrease in VSE
CO CO LU CC I
CO O
ill CO Z'U I
O IJJ O
CC CCZ 50 40 30 20 10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
< A533B 0 A302M
~
A302B IRRADIATED ULTIMATE MINUS YIELD STRESS Figure 7 Plot of the Ultimate and Yield Strength Difference Before and After
~
Irradiation
50 40 o
30
~~
20 10 0
0 g) p~p p CL 10 20 30 40 GGVJ3IATED UNIFORM STRAIN (%)
50
< A5338 0 A302M
~
A3028 Figure 8 Plot of the Percent Uniform Strain Before and After Irradiation
t
300 200 CCDO 0
100
~ rbo"0""" """""jg aj
- r 4'
b b br 0
0 100 200 300
- TYPICAL
- MEASUREMENT
- UNCERTAINTY
.'RANGE 4 A533B 0 A302M
~
A302B IRIVJ3IATED FLOW CURVE SLOPE VTS XZ Flow Quve Slope =
e Figure 9 Plot of Average Flow Curve Slope Before and After Irradiation Showing Negligible Strain Hardening Change
U CO 0)D.
E I
C0 03 c6 l
I O
CO 300 200 100 0
028 ~
Qt!5.
~ - ~ -- ~ - ~ o ~... ~...............Q18
.81K Ql,Q105 ~
Q18.
t Ql Ql ~
.....Ql.
~ Q18
~
~ Q18
~ Q18
~ ~ ~
~ 02$
100 0
20 40 60 80 100 Square Root of Fast Fluence (n/em**2)/30**8 Figure 10 A302B Plant-SpeciTic Data Set Showing Lack of Dependence of Charpy Shift on Cu Content in the Low Fluence Range. (Cu Content in Weight % Shown Next to Each Datum)
300 CD CD
~ D.
E CD I
0 CO C6 l
I LL O
C9 200 100 0
024.
- 024, Sf 02<. SP.
023.
0.1r.
018.
$133
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
~
~ S ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~'l ~ ~
~
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
-100 0
20 40 60 80 100 Square Root of Fast Fluence (n/cm'*2)/10**8 Figure 11 A302M Plant-SpeciTic Data Set Showing Lack of Dependence of Charpy Shift on Cu Content in the Low Fluence Range. (Cu Content in Weight % Shown Next to Each Datum)
300 CO (D
(5 200 (Da E
(DI-CO 100 C
(5 I
JD I
LL 0
O C9 0
O -100 0
20 40 60 80 100 Square Root of Fast Fluence (n/cm*'2)/10'*8 NOTE:
Circle Diameters Indicate Relative Bulk Copper Content Figure 12 A533B Plant-Specific Data Set Showing Lack of Dependence of Charpy Shift on Cu Content in the Low Fluence Range.
(Cu Content Shown as Relative Circle Diameter. Larger Diameter Indicates Higher Cu Content)
300 ZI 0) e 200 O.
E I-C 100 I
IL 0
O C9 o -~00 0
v OdPv p mtvyv V
..../.....v..i. gv.........r.i.
0' 0
ViV:
vv 20 40 vv 60 80 100 lower 2cr upper 2a mean v A533B 0 A302M
~
A302B Square Root of Fast Fluence (nr'cm'*2)/10'+8 Bgure 13 Plant-SpeciTic Charpy Shift Model With 2e Confidence Limits
0-
References
[Au94]
P.
- Auger, P.
- Pareige, M. Akamatsu, J-C.
Van
- Duysen, "Microstructural Characterization of Atom Clusters in Irradiated Pressure Vessel Steels and Model Alloys", to be published in the Journal of Nuclear Materials.
[Ma92]
M.P. Manahan, Y. Soong, "Response to NRC Generic Letter 92-01 for Nine Mile Point Unit 1", Report No. MPM-GL-692713, NMPC Project 03-9425, June 12, 1992.
[Ma92b]
M.P. Manahan, "Upper Shelf Energy Drop Trend Curve Modelling", Final Report to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, NMPC Project No. 03-9425, Report Number 1292315, November 30, 1992.
[Ma94]
M.P. Manahan, "Plant-Specific Charpy Shift Model for Nine Mile Point Unit 1",
Final Report to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Report Number MPM-59401, May, 1994.
[Ma94b]
M.P. Manahan, LJ. Cuddy, and A.J. Peterson, "A Plant-Specific Upper Shelf Energy Drop Methodology", Reactor Dosimetry, ASTM STP 1228, Harry Farrar IV, E. Parvin Lippincott, John G. Williams, and David W. Vehar, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1994.
[Ma94c]
[Mi88]
M.P. Manahan, "The Physical Basis for Upper Shelf Energy Drop in Irradiated Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels", Final Report to Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO),
Research Report Number EP 89-21, May, 1994.
C:
M.K. Millerand M.G. Burke, "Microstructural Characterization ofIrradiated PWR Steels Using the Atom Probe Field-Ion Microscope", Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems-Water
- Reactors, G.J Theus and J.R.
Weeks, Eds., The Metallurgical Society, 1988.
[Mi88b]
M.K. Miller, D.T. Hoelzer, F. Ebrahimi, J.R.
Hawthorne, and M.G. Burke, "Microstructural Characterization of Irradiated Fe-Cu-Ni-P Model Steels",
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems-Water
- Reactors, G.J. Theus and J.R. Weeks, Eds., The Metallurgical Society, 1988.