ML20207H785

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 0 to WCAP-15183, Commonwealth Edison Co Byron,Unit 1 Surveillance Program Credibility Evaluation
ML20207H785
Person / Time
Site: Byron Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 06/30/1999
From: Christopher Boyd, Laubham T, Trombola D
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20207H753 List:
References
WCAP-15183, WCAP-15183-R, WCAP-15183-R00, NUDOCS 9907210209
Download: ML20207H785 (37)
v • d • e


Text

r..-

g-. -,, .-

.v.... ..

e ,

y. . .

. . - .--. ., - L

- .. . - ~

. , -m . .

/,

.? ' WestinghouseNon Proprietary Class 3 d

/

t

. g

+ + + + + + + + + + + ""N Revisum '"0 ML 4

. s

. . ;,. ~- .; .. ..

4; u 7,.Tominonwealth 4 .

.. y . r * '>' l ~ *.' '%'Jc. c.g. . ,m;; .. .

.v ,

~, . . -

Edison . -

M Com;7.C_.,.pany. Byron Unit 1 .

m. . 4, .. c. a.s ..:. t M. , i =< d. Surveillance: Program 7 e i

= . . .c o' i ',,.;*.s e s , . , ,

V

!6 ~ Credibility Evaluation -

- c. . .

.y: -,

5.

4

-. .,s ,

t e .

1 1

~;. '

1., -

1

. ,. ; -; , .c . +. ,

,e A

. :n.: . .. :.

. s. -

.:. . c -

l , . - ,

l +, . .y ,

, i. ,

~ ,

g  :,

. ,.p'.. # ' **

I . ,

' ~

.- ' ~-
y. . .

- ., . 4 .

.v i W

W e s t i n g h.o u s.e .E 1 e c t r i.e . .C 'o m p a n y LLC -

g . ; .y . , u .. . . .

.4,: .._ , o c. ..

=

' ' . . ."* ? '* * % .( r k ., ~* ' 7.. *

4. 4 , * *?' v **
  • e

~ . ,

l c 3 ;._ ,.-- . . . , , , ,

m ,. t

  1. ',,[907210209990712 0 - 3 f " 'f ,

h ADOCK 050004 4 ,, j ',.

PDR ,

p , .

p we -

~

. .,. 7 -

e.. * ..

e

~

g* . .. , y. . , . o

~

s,'

^ r

  • e e.e ,;,;.

.c s . c..'

,) *p ,

, c. - .. , .. .- .: '

..,. . . . . . , . . ?.; . . .-

., m .. .

.- . .. ,, .n.

,'.' ' WestingbouseNon-Proprietary Class 3 l

1 WCAP 19 183

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Renwm 0 E l l l t

l l

4, f -J.

el  %

.. . .: .' 4 ** .

  • . . . . . s . 4
E,.,,.+Cominonwealth

. 4 '.s }; .: .~

  • NC& :,3 %' . *;; . Yg >
  • Edison 1 C,a.pmpany(Byron

~

n,..

...w . .o.. 2 _ .

Unit 1 l

. ~

. s . ., v ~ ;m. Su.rveillance .-r ., . Program s  :*-

. < ?v,. . ,, ' .!.c ^ . t

.y,,

. . g g . 5e E. . . ..

Credibility Evaluation .

f'. .,'*<..,.,y

    • . i ** *. ' .) *'e- '.

4

., .r , .

s, - ~ ,

  • , 3

..A. -

. ,4 -

,: . , = . ;.<.,. . ,; .

.. a.. . . . . ,

. ' s.

a.. . ... : . .

,c. , - ... .:

L

.. .~. ..

.c...<...,,, . - ,

u .-

s _ . .

~.

. .e

.  :.3 .:. , . . m. *c..

z .- f._ , , . .

i, 4 T T P,e 1

7, . e i .' *

. . . . - ;r

.. ,.,. .x . .. i

.c -

. s-~ ..

s l 1.

..... . ~.

.,- . s. .. . .

.c

. ,~: ..

. - . . .. . .., l W

W e s,t i n g h.o a s.'e .E,1 e c t r i c "C 'o m p a n y LLC '* '

Q .r.ro- .'

? . . , ~. *=

. ,;.9

. e, n:r.'. ...e..

g y . ..;v,? , ;..k.L

.+

n. =. -e..
. .r ,. : , .

,..^ ~.;.,, *, ,

c.

6. . . . . . .... .. ...

.e .

jj

.4

.?,99b7210209 990712- i.t b ' .*f ,

PDR ADOCK 050004 4 ;ij j,, * <g. . :

~h p . . --

WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 WCAP-15183 Commonwealth Edison Company Byron Unit I l Surveillance Program Credibility Evaluation l 1

1 l

T. J. Laubham June 1999 Approved:

C. H. Boyd, Manager

- Equipment & Materials Technology Approved: N[bi D. M. Trombola, Manage'r '

Mechanical Systems Integration i

l I

Westinghouse Bectric Company LLC  ;

Energy Systems P.O. Box 355 (

Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355

~

C1999 Westinghouse Bectric Company LLC All Rights Reserved 1

A 1 J

w p,

ni L TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......... ... . ... .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .tv PREFACE ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . ,, ,,y

. . ., vi EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

(OR) ABSTRACT.. . . .. . ... ... . .. . .. ..

1 INTRODUCTION ...... . ..... . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ...,,1 l

-2 EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............2 3 ~ RE FEREN CES . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 16 APPENDIX A: NRC CASES 4 & 5 FROM NOVEMBER INDUSTRY MEETING.. . .. . .. A-0 i

1 l

I t

l I

WCAP-15183 Revsion 0 p.

I iv

]

I s

LIST OFTABLES Table 1 - Byron and Braidwood Irradiation Temperatures (*F) .... . . ... .4 Table 2 Surveillance Data (Weld Heat No. 442022) - Normalization for Credibility Deternunation (when all Byron data is being used) ... . .5 Table 3 Byron Unit i Surveillance Capsule Weld Data... . . .6 Table 4 Credibility Assessment for Byron Unit 1 Surveillance Capsule Weld Data Only, Heat 442022 .... . ... . . .... .... . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . .. .7 Table 5 ' Byron Unit I and Unit 2 Surveillance Capsule Weld Data (Heat No. 442022) . . .8 Table 6 Credibility Assessment for Best Fit of all Weld Metal Surveillance Data Availabic.... .. .9 4

Table 7 Surveillance Weld (Heat No. 442011) Data - Normahzation for Credibility Deter =i==h (when all Braidwood data is being used).. ...... . ........ .. .. . . . . . .. . 10 j 1

' Table 8 Best Fit for Braidwood Units I and 2 Surveillance Capsule Data .. . .. .... . .... . . . . .. I1 1

Table 9 Calculation of Niary Factor for Byron Unit 1 Forging Material using  !

- Surveillance Capsule Data...................... .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . ... .... . . . 12 l Table 10 Predicted Versus Measured ARTurr Values for the Byron Unit 1 Forging S urveillance Data . . . . . . . .... ... .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Table 11 Intermediate Shell Forging 5P-5933 Position 1.1 Table Chemistry Factor Conservatism Assessment.. ...... ....... .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .14 l

l WCAP-15183 Revision 0

v tl' PREFACE-This report has been technically reviewed and verified by:

[

' hvi=r: EdTerek M l

i

~

i i

1 1

I i

e

-. WCAP-15183. Revision 0

vi EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to document the results of the surveillance program credibility evalu performed using the results of the latest capsule testing from Byron Unit 1. Capsule W was the late capsule removed from the Byron Unit I reactor vessel and the results of the testing is documented WCAP 15123, Rev.DII . The credibility evaluation herein shows all the Byron Unit I surveillance weld data to be credible as well as the Braidwood Unitsi and 2 beltline weld metal (Heat # 442011), which is representative of the Byron Unit I nozzle to intermediate shell girth weld.. The Byron Unit 1 Surveil forging data, on the other hand, was found to be not' credible.

l l

l t-Revision 0  ;

WCAP-15183 -

I

1 l

l 1 INTRODUCTION l l

Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, describes general procedures acceptable to the NRC staff for l calculating the effects of neutron radiation embrittlement of the low-alloy steels currently used for light-water cooled reactor vessels. Position C.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, describes the method for calculating the adjusted reference temperature and Charpy upper-shelf energy of reactor vessel beltline materials using surveillance capsule data. The methods of Position C.2 can only be applied when two or more credible surveillance data sets become available from the reactor in question. Note: These criteria are also given in 10 CFR 50.61. ,

I l

- To date there has been three surveillance capsules removed from the Byron Unit I reactor vessel. To use these surveillance data sets, they must be shown to be credible. In accordance with the discussion of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, there are Sve requirements that must be met for the surveillance data to 3 bejudged credible.  !

Ihe purpose of this evaluation is to apply the credibility requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, to the Byron Unit I reactor vessel surveillance data and determme if the Byron Unit I surveillance data is credible; WCAP-15183 Revision 0

ld,4_ s> 8'. ; .l ^ u

,4 y.-- -),'.l. 5#  ; i.; ^ % ,m,-ru . . ; ., @ . , r. e,;c t t'.f ,%

q g

h2:

e' A % 'p.,'

~

[, fy[%M: s ,9 ,

, .)':g% . .--

,g

.M K  : s n.r! ,

p,"4

.a

i . ,; ,
s u,4ryn" ayv y_}

J. yr 5 +

?

, T : _ ,}Q_Q:Q e nu);1 g , nllc l_n_.

v x .n n. '

,,g- ,': --y?TA d L. p):. >

m~ , -

t.'

Q

,qg;l2.$ '. .,

x.,.

w

,' 4. s.

,,@ff 'N 4

p-g,; ,

ug .. . ,1.1, f_ - _

1N, d

W. ,

Y

  1. '}u y

..J; k

.sLH N ,1' ,x'

( [.

4 .hf.f'4, gb i ml ' ,u,

?5', ,3, d'

'[rf,m

- ~ .

2 4

[

ve

-p',.;

2 Q )N :' at.,.

'W  ;;-

3*rh' i

,. v . ;

,; [,'a jj

..rv

4 1

h j'a. --

".' h

~ .,

E: U.}

s 3,

' t <

.ep

'" ,o I' ?)

. -' ~

5 ' ,:. . 5

., e

, >{<? L 6  ?,.

f

.I i e yja -o 3

i,n., r . c , .

9 I.

W'[.

h he yv f y 3

4

  • ) t j :. .s i, g.:. j(,

fr ,

' +

s<

p

- j. , . c. ,

e.

y

, ':Q .

l' : ,

b

. 4 +j i g

f i

, ' ,( _

v, *, , .,bI _r'. , 3 'lC

,q ~&.~

  • 3" '

- f,, , .3 y

_; ; I~

m ' , .,

,, \*.

\. ,

t.\ _ ;

.f ,

L) i . n -

a,' ' . , ., n ' ', l ]

1' , {< , lj . wf ,

  • 4

.r t r e 5.' l g" ' ' '

, j .

},

f .

\

3 1 t ;, ,

r -( -

(a; ..:' t_f '. - -"

'V

- s, i IJ , *

'c '

s

_ _ sr

'e; , 4 i ji: , c, lIl .,

m.u,..w

- w.y P .f, *6 *>!--

" i qq< a1 a,,, ' %.d '

n A 2-v' F g i ^ ,_.-

ll) ' ,, ,. , - s s ,

s

_a g (;4 fj' q; ') . " . , .

, +-

eg. -3;' W. c

,? , , _., _ '

rh >

es ' ,

,. s.

l( l tj , }- f; l _

. t, s :-_,r ). . . ,

'f ll '.G ,

  1. ' M kl.kA W %'

, ~

D: , ,Y ' ; t y

s. .; -, ' f
s. -

, - "4

,fli.

V '  !+ + j. ,_ ,

< 3 J& -

R&p & .

,-11: X,.je

.,4 t

, 7

. y. , ' .'..s u. ,

,y

,y+ . a _'Y.  !

> ; n v y,

, 4

,t{:,,

n~ .

_3,

'  ; e f ., a j

, ~VL . ^i

. r,' / 'b .h"h'

, [ . t. , i s. J; i

['

.y ja

r. 4 ': r , '9,A' 1 W /,e 9 p ]. .y

, , g. *

'? - 1 w ' u' ' ' ' "

. i, -

&a

. K

n,, ,n
F s? , ' ',

^

' ,+' , ' 'j[q q

-; &., 9 :.4.t .gI,$;1 ,..r,5,'~ ) f. .

f'. 9;

  • Aq

'J

'.i.

5, {

. *. m J,A~, q- y,:> . ,' ;Q::<y,. 4;.

L'ln %}V c g.c

-s,,'

' n-gl" .q. ,qh,% '

w a!

L q

x > "X>;4 .sy: gnf.,

+

i v

s GQW'k 2 T. q 1

r...,,4<g#. - i r v3 kpfjf

.. ' I f '{'h i '

!1-

' M'Nidab' v

- - J gj.U.'~U/ f JQ 8 4 DrG

n l 1

2

12) EVALUATION: .

Criterion 1: Materials in the capsules should be thosejudged most likely to be controlhng with regard to radiation embrtttlement. .

The beltline region of the reactor vessel is defmed in Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50, " Fracture Toughness ,

. Requirements", as follows:

~ "the reactor vessel (shell material including welds, heat affected zones, and plates or forgings) that directly surrounds the effective height of the active core and adjacent regions of the reactor vessel j

~t hat 'are predicted to expenence sufficient neutron radiation damage to be considered in the j selection of the most limiting matenal with regard to radiation damage."

The Byron Unit I reactor vessel consists of the followmg beltline region materials:

- Intermedate shell forgmg SP-5933 Lower shell forgmg SP-5951

' Nozzle shell forgmg 123J218.

Intermedute shell forging to lower shell forging circumferential weld seam WF-336, weld wire heat number 442002, Linde 80 Flux, Lot 8873.

. Nozzle shell forging to intermedute shell forgmg circumferential weld seam WF-501, weld wire heat number 442011, Lade 80 Flux, Lot 8086 .

~

De Byron Unit I surveilknee program utihzes tangential and axial test specimens frem intermediate shell fogging 5P-5933 and HAZ specimens from forging 5P-5933. The surveillance weld metal was fabricated

, with weld wire heat number 442002, Flux Type Linde 80 Lot Number 8873.  ;

- He Byron Unit i Surveillance program was based on ASTM E185-73. When the surveillance program matenal was selected it was beheved that copper and phosphonis were the elements most important to ,

embrittlement of reactor vessel steels. Of the three belthne region materials, the intermediate shell forging 5P-5933 had the highest initial RTwyr and one of the lowest initial USE. In' addition, intermediate shell forgmg SP-5933 had gproximately the same content of copper and phosphorous content of the other beltline forgmg materials. Hence, based on the highest istal RTurr and one of the lowest initial USE of all plate matenals, the intermediate shell forgmg SP-5933 was chosen for the surveillance program. The weld

WF-336, on the other hand, was consider the only beltline weld and therefore was representative all of the beltline welds.

Based on the above s=- =:== and the methodology in use at the time the program was developed, the Byron Unit I survedlance matenal meets the intent of this criteria.

WCAP-15183 Revision 0

3 Criterion 2: Scatter in the plots ofCharpy energy versus temperaturefor the irradiated and

(

unirradiated conditions should be small enough to permit the determmanon of the 30ft.

Ib temperature and upper shelfenergy unambiguously.

1 Plots of Charpy energy versus temperature for the unirradiated and irradiated condition are N

presented Appendix C ofWCAP-15123, Rev. I ," Analysis of Capmle W from the I Commonwealth Edison Company Byron Unit 1 Reactor Vessel Surve<llance Program" Based on engineering judgment, the scatter in the data presented in these plots is small enough to permit the deternunation of the 30 ft-lb temperature and the upper shelf energy of the Byron Unit I surveillance materials unambiguously. Hence, the Byron Unit I surveillance program meets this  ;

criterion. j Criterion 3: When there an two or mon sets ofsurveillance datafrom one nactor, the scatter of ARTuorvalues about a best-f t line drawn as described in Regulatory Position 2.1 normally should be less than 28*Ffor welds and 17*Ffor base metal. Even if thefluence range is large (two or mon orders ofmagnitude), the scatter should not exceed twice those values. Even ifthe datafail this criterionfor use in shift calculations, they may be crediblefor determining decnase in upper shelfenergy ifthe upper shelfcan be clearly determined,following the definition given in ASTM E183-82.

He functional form of the least squares method as described in Regulatory Position 2.1 will be j utilized to detemune a best-fit line for this data and to determine if the scatter of these ARTwr i I

vclues about this line is less than 28'F for welds and less than 17'F for the plate.

Following is the calculation of the best fit line as described in Regulatory Position 2.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2.

Byron Unit I has two circumferential welds that will be evaluated for credibility. These will be evaluated in two parts: 1.) Weld WF-336 (Intermediate to Lower Sheli Cire. Weld) is made from weld wire heat 442002 and is part of both Byron Unit I and Byron Unit 2 Surveillance programs, 2.) Weld WF-501 (Nozzle Shell to Intermeditte Shell Cire. Weld) is made from weld wire heat 442011 and is part of Braidwood Units I and 2 surveillance programs only. For Part one, data is available from Byron Urut 2 surveillance program for the Byron Unit I surveillance weld metal. The second situation there is data from Braidwood Units 1 and 2 surveillance programs for the Byrou Unit I cire. weld WF-501 which is not in the Byron Unit I surveillance program Since the welds in question utilize data from other surveillance programs, the is--- =>=' NRC methods for determmmg credibility will be followed. The NRC methods were presented to industry at a meetmg held by the NRC on November 12,1997. At this meeting the NRC presented five cases. Of the five cases Case 4 and 5 most closely represents the two situations listed above for Byron Unit I surveillance and non-surveillance weld materials (Cne 4 goes with # 1 above and Case 5

. WCAP-15183 Revision 0

p 4

with # 2 above). Note, for the forging materials, the straight forward nethod of Regulatory Guide 1.99.

Revision 2 will be followed. ,

From NRC Industry Meetings on November 12,= 1997 and February 12,13 of 1998, procedural guidelines were presented to adjust the ARTm for temperature differences when using surveillance data from one vessel applied to another vessel. He following was taken from the handout given by the NRC at these industry meetings: q l

Irradiation temperature and fluence (or fluence factor) are first order environmental variables in i

- assessing irradiation damage... To account for differences in temperature between sun eillance specimens and vessel, an adjustment to the data must be performed. Studies have shown that for temperatures near 550'F, a l'F decrease in irradiation temperature will result in approximately a ,

l'F increase in' ARTm. For capsules with irradiation temperature of Tw, and a plant with an j inadiation temperature oft,i., an adjustment to normahze ARTer. to T,i. is made as j i

follows: {

1 Temp. Adjusted ARTm = ARTer. + 1.0*( Tw,- T,i.) l Table 1 presents the Irradiation Temperature for Byron Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood Units I and 2. These L..,~.. hares were obtamed from WCAP-14824, Rev. 2t2) Since operating temperatures of cycles of ,

j interest are all equal (i.e. 553*F), then no temperature adjustment will be applied in further evaluations I herein.- f I

TABLE 1 .

1 I

Byron and Braidwood Irradiation Temperatures (*F)

Fuel Cycle Byron 1 Byron 2 Braidwood 1 Braidwood 2 1 557 (U) 557 (U) 557 (U) 557 (U) 2 557 551 551 551 3 551 551 551 551 4 551 551 (W) 551 (X) 551 (X) 551 (X) 6 551  ;

7 551 j 8 $51(W)

. Average Operating 553 553 553 553 Temperature Hels; (a): Byron Units 1 & 2, and Braidwood Units 1 & 2 rap =de= U were withdrawn at the end of cycle 1. Byron I capsule X was withdrawn at the end of cycle 5 and Byron 2 capsule W was withdrawn at the end of cycle 4. Braidwood I capsule X was withdrawn at the and of cycle 4 and Braidwood 2 was withdrawn near the end of cycle 4. Byron I capsule W

,- was withdrawn at the and of cycle 8. All T , ..L = are in 'F.

WCAP-15183 Revision 0

5 m ,  ; Next, NRC Case 4 (Byron Situation I 1) will be evaluated for the Byron Unit I surveillance weld metal, I

" Surveillance Data Available from Plant and Other Sources". - l n  !

TABLE 2

Surveillance Data'(Weld Heat No. 442022) - Normalization for Credibility Determmation (when all data is being used) 1 Capsule > Cu ' Ni - .-

Irradiation Fluence") Fluence Measured Temperature Ratio '+

(%) (%)- Temperature . (x 10) ' Factor ARTmn Adjusted Temperature ]

(T%) (FF) (5537)* Adjusted 1 l

(5537)

ARTmn*

U-Bymn 1 0.02 ' O.69 ~ 553y 0.404 0.748 5.6T 5.67 5.6'F X-Bymn 1 0.02 0.69 553 9 1.57 1.124 40.1T 40,1 9 40,iy i

W-Byron 1 - 0.02_ 0.69 553y 2.43 1.239 51.3 7 51.3 7 . 51.3 7 l U-Byron 2 0.02 0.71 553y 0.4050 0.749 OT og 09 W-Byron 2 0.02 0.71 - 553y 1.271 1.067 30 7 30 7 30y Notes.

L (1) No temperature adjustment required.

(2) . The normalued chemical composition for this weld heat (442002)is 0.02%Cu and 0.70%Ni. This I

produces a chemistry factor of 27, which identical to the chemistry factor for both the Byron 1 and 2 surveillance data. Therefore the survedlance weld metal ARTer values were not adjusted to normahze chemical composition.

.(3) T..w..iure for the Byron Unit 1 is the Average over the 1" eight fuel cycles, and the temperature for the Byron Unit 2 is the Average over the first four fuel cycles.

'(4) ' Byron Unit I and Unit 2 capsule fluences were updated as a part of the capsule W dosimetry analysis resultslU, (x 10" n/cm', E > l.0 MeV).

For Byron Unit 1, the plant being assessed.-

Weld heat number 442002 is in the survedlance program and in the vessel, and Tg = 553*F Chemistry data for heat 442022 is also available from other sources. The Best Estimate Che nistry Factor,

{ using position 1.1 (i.e. Tables), for heat 442002 weld metal (See Table 4-5 ofWCAP-15123 Rev. IU I ) is as follows 0.04% Cu,. 0.63% Ni + CF rwv iew = 54.07 L WCAP-15183 < Revision 0

F 6

Credibility assessment - Byron Unit 1 Data Only:

The data most representative forByron Unit 1 is that from Byron Unit I since the irradiation environment of the surveillance capsules and the vessel are very similar. The data requires the least adjustments.

Byron data should be exanuned independently to determine credibility. Since all data are taken from one source (Byron Unit 1, plot measured ARTuor versus FF and determine best fit line.

TABLE 3 Byron Unit 1 Surveillance Capsule Weld Data Material Capsule Capsule (O FF" ARTer FF*ARTuor FF' U (CAE) 0.404 0.748 5.6'F 4.2 0.560 Weld Metal X(CAE) 1.57 1.124 40 lop 45.1 1.263 W(CAE) 2.43 1.239 51.3*F 63.6 1.535 SUM: 112.9 3.358 CFwa = Z(FF

  • RTum) + I( FF') = (112.9) + (3.358) = 33.6*F Notes.

(1) Calculated fluence (x 10" n/cm', E > 1.0 MeV).

(2) FF = fluence factor = fm2:.o rwo ,

Slope of best fit line = 33.6*F i

i WCAP-15183 Revision 0

7 TABLE 4 Credibility Assessment for Byron Unit i Surveillance Capsule Weld Data Only, Heat 442022 Capsule Cud) NiU) Irradiation Fluence Fluence Measured Predicted (Measured -

(%) (%) Temperature (x 10") Factor ARTe7 ARTe7 from Predicted)

(T w .) (FF) Best Fit Line* ARTer U-Byron 1 0.02 0.69 553'F 0.404 0.748 5.6*F 25. l'F - 19.5'F X-B) Ton 1 0.02 0.69 553'F 1.57 1.124 40. I'F 37.goF , 2.3*F W-Byron 1 0.02 0.69 553'F 2.43 1.239 51.3 *F 41.6*F 9.7'F Notes.

(1) Average of the Surveillance Data Only.

(2) Where predicted ARTmyr = (Slopewra) * (Fluence Factor)

Data are credible since the scatter is less than 28'F for all surveillance specimens.

l l

l WCAP-15183 Revision 0

n 8

Credibility Assessment - All Data:

- Ihe data from all sources should also be considered Since data are from multiple sources the data must be adjusted for chemical composition and irradiation environment differences and then plot the " ratio and temperature" adjusted ARTuor values versus FF and determine the best fit line.

For credibility determmation, data are normalized to the mean chemical composition and temperature of the

! Byron Unit I surveillance specimens TABLE 5 Byron Unit I and Unit 2 Surveillance Capsule Weld Data (Heat No. 442022)

Material Capsule Capsule fm ppm Ratio + FFMRTwor FF 2

Temperature Adjusted j

.\RTwor W

na U (CAE) 0.404 0.748 5.6'F 4.2 0.560 Weld Metal X (CAE) 1.57 1.124 40,1=F 45.1 1.263 W (CAE) 2.43 1.239 51,3*F 63.6 1.535 U (CBE) 0.4050 0.749 0'F 0 0.561 W (CBE) 1.271 1.067 30.0ap 32.0 1.138 SUM: 144.9 5.057 2

CFA=~ Z(FF

  • RTwor) + I( FF ) = {l44.9) + (5.057) = 28.7'F Notes. k (1) Calculated fluence (x 10 n/cm', E > 1.0 MeV).

(2)- FF = fluence factor = f("*'*** .

(3) The surveillance weld metal ARTuor values do not require adjustments for the chunistry factor ratio procedure (Ratio = 1.0 for Unit 1 & 2) and different irradiation temperatures (See Table 1).

(d) CAE = Byron Unit 1, and CBE = Byron Unit 2.

The slope of the best fit line = 28.7'F

' WCAP-15183 Revision 0 1

1

r 9

TABLE 6 Credibility Assessment for Best Fit of at: Weld Metal Surveillance Data Available Capsule Cu Ni Irradiation Fluence Fluence Ratio + Predicted (Adjuited -

(%) (%) Temperature (x 10") Factor Temperature ARTer Predicted)

(T%) (FF) Adjusted from Best ARTer (553*F) Fit Line ARTer U-Byron 1 0.02 0.69 553'F 0.404 0.748 5.6'F 21.5'F -15.9'F X-Byron 1 0.02 0.69 553*F 1.57 1.124 40. I'F 32.3 *F 7.8'F W-Byron 1 0.02 0.69 553'F .2.43 1.239 St.3*F 35.6'F 15.7'F 1

U-Byron 2 0.02 0.71 553*F 0.4050 0.749 ooF 21.5'F -21.5'F l W-Byron 2 0 02 0.71 553*F 1.271 1.067 30.0*F 30.6*F -0.6'F Where predicted ARTer = (Slopew r ) * (Fluence Factor)

Data are credible since the scatter is less than 28'F for all surveillance specimens, i

l i

i l

WCAP-15183 Revision 0

10 Evaluation of the Byron Unit I non surveillance weld metal (WF-501, Heat 442011) using surveillance data from Braidwood Units 1 and 2 TABLE 7m Surveillance Weld (Heat No. 442011) Data - Normalization for Credibility Detenmnation (when all Braidwood data is being used)

Cap ule Cu Ni Irradiation Fluence P;9ence Measured Temperature Ratio +

(%) .(%) Temperature (x 10") Factor ARTer Adjusted Chemistry (T#) (FF) (553*F)* Adjusted ARTmrr*

U-Braid.1 0.03 0.67 553*F 0.3814 0.733 10'F 10*F 10'F X-Braid 1 0.03 0.67 553'F 1.144 1.038 25'F 25'F 25'F U-Braid. 2 0.03 0.71 553*F 0.3933 0.741 0'F 0*F O'F X-Braid. 2 0.03 0.71 553'F 1.126 1.033 20'F 20*F 20*F Notes.

(1) All data was obtamed from WCAP-14824 Rev. 2 I'l.

(2) The Braidwood Units 1 and 2 measured ARTworvalues were not required to be reduced due to operating temperatures since the temperatures are identical (i.e. T_,,, = 553'F).

(3) The normalized chemical composition for this mld heat (442011) is 0.03%Cu and 0.69%Ni. This produces a chami try factor of 41, which identical to the chemistry factor for both the Braidwood I and 2 surveillance data. Herefore the surveillance weld metal ARTmn values were not adjusted to I normalize chemical composition.

For Byron Unit 1, the plant being usessed.

Weld heat number 442011 is NOT in the surveillance program, but in the vessel upper girth weld, and T% = 553*F.

Surveillance data for heat 442011 is ONLY available from other sources. He Best Estimate Chemistry Factor for heat 44201I weld metal.

0.03% Cu, 0.67% Ni + CF w v icm = 41.0*F WCAP-15183 Revision 0 o.

ra 11 l

r. I
Credibility assessment '- Braidwood Unit 1 & 2 All Data:

Braidwood I and 2 have identical operating temperatures and are the same as the ByTon 1 operatmg l temperature, therefore checking one Braidwood Unit individually for credibility is not applicable in this  ;

l case and both units should be considered simultaneousiv. See case 5 in Appendix A.

L  :

p It has been determmed that Braidwood Unit I and 2 data are both applicable to Byron Unit 1. therefore 7 credibility and the CF will be evaluated as follows:

l *

. Crarlihility C.,;...T i =ian - All Data: I Plot " ratio and temperantre" adjusted ARTmvalues (normalized to the mean chemical composition and temperature of the surveillance specimens) versus Fluence Factor for all data (Not Braidwood 1 or Braidwood 2 indivuinally) and determme the best fit line' .

Slope of best fit line = 16.7'F TABLE 8 Best Fit for Braidwood Unit 1 and 2 Suiveillawe Capsule Data Capsule . Cu Ni Irradiation Fluence Fluence Ratio ' Predicted (Ratio

(%) (%) Temperstwe (x'109 Factor Temperature ARTm Temperature (T w ) (FF) Adjusted from Best Adjusted -

(5537) Fit Line Predicted)

, ARTm ARTm U-Braid.1 0.03 0.67 553T 0.3814 0.733 IOT 12.2 7 -2.2 7 X-Braid.1 0.03 0.67 .5537 1.144 1.038 25 7 19.1T 5.9T U-Braid. 2 0.03 0.71 553T 0.3933 0.741 OT 12.3T -12.3T X-Braid. 2 0.03 0.71 553T 1.126. 1.033 20 7 17.3 7 2.77 Where predicted ARTm = (Slopewr,i) * (Fluence Factor)

Data are credible since the scatter is less than 28'F for all surveillance specimens.

i l

WCAP-15183 Revision 0 l

12 Now that the Weld Metal has been evaluated for credibility, the Forging material must be evaluated. From Table 9, below, the calculated CF from surveillance data for the Intermediate Shell Forging SP-5933 is 30.3*F.

TABLE 9 Calculation of Chemistry Factors for Byron Unit 1 Forging Material Using Surveillance Capsule Data Material Capsule Capsule l') FF") ARTer") FF*ARTm7 FF Ink., .wdine Shell U 0.404 0l148 28.55 21.36 0.560 Forging 5P-5933 X 1.57 1.124 9.82 11.04 1.263 I (Tangential) W 2.43 1.239 49.20 60.96 1.5 3 '.,

Intermedsate Shell U 0.464 0.748 18.52 13.85 0.560 Forging SP-5933 X 1.57 1.124 53.03 59.61 1.263 (Axial) W 2.43 1.239 29.34 36.35 1.535 SUM: 203.17 6.716 2

CF5 r m3 = I(FF

  • RTer) + I( FF ) = (203.17) + (6.716) = 30.3*F HQlcL (1) Byron Unit I capsule fluences were updated as a part of the capsule W dosimetry analysis results10, (x 10 n/cm 2, E > 1.0 MeV).

(2) FF = fluence factor = ('" '8**0 (3) ARTerr values are the measured 30 ft-lb shift values taken from WCAP-15123 Rev. IIH l

i l

l.

l WCAP-15183 - Revision 0 k.

f 1 13 TABLE 10 Predicted Wm u Measured ARTer Values for the Byron Unit 1 Forging Surveillance Data Material Capsule' CF FF Predicted Measured - Change in ARTm m

ARTwor ARTm * (Predicted -

l Measured)

( Intermediate Shell U 30.3'F 0.748 22.7'F 28.55'F. -5.85

- Forging SP-5933 X 30.3*F 1.124 34.I'F 9.82'F 24.28

! (Tangential) W 30.3*F 1.239 37.5'F 49.20'F 11.7

Intermediate Shell U 39.3*F 0.748 22.7'F 18.52*F 4.18 Forging SP-5933 X 30.3'F 1.124 34.I'F 53.03'F 18,9 (Axial) W 30.3 *F 1.239 37.5'F 29.34'F 8.16 Notes:

(1) ARTwor = CF*FF '

(2) Measured ARTwor is taken from Section 5 or Appendix C ofWCAP-15123 Rev. If 'I.

l 1

l From Table 8 above, the Byron Unit 1 Forging Data has two of six data points outside the 17'F scatter band. Since the one point out en the high side of the scatter band (-18.9) is only 1.9'F from the cut-off of l 17*F, an argument could be made that this is actually within the scatter band due to how the data is plotted (i.e. symmetric versus asy.. ..stiic), measured and/or iA error. This would leave one of six outside the scatter band and that one point is on the low side. This condition could be considered credible, however for conservatism , the forging surveinance data is considered ggt credible.

Since the forging material is deemed non-credible, a check for conservatism will be performed. This is done by comparmg the ewiey factor using Position 1.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2 to the

- chinry factor using Position 2.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2. The copper and nickel weight percent for the Byron Unit I surveillance forging material is 0.04,0.74, respectively. Using Table 2 from the Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, the ewi*y factor is 26.0'F.

l l

L l i i l

I WCAP-15183 Revision 0 ,

i

14 I TABLE 11 Intermediate Shell Forging SP-5933 Position 1.1 Table Chemistry Factor Conservatism Assessment

)

Material Capsule CF FF Predicted Measured Changein ARTm ARTm W ARTmW (Predicted -

Measured)

Intermediate Shell U 26.0*F 0.748 19.46*F 28.55'F 9.15  ;

Forging SP-5933 X 26.0*F 1.124 29.22'F 9.82*F 19.40 (Tangential) W 26.0*F. 1.239 32.21'F 49.20'F -16.99 Interinediate Shell U 26.0'F 0.748 17.46'F 18.52'F 0.94 Forging SP-5933 X 26.0'F 1.124 29.22*F 53.03'F 23.81 (Axial) W 26.0*F 1.239 32.21'F 29.34*F 2.87 Notes-(1) ARTm = CF*FF )

(2) Measumd ARTm is taken from Section 5 or Appendix C ofWCAP-15123 Rev.110.

Since the scatter is less than 2*e6 (e6 = 17'F), the Table CF is conservative. However, the chemistry factor using Position 2.1 is 30.3*F (See Table 10), thus, it would produce a more conservative result and will be considered in further evaluations (such as calculating adjusted reference temperature and PTS) using a full margm term.

Critenon 4: The trradiation temperature ofthe Charpy specimens in the capsule should match the vessel wall temperature at the cladding / base metalinterface within +/- 25*E Thejustification for criterion 4 from the previous credibility evaluation presented in WCAP-14824 Rev. 2 is still applicable, therefore, this criterion is met.

Criterion 5: The surveillance datafor the correlation monitor materialin the capsule shouldfall within the scatter band ofthe data basefor that material.

The justification for criterion 5 from the previous credibility evaluation presented M WCAP-14824 Rev. 2 is still applicable, therefore, this criterion is met.

WCAP-15183 Revision 0

15 CONCLUSION:

Based on the preceding responses to all five criteria c' Regulatory Guide 1.99. Revision 2, Section B and .10 CFR 50.61, the Byron Unit I and 2 surveillance weld data and Braidwood Unit I and 2 surveillance weld data for use at Byron Unit 1 is credible. Byron Unit I surveillance Forging material is considered NOT CREDIBLE.

Lastly, The surveillance data for the forging material demonstrated that the Regulatory Guide 1.99 Position 1.1 eWinry factor was conservative. However, because the chemistry factor predicted 1

by the Regulatory Guide 1.99 Position 2.1 for the forging surveillance data was greater than the i Position 1.1 cWimy factor, then the Position 2.1 chemistry factor will be used to determine the adjusted reference temperature of the forging material.

l t

l l

l l

l l

l t .

l l

l l

WCAP-15183 Revision 0 i l

f 16 3 -REFERENCES 1 WCAP-15123, Revision 1, " Analysis of Capsule W from the Commonwealth Edison Company Byron Unit i Reactor Vessel Radsation Surveillance Program". T. J. Laubham, et al., January 1999, f

2  : Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, " Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials". U.S. .l Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May,1988.

3 WCAP-14824, Revision 2, " Byron Unit i Heatup and Cooldon Limit Cun es for Normal Operation and Surveillance Weld Metal Integration For Byron and Braidwood", T. J. Laubham, et al., November 1997.

9 i

I-WCAP-151st3 Revision 0

A-0 'i i

1 APPENDIX A NRC CASES 4 & 5 FROM NOVEMBER INDUSTRY MEETING 1

Appendix A

n..

CASE 4 - SURVEILLANCE DATA AVAILABLE FROM PLANT AND OTHER SOURCES Surveillance data .

Capsule NSSS Cu Ni irradiation Fluence Fluence Measured Temperature Rabo, Designation Vendor Temperature (x10") Factor ART., Adjusted Temperature 3

(T w ) (FF) (550*F) Adjusted ART , (550*F)

ART ,-. I Plant a - 1 B&W 0.37 0.70 SF6.0 0.779 0.930 214.0 220.0 196 0 -

Plant b .1 B&W ~0.37 0.67 554.0 0.107 0.431 124.0 130.0 126 0 )

Plant b - 2 B&W 10.3 1 0.57 556.0 0.866 0.960 203.0 209.0 202 5 Plant c - 1 B&W 10'.33 0.67 556.0 0.830 0.948 182.0 188.0 182.2 Plant c - 2 B&W l 0.21 0.67 556.0 0.968 0.991 222.0 228.0 221 0 Plant x - 1 West. 0.24 0.66 836.0 0.281 0.653 165.0 151.0 172 il Plant x 2 West. 10.24 0.66, 834.0 1.940 1.181 240.0 226.0 257 6' Normalization for credibilltv determination (when all data are being used)

Data normalized to mean chemical composition (i.e., copper and nickel) of survgillance specimens ,

Cu = 0.31%

Ni = 0.67%

Data normalized to mean temperature of surveillance specimens Tm = 550'F {

l Appendix A

CASE 4 - SURVEILLANCE DATA AVAILABLE FROM PLANT AND OTHER SOURCES (cont'd)

Assume the following for Plant"x" (the plant whose vessel is being assessed)

Weld heat 299L44 is in the surveillance program and in the vessel T,. = 536 *F Surveillance data for heat 299L44 is also available from other sources Best estimate for heat Wold metal 0.34% Cu,0.68% Ni - CFr ,v.,,,e,,, = 220.6*F Credibility assessment - Plant "x" data only The data most representative for Plant "x" is that from Plant "x" since the irradiation environment of the surveillance capsules and the vessel are very similar. This data requires the least adjustment (e.g., no temperature correction)

Plant "x" data should be examined independently to determine credibility Since all data are from one source (Plant "x"), plot measured ARTuor versus FF and determine best fit line Slope of best fit line = 214.8'F Capsule Cu Ni irradiation Fluence Fluence Measured Predicted (Measured -

Temperature (x10") Factor ART. ART from Predicted)

(Tc.,,,,) (FF) best fit line ART ,

Plant x - 1 0.24 0.Es Ess.0 0.2s1 0.652 16s.O 140.3 24.7 Piant x - 2 0.24 0.as sas.0 1.e40 1.ist 240.0 2ss.s 12.s where predicted ART.= (slope .)*(Fluence Factor)

Data are credible since scatter is less than 28'F for all surveillance specimens Appendix A

CASE 4 - SURVEILLANCE DATA AVAILABLE FROM PLANT AND OTHER SOURCES (cont'd)

Determination of CF - Plant "x" data only No temperature adjustments are necessary since Tc.,,.. = T,,,,,,

Adjust measured values of ARTm for chemical composition differences as follows (normalize data to best estimate of vessel being i assessed):

I' Ratio Adjusted ART,o7 = ( CF'*** *****' '*** * ) = ARuar, T mene m o r.a. sm. c .

l CFr ,m. = 182.9*F 1

Determine best fit line relating adjusted (" ratio and temperature" l adjusted) ARTnor to FF. The slope of this best fit line is the CFs,,, o,..

Since no temperature adjustments were required in this case the ratio adjusted ARTuor is the same as the " ratio and temperature" adjusted ARTuor l

CFw. m = 259.0*F  ;

l r

l W

Appendix A i

CASE 4 - SURVEILLANCE DATA AVAILABLE FROM PLANT AND OTHER SOURCES (cont'd)

Credibility assessment - All data The data from all sources should also be considered S',nce data are from multiple sources, must adjust data for chemical composition and irradiation environment differences and then plot the

" ratio and temperature" adjusted ART,a37 values versus FF and determine best fit line For credibility determination, data are normalized to the mean chemical composition and temperature of the surveillance specimens Slope of best fit line = 218.4*F Capsule Cu Ni irradiation Fluence Fluence Ratio and Predicted ( Ad;usted .

Temperature (zio") Factor Temperature ART from ProdsciedI (T ) (FF) ($50) best fit line ART.

Adjusted ART ,

Plant a 1 0.37 0.70 558.0 0.779 0.930 196.0 203.1 7.1 Plant b - 1 0.33 0.87 SSE.0 0.107 0.431 126.0 Sd.1 31.9 Plant b - 2 0.33 0.87 558.0 0.888 0.900 202.5 209.6 -7.1 Plant c - 1 0.33 0.87 886.0 0.830 0.948 182.2 207.0 -24.8 Plant c - 2 0.33 0.87 $58.0 0.988 0.991 221.0 216.4 4.5 Plant x - 1 0.24 0.46 836.0 0.281 0.653 172.1 142.8 29.4 i Plant x 2 0.24 0.88 834.0 1.940 1.181 257.6 258.0 0.4 where predicted ART = (S%J'(Fluence Factor)

Data are not credible since scatter is greater than 28'F for several surveillance specimens Appendix A

A-5 CASE 4 - SURVEILLANCE DATA AVAILABLE FROM PLANT AND OTHER SOURCES (cont'd) l Determination of CF - All Data If data were credible, the CF would be determined as follows Must make irradiation temperature and chemical composition adjustments since the irradiation temperature and chemistry differ between the capsules and the plant being assessed For capsules with Tw greater than 536*F (i.e., T,,,,),

must increase ARTuor, by 1.0*F for each degree difference in irradiation temperature to get the temperature adjusted ARTuor (i.e., ARTuor,1,w)

To obtain the " ratio and temperature" adjusted ARTuor, apply the ratio procedure as follows:

Ratiotremperature Mjuste i ARr,,7 = ( CF'***** ""' '*"' l AR T,,7, 7 ,,,,,,,,

r . : . ca .

Determine best fit line relating adjusted (" ratio and temperature" adjusted) ARTuor to FF. The slope of this best fit line is the CFw, o,,,. CF , o,,, = 247.2

  • F Appropriate CF Data from the plant being assessed were evaluated and the data were credible When all of the data were evaluated, the data were determined to be not credible Since the data from the plant being assessed is the most appropriate and requires the least amount of adjustment, the CF determined from evaluation of the Plant "x" data is the most appropriate.

CFa., o,,, = 259.0'F Appendix A

M*O CASE 4 - SURVEILLANCE DATA AVAILABLE FROM PLANT AND OTHER SOURCES (cont'd)

Effects of data analysis technique (Ratio procedure and using plant-specific data)

Previous analyses Ratio procedure not applied, temperature correction to data from other sources not made, All data used RTwortui = -7.0

  • F; M = 49.8; CF = 217.0
  • F; FF = 0.8745 RTwor. = -7.0 + 49.8 + (217.0
  • 0.8745) = 232.6 *F Current analyses Ratio procedure applied, No temperature correction necessary, Only Plant "x" data used RTwor, = -7.0 + 49.8 + (259.0
  • 0.8745) = 269.2*F i

Appendix A

CASE 5 - SURVEILLANCE DATA NOT AVAILABLE FROM

-PLANT BUT AVAILABLE FROM OTHER SOURCES I

Surveillance data l

Capsule NSSS Cu Ni irradiation Fluence Fluence Measured Temperature Ratio, l Designation Vendor Temperature (x10") Factor ART. Adjusted Temperature 1 (Tw) (FF) (547'F) Adjusted ART. (547'F)

LRTe, Plant a - 1 West. 0.23 0.62 542.0 0.502 0.808 110.0 105.0 104.0 Plant a - 2 West. 0.23< 0.42 542.0 0.829 0.947 166.0 160.0 158.4 Plant a 3 West. 0.23 0.82 542.0 2.380 1.234 165.0 160.0 168.4 Plant a - 4 West. 0.23 0.62 542.0 2.420 1.238 180.0 175.0 173.3 Plant b - 1 S&W 0.22 0.58 558.0 0.510 0.812 148.0 157.0 163.4 Plant b - 2 B&W 0.22 0.58 556.0 1.870 1.141 168.0 177.0 184.2 Normalization for credibility determination (when all data are being used)

Data normalized to mean chemical composition (i.e., copper and nickel) of surveillance specimens Cu = 0.23%

Ni = 0.61%

Data normalized to mean temperature of surveillance specimens Tm = 547'F Appendix A

9% = O CASE 5 - SURVElLLANCE DATA NOT AVAILABLE FROM PLANT BUT AVAILABLE FROM OTHER SOURCES (cont'd)

Assume the following for Plant "y" (the plant whose vessel is being assessed)

Westinghouse is NSSS vendor Weld heat 72445 is not in the surveillance program but is in the vessel l Tm = 536*F ]

Surveillance data for heat 72445 are only available from other sources )

Best estimate for heat Wald metal 0.22% Cu, 0.58% Ni - CFr u,,v , c,,,,,. = 164.0 *F Credibility assessment - Plant "a" data only if the irradiation environment for Plant "a" is judged to be closer to Plant "y" than Plant "b", the Plant "a" data should be used in assessing the integrity of the vessel Magnitude of temperature adjustment is lower for Plant "a" than Plant "b"., and the data are from the same NSSS vendor i

Since all data are from one source, perform credibility analysis similar l to Case 1 (i.e., determine best fit line through measured ARTuor values)  !

Appendix A

CASE 5 - SURVEILLANCE DATA NOT AVAILABLE FROM PLANT BUT AVAILABLE FROM OTHER SOURCES (cont'd)

Credibility assessment - Plant "a" data only (cont'd)

Slope of best fit line = 146.8 Capsule Cu NI irradiation Fluence Fluence Measured Predicted (Measured - j Temperature (x10") Factor ART,, ART , from Predicted)

(T w ) (FF) best fit line ART,,,

Plant a 1 0.23 0.62 542.0 0.802 0.808 110.0 117.8 -7.8 Plant a 2 0.23 0.42 542.0 0.829 0.947 165.0 138.2 26.8 Plant a . 3 0.23 0.82 642.0 2.380 1.234 165.C 179.9 14.9 Piant a 4 0.23 0.s2 542.0 2.420 1.238 180.0 180.6 .o.6 where predicted ART,.,=(W_..y(Fluence Factor)

Data are credible since scatter is less than 28'F for all surveillance specimens Determination of CF - Plant "a" data only Must make irradiation temperature and chemical composition adjustments since the irradiation temperature and chemistry differ between the capsules and the plant being assessed  ;

For capsules with T% greater than 536*F (i.e., T,J, must j increase ARTuor, by 1.0*F for each degree difference in irradiation temperature to get the temperature adjusted ARTuor (i.e., ARTuor,y%)

)

To obtain the " ratio and temperature" adjusted ARTwor, apply the  !

ratio procedure as follows: '

RatiolTemperature Adjusted ART,o7 = ( C F'*** * '****' '* *"' ) = hM T,o ,

resse, sm. chem.

I Appendix A

CASE 5 - SURVEILLANCE DATA NOT AVAILABLE FROM PLANT.BUT AVAILABLE FROM OTHER SOURCES (cont'd)

Determination of CF - Plant "a" data only (cont'd)

Surveillance data showing irradiation environment and chemical composition adjustments - normalized to best estimate of vessel Capsule Nsss Cu Ni irradiation Fluence Fluence Measured Temperature Ratio, Designation Vendor Temperature (x10") Factor ART.,e Adjusted Temperature (To ) (FF) (836 *F) Adjusted ART., ART.,,,

Plant a .1 West. 0.23 0.42 542.0 0.802 0.808 110.0 116.0 110.3 Plant a . 2 West. 0.23 0.62 542.0 0.829 0.M7 165.0 171.0 142.7 Plant a 3 West. 0.23 0.62 542.0 2.380 1.234 165.0 171.0 162.7 Plant a . 4 West. 0.23 0.62 542.0 2.420 1.238 180.0 186.0 174.s Determine best fit line relating adjusted (" ratio and temperature" adjusted) ARTsa,y to FF. The slope of this best fit line is the CF o,..

CFs , o,, = 144.0*F l l

Appendix A

m.m CASE 5 - SURVEILLANCE DATA NOT AVAILABLE FROM PLANT BUT AVAILABLE FROM OTHER SOURCES (cont'd) l If it had been determined that all data were soplicable to Plant "y", credibility and the CF would have been evaluated as follows:

Credibility Determination - All data Plot " ratio and temperature" adjusted ARTuor values (normalized to the mean chemical composition and temperature of the surveillance specimens) versus FF for all data (not just Plant "a") and determine best fit line Slope of best fit line = 150.3*F Capsule eu Ni irradiation Fluence Ploence Ratio, Predicted (Measured -

Temperature (zie") Factor Temperatute ART from Adjusted)

(T ) (FF) Asqueted best fitline ART.

ARTe Plant a 1 0.23 0.82 542.0 0.502 0.800 104.0 121.4 17.4 Plant a 2 0.23 0.42 542.0 0.829 0.947 158.4 142.4 16.0 Plant a 3 0.23 0.42 542.0 2.380 1.234 158.4 185.4 -27.0 Plant a -4 0.23 0.82 542.0 2.420 1.238 173.3 188.1 12.8 Plant b -1 0.22 0.58 586.0 0.810 0.812 163.4 122.1 41.3 Plant b - 2 0.22 0.58 586.0 1.870 1.141 184.2 171.5 12.7 Even though only 5 of the 6 data points are credible (i.e , the scatter is less than 28'F), the data set was considered credible Determination of CF - All data Must normalize data to best estimate chemical composition and temperature of y. nasal being assessed and determine best fit line through the " ratio and temperature" adjusted ARTuor values as a function of FF CFm, m = 154.4*F G

e

  • Appendix A

. . CASE 5 - SURVEILLANCE DATA NOT AVAILABLE FROM PLANT BUT AVAILABLE FROM OTHER SOURCES (cont'd)

Effects of data analyses technique (Ratio procedure, use of similar data, use of alldata)

Previous analyses Ratio procedure not applied, Temperature correction to data from other sources not made, All data evaluated RTm, = 4.0*F; M = 48'.3; CF = 149.2*F; FF = 1.354 RTm,% = -5.0 + 48.3 + (149.2

  • 1.354) = 245.3*F Current analyses - Using only Plant "a" data Ratio procedure applied and temperature correction made RTm,,,,,,,, = -5.0 + 48.3 + (144.0
  • 1.354) = 238.3
  • F Current analyses - Using all data ,

Ratio procedure applied and temperature correction made RTm,,,,,,,, = -5.0 + 48.3 + (154.4

  • 1.354) = 252.4*F

Conclusion:

CF determined from Plant "a" data is the most appropriate Least amount of adjustments to data - same NSSS vendor Environment at Plant "a" is closer to plant being assessed (Plant "y")

Appendax A

~-  ;

Attachment H Byron Station WCAP-15180, Rev. O," Commonwealth Edison Company Byron Unit 2 !

Surveillance Program Credibility Evaluation" l i

i i.

L 7

c P'WsW90095. doc I

i

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20207H785&oldid=3048876"