ML20236F641
| ML20236F641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1998 |
| From: | Ayres D, Ghergurovich J, Nadgor B ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236F634 | List: |
| References | |
| N-PENG-ER-007, N-PENG-ER-007-R00, N-PENG-ER-7, N-PENG-ER-7-R, NUDOCS 9807020264 | |
| Download: ML20236F641 (22) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o 1 ASEA BROWN BOVERI l
Report: N-PENG-ER-007, Rev 00 Justification of Continued LBB Compliance for NU MP2 Developed for Northeast Utilities Service Co By ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems Author: J. Ghereurovic tC(.4t h o.bl . Date: , #!.9Y Author: B. Nadeor/ ~
4 .
h
- Date:
iI
/[ff Independent Reviewer: D J. Avres/ #d ,
~
Date // [
f I "
/ '/
Project Manager: J. Ghercurovic tOvvv e Date: // '$
g i i
Supenisor: K. H. Haslinger/ k@tu(L h L K NlE2M[tr% Date:b # 'N gv g This letter, including the Attachment, has been venfed by the method vfDesign Review in
\ accordance with GP 3.10 ofQPM-101, Revision 00.
I 9007020264 990625 Page1 PDR ADOCK 05000336 P PDR
. c, .
q a i )
TABLE OF CONTENTS '
Section Title Eage 3
j EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
.. .. ...... .. . . ... . . . . . . . .. .. . .4 2.0 DISCUSSION . . . . .. .. . .. .. . , .4 2,1 Summary of CEN 367-A Report Relative to NU MP2. . . . . . . .4 L
2.2 Summary ofMISC-ME-C-144 . .. .. . . .. .6 2.2.1 Load / Location Selection . . . . . . . . . .7 2.2.2 Material Selection . . . . . . . . .. .8 l> 2.2.3 Comparison to CEN 367-A .. . . . . . . . .8 l
3.0 CONCLUSION
S .. . . . . . . , . .9
4.0 REFERENCES
- . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 10 TABLES 1 Comparison of Fracture Mechanics Attributes .. . . . . . . .. .. . .I1 l
2a Comparisons of Stability Evaluation Results
- (Carbon Steel Pipe Material, t=2.5", SA516, Gr 70).. . . .. . .12 2b. Comparisons of Stability Evaluation Results (Stainless Steel Pipe Material, t=3.0", SA240, Type 316) . . . .14
' FIGURES
)
1 Stability Evaluation of Circumferential Crack at Maximum Circumferential Loading, (Carbon Steel Pipe Material, t=2.5", SA516,'Gr 70) . . . .16 2.- Stability Evaluation of Circumferential Crack at Maximum Circumferential Loading, (Stainless Steel Pipe Material, t=3.0", SA240, Type 316).. .. .17 '
Report No.-N-PENG-ER-007.- Rev. 00 Page 2
.4
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The purpo's c of this report is to demonstrate continued compliance to Leak-Before-Break (LBB) criteria for the Reactor Coolant System Piping at the Northeast Utilities (NU)
Milestone Point 2 (MP2) nuclear generating station which includes the effect of the recently irc talled Replacement Steam Generators (RSGs). This was accomplished by s
l comparing a revised LBB analyses to the original, NRC approved, LBB Topical Report CEN 367-A, as appropriate. The intent of the evaluation is to reuse the original fracture mechanics attributes as much as possible when considering the effect of the new loads due to the RSGs.
A graphical and tabular comparison oforiginal versus new results demonstrates that the new applied J vs dJ/da curve is less than the material J vs dJ/da curve indicating that the flaw remains stable under the increased loads. In addition, NUREG 1061, Volume 3, Paragraph 5.2 criteria is addressed in tabular format as appropriate.
In conclusion, the effect of the increased loads on the NU MP2 RCS piping due to the RSGs have been considered and have been shown to continue to comply with LBB criteria. Therefore, the main loop piping for NU MP2 continues to meet all the criteria for the application of LBB presented in NUREG 1061, Volume 3.
Report No. N-PENG-ER-007, Rev. 00 Page 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpo's e of this report is to demonstrate continued compliance to Leak-Before-Break (LBB) criteria for the Reactor Coolant System Piping at the Northeast Utilities (NU)
Milestone Point 2 (MP2) nuclear generating station which includes the effect of the recently installed Replacement Steam Generators (RSGs). This will be accomplished by
- companng a revised analyses, Reference 4.2, to the original, NRC approved, LBB Topical Report CEN 367-A, Reference 4.1, as appropriate. The intent of the evaluation is to reuse the original fracture mechanics attributes as much as possible when considering the effect of the new loads due to the RSGs. These attributes include material propenies, flaw location and size, leakage shape, crack growth, applied loading and margin to the acceptance criteria.
2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 Summary of CEN 367-A Report Relative to NU MP2 The CEN 367-A topical report was generated through the CE Owners Group (CEOG) as a generic means to demonstrate compliance to the LBB criteria for CE plants. To minimize the efIbrt involved, the plants were grouped together based on similar plant sizes, pipe sizes, Reactor Vessel (RV) support design and Reactor Coolant Pump Support (RCP) design. This approach resulted in three plant groupings comprised of tbc eleven participating plants. NU MP2 was part of Group 1 along with Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2, Palisades and St. Lucie 1 & 2. Subsequently, enveloping loads were developed for each group by gathering normal operating and seismic piping loads for each plant to establish a limiting load set for each grouping. For the Group i plants, the majority of the limiting loads were based on NU MP2.
In summary, the CEN 367-A effort demonstrated compliance with the LBB criteria using the following conservative assumptions:
- 1. Use oflower bound material toughness properties In the selection of a representative main loop piping material for all plants, CEN-367 A utilized a conservative bounding approach where the stress-strain properties of the relatively lower yield base metal material are used in conjunction with the Report No. N-PENG-ER-007, Rev. 00 Page4
i; 1
lower toughness fracture properties of the weld for the entire structure. For base met'al, SA240-304 Stainless Steel conservatively bounded all stainless steels used j' in the subject plants. For welds, submerged arc weld material SA-516 Gr 70 for f carbon steel welds was used. Of these, the toughness of 304 is significantly greater than the toughness of the SA516 Gr 70.
t In summary, SA516 Gr 70 and SA304 Stainless Steel were used in the generation of the Applied J values and the carbon steel submerged arc weld toughness properties were used as a lower bound for all base and weld materials in the piping
! system. This curve was used in the stability evaluatien as the bounding material property to satisfy the LBB stability criteria.
- 2. Use oflow leakage rate l
Determination ofleakage rate through a postulated flaw is a complicated thermal-hydraulic phenomenon. Variables such as surface roughness of the side walls of the crack, the nonparallel relationship of the side walls due to the elongated crack shape, and possibly zigzag tearing of the material during crack formation all introduce uncertainties in defining an exact flow rate correlation. CEN 367-A presented several flow hypotheses available at that time to help justify an appropriate leakage rate. These included work performed by Henry-Fauske in NUREG/CR-1319 and the EPRI developed PICEP program. Since the crack opening area is used to determine the length of the detectable leakage crack for stability evaluations, the lowest postulated leakage rate under NSSS operating -
2 l conditions was used. The lowest value discussed at the time was 250 gpmTm . By
[ . choosing the lower leakage rate, a conservative crack length would result.
L l Based on review of the CEN 367-A, the NRC concluded that the CEOG primary loop l piping complies with the revised General Design Criteria 4 (GDC-4) according to the L criteria in NUREG 1061, Volume 3, Reference 4.3 Thus, confirming that the probability oflarge pipe breaks occurring in the primary coolant system loops for the CEOG plants is sufficiently low such that the dynamic effects associated with postulated pipe breaks need no longer be a design basis. The intent of this evaluation is to verify the same conclusion under a slightly more severe loading condition presented by the installation of the RSGs.
I-Report No. N-PENG-ER-007, Rev. 00 PageS ,
a 2.2 Summary of MISC-ME-C-144 l
l As' stated above, the NU MP2 piping loads provided the majority of the limiting loads for i
Group i plants in the CEOG task. As a result of the increased seismic and normal operation loads due to the RSGs for NU MP2, a re-evaluation demonstrating continued i LBB compliance is required. The RCS piping load re-evaluation, Reference 4.5, concluded that several RCS cold leg locations were now found to have larger loads than in the original RCS design. Subsequently, calculation MISC-ME-C-144 developed new cases using these higher loads. The results from these cases are discussed and compared to the original CEN 367-A evaluation in this report to demonstrate continued compliance with LBB criteria. Other RCS piping locations, such as the hot leg, were not reanalyzed because the CEOG Group 1 loads in CEN 367-A were not exceeded due to the RSGs.
In lieu of a finite-element analysis to develop new results, as was done in the original CEN 367-A effort, a fracture mechanics based computer program, JEST, Reference 4.4, is used to generate results for several new load cases. The JEST computer program calculates estimates of J-Integrals associated'with a variety of simple geometries containing cracks, most notably, in pipes. It does so by utilizing empirical relationships, previously developed on behalf of EPRI. It should be noted that the J-Integral evaluation methodologies used in CEN 367-A and in MISC-ME-C-144 are different. As shown in CEN 367-A, the JEST results were found to be always conservative relative to the finite element approach. This is especially true for the 304 Stainless Steel piping case shown in Figure 9.7 of that report.
The approach used in this evaluation was to utilize the same fracture mechanics attributes as in the CEN 367-A report, to generate new load case results, to compare them to the existing lower bound material curve, and to show continued compliance with LBB criteria.
Table 1 provides a comparison of several fracture mechanics attributes for the CEN 367-A report and the MISC-ME-C-144 calculation. The following sections discuss critical l
aspects of the revised evaluation.
~
Report No. N-PENG-ER-007, Rev. 00 page c
4 r ,
2.2.1 Location / Load Selection >
In CEN 367-A, several locations along the entire length of the RCS piping were considered for possible flaw evaluations. It was determined that for CE two-loop plants, the locations of highest stress occur at the terminal ends of the piping; specifically, at the Steam Generator (SG), Reactor Vessel (RV) and Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) nozzles.
In Section 3.0 of CEN 367-A, stresses and cumulative usage factors for all remaining locations were determined to be less than those at the terminal ends and, therefore, need not be considered as postulated pipe break locations. For all these locations, circumferentially oriented flaws were chosen for consideration. In addition, two longitudinal flaws were postulated at two intermediate locations of highest cumulative usage factors. Limiting normal operation and seismic loads were then developed for these locations for each plant grouping.
In the revised analysis, the same locations were re-assessed for changes in loading and, again, the peak load location was chosen for re-evaluation. In this case, the RCP Suction Leg Elbow, known as Location 6, was selected for analysis based on it being the circumferential flaw location with the maximum applied equivalent bending moment for the Pressure + NOP + SSE condition. This is the same limiting location presented in CEN 367-A for Group 1 plants. By re-evaluating this same peak location for higher loading, compliance is assured for the remaining locations. Since, the original CEN 367-A evaluation considered two pipe material properties as described in Section 2.22, both material / pipe configurations are re-assessed using the same peak load to ensure that the entire RCS piping loop meets thbL' BB criteria.
The longitudinal flaw locations were also included in the load re-assessment but were not re-evaluated since it was determined in the CEN 367-A report that the major contributing factor to the intensity of J-Integral on slot cracks is the pressure loading. For the slot cases, the hoop stresses due to pressure are twice that for the circumferential case. In addition, it was also determined that due to the orientation of the postulated slot crack (intrados and in-plane with the moment loading applied to the elbow) the J-Integral is not very sensitive to normal operation and seismic bending loads. Sine the pressure loading did not change, as a result of the RSG and the direction of the applied moment remained l the same, there was no need to re-evaluate the longitudinal flaw locations.
? Repon No. N-PENG-ER-007 Rev. 00 Page 7 L , J
2.2.2 Material Selection As discussed above, a representative lower bound toughness for submerged arc weld material SA516 Gr 70 is used for the material J-R evaluation of the entire RCS piping in CEN 367-A. Since the intent of the RSGs did not intrcduce material oflower toughness capability, it is conservative to continue to use the same material reference curve for the toughness re-evaluation. In the calculation of the applied J-Integral, Jana.o, in CEN 367-A, two materials were used in the piping configurations evaluated. The materials are Carbon Steel, SA 516 Grade 70, for the majority of the RCS piping and 304 Stainless Steel for the RCP Suction Leg Elbow Safe End. SA240, Type 316 propenies were used as representative of the 304 Stainless Steel material in the LBB evaluation. This same comparison is performed in the MISC-ME-C-144 re-evaluation to ensure that all combinations of the higher loads due to RSGs are assessed.
2.2.3 Comparison to CEN 367-A To simplify a comparison of results, Figures 1 & 2 combine the results from the original CEN 367-A evaluation with the revised analysis results of MISC-ME-C-144, Rev. 02.
The latter reflects the increased loads due to the RSG. This method of presenting crack stability conveniently combines the following criterion where the Jenso and the corresponding dJ/da are determined for the respective moment and crack length. The criterion for instability is:
a :
Jmuw 2 Jwnw. AND r gjs (pj s
< 0" > -n u da _,_
In order to demonstrate that instability does not occur, the tip of each new applied J vs dJ/da curve is required to fall to the left of the material J vs dJ/da curve. As is shown by the figure, the new applied J vs dj/da curve does not intersect the material J vs dJ/da curve, thus indicating that the flaw remains stable under the increased loads. Tables 2a &
2b presents the same results in tabular form.
Note that the CEN 367-A data on Figure 1 initiates at the plot origin (J = dJ/da = 0) vs.
the MISC-ME-C-144, Rev. 02 results (J = 0, dJ/da
- 0). Subsequent to NRC submittal of CEN 367, the staff requested clarification of several aspects of the report. Questions included a request to clarify the computation ofJ-Integral on plots such as Figures 1 & 2.
Report No. N-PENG-ER-007, Rev. 00 Page 8
CE responded to these questions in a supplemental report, Reference 4.6. The CE response included an explanation of a polynomial equation used to fit the crack length curves developed in the LBB analysis. The form of the equation is as follows:
3 = bi a' + (a*n/2E)a (uhere bi isfit to the data)
This polynomial reduces to the appropriate expression for clastic stress intensity in terms of the nominal remote stress, o, as crack size, a, approaches zero. This curve was then differentiated to provide J vs. dJ/da curves for the stability figures such as Figures 1 & 2.
For MISC-ME-C-144 Rev 02, a fourth order fit was used to fit the data generated by the JEST code under the RSG loading conditions. Subsequently, these results provide a less conservative but more accurate representation of the crack tip behavior under the higher RSG loading condition.
3.0 CONCLUSION
S In conclusion, the effect of the increased loads on the NU MP2 RCS piping due to the RSGs have been considered in a revised LBB evaluation and have been shown to be acceptable. Therefore, the main loop piping for NU MP2 continues to meet all the criteria for the application ofleak before break presented in NUREG 1061, Volume 3.
Report No. N-PENG-ER-007, Rev. 00 Page 9
\ i t.________.______m____ __ . . _ _ .
~
4.0 REFERENCES
4.1 Combustion Engineering Report CEN-367-A, " Leak-Before-Break Evaluation of Primary Coolant Loop Piping in Combustion Engineering Designed Nuclear Steam Supply Systems," Prepared for the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG), February 1991.
' 4.2 MISC-ME-C-144, Rev 02, " Demonstration of Feasibility of Using JEST Program for MS-2 L.B.B. Analysis of Cold Leg", Dated 5/11/98.
4.3 NUREG-1061, Volume 3," Report of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Piping Review Committee, Evaluation of Potential for Pipe Breaks," November, 1984.
4.4 - Calculation MISC-ME-C-058 Rev. 00, "J-Integral Estimation Program -
Computer Code Verification (JEST 99)," B. Pistolese, 12/04/89.
4.5 Calculation N-ME-C-018, Rev 00, " Millstone-2 MCL Piping Loads for RCS with B&W RSGs", dated 4/13/92.
4.6 CEOG-88-748, " Request for Additional Information on Topical Report CEN-367,
" Leak Before Break Evaluation of Primary Coolant Loop Piping in Combustion Engineering Designed Nuclear Steam Supply Systems", December 20,1988.
4.7 NUSCO Specification No. SP-ME-522, PA-86-242, Rev 07, " Replacement Steam Generator Assembly Specification", November 23,1992.
< i l
l Report No. N-PENG-ER-007, Rev. 00 Page 10 l-L -
--_ - - - - - _ - - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - _ J
Table 1: Comparison of Fracture Mechanics Attributes i
WREG 1961, Wl3 Atirhee Otisinal f TN 367-A Reded %1tNC \fE-C.t44. R2 Para 5.2 Criteria Pipe Cross Secuan Geometry Lemitmg Circ. Flaw laation Geometry Lmutmg Circ. Flaw Lucahon Geometry (b). (e) Not Changed R. = 18 0" (Carbon Steel) R. = 18 0" (Carbon Steel)
R. = 15.5 R. = 15.5" T - 2.5" T = 2.5" R. - 18.0" (Stainless Steel) R. = 18.0" (Stainless Steel)
R. = 15.0" R. - 15.0" T = 3.0" T = 3 0" Faugue Crack Growth Faugue Crack Growth (FCG) evaluauon No new evaluat on was performed. 'lhe (d), Not Changed Evaluauon(ash 1E XI pertarmed under original loadmg conditions meremental increase in NOP loads (4 3'.)
Acceptable Flaw ) were found to be acceptable, will not sigmficantly increase FCG results -
conclusion that existing flaws will not grow sigmficantly remains vahd.
Postulated Flaw Localmn RCP Sueton Leg Elbow RCP Suction Leg Libow (b). Not Changed with htat lead (known as Location 6 in CEN 367-A) (known as Locauon 6 in CEN 367-A)
Postulated Haw Size Carbon Steel Case Carbon Steel Case (d),(e). Not Changed 15 0" for loads up to PRS +NOP-SSE 15 0" for loads up to PRS-NOP+SSE
- 7.5" for loads up to v2(PRS +NOP+SSE) 7.5" for loads up to v2(PRS-NOP*SSE)
Stainless Steel Case'" Stainless Steel Case 18.58" for loads up to PRS +NOP+SSE 15 0" for loads up to PRS +NOP+SSE 9.29" for loads up to (2(PRS +NOP+SSE) 7 5"for loads up to s:(PRS +NOP*SSE)
Postulated Leakage Flow 250 gpm m' 250 gpm in i (e). Not Changed Postulated Flow Area .04 m' under PRS +NOP loadmg .04 an' under PRS + NOP loadmg (c), Not Changed
.0I in' under PRS loadmg only .01 in' under PRS loadmg only J-Integial Calculauon N!cthod l mite Element Analysis unmg vutual JEST calculates esumates of J-integrals No Cnterra Specified:
displacement J-Integral method associated with a variety of simple JEST results hase been geometries containing cracks in pipes. It shown in CEN 367 A to does so by utilizing empirical relatmnships, be more conservause previously developed on beha!f of EPRI.
Curve Fittmg used to Determine Quadraus formula which reduces to the Fourth order polynomial fit of the resultmg dj da No Cntena Specified appropnate expression for clastic stress JEST J vs a data. Purpose of fit is to des ek.p intensity in terms of the nonunal remote dJ da. The fourth order i
stress, c. as crack size, a. approaches zero, J = bi a% b:ab b3a'+ b.ia approach more accurately follows the trend 8
J = bi a + (o'n 2E)a established m the J vs a data Assumed hiatenal Properties for Base hietal: SA 304 Stair.less Steel, Base Nietal. S A 304 Stamless Steel. Weld (b), (c). (1). (m). (n). Not Applied J-Integral Esatuation Weld hietal: SA516 Gr 70, submerged are hietal: S A516. Or 70, submerged arc weld Changed
, weld for carbon steel for carbon steel
{ Assumed N!atenal J-R SA516. Or 70 submerged arc weld for S A516. Or 70, submerged arc weld for (J),(L). Not Changed l Properties carbon steel carbon steel (Lower Bound for allocations) (Lower Bound for all locations)
Apphed Leads Group I & 2 Loc. 7' m CEN 367-A (b) (g).(i). Revned due to PRS +NOP+SSE: higher loads due to RSO h1 = 36.000 in-Lips F = 245 kips (2(PRS +NOP+SSE):
1 At = 51,000 in kips F = 346 kips Oroup 1 Loc. 6 in CEN 367 A htP2 Specific (# Group i Loc.6)" in CEN PRS +NOP+SSE: 367-A h1 = 33.000 in4ips PRS +NOP+SSE:
F = 380 kips kl = 54.273 in4ips 1 V2(PRS +NOP+SSE): V2(PRS +NOP+SSE): f hl = 47,000 in kips h1 = 76,753 in Lips F = 537 kips
+ This cinclopmg data at Locanon 7 was chosen for stability calculauons despite the fact that location 6 is the entical location for the Group 1 plants.
- The effect of axial force is addressed by increasing the moment to provide an equivalent total tensile stress oser the crack surface.
- *
- The larger postulated flaw size used in the CEN 367 A evaluauon exceeded mimmum required flow area of 0 4 in' under PRS +NOP loadmg. For the subseqwnt revised analysis this conservatism was remosed.
Report No. N-PENG-ER-007, Rev. 00 Page/I
Table 2a: Comparisons of Stability Evaluation Results I
(Carbon Steel Pipe Material, t=2.5", SA516, Gr 70)
Lower Bound CEN 367-A MISC-ME-C-144. R2 DJ/da Material. NOP+SSE V2(NOP+SSE) NOP+SSE V2(NOP+SSE) 2 (in-lbs/in') J (in-Ibs/in:) J (in-Ibs/in ) J (in-Ibs/in ) J (in-Ibs/in ) J (in-Ibs/in:)
0 0 0 13 7 26 27 38 59 41 21 49 102 59 156 68 220 77 293 81 312 83 83 85 374 91 462 97 556 97.9 0 103 656 103.2 50.3 107 761 109.1 103.3 110 870 113 982 115 1096 115.7 159.5 123.2 219.1 124 186 141.8 351.1 ;
159.6 463.9 166 331 207 518 223.5 818.3 248 745 290 1014 308.9 0 323.0 1324.2 Report No. N-PENG-ER-007, Rev, 00 Page 12 i
k
Lower Bound CEN 367-A MISC-ME-C-144 R2 DJ/da , Material. NOP+SSE V2(NOP+SSE) NOP+SSE V2(NOP+SSE)
(iii-lbs/in') J (in-Ibs/in:) J (in-lbs/in ) J (in-lbs/in ) J (in-lbs/in ) J (in-lbs/in )
344.8 163.5 378.5 344.4 411.4 541.9 445.3 - 756.0 -
522.1 1238.4 -
593.8 1655.9 837 4000 850 3678 875 3202 900 2845 925 2567 950- 2345 975 .2163 1000 2012.
1025 1883
-1050 1774 1075- 1678 1100 1595 l 1150 1456 l 1200 1345 l-
-1250- 1254 1275 1215 1300 1178 .:
1350 1114 1400 1059 1500 973 1600 901 1800 800 2000 730 1
l Report No. N-PEhG-ER-007, Rev. 00 Page 13 l
i a e Table 2b: Comparisons of Stability Evaluation Results
~
(Stainless Steel Pipe Material, t=3.0", SA240, Type 316)
Lower Bound CEN 367-A MISC-ME-C 144. R2 DJ/da Material. NOP+SSE V2(NOP+SSE) NOP+SSE V2(NOP+SSE) 2 2 (in-lbs/in') J (in-lbs/in ) J (in-lbs/in ) J (in-lbs/in ) J (in-Ibs/in ) J (in-lbs/in )
0 0 0 10.5 5.3 20.6 20.8 30.5 46.4 30.7 15.4 40.0 81.6 49.2 126.2 58.2 180.0 61.5 61.5 66.8 242.5 75.I 313.5 83.2 392.7 85.4 417.1 89.8 0 90.9 479.7 92.2 138.3 97.9 46.9 98.3 574.3 l 105.4 . 676.2 97.8 112.2 785.0 i i12.9 152.4 118.7 900.5 l 120.8 210.8 123.0 245.9
! 124.9 1022.4 130.8 1150.3 136.4 1284.0 139.3 340.4 141.7 1423.1 144.7 1506.I 153.7 384.3 157.5 451.4 184.4 553.3 215.2 753.2 Report No. N-PENG-ER-007, Rev 00 Page 14
, 1 Lower Bound CEN 367-A MISC-ME-C-144. R2 DJ/da , Material. NOP+SSE V2(NOP+SSE) NOP+SSE V2(NOP+SSE) 2 2 (in-lbs/in') J (in-lbs/in ) J (in-lbs/in ) J (in-lbs/in*) J (in-lbs/in ) J (in-lbs/in )
229.8 807.4 245.9 983.7 276.7 1245.0 285.6 1326.6 359.3 1348.9 375.1 0 448.4 206.4 510.4 446.5 565.1 715.6 616.6 1011.1 726.3 1680.9 830.2 2262.9 837 4000 850 36S 875 3202 900 2845 l
925 2567 950. .2345 975 2163 1000 2012 l- 1025 1883 1050 1774
( 1075 1678 1100 1595 1150 1456 1200 1345 1250 1254 1275 1215
~
1300 1178 f 1350 1114 1400 1059 1500 970 j 1600 901 )
1800 800 2000 730 Report No. N-PENG-ER-007. Rev. 00 Page 15
l 1
Figure 1. Stability Evaluation of Circumferential Crack at Maximum Circumferential Loading (Carbon Steel Pipe Material, t=2.5", SA516, Gr 70 )
i 4000
! i - Wrl Curv e
-e-- Ress+NOp+SSE f 3500' ' -*-(2*(Ress+ top +SSE) !
. -*-CEt+367-A Ress+NOp+SSE
. --+--CEte367-A @*(Ress+ top 4SSE) <
3000-l i
I I I 2500 -
! n .
4
-e 4 e
, E 2000 3 ,
F N
1500 -
l 1C l
1000 )t 1: .
1: ,
500 -
I 0'
- O 400 800 1200 1600 2000' dJ/da (in-lbhn ^3)
I
- This corresponds to Figure 10.5 in CEN 367-A. In CEN 367 A, this figure, despite the reference to
" Pump Discharge Leg", represents a generic stability evaluation of all RCS carbon steel piping material with a wall thickness of 2.50" and is appropriate for the intended comparison to results from the revised LBB evaluation.
Report No. N-PENG-ER-007, Rev. 00 Page 16 w-_______________ _ _.
s
+
f .
Figure 2. Stability Evaluation of Circumferential Crack at Maximum Circumferential Loading 1 (Stainless Steel Pipe Material, t=3.0", SA240, Type 316) i 1
4000 -
I ' --+-- Wt1 Curve '
i 3 -an---Ress+ top +SSE 4 3500 - g__ y.(pes,+ rop +S3p l
- --*--CEN-367-A Ress+NOp+SSE
! ; + CEN-367-A @*(Ress*NOp+SSE) l ,
f I
3000 -
l 2500 t
- q l
'c I Er
$.2000- I 1 1 h
4 j 1500- :(
a i ::
l :t 1000-500 - i j I
3 I
l l 0: ._ _ _
l 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000:
dJ/da (in-lblin *3)
I
- This corresponds to Figure 10.1 in CEN 367-A. In CEN 367-A this figure, despite the reference to
" Pump Discharge Leg", represents a generic stability evaluation of all RCS stainless steel piping material with a wall thickness of 3.00" and is appropriate for the intended comparison to results from the revised LBB evaluation.
Report No. N-PENG-ER-007, Rev. 00 Page 17
___._______.__________s
1 e .
Other Design Document Checklist (Page1of3)
Instructions: ne Independent Reviewer is to complete this checkhst for each Other Design Document. His Checklist is to be made part of the Quality Record package, although it need not be made a part of or distnbuted with the document itself. The second section of this checklist lists potential topics which could be relevant for a particular "Other Design Document, If they are applicable, then the relevant section of the Design Analysis Verification Checklist shall be completed and attached to this checklist.
(Sections of the Design Analysis Verification Checklist which are not used may be left blank.)
Title:
Justification of Continued LBB Compliance for NU MP2 Document Number: N-PENG-ER407 Resision Number: 00 Section 1: To be completed for all'Other Design Documents" Yes N/A Overall Assessment
- 1. Are the results/ conclusions correct and appropriate for theirintended use? @
- 2. Are all limitations on the results/ conclusions documented? @
Documentation Requirements
- 1. Is the documentation legible, reproducible and in a form suitable for filing and retrieving as a Quality B Record?
- 2. Is the document identified by title, document number and date? @
- 3. Are all pages identified with the document number including revision number? E O
- 4. Do all pages have a unique page number? E O
- 5. Does the content clearly identify, as applicable:
- a. objective. B 0
- b. design inputs (in accordance with QP 3.2). E O
- c. conclusions. E O
- 6. Is the verification status of the document indicated? @
- 7. If an Independent Reviewer is the supervisor or Project Manager, has authorization as an Independent O 3 Resiewer been documented?
Assumptions
- 1. Are all assumption identified, justified and documented? O 2
- 2. Are all assumptions that must be cleared listed? O E
- a. Is a process in place which assures that those which are CENO responsibility will be cleared? O O
- b. Is a process in place which assures that those which are the customer's responsibility to clear will O O be indicated on transmittals to the customer?
l l
I l
l Page 18
I
+ ,
g s " .
Other Design Document Checklist (Page 2 of 3)
Assessment of Significant Design Changes Yes N/A
- 1. llave significant design-related changes that might impact this document been considered?
2 0 1
- 2. If any such changes have been identified, have they been adequately addresed? '
Selection of Design loputs 1.. Are the design inputs documented? -
- 2. Are the design inputs correctly selected and traceable to their source?
- 3. Are references as direct as possible to the original source or documents containing collection / tabulations ofinputs?
- 4. Is the reference notation appropriately specific to the information utilized? @
- 5. Are the bases for selection of all design inputs documented?
O
- 6. Is the verification status of design inputs transmitted from customers appropriate and documented? @
- 7. Is the verification status of design inputs transmitted from ABB CENS appropriate and documented? @
- 8. Is the use of customer. controlled sources such as Tech Specs, UFSARs, etc. authorized, and does the authorization specify amendment level, revision number, etc.?
References 1, Are all references listed?
- 2. Do the reference citations include sufficient infonnation to assure retrievability and unambiguous @
location of the referenced material?
Section 2: Other Potentially Applicable Topic Areas - use appropriate sections of the Design Analysis Verification Checklist (QP 3.4, Exhibit 3.4 - 5) and attach. ' :
Yes N/A
- 1. .Use of Computer Software
- 2. Applicable Codes and Standards
- 3. Literature Searches and Backgrotmd Data O
- 4. Methods-
- 5. liand Calculations
- 6. List of Computer Software O
- 7. List of Microfiche O
- 8. List ofoptical disks (CD-ROM)
- 9. List ofcomputer disks t
FM03101. doc 12/01/96
o
, t.
A n a
. Other Design Document Checklist (Page 3 of 3)
Independent Reviewer's Comments Comment Reviewer's Comment Response Author's Response Response Number Required? Accepted?
1 None N None Yes s
l Checklist completed by:
Independent Reviewer: David 1 Ayres y gp g [
Pnnted Name I %gnature I Date s
FM0310-1. doc .12/01/96 l
a s.., ,
Docket No. 50-336 B17296 l
Attachment 3 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2
- Leak Before Break Revised Evaluation of the Primary Cold Leg Piping Request for NRC Review for Continued Applicability of Report CEN-367-A NNECO Commitments l
l
[.
June 1998
, , , ' , U.S. Nucl::r R:gul: tory Commission B17296/ Attachment 3/Page 1
~
Leak Before Break Revised Evaluation of the Primary Cold Leg Piping Request for NRC Review for Continued Applicability of Report CEN-367-A List of Regulatory Commitments The following table identifies those actions committed to by NNECO in this document.
Please notify the Manager - Regulatory Compliance at Millstone Unit No. 2 of any questions regarding this document, or any associated regulatory commitments. l Commitment Committed Date or Outage NONE N/A i
_ _ _ - _ _ .