ML081570607: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML081570607
| number = ML081570607
| issue date = 04/28/2008
| issue date = 04/28/2008
| title = 2008/04/28-New England Coalition, Inc., Contentions 4 Prefiled Exhibits NEC-UW_14 - NEC-UW_22, Volume 2
| title = New England Coalition, Inc., Contentions 4 Prefiled Exhibits NEC-UW_14 - NEC-UW_22, Volume 2
| author name =  
| author name =  
| author affiliation = New England Coalition, Inc
| author affiliation = New England Coalition, Inc
| addressee name = Karlin A S, Reed W H, Wardwell R E
| addressee name = Karlin A, Reed W, Wardwell R
| addressee affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| addressee affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| docket = 05000271
| docket = 05000271
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Unredacted UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. William H. Reed In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)))))))Docket No. 50-271-LR ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR NEW ENGLAND COALITION, INC.CONTENTIONS 4 PREFILED EXHIBITS NEC-UW 14- NEC-UW 22 April 28, 2008 Volume 2 NEC-UW_14
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
-LRU-date to CHECWOR-KS3
...
___ ...........
---- _1 From: Beth Sienel To: Jonathan Rowley Date: 02/20/2008 9:03:30 AM
 
==Subject:==
Re: Update to CHECWORKS Jonathan, I talked to the FAC program owner (Jim Fitzpatrick) and he said the update is in progress.
More details: The Fleet has upgraded to the new version of Checworks.and VY put EPU conditions into the program.They are now in the process of verifying.
Hope this helps, Beth>'>> Jonathan Rowley 2/19/2008
: 4. 16 PM >>>Beth I (and OGC) need to find out if VY has updated the CHECWORKS computer program they used to predict and track pipe thinning to account for powerjuprate conditions.
VY stated -during the EPU process that the FAC Program (using CHECWORKS) would be~updated to account for uprated power conditions.
There has been one outage since the EPU was granted duringwhich the updating was to have initiated, that is my understanding.
Could you contact the FlowrAccelerated Corrosion Program owner and verify if they have started updating the program?CC: Raymond Powell; Ricardo Fernandes I c~ep\G}OOO6MPPage, 1 Mail Envelope Properties (47BC3325.EC4:
5 : 55534) U
 
==Subject:==
Re: Update to CHECWORKS Creation Date 02/20/2008 9:03:17 AM From: Beth Sienel Created By: BEK@nrc.gov I Recipients nrc.gov J TWGWPO03.HQGWDOOI JGR (Jonathan Rowley)nrc.gov kpl_po.KP_DO RAF 1 CC (Ricardo Fernandes)
I RJP CC (Raymond Powell)Post Office Route TWGWPO03.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov kplpo.KP_DO nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1528 02/20/2008 9:03:17 AM Options 3 Expiration Date: None Priority:
Standard ReplyRequested:
No Return Notification:
None Concealed
 
==Subject:==
No I Security:
Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results I Message is not eligible for Junk Mail handling Message is from an internal sender Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled.!I I NEC-UW_15 PENNSTATE I Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering (814) 865-2519 College of Engineering Fax: (814) 8634848 The Pennsylvania State University 137 Reber Building University Park. PA 16802-1412 Dr. Brian W. Sheron Associate Director for Project Licensing and Technical Analysis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission MS 05E7 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738
 
==Dear Dr. Sharon:==
Enclosed are the results of a project given to my Penn State Graduate Students on finding pipe failure data over a range of pipe sizes and conditions.
We specifically looked for stainless steel data as well as carbon steel pipe data. Since the data is from several sources other than nuclear the pipe wall thickness may not always be comparable to reactor pipe wall thicknesses.
In some of the reports the students did separate the failure and leakage data by mechanism such that we could then screen the data.I I had the students normalize the data in such a fashion that we could then compare to the break frequency spectrum curves generated by the NRC experts group. I did talk to Rob Tenoning on the best way of normalizing our data such that we would be consistent with the break frequency plots. The key findings from the students work is that the data, when plotted in the same manner as the break frequency spectrum plots from the NRC experts work, shows a much flatter behavior at the larger pipe sizes indicating a more similar probability level for failure as compared to a more significant decrease in the failure probability as given by the NRC break frequency spectrum.II am complying all the independent sets of data in a spread sheet and will attempt a further screening.
Once complete, I will send you a copy of the data. I wanted you to have these report now with all the data so you could make an independent assessment.
Please let me know if you need anything else.I Very truly yours, L.E. Hochreiter Professor of Nuclear and Mechanical Engineering I College of Engineering An Equat Opportunity University NucE 597D -Project 1 DATA COLLECTION OF PIPE FAILURES OCCURING IN STAINLESS STEEL AND CARBON STEEL PIPING Pennsylvania State University Dr. L.E. Hochreiter April 2005 I I I U I I I I I I I I I I I I I# *I I I Executive Summar-y Currently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is contemplating changing the acceptance criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) for light-water nuclear power reactors contained in NRC Regulation 10 CFR 50.46. This regulation sets specific numerical acceptance criteria for peak cladding temperature, clad oxidation, total hydrogen generation, and core cooling under loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) situations.
Furthermore, the regulation requires that a spectrum of break sizes and locations be analyzed to determine the most severe case and to ensure the plant design can meet the acceptance criteria under such conditions.
Currently the regulation states that breaks of pipes in the reactor coolant pressure boundary up to, and including, a break equivalent in size to the double-ended rupture of the largest pipe in the reactor coolant system must be considered.
While this restricts the design, it maintains a large safety margin ensuring the plant-is covered under all LOCA situations.
However, an impetus for change has resulted from materials research, analysis, and experience that indicate that the catastrophic rupture of a limiting size pipe at a nuclear power plant is a very low probability event.If approved, the proposed change would divide the break spectrum into two categories based upon the likelihood of a break. Breaks of higher likelihood, breaks smaller than 10 inches, would need to meet the current requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.46. Breaks of a lower likelihood, those larger than 10 inches, would only need to meet the requirements of maintaining a coolable geometry and having the capability for long term cooling.The purpose of this project was to collect data on instances of pipe failures including cracks, leaks, and ruptures.
For each instance of failure the plant type, pipe diameter, type of pipe, failure mechanism, and type of failure was recorded.
The data was then collapsed based on plant type (PWR or BWR), type of pipe (carbon or stainless steel), pipe size, and failure mechanism.
Then, normalized failure frequencies were calculated as a function of both pipe size and failure mechanism per reactor year. Plots of the frequency distributions were generated on a semi-log scale, and the frequency distributions as a function of pipe size were compared to the NRC predicted failure frequencies.
For this project our group collected two, independent sets of data. The first set was provided by the OECD Pipe Failure Data Exchange Project (OPDE), with a total of 2891 data points. The second set consists of 67 data points collected by our group from various sources. The two sets of data were not combined due to the lack of information accompanying the data presented in the OPDE database, such as plant name or exact failure size. This made it impossible to identify overlapping coverage and combine the information.
Rather, within this report we have analyzed each data set individually in order to make an overall comparison of the trends observed for each data set and the NRC predictions.
The results from both the OPDE and the independent sets of data detailed in this report do not support the NRC's assertion that larger sized pipes do not break frequently enough to be used as design criteria.
The overall trends of both sets of data show that the frequency of failures does not decrease as sharply with increasing pipe size as the NRC predicts.2 Table of Contents 1.0 Detailed Introduction to the Problem ................................................................................
6 2.0 Data Collected
.............................................................................................................
8 2.1 OECD Pipe Failure Data Exchange Project ......................................................
8 2.2 Independently Collected Data ..............................................................................
9 3.0 Collapsing and Analyzing the Collected Data ...................................................................
12 4.0 Results and comparisons
....................................................................................................
15 4.1 Failure Frequency as a function of Pipe Size ......................................................
15 4.2 Failure Frequency as a function of Failure Mechanism
.....................................
25 5.0 Conclusions
............................................................................................................................
31 6.0 References
...............................................................................................................................
33 Appendix A -OPDE-Light Database Appendix B -Independent Database Appendix C -Collapsed OPDE Data Appendix D -Copies of References 3
List of Fiaures Figure 4.1-1. Normalized pipe failure frequencies as a function of pipe group size for both carbon and stainless steel pipe failures in both BWR and PWR plants Figure 4.1-2 Normalized rupture frequencies as a function of pipe group size for both carbon and stainless steel pipe failures in both BWR and PWR plants Figure 4.1-3. Normalized Failure Frequency Distribution for PWRs Figure 4.1-4. Normalized Failure Frequency Distribution for BWRs Figure 4.1-5. Normalized pipe failure frequencies as a function of pipe size f6r PWRs Figure 4.1-6. Normalized pipe failure frequencies as a function of pipe size for BWRs Figure 4.1-7. Normalized pipe failure frequencies as a function of pipe size for PWRs using the Modified Analysis Method.Figure 4.1-8. Normalized pipe failure frequencies as a function of pipe size for PWRs using the Modified Analysis Method.Figure 4.2-1. Normalized pipe failure frequency as a function of Pipe Group Size for PWRs Figure 4.2-2. Normalized pipe failure frequency as a function of Pipe Group Size for BWRs Figure 4.3-1. PWR Failure Frequency for Carbon and Stainless Steel Pipes as a Function of Failure Mechanism Figure 4.3-2. BWR Failure Frequency for Carbon and Stainless Steel Pipes as a Function of Failure Mechanism Figure 4.3-3. PWR and BWR Failure Frequency for Carbon and Stainless Steel Pipes as a Function of Failure Mechanism Figure 4.3-4. Pipe Failure by Corrosion as a Function of Pipe Size (PWR & BWR)Figure 4.3-5. Pipe Failure by Fatigue as a Function of Pipe Size (PWR & BWR)Figure 4.3-6. Pipe Failure by Mechanical Failures as a Function of Pipe Size (PWR & BWR)Figure 4.3-7. Pipe Failure by Stress Corrosion Cracking as a Function of Pipe Size (PWR &BWR)4 List of Tables Table 1-1. NRC Total Preliminary BWR and PWR Frequencies Table 2-1. Excerpt from "OPDE-Light" Database Table 2-2. Description of Plant Systems and Type of Piping Table 2-3. Definition of OPDE Pipe Size Groups Table 2-4. OPDE Pipe Failure Definitions Table 3-1. Definition of Pipe Size Groups Table 3-2. Definition of NRC LOCA Groups Table 4.1-1. OPDE Calculated, and NRC Predicted, Normalized Failure Frequencies (1/cal-yrs).
Table 4.1-2. Normalized Rupture Frequencies Table 4.1-3. Summary of PWR Pipe Failures from the OPDE Database as of 2-24-05 Table 4.1-4. Summary of BWR Pipe Failures from OPDE Database as of 2-24-05 Table 4.1-6. Summary of PWR Pipe Failures from OPDE Database as of 2-24-05, using the Modified Analysis Method.Table 4.1-7. Summary of BWR Pipe Failures from OPDE Database as of 2-24-05, using the Modified Analysis Method.Table 4.2-1. OPDE Calculated, NRC Predicted, and Independent Database Calculated, Normalized Failure Frequencies (1/cal-yrs)
Table 4.3-1. Failure Frequencies of Pipes for each Failure Mechanism 5 1.0 Detailed Introduction of Problem In order to ensure the safety of nuclear plants the cooling performance of the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) must be calculated in accordance with an acceptable evaluation model, and must be calculated for a number of postulated loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCA) resulting from pipe breaks of different sizes, locations, and other properties.
This is done to provide sufficient assurance that a plant can handle even the most severe postulated LOCA. LOCA's are hypothetical accidents that would result from the loss of reactor coolant, at a rate in excess of the capability of the reactor coolant makeup-system.
Currently, the evaluation criteria for these types of accidents state that pipe breaks in the reactor coolant pressureboundary up to and including a break equivalent in size to the double-ended rupture of the largest pipe in the reactor coolant system must be considered.
In the case of such an event the NRC has set forth the following criteria that must be met for a design to be considered acceptable
[37]: a. Peak cladding temperature must not exceed 22000 F.b. Maximum cladding oxidation must not exceed 0.17 times the total cladding thickness before oxidation.
: c. Maximum hydrogen generation.
The calculated total amount of hydrogen generated from the chemical reaction of the cladding with water or steam shall not exceed 0.01 times the hypothetical amount that would be generated if all of the metal in the cladding cylinders surrounding the fuel, excluding the cladding surrounding the plenum volume, were to react.d. A coolable geometry of the core must be maintained.
: e. After any calculated successful initial operation of the ECCS, the calculated core temperature shall be maintained at an acceptably low value and decay, heat shall be removed for the extended period of time required by the long-lived radioactivity remaining in the core.While requiring that all plants be analyzed in the case of a double-ended guillotine break of the largest pipe restricts the design, it does maintain a large safety margin ensuring the plant is covered in all pipe break situations.
However, an impetus for change has resulted from materials research, analysis, and experience which indicate that the catastrophic rupture of a large pipe at a nuclear power plant is a very low probability event. The hypothesis that is currently being set forth is that small pipes break more frequently than large pipes. The criteria would change so that the NRC would refocus their analysis efforts because they want to make sure that the appropriate amount of time and money are being invested in the areas of most concern.Furthermore, risk analyses indicate that large break LOCA's are not significant contributors to plant risk. According to a presentation given by Dr. Brian Sheron of the NRC at Penn State in the Fall 2004, "using the double ended break of the largest pipe in the reactor coolant system as the design basis for the plant results in ECCS equipment requirements which are inconsistent with risk insights and places an unwarranted emphasis and resource expenditure on low risk 6
~I contributors.
This also places constraints on operations which are unnecessary from a public health and safety perspective." Therefore, the proposed rule change would use the pipe size with the largest break frequency as the design basis for pipe rupture and accident analysis of the plant. I A pipe size with a 10 inch diameter is currently being suggested.
[37]The proposed change would divide the break spectrum into two categories based upon the likelihood of a break. Breaks of higher likelihood, or those smaller than 10 inches, would need to meet the current requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.46. These include criteria (a) through (e)above. On the other hand, breaks of a lower likelihood, or those larger than 10 inches up to and I including a double-ended guillotine break of the largest pipe in the reactor coolant system, would only need to meet the requirements of maintaining a coolable geometry and having the capability for long term cooling. Thus, criteria (a), (b), and (c) would be eliminated for these cases. [37]The purpose of this project was to collect data on instances of pipe breaks, leaks, and cracking.These failures included pipe failures from broken pipes either by splits, ruptures, or guillotines, and cracks in pipes, either circumferential or length wise. For each instance found the plant type, pipe diameter, type of pipe, failure mechanism, and type of failure was recorded.
Only stainless steel and carbon steel pipes were considered.
Then, normalized failure frequency distributions were developed and compared to NRC predictions.
The predicted NRC failure frequencies were taken from Table 3 on page 14 of 10 CFR 50.46, LOCA Frequency Development
[38]. This table is replicated below. m Table 1-1. NRC Total Preliminary BWR and PWR Frequencies.
U Plant Effective Current Day Estimates (per cal. yr)Type Break Size (inches) 5_% Median Mean *95%1/2 3.OE-05 2.2E-04 4.7E-04 1.7E-03 1 7/8 2.2E-06 4.3E-05 1.3E-04 5.0E-04 3 1/4 2.7E-07 5.7E-06 2.4E-05 9.4E-05 7 6.6E-08 1.4E-06 6.OE-06 2.3E-05 18 1.5E-08 1.IE-07 2.2E-06 6.3 E-'06 41 3.5E-1I 8.5E-10 2.3E-06 8.6E-09 -1/2 7.3E-04 3.7E-03 6.3E-03 2.OE-02 1 7/8 .6.9E-06 9.9E-05 2.3E-04 8.5E-04 PWR 3 1/4 1.6E-07 4.9E-06 1.6E-05 6.2E-05 7 1.IE-08 6E-0-07 2.3E-06 8.8E-06 18 5.7E- 10 7.5E-09 3.9E-08 I.5E-07 41 4.2E-1.1 I1.4E-09 2.3E-08 7.OE-08 I I I I I I i 7I I I 2.0 Data Collected I For this project our group collected two, independent sets of data. The first set was provided by the OECD Pipe Failure Data Exchange Project (OPDE), with a total of 2891 data points. The second set consists of 67 data points collected by our group from various sources listed as references in this report. The two sets of data were not combined due to the lack of information accompanying the data presented in the OPDE database, such as plant name and exact failure size, which made identifying overlapping coverage impossible.
Rather, within this report each data set was individually analyzed in order to make an overall comparison of the trends observed for each data set and the NRC predictions.
OECD Pipe Failure Data Exchange Project [3]OECD Pipe Failure Data Exchange Project (OPDE) was established in 2002 as an I international forum for the exchange of pipe failure information.
It is a 3-year project with participants from twelve countries, including Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and 3 the United States. "The objective of OPDE is to establish a well structured, comprehensive database on pipe failure events and to make the database available to project member organizations that provide data." [3] The OPDE database evolved from what existed in the "SLAP database" at the end of 1998 [2].OPDE covers piping in primary-side and secondary-side process systems, standby safety systems, auxiliary systems, containment systems, support systems and fire protection systems. Furthermore, ASME Code Class 1 through 3 and non-Code piping has been considered.
At the end of 2003, the OPDE database included approximately 4,400 records on pipe failure. The database also includes an additional 450 records on water hammer events where the structural integrity of piping was challenged but did not fail.Access to the actual OPDE database is restricted to organizations providing input data.However, a."OPDE-Light" version of the database will be made available later this year to non-member organizations contracted by a project member to perform work or which pipe failure data is needed. This version will not include proprietary data, such as the exact pipe diameter, where failure occurred, and preclude any plant identities or dates.Our group was fortunate enough to get a copy of this "light" version of the database for BWR and PWR pipe failures reported as of February 24, 2005. A total of 2891 failures (1536 for PWR plants and 1355 for BWR plants) were provided in this database, and considered for this project.I The database listed the plant type, reactor system, apparent cause of failure, pipe size group, number of total failures for each cause and pipe size group, and then a break down of the type of failure within the category.
An excerpt from the OPDE-Light database has been provided for clarification in Table 2-1 on the following page. The database, in its entirety, has been included in Appendix A of this report.8 However, there are a few problems with this database related to the purpose of this project. First, since the database did not provide the type of pipe (carbon or stainless) for each failure, a reasonable prediction of what type of pipe was involved in the failureI based on the plant system, which was given, was made. The type of pipe assumed for each system is also given in the following page in Table 2-2.3 Additionally, as previously mentioned, no explicit pipe diameters were given for each failure due to the proprietary nature of this information.
Rather, the failures were collected into group sizes before it was sent out. A total of six group sizes were utilizedI by OPDE. The range of pipe diameters that comprise each group is given in Table 2-3.The main problem with these groupings, and the database in general, is that pipes larger than 10 inches in diameter are all grouped together and there is no way of determiningI how much larger than 10 inches they actually were. Finally, for the purpose of this analysis any crack, leak, or issue (i.e. wall thinning) with the pipe was considered to be a failure. However, the OPDE database lists the information by type of failure. The3 definitions of each faiure type have been included in Table 2-4.Independently Collected Data [5-36]For the purpose of this project -our group collected separate information on instances of piping failures and their causes. The information was collected primarily from NuclearI Regulatory Commission (NRC) bulletins, informnation notices, event reports, and generic letters. Our group was able to compile a total of 67 instances of piping failures.
This database is provided in Appendix B. While our database is much smaller than the one compiled by the OECD Pipe Failure Exchange Project, it provides an independent check of the trends observed by that database.3 A list of references is provided at the end of this report, and some of the actual references, printed from the NRC website, have been included in Appendix D.3 9I Table 2-3. Definition of OPDE Pipe Size Grou ps.Pipe Size Corresponding Corresponding Pipe Diameters Pipe Diameters Group (mm) (inches)1 DN < 15 DN < 0.6 2 15 < DN < 25 0.6 < DN < 1.0 3 25<DN<50 1.0 < DN < 2.0 4 50 <DN< 100 2.0 < DN <4.0 5 100 < DN < 250 4.0 < DN < 10.0 6 DN > 250 DN > 10.0 Table 2.4. OPDE Pipe Failure Definitions.
Type Description Crack -Part Part through-wall crack (_ 10% of wall thickness)
Crack -Full Through-wall but no active leakage; leakage may be detected given a plant mode change involving cooldown and depressurization.
Wall Thinning Internal pipe wall thinning due to flow accelerated corrosion
-FAC Small Leak Leak rate within Technical Specification limits Pinhole Leak Differs from "small leak" only in terms of the geometry of the throughwall defect and the underlying degradation Or damage mechanism Large Leak Leak rate in excess of Technical Specification limits but within the makeup capability of safety injection systems Severance Full circumferential crack- caused by external impact/force, including high-cycle mechanical fatigue -limited to small-diameter piping, typically Large flow rate and major, sudden loss of structural integrity.
Invariably caused Rupture by influences of a degradation mechanism (e.g., FAC) in combination with a severe overload condition (e.g., water hammer) 4.3 Pipe Failures as a function of Failure Mechanism This section of the report summarizes the frequency of failure mechanisms for carbon and stainless steel pipes. The information presented in figures 4.3-1 through 4.3-3 represents the normalized failure frequencies for each failure mechanism.
This data is also presented in tabular form in table 4.3-1. The data was collapsed by pipe sizes and broken apart by steel type and plant type. The data was normalized for each type of steel based on the number of reactor years and the total amount of failures (carbon +stainless) for each plant.Table 4.3-1. Failure Fre uencies of Pipes for each Failure Mechanism.
Plant Failure Mechanism Carbon Steel Stainless Steel Total Failure Type Failure Frequency Failure Frequency Frequency PWR Corrosion 2.04E-05 5.38E-06 2.57E-05 PWR FAC 2.29E-05 2.32E-05 4.61 E-05 PWR MIC 8,26E-06 1,92E-07 8.45E-06 PWR Erosion 1.84E-05 2.30E-06 2.07E-05 PWR Fatigue 1.77E-05 9.62E-05 1.14E-04 PWR Human Factors 6.91 E-06 2.42E-05 3.11E-05 PWR Mechanical Failures 4.23E-06 7.11E-06 1.13E-05 PWR SCC 9.60E-07 3.25E-05 3.34E-05 PWR Water Hammer 0.OOE+00 3.84E-07 3.84E-07 PWR Misc I.15E-06 2.69E-06 3.84E-06 BWR Corrosion 6.31E-06 6.97E-06 1.33E-05 BWR FAC 1.26E-05 1.37E-05 2,63E-05 BWR MIC 1.31E-06 2.18E-07 1.52E-06 BWR Erosion 8.71E-06 1.96E-06 1.07E-05 BWR Fatigue 1.55E-05 4.90E-05 6.44E-05 BWR Human Factors 5.22E-06 1.85E-05 2.37E-05 BWR Mechanical Failures 3.92E-06 5.44E-06 9.36E-06 BWR SCC 4.14E-06 1.36E-04 1.40E-04 BWR Water Hammer 4.35E-07 2.18E-07 6.53E-07 BWR Misc 8.71E-07 4.14E-06 5.01E-06 I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I 25 I 1.2E-04 1.0E-04 80-0 E 8.OE-05 0.4 6.OE-05 LL.-4.0E-05 2.05-05 F I a Carbon Steel 0 Stainless Steel Eo Carbon & Stainless Steel IA 771J7 Corrosion FAC MIC Erosion Fatigue Human Mechanical SCC Water Misc Factors Failures Hammer Failure Mechanism Figure 4.3-1. PWR Failure Frequency for Carbon and Stainless Steel Pipes as a Function of Failure Mechanism I I Corrosion FAC MIC Erosion Fatigue Human Mechanical .SCC Water Misc Factors Factors Hammer Failure Mechanism Figure 4.3-2. BWR Failure Frequency for Carbon and Stainless Steel Pipes as a Function of Failure Mechanism 26 1.000E-04 9.000E-05 r Carbon Steel a Stainless Steel 0 Carbon and Stainless Steel I R 4)7.000E-05
-6.000E-05 5.OOOE-05I 5.000E.05,-7 S3.000-E05 2.000E-05 1.OOOE-05 iA"In M.Corrosion FAC MIC Erosion Fatgue Human Mechanical Factors Faiures SCC Water Hammer Misc Failure Mechanism Figure 4.3-3. PWR and BWR Failure Frequency for Carbon and Stainless Steel Pipes as a Function of Failure Mechanism From these plots it was determined that PWR plants are dominated by fatigue failures and BWR plants are dominated by stress corrosion cracking failures.
However, in general the most frequent failure mechanisms for both plants are corrosion, fatigue, mechanical factors, and stress corrosion cracking.'
These four failure mechanisms were analyzed as a function of pipe size in figures 4.3-4 through 4.4-7.For these plots corrosion includes general corrosion, flow accelerated corrosion, and microbiological corrosion.
Stress corrosion cracking was not included with corrosion because the pipe failure method for stress corrosion cracking is different than the other corrosion types.Though mechanical failure frequency was not the highest, mechanical failures were chosen because they appear to be independent of pipe type and plant type. Human factors were ignored because they are a factor of quality assurance as opposed to the other failure mechanisms which are primarily a factor of operation.
In regards to human factors it is not known if they have decreased with reactor operating experience because the dates of failures was not included with the OPDE data.27 I I I I I I I I U I I I I U I I I I I
--rn--rn--
---~ --- rn FWC 3 PvVR Ss 4 PWR ss PWR 8 PVVR 83 PWR SS PWR SS PWR SS MVR SS I;R SS FVVC CwoSkn1-al i.*e 6 3 2 FWC Erosion 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1" I 3 1 2 2 3 __ _ 2 _ 2 1 __ 1I 4 8 _S erted FWVC FAC -Fow CoTroiw, FAC-Fh 4 6 6 2 3 11 1 27 PWR SS FWC PWVR ss-I--FWC F4VR SS FVWC PWR as FWC PWR SS FVVC PWR SS FWC PWR SS FWC PWR &S FWC PWR 83 PFWC PWR SS FWC PWR &5 FVVC PVVR SS FWC PWVR SS FWC PWR SS PAC Pv5R 35 FWC PWR aS FWC PWR SS pR as FWC PWR SS FVC PWR aS iFWC PWR S3 FVwc PVVR SS FWC PWR as FWC PWR S8 PW R S3 ,WC PVVR 83 WC PW1R CS IWSA PVVR CS- &#xfd;&#xfd;PWR CS LA-SA 4 3 2 4 6 I 4 4 6 1 1 I --!HF.DeSn error Error HF:REPAJRAMAJNT HF:REPAIR/MAINT HFWM" Error HF.We"lrg Err HF.Weing error HF.Weilig enor HF.Wekldg Error I _ _I I 1 1 6 3 I'l 1 Severe ovelo4rrg Severe oaemoadig Sever ovarsoa~ry severe overeadJig Severe vevb-Thermal Fetau.e Thwrr Foig-mu TM ;fraFm(2 3 4 6 6 2 3 6.5I 6 9 3 l Fabq e- CkV-F~b"-rnfic,2U TVVaI F.19.Je Wwe.6ton-Fat m~voeborn-fatgje 6 6 1 2 3 5 23 5 I t 6 -- I 5 6 PWR CS PWR PWR CS CS CS 49.S Corrogt.on P0s FI G -FA ceeldcCaOroonM
,, FAC. Flo- Accelernted CGoTosWon FAC. Flow Accealerted Corros.on FAG. Fow CCelerated Corroson_FAG -Fiw Accelerated Corrosion 2 2 3 2 2 2 6 2 3 4 5 6 6 3 4 2 1 i 4 12 2-I-1 4 28 12 12 4 2.. ..3 .. ...2 17 1 18 1~~3 20 3 6 CS PCs PWR PCS&#xb6; ---I PCS SPWSCC CS P03, I CS 2 PWR Cs PCs PCs Pes RAS RAS RAS Viraton.la.l"e BIA-SCC BJA-SCC 3 6 2-3 1 t 1 4 PWR PWR ss I RAS Cahctabern~on t 2 5 2 I 2 #zzt PWR sS RAS Cwtosm I I I PWR RAS ECSCC. -External CDitcle SCC 1 2 3 4 6 4 PWR i sS RAS 1 2 1 1~ 1 A 2 PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR ss RAS Fiow-cawabohn Excessve V~trabon FAC -Flow Accterated CoTrOnf FAC. Flow Accelerted Corroswn 4 2 2 ss RAS Fret~ng I I t HF.CONSTANST
-3 RAS RAS RAS 6271 I -1 4 PWR SS HF:Hu1an er1or 3 1 5s RAS PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWVR PWR PWR PWVR sS RAS HF FWe": Erro GSC C -k C 4 2 2 1 1-1-&S ISS sS as as RAS 2 2 RAS PwSCC RAS ... RAS S-we, ove'oadrg RAS TGSCC- rrugarxiar SCC RAS TGSCC. Transgar a~n CC 3 I.3 5 t1 1 2 I 5-PWR Thermal Fobe Thermal Foebg PWR  PWR f S RAS 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 1 5 2.I 3-l Ss RAS Vbrabon-la1 9..e MWrato-taIue V'iralofasgue B/A-SCC BCAr-SCC 10 1 1-I i1~7 3 6 4 PvNR T S PWR ss RAS RCPa RCPB RCPB RCPB RCPB RCPB RCP8 2 1 2 1 1 1 PWVVR SS 1--m m ------- --- -- --
m m ---m -- --mm -m m M M HFCONSTANST 1 PVVR PWR PAR PAR PAR SS Ss Ss ss SS 5S RCPB RCPB 6 12 2 I 2 2 7 3-RCPS PWR SS RCPB HF:Wekk~q Error PWR PVVR PWR RCPB HF.W,4,g Error HF W&dN ewDr Ooson emrbnernent xC e~as C 3 2 PAR PWR PWR PAR PAVR SS RCPB RCP88 RCPB RCP6 RCPB RCPB PWSCC 2 44 26 2 1 4 I I PWR PWSCC Severe overil&a" sever e overloar,51 TGscc -.rwsTauar SCC TGSCC- Trersremular SCC TGSCC TrarisgsoartrSCC 6 7 2 2 PMR I PAR SS RCPB PWR RCPB PWR A PWR SS I RCPB Thermal league 6 4 4 1 31 82 I 1 RCPBFatgue- cyc"9 3 PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR PWR 2 I 3 1.RCPB Vibrabotms4tg 3 4 SS RC.S4NSTR t PAR so-Corrosion 1 I I SG 1eefnaAsecneL Fhgue 2 PAR PWR PAR PVVR PAR PWR PAR PAVR PWR PWR PWR PwR PWR PAR PAVR CS CS CS CS S5 SG PWSCC I GSCC. ,r.,.r~aruer 5CC -
BtA-SCC B/A-SCC Cavttben-rso1on Ceavtabon-eroion 1 2 2 4 3 6 3 6 3 I-f-3 1 2 1 f -sir 6SS SIR SS SIR ~_Caosrosie SIR SIR SIR_#2 I 3 I 3 1 4-FAC.Fiow AceielId CoI&#xa2;ossc 2 5-r6 I1 SS SIR Ss SIR HF.CONSTINST HF'Httian error HF.REPAIRA"NT lIP. We1, Erorw HF-W6fia 2 2 1-- I --..iI=3 7 P',/VR ss SIR... ..ss SIR I r ~ I PWR PWR PVYR SS SIR HF.WeAV Error 3 I SS SIR SIR SIR PWVR S PWR HF.Wek"l, ErrorError HF.We" Error OveCsres,6ed FWSOC PVWSCc PWSCC PwScc asve ove&loa&V Severe overlactng Severe 0 oeca TGSCC- Traas9 uar r SCC TGSCC- w U&nui TQSCC. Transgsnur ,SC TGSCC- Transg7sAr SCC Therma faligue 71rie='rail ralue 2 _4 5 6 I 3 2 3 1o I 2 6 6 I PWR SS SIR 1-3 2 2 1 I 3 PWR S PWR I SS SIR 2 PWR SS SIR 4 2 1 T6h6m*Vtatquo 5 8 4 PWR PWVR PVWR SIR SIR SS " Lkneponed UnrepOrted vb-a ton-at  , Vorabon-fab" V~aton4a~ue Corrosion 6 1 f [ --2 o 42 3 9 4 3 5 7 3 1 2 6 I PWR SS SIR 1 I -4 PwR CS STEAM STEAM I STEAM PWR:1-CS FAC-Fbc Aceerated Corrosio 2 FAC. Amw Acceeratd CTosm 3 FAC. FlowAceraWed Commono 4 FC.
Corosion AO. Flow Accr.. atd Corrosio 6 10 I ,~PTR CS STEAM 14 3 1 9- I -PWR CS STEAM PWVR CS STEAM HF Human error HF.Woetn Error HF:Wekhfg Enror-HF.Welding wTr Overstressed Savere oveucaok Svaere oversoa, 6 I 1 I1-1 I -~ --I PWR CS STEAM_2 PMR CS STE-.AM 2 9I~~~~~1~-l I-4 PSVR --I CS ATFAM V.h~afl-abO~e 1541--- ~ -- ----------
m m m m -m m -m m m -I m m -m PPEPEPYE TOTAL NO .PLANTTYPEI PIPETYPE ISYSI"EMGROUP APPARENT CAUSE URO I.. OF RECORDSI Cxa*-FtAl Crack-Pan I eformallon Lare Lea Leak IPAi-Leak IRupture ISevere" Sanc ILeak.. Wahifwngn f3WRi CS AUAU C~orrlof I 1 CS AUXC Coroiron 2 2 1 2 ---I~1~~I EWR FCSW RM CS AUXC AUXC AUXC AUXC AUXC oaoron., Eroancaitaton Eloson-ca,,o.on Erosion-corrosi0n Ero.uo,-corroJan 3 6 3 4 bWR CS EWR CS AUXC 5 t 1 4 7 9 15 1 3~1~EWR CS AUXC j -BWR CS AUXC MIC -)Aacrvoog9cay k)vjced CDrosrcai 2 8WR OWR 8WR 8WR 6WR CS-CS CS CS CIS AUXC Severe ova 3 I- 2 3 6 I 8 AUXC Vibraab-otn-a~ -1 I ~2 BWR CS AUXC 3 4 5 6-1 I 6WR Ca-1,vea Syse-n SS cn4ai5 sys 2 6WR -SS Systen_WR SS BWR SS BWR SS BWR 8S BWR CS BWR CS BWR CS BWR CS BWR CS BWR CS BWR CS BWR CS BWR (S BW4R ES CS TGSCC,- Transgrarnur SCCHF:CONSTANST 6 0 4 6 2 4 2 1 EHC EHC EHC-EHC EHC EP$EPS del 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3-7 I I 7 2 1 1 1 1 I 1 3 1 BWR 6S EPS Ccfonaon B7WR BWR BWR BWR BWR SWR BWR EWR BWR BWVR--BWR FPS FPSF 1 2 1 4 5 6 4 3'1-CS CS CS CS CS I FPS HF.Huran ofr FPS 1 FPS j C-LkrodooCalyh xkcedCorrosion CS .FPS severe oarioaar 4.CS PS 17-3 ss ,.SS 6S 6S 5s Fw c Corcnosn 2 2 FWC GCrosion 6 FWC FWC FWC FWC Coaroslon-lfahgue
'2 3 I 2'3 1 2 1 1 8WR 6s JO5~8WR Ss F WC -oslon 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 210 8 FWC_4 8WR BWR BWR SWIR 8WR BWR BWR BWR 8WR FWC SS FWC FAG. -Fow Accelerated Corosion I Ess v FWC F AG Fow Accelerated Corroso 4 3 SS 6S-S SS ,SS FWC-FwC FWC FWC FwVC FAC. Flow AcCel~ated Conossoi FAC -Flow Accelecaled COrro,.on Fatigue HF.CONSTANST HF.CONSTANST HF.CONSTANST HF:H-rw error 6 22 1 1 1 I-- I BWR Si 1 6 1 BWR FWC F WC FWC F'WC$I 2 I 1 GSCC -overoardai S(Severe Ovroadr 4 I I I -BWR 65 FVWC 1 BWR SS FWC Severe OveoNd9 0WR Ss 8WR4 SSJ FWC Severe Overloading SbCC.- Slraus rle kwi.Aed Corrosion ri acd&62 1 FWC SsCC-Stka 4 OWR SS BWVR SS FWC FWC FWC FWC FWC FWVC ThnraJf.tUqje 6 3 I'5________________________
I.1~7 3 T t T T B3WR VibraOtOf-laIue wxaoratontaigje wVaon,-fabgue Vorstort-fas que FWC BWR 6WII BWR BWR BwFrevvwBsR cs CS CS cs CS Cs-CS CS-cr-CS CS-CS, CS IASA HFI:Xrnan' eoro -tA-SA Lk.SA LA-SA WASA 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 2 2 2 2 I 2 3 2 I 3 6 2 3 4 1 11 1 I 1 2 1 Vibabofl-Fabg.m Corrosion, Commono.1 6 8 PCs 1 PCS FAG -Flow Accelerated Co-o6.on 4 I 6 Bw'i pCS FA.. Fr .Sted CO.TO.1o.--m --- --m --m -----
-= m m = m --"--"- i -I -. t-------r------,----, DVVfl____
jtO BWR CS PCs FAC-FZ7- --ccekr*WCma"on 2 I I 1 --SWR CS PCs BWR ~CS BWR $S BWR SS PCs PCS PCs PCS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS WAarxonaIgue I Vorabon-faugue 2 7 I 2 3 4 4 3 1 I Corroso$4n BWR &S BVVR ~SS~RAS Corrosion C,<ITO$On Ccroson-al wu EOSO o Exteral Ct1onde L'nII~ed SOC ECSCC- ExtenW Citdrlde Whiced SOC ECSCC- Exiemal Chlorlde kxuc4d SCC FAC. Flow A.celeraola CoIosion Fatgbe I-I ~ 4 I -~BWR 1 .as 2 17 8 2 1I~6 3 1 SWR RAS RAS RAS RAS HF.(BWVR SS I BWR SS HAS GWR SS RAS BWR SS RAS BWH SS j RAS BWR Ss RAS HFHLman error H F:Hxgrnm error HF REPAJRAlAJNT HF REPAIR/"AINT HF REPAiR/"ANT r HF:WeWdng error HF.Wei" error HF.Weln Error IDSCC0. Inlrdeninbc 5CC I 2 I T 2 BWR RAS 6 4 i 32 1 BWR BWR OWTI BVVR BWR.SS RAS I-SCO -h 4 9 11j13 RAS 0csc5. igrvarar 2 4 7 BWR Ss RAS Severe ovartoaoe 2 3 BWR &S RAS Severe overiecia 4 1 1 BWR Ss RAS TGSC. Trweag SCC 3 7 6 BWR RAS 4.I RAS I 2 2 1-IWR SS BWR BWR 8WR BWR BWH EWR BWR BWR as ES ES S.S ES SS ss RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS RAS HAS RAS RAS RAS RAS je 3 I -- I 3 I 3 1 1 Thermnal Fflgue -yci7 Tharnal Faegue Cy.ng, Lrnrepoaled vlbralI~On-etu 5 1 6 1 3 1 6 1 1 4 2 15 3 7 4 2 5 1-1 3 1 VtLflII0g-fu1e 71 1 1 BSSR S RCP6 Corr. won I BWR Ss RCPB ECSCC -External uced SCC 1I3 2 8WR as BWR SS E CCC -Exlenma C"kon. t Eroslondwnmage BWR as ST ST RCPB RCPB RCPB RCPB 3 -I I 1 BWR BWR BWR BWR BWR SS wS RCPB RCPB RCPB RCPB RCPB EIoT I ~HF:FaLbrlcalon ErTro 6 1 BWR HF.We&U'q error 2 SS RCPS RCPB RCPB HCPB RC-P8 HF:WekUg Error HF.WeklN eror HF.WVeng error Hot caradN iGSCC. -Inwrr, " SCC 3 7 I a I 4 1 2 2 8WR SWR SS 11WR Iss aWR aas t 2 4 I 11 11 4 3 BWV aS RCP BGSCC=- arSCC I SSi~_tGSCC. k&deg; grr 203 3 174 1 22 VWR I SaS BWR SS BW H' SS BWR I SS RCP8 RCPB' 'RCPB RCP8 RCPB TGSCC- TranS anua SCC TGSCC -lfra -nslarta SCC T05CC. I r&.'S=arr 5.CC TIhemW Falque I 2 3 2 3 I 1 i 2 1 6WR SS 1 BWR I S RCPB V-bratralw&#xb6; e 4 F I BWR Ss RC BWR SS RCS-INSTR TGSCC -TkU&rw. SC -105CC -TransgwasuSCC 6WR BWR BWR BWR S$ RCSINSTR 2 2 I I 4 1 1-2 1 SS SIR SIR BVWR 6s CoroUon, C Exlerrnl 0 C.Ekrnal Chloride k Erosion1 3 T 1 1 1 i 1 8WR SS SIR SS __SIR_-------
td Corrosion 4 2 t BWR BWR BWR SWR OWN aS.6S SS 6S SIR SIR Fabgue HF.CONST/ANSY HF.CONSTANST HFCONSTANST HF.CONSTANST HF:FatneC.aon Eror" Erro" HI.YHumwan error HF:Ksron error HF.Weo" Error 6 5 6 I 8WR BWR aS SIR 2 4 -- _2 I:-I 1 SIR BWR S 2 4;6 p Error 6 t 2!BWR Gs SIR E"J SCI 2.2 3___11 ___1--- -m ------ ---- ----
---- ~ ---~ -. --- ---BWR SS SR lole(Smua SCC 6 22 4 OWR SS SIR MIC- M ccrovlogChiy nlro.ed CoIoon 1 SIR BWR C*erpie.izat0on Sev&O OVWIGl14NI Severe overai~aw Severe overloacn 6 BWR SS BWR Ss SIR 6 I 1I 2 2 I 1 3 3 t I TGSCC. T~4",ue'SCC 1 BWR as SIR 3 SBWR SS STR'BWR ... S SIR BWR SS SIR 8SWR 6S SIR BWVR SS SIR BWR 63 ,SIR SWR as SIR BvWR SS SIR BVVR SIJR BWR &S SIR BWR CS STEAM BWR CS STEAM BvVR CS STEAM BWR CS S1 EAM Therma lague TmeI- FaIMe -Urvepored Vrawe-f abue 6 5 5 0 t 2 3 4 5 6 2 Vorabonkaugus 27 I 1 1 I 21 WaCv-1a11"e 1 1 2 1 _&#xb6;BVER CS STEAM FAC. FjowAxrelalw1 C~orowon FAG -FlwACCtIuale CwOIT0on FAC -FlDw ACe.rateld CoTosl51o FAC. Flow AC00WO~d COlTOZOn FAC -Flow .od CrrOrswn 2 3 4 , 6 2 15 3 1 BWR BWR BWR BWR BWR CS CS-CS CS CS STEAM I 1 STEAM STEAM STEAM STEAM STEAM BWR CSm 1" G 1 6 I BR CS STEAM HF.W Error 2 BWR BWR BWVR BVVR CS C5 CS STEAM werne &Oeloa*Nq 4 6 6 2 2 2 3 6 I -4 I 4 STEAM I TGSCC -TrerTrW SCC STEAM Thoelralfdl ,ew BWR CSa oFa b ue ... ..I Vitabo-fel-.
2 Vmrat-Fsabe I 6 Watsr Hanme 6 WaW__Hamrny 6 2 12 2 1 1 I 1 BWR ,,i CS BWR -~-CS Appendix B Haddam Neck PWR CS 2.25 4 Erosion GL 89-08 CANDU PWR CS 4 4 Thermal Fatigue Korean CANDU PWR CS 4 4 Thermal Fatigue Korean CANDU PWR CS 4 4 Thermal Fatigue Korean CANDU PWR Cs 4 4 Thermal Fatigue Korean Millstone Unit 3 PWR CS 6 5 Erosion/CorrosIon IN 91-18 Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 PWR Cs 14 6 Erosion IN 89-53 DC Cook Unit 2 PWR CS 16 6 Erosion Bulletin 79-13 DC Cook Unit 2 PWR CS 16 6 Erosion Bulletin 79-13 Fort Calhoun Station PWR CS 12 6 FAC IN 97-84 Surry Unit 1 PWR CS 30 6 Not yet determined IN 81-04 SurryUnit 2 PWR CS 18 6 Erosion/Corrosion IN 86-106 Trojan 1 PWR CS 14 6 Erosion IN 87-36 Zion 1 PWR CS 24 6 Human Factor IN 82-25 FR (Framatome Reactors)
PWR CS 10 6 Corrosion Korean FR (Framatome Reactors)
PWR CS 28 6 Corrosion Korean*i, &#xfd;.:Diablo Canyon U nit T,'.,. "IPWR-.. :"-CS-1.-:,!
.-',-'rhermal Fatigue P R CN_92-20S,`
,.,. Lovilsa Unit -1 :.PWR -: &#xfd;CS-, " , " : Erosion/Corrosion;:;-:--IN 9118-',. .. ..q uy .U n .,.t I ...PW R.... -.*-Thermal Fatigue , ..<IN 92-20A*t:.z
~'.~-SurryUnit 1 ~W''~C ~ .i '.rsolorso Wolf Creek PWR SS 0.25 1 Vibration IN 89-07 KSNP Korean Standard Nuclear Power Plant PWR SS 0.375 1 Thermal Fatigue Korean Oconee Unit 3 PWR SS 0.75 1 Mechanical Failure IN 92-15 WH-3 PWR SS 0.75 1 Flow Induced Vibration Korean WH-3 PWR SS, 0.75 1 Flow Induced Vibration Korean H.B. Robinson Unit 2 PWR SS 2 3 SCC IN 91-05 Oconee Unit 2 PWR SS 2 3 Vibration IN 97-46 Prairie Island Unit 2 PWR SS 2 3 SCC IN 91-05 WH-3 PWR SS 2 3 Flow Induced Vibration Korean WH-3 PWR SS 2 3 Flow Induced Vibration Korean*WH--3 PWR SS 2 3 Flow Induced Vibration Korean Crystal River Unit 3 PWR SS 2.5 4 Fatigue IN 82-09 Fort Calhoun Station PWR SS 3.5 4 SCC IN 82.02 Maine Yankee,. PWR SS 3.5 4 SCC IN 82-02 Maine Yankee PWR SS 3.5 4 SCC IN 82-02 Maine Yankee PWR SS 3.5 4 SCC IN 82-02 Maine Yankee PWR SS .3.5 4 SCC IN 82-02 Maine Yankee PWR SS 3'5 4 SCC IN 82-02 Maine Yankee PWR SS 3.5 4 SCC IN 82-02 Ginna PWR SS 8 5 SCC IE Circular76-06 Foreign .PWR SS 8 5 Thermal Stress Bulletin 88-08 Arkansas Nuclear One Unit I PWR SS 10 6 SCC IE Circular76-06 Oconee Unit 2 PWR SS 24 6 Erosion IN 82-22 Sequoyah Unit 1 PWR SS 16 6 Fatigue IN 95-11 Sequoyah Unit 2. PWR SS 10 6 Human Factor IN 97-19 Sum Unit 2 PWR SS 10 6 SCC IE Circular76-06
=3uLq MRad .~ -=m m m m M m M M- M M M M M M M M n M M M Appendix B (cont.)Plant Type Material Diameter Pipe Size Failure Mechanism Reference__ __ __ _ __ _....._ _ __ _ Group Dresden Unit 2 BWR CS 4 4 Human Factor Bulletin 74-10 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 BWR CS 8 5 Fatigue Event 36016 Vermont Yankee BWR CS 12 6 SCC IN 82-22 Cooper Station BWR SS 0.25 1 Vibration IN 89-07.Pilgrm BWR SS 1 2 Corrosion IN 85-34 Browns Ferry 3 BWR SS 4 4 SCC IN 84-41 Browns Ferry 3 BWR SS 4 4 SCC IN 84-41 Nine Mile Point Unit I BWR SS 6 5 SCC Bulletin 76-04 Dreseden Unit 2 BWR SS 10 6 Thermal Fatigue IN 75-01 Dreseden Unit 2 BWR SS 10 6 Thermal Fatigue IN 75-01 Dreseden Unit 2 BWR SS 10 6 Thermal Fatigue IN 75-01 Dreseden Unit 2 BWR SS 10 6 Thermal Fatigue IN 75-01 Dreseden Unit 2 BWR SS 10 6 Thermal Fatigue IN 75-01 Hatch Unit 1 BWR SS 22 6 SCC IN 83-02 Hatch Unit 1 BWR SS 22 6 SCC IN 83-02 Hatch Unit I .... BWR SS 22 6 SCC IN 83-02 Hatch Unit I BWR SS 22 6 SCC IN 83-02 Hatch Unit I ..... BWR SS 22 6 SCC IN 83-02 Hatch Unit 1 BWR SS 20 6 SCC IN 83-02 Hatch Unit 1 BWR SS 24 6 SCC IN 83-02 Montecello BWR SS 22 6 SCC IN 83-02 Montecello BWR S&sect; 12 6 SCC IN 83-02 Montecello BWR SS 12 6 SCC IN 83-02 Montecello BWR SS 12 6 SCC IN 83-02 Montecello 8WR SS 12 6 SCC IN 83-02 Montecello BWR SS 12 6 SCC IN 83-02..-.BroWns.FerrydenU i .1 :, ,:", .BWR."4 -..;. : ?,t' :',:. -IN 9 4- ,), iHighlighted plants ,were :notused in the-dataanha1ysis due to missing information..
7T;,,i.;&&#xfd;;:--..I.'.'
Appendix C. Collapsed OPDE Database Collapsed OPDE Raw Data as function of Pipe Size Plant Type Pipe Size Group Resulting Number of Failures (inches) CS SS CS+SS 0.0-1.0 154 544 698 1.0-2.0 74 154 228 2.0-4.0 78 75 153 4.0-10.0 126 112 238> 10.0 93 126 219 I _ _ Total 525 1011 1536 0.0-1.0 118 257 375 1.0-2.0 32 75 107 2.0-4.0 32 227 259 4.0-10.0 50 234 284> 10.0 39 291 330 Total 271 1084 1355.-.-. -." -.1A" " '- ,. ..', .. "..--...0.0-1.0 272 801 1073 1.0-2.0 106 229 335 2.0-4.0 110 302 412 PWR+BWR 4.0-10.0 176 346 522> 10.0 132 417 549 Total 796 2095 2891 I I I U I B I I I I Collapsed OPDE Raw Data as function of Failure Mechanism Plant Type Failure Mechanism Resulting Number of Failures Platype Fa __rMchais CS SS CS+SS Corrosion 106 28 134 FAC 119 121 240 MIC 43 1 44 Erosion 96 12 108 Fatigue 92 501 593 PWR Human Factors 36 126 162 Mechanical Failures 22 37 59 SCC 5 169 174 Water Hammer 0 2 2 Misc 6 14 20 Total 525 1011 1536.,-..:.-; , .... ..... .,I ,..--.',:,:,..-::<:;-:: Corrosion 29 32 61 FAC 58 63 121 MIC 6 1 7 Erosion 40 9 49 Fatigue 71 225 296 BWR Human Factors 24 85 109 Mechanical Failures 18 25 43 SCC 19 624 643 Water Hammer 2 1 3 Misc 4 19 23 Total 271 1084 1355 Corrosion 135 60 195 FAC 177 184 361 MIC 49 2 51 Erosion 136 21 157 Fatigue 163 726 889 PWR+BWR Human Factors 60- 211 271 Mechanical Failures 40 62 102 SCC 24 793 817 Water Hammer 2 3 5 Misc 10 33 43 Total 796 2095 2891 c This Exhibit Contains' Proprietary Information This Exhibit Contains Proprietary Information NEC-UW_18 191 ii)920 Calvert ClS 19770926 Calvert Cliffs 19790625 Millstone 19-790629
: 14. B. Robinson 198t00815 Forti Calhtoun 19811123 StLucie 19850301 St. Lucie 19850327 Duane Anold 19860206 Salem 19860825 North Anna 19860825 North Anna 19880330 Callaway 19880726 Three Mile island 19920909 Fermi 19930322 Alvin W. Vogtle 19930322 Alvin W. Voetle 19931110 WolfCreek 19940411.
Susquehanna 199410(18 Peach Bottom 19950216 Limerick F1.950222 Susquehanna 19950428 Nine Nife Point 199505112 Columbia Generating Sta 199t15071.8 Peach Bottom 1995080(3 Sury 1.950803 Sum., 1.995(1831 Edwin L Hatch 19950831 Edwin f. Hatch 19960124 Limerick 199610412 Virgil C. Summer 1996)523 Palo Verde 19160523 Palo Verde 19960523 Palo Verde.19960926 Turkey Point 19960926 Turkey Point 19961101 Brunswick U it I Unit2 Unit 2 urnit 2 Unit I Unit I Unit 2 Unit I Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit I Unit2.Unit I Unit 2 Unit J Unit 2 Unit 2 Unit 2 Unit I Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit I Unit 2'Unit l Unit 2 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 3 Unit 4 U.nit 1 Infe ,NK. approvet a -1. percent increase in tre maxinummiicensea power ievel.The NRC approved a 5.5. percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Tlie NRC approved a 5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Ilhe NRC approved a 4.5 percent increxse in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC approvedJ a.5.6 percent increase in the maximum licensed pover level.Thi, NRC approved a 5.5 percent increase in the maxinmum licensed power level.The NRC approvred a 5.5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level-The NRC approved a 4.1 percent increase in the maximiim licensed power level.The NRC approved a2 percent increase in t(ie minximum licensed power level.[lie NRC approved a 4.2 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC approved a 4.2 percent increase in the nmaxiiutm licensed power level.The NRC approved a 4.5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC approved '3 L3 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC approved a 4 percent increase in the niaxitnin licensed power level.The NRC approved a 4.5 percent increase in the maximum licensed Power level.lhie NRC approved a 4.5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC approved a 4.5 percent increase in the maxinini licensed power levcl.The NRC approved a 4.5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.'Ili, NRC approvk ad 5 percent inc~rease in die maxinmum licensed power htve.l"he NRC appro a 5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC approved a 4.5 percelt increase in the naximini licensed Power level lI. NRC approved a4.3 percent increase intdiemaxinmum licensed power le.vL lThe NRC approved a 4.9 percent increase in the maximuns licensed power level.The NRC approved a 5 percent increase in the maximum licenised power level.The NRC approved a 4.3 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC approved a 5 perceta increase in the maximium licensed power level.The NRC approved a 4. prcent increase in the niaximum licensed power level."se NRC approved a 5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC approved a 5 percent inc.rease in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC approved a 25percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC approved a2 percent increase in the maximum licensed powetr level.The NRC approved a 2 percent increase in die maximum licensed power level.The NRC approved a 42 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC" appoe a eceticreseithmxiumicndlwelee The NRC approvtd a 4.5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC approved a 4.5 percent increase in tie maximum licensed power level.The NRC approvt'ii a 5 percent increase in tie maximum licensed power level.
Brunswick Unit 2 The NRC approved a 5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.
approvec a 4 percent increase in tile maximum licensed power level.19980429 Joseph M. Farley 19980429 Joseph M. Farley 1998090S Browns Ferry 19)80908 Browtns Ferry 19980916 Monticello 19981022 Edwin L Hatch 19981022 Edwin L Hatch 19990930 Comanche Peak 20000509.
LaSalle County 200(,0509 LaSalle County 20000N611 Perry N2(01006 River Bend 2000)1026 Diablo Canyon 200l101.19 Watts Bar 200105-04 Braidwood 20010504 Braidwood 20010504 Byron 20010504 BvTon 2 0 10525 Salem 2 00 10525 Salem 20010706 San Onofre" 200 10706 San Onofre 20010706 San tnofre 200 1.0706 San Onofre Unit I The NRC approved a 5 percent increase in the maximum licens4ed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a 5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a 5 percent intrease in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 3 The NRC approved a 5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level."Ahe NRC approved a 6.3 percent increase in lie maximum licensed power level.Unit I 'lTe NRC approved a 8 percent increase in the maximunm licensed power level.Unit 2 Ilhe NRC approved a 9 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit i. Tihe NRC approved a I percent increase in the nilaximum licensed power level.Unit I 'Ilie NRC approved a 5 pcrcent increase in the maximum licensed poweir level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a 5 percent increase in the. maximnu licensed power level.Unit I Tie NRC approveda 5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.U..'-nit I The NRC approved a 5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.UJnit I The NRC approved a 2 percent increase in the niaxinum licensed power level.Unit I The NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit I The NRC approved a 5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a 5 percent increase in the maximum licenseAd power level.Unit.. Tise NRC approved a 5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 2) T'he NR approved a5 percent inrease in the maximum licensed power level.Unit I The NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC issued license amendment 180 increasing the maximum reactor power level to 3.438 megsawatts from 3,390 megawatts.
Unit 2 Tlhe NRC approved a I.4 petrent increase in the maximum. licensed power level.Unit 3 The NRC approved a 1.4 percenit increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 3 T'le NRC issued license aenesidment 171 increasing the maximum reactor povwer level to 3,438 meagawatts from 3,390 inegaoawattts.
Unit I The NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level..U-nit 2 'lhe NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase in the maximum licensed power Ievel.Unit 3 The NRC issued license amendment raising maxinmum reactor power level to ,,438 megawatts.
Unit I The NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit I 'llie NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 2 "he NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit't 'Ite NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 2. 'he NRC approved a 0.4 percent increase in (ie maximum licensed power level.Unit 1. The NRC approved a 4.5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.The NRC approveil a 15.3 perctnt increase in the maximum licensed power level.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 200110706 20010706 20'010719 Susquehanna Susquehanna San Onofre.20,010730 Hope. Creek 2D (0109241 Beaver Valley 20, 10924 Beaver Valley 20)0 1112 Comanche Peak 2(101 PO12 Conianchepeak 2,N) 110112 Slhearon Harris 2)011106 Duane Amold E,+J L it'! I ."UWC -ULLOI(I 20011221 Dresden 20011221 Dre"den'20011221 Quad Cities 20011221 Quad Cities 20020329 Waterford 2 0 020405 Clinton 20020412 South Texas Project 20020412 South Texas Project 2-K)020424 Arkansas Nuclear One 2W020430 Sequoyah.20020430 Sequoyah l2002053l Brunswick 20020531 Brunswick 20021010 Grand Gulf 20021105 i H. B. Robinson.2,102l122 Peach Bottom 2(021122 Peach Bottom.20021 126 Indian Point S 2(0)21129 Point Beach 20021129 Point Beach 2021204 Crystal River 200212210 Donald C. Cook 20030131 River Bend 20030204 Crystal River 2()03050)2 Donald C. Cook 20030509 Pilgrim 20030522 Indian Point 20030523 Indian Point I I UC !NIJU IIsSUCttel I auIiUlvilt MIL., IIICUMULLI UIC enIaxm III U reIactu power le vl Ito 1,912 megawatts.
Unit 2 The NRC approved a 17 percesnt ihcreaae in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 3 The NRC approved a 17 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit I "lle NRC approved a 1 7.8 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a 17.8 percent increase in the niaxitnum licensed power level.Unit 3 The NRC approved a 1.5 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit I The NRC approved a 20 percent increase in tile maximum licensetd power level.Unit I Use NRC approved a 1.4 percenl increase in the maxinmum licensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase in the nmaximum licensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approv'ex a 7.5 peicent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit I The NRC approved a1 1.4 pe-cenl inerease in the maximumnlicensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approtd a 1.4 percent increase in the maximums licensed powec level.Unit. 1 The NRC approved a 15 percent increase in dse maximum liensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a 15 percent increase in the mnaximum licensed power level.Unit I The NRC approved a 1.7 percent inrcreaae in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 2 Thse NRC approved a 1.7 percent increase in the via.ximum licensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a .1.62 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 3 The NRC approved a 1.62 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 3 The NRC approved a IA percent increase in tlse nmaximum licensed power level.tUnil 1 The NRC approved a 1.4 ptrcent increase in. the maximum licensed pown' level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 3 M Te NRC approved a 0.9 percent increase in t(ie maximum licensedpower level.Unit I The NRC approved a 1.66 percent increa-sc in due maxinmum licensed power level.Unit I "fhe NRC approved a 1.7 percent increase m the inaxiinns licensed power level.Unit 3 The NRC approved license amendment 205 increasing the maximuns reactor power level to 2,568 megawatts.
Unit 2 TMe NRC approved a 1.66 percent increase in-the maximum licensed power level.Unit 1 lhe NRC approved a 1.5 prcnent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 2 Tlhe NRC issued license anendment 237 increasing (te maximum reactoir power level to 3,114.4 megawatts.
The NRC approved a 1.4 p&#xfd;rcent increase in Use maximum licensed power level.Unit I The NRC approved a 1.5 percent-increase in thie maximuum licensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a 1.5 perceni increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 2 lhe NRC approveA a 2.9 pereni increase in tUe maximum licensed powe lerel.The NRC-approved a 6 percntl increase in the maximum licensed power level: TIhe NRC approved a 1.4 percent increase iii the maximunmlicensed power level.Unit 2 The NRC approved a 3.26 percent increase in thie maximum licensed power ievel.200307085 20030923 2003(h923 2W5'309-29 20040227 20040623 2W041{)28 Kewaunsee Edwin L IHatch Edwin L Hatch Palo Verde Kewaunee Palisades Indian Point-) -'f-I 2(X)50324 Indian Point.2W050415 Waterford 2.05[116 Palo Verde 2.0051 1t. Palo Verde 2(06030,2 Vermont Yankee 20060"522 Seabrook 2M)060711.
R. E. Ginna 20(060719 Beaver Valley 20060719 Beaver Valley 20070306 Bro.vts Ferec LIlII d i iC fi.t. aJ1U&#xa3;-t.&#xa3; d j l'iCCltt ILLL M edC Iii iilAtilfll i'Il CeIlaC powe- ICYcI.Unit 3 The NRC approved a 4.85 percent increase in the rnlaximnm licensed power level.Unit 3 Ilie NRC approved a 8 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit I 'he NRC apprve.da-2.9 percent. increase in the maximum licensed power level..Unit 3 The NRC approved a 2.9 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Thlie NRC approved a 20 percent increase in the maximum licensed power level.Unit 1. The NRC approved a 1.7 percent increase in the maximunii licensed power level.The NRC approved a. 16.8 percent increase in the ijiaximiull liceised power level.Unit I The NRC approved a 8 percent increase in the maximumin licensed power level.Unit 2 'he NRC approved a S percent increase in dhe maximum licensed 1power level.Unit 1 The NRC approved a S percent increase in the maximumii licensed power level.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U I 1 ~I I NEC-UW_19 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION PP7028 ORIGINAL PIPING FLOW ACCELERATED CORROSION INSPECTION PROGRAM USE CLASSIFICATION:
INFORMATION Implementation Statement:
This procedure supercedes VY Procedure DP 4023 and use of the Vermont Yankee Piping Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program Manual, Revision 2a:, prepared for Vermont Yankee by Yankee Atomic -Nuclear Services Division.Issue Date: 05/10/01 PP 7028 Original Page I of 15 NECO04914 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND DISCUSSION...........-.......
........................
3 DEFIN.ITIONS...................
* .5 PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES....--...*.-.-....*
....... .......* ..... ...... .. ..... ..... * .. 5 PR O C E D U R E ....... ..........
.............
.. .................
....... ................
........4.1. Program Maneac".4 1. P o r m M ain tenance ..............
......- ................
&deg; ....... : ........................
* ............
&deg;........................
-9 4.2. Initial Screening and Identification ofFAC Susceptible Piping 9 4.3. CHECWORKS Modeling ........................................
.. 9 4.4. Outage to Outage Activities 10 REFERENCES AND COMMITMENTS
..............................
12 FINAL CONDITIONS 14 ATTACHMENTS 15 PP 7028 Original Page 20f 15 NEC004915 1.0 PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND DISCUSSION 1.1. Purpose The purpose of the Vermont Yankee Piping Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC) Inspection Program is to provide a systematic approach to ensure that PAC does not lead to degradation of plant piping systems and feedwater heaters. This Program Procedure controls the engineering and inspection activities performed to predict, detect, monitor, and evaluate wall thinning due to PAC at the. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.1.2. Scope The scope of this program is limited to evaluation and inspection of plant piping systems and feedwater heater shells that could be susceptible to FAC.FAC is known to occur in piping systems constructed of carbon or low-alloy steels, which carry water or wet steam. All plant piping systems have been screened for susceptibility to damage from FAC. A separate document titled "FAC Susceptible Piping Identification" has been developed to identify, on a line by line basis, the piping which is susceptible to damage from FAC. This documeni is maintained by the Piping FAC Inspection Program coordinator and is updated as required to reflect changes in plant operation and configuration.
There is no finite scope of piping components to be scheduled for inspection on a periodic basis.Each refueling outage. inspection efforts will be optimized to focus on piping components which have been identified as wearing, or potentially wearing due to FAC. The components selected for inspection each refueling outage are identified using:* Results ofultrasonic thickness (UT) inspections from previous refueling outages.* Results of the CHECWORKS predictive software, which incorporates actual inspection data." Operating conditions at VY, which may indicate PAC damage is occurring." Operating experience and events from other plants.Carbon steel feedwater, heater shells have experienced thinning and through wall leaks due to PAC. Vermont Yankee has replaced all low pressure feedwater heaters with new heaters constructed of materials resistant to FAC. The four remaining high pressurefeedwater heater shells are carbon steel. Long term monitoring of shell thickness for plant feedwater heaters is included in the scope ofthis program.1.3. Discussion Following the December 1986 Surry pipe rupture the industry has worked steadily.to develop and implement monitoring programs to prevent the rupture of high energy piping due to single phase erosion-corrosion (FAC). In March: 1987 INFO issued Significant Operating Experience Report (SOER) 87-3 which recommended that a continuing program be established at all U.S.nuclear power plants, including analyses to predict wear rates and to plan and schedule periodic inspections.
USNRC Generic Letter GL 89-08, requires all holders of operating licenses to provide assurances that a systematic program has been implemented to ensure that Flow Accelerated Corrosion does not lead to degradation of plant piping systems.This Program Procedure (PP) controls engineering and inspection activities performed to assess the susceptible plant piping. This procedure defines the methods and criteria used in the evaluation and inspection of plant piping components which are susceptible to wall thinning due to FAC. The program is based on current industry practice and the latest EPRI recommendations (REF 5.4.8.).PP 7028 Original Page 3 of 15 LPC#1 NEC004916 1O:eral n~lhe lith olf thiedw trhetr, o only"11 det&#xfd;t er ie ytecniino h shcle(lis and r inozle, II 1responsibily io tMLtenanfVce Departmend She'la le inSpI offeedwat ht coordinated to trpEi w)4Wforthe Mainlenaicil lot pirtes u Overllpeation of the heedater shellawltbersfs otrmyeeried byth con dintion oft intrna v shellsecin and nozzles hbuters alodpndn nt e on itio afthte fmater ialenlstbs, ruesuppotpantpjcTes ffimpnemn rpib-lty of th Mainten sanc ShelloadRo ntezze ignpe ctinfeedwin thenanr f ill buret tsisodpnden on tecnionfthe heater tue ne rvniveMitemaln:tues tube supportdlaers.
migmn pt , it-i r din colerlend p late, e io n o m hl is the I repnibcli;IIMl(ty il ofte Ma pintnnce Depatment She lld llandnozlel LSCTinspctIonsA offeedwae heater w 11ii 1 ill be'cootrdintedf throug the rogramnmasinbleano, m Engineer1i n theI iMai ten uraent JaDestprartiment.
U inspectnafsionsofithevheter shells lbae per iormed in jc h al unt an esiidddygl
!I c,: urrent emeatenrntuesuner Prmeventie Maintenance Tepiary purposelectporfong Tinspectio ns achoug I I 4 VAO~ii~epible accomlaion thindusyompones fioud ithignieficatwl losoto 0C unr tsre p r replaced It I lip') are ifmoreMi-repa ir and-ft tt 9 &#xfd;JIC ITC I, qPr tt Y irl> ~ ~ _ _PPC 7028'li ()Ill\a *Id StIf p lTh ll.A colln-tac
&#xfd;w .Cl<"nA ltcwic &#xfd; J elk an sillfia I fdCductiom and ft&tm4di ppin my ndiatf(-mrf)rh cfrubliiiia ,wnd Ue Iag 4aof15 The primary purpose ofperforming UT inspections each outage is to locate piping components degraded3* by FAG prior to the time that an immediate repair or replacement is reqnired.
This allows sufficient lead time for a planned replacement which will have a minimum impact on plant operation.
Given the costs of inspection and replacement ofpiping components, a long term approach for mitigating.I the effects ofFAC taken under this program will be towards reducing component wear rates. To accomplish this, components found with significant wall loss due to FAG under this programi, will be preferably replaced with materials which are more resistant to FAG damage.I PP 7028 Original Page 4 of 15I LPC#N NEC004917
 
==2.0 DEFINITIONS==
2.1. Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC) A corrosion process that causes thinning of steel piping exposed to flowing water or wet steam. The rate of loss is dependent on several parameters, which include flow regime, service life, water chemistry, piping material, piping geometry, and hydrodynamics.
2.2. Program: A set.o f activities that benefit from the existence o fa formal, high level "Program Document." Such documents are meant to provide for a common understanding of program depth, breath and technical bases as well as the responsibilities o fthe program owner and those helping to implement the ,c, program. "Program Documents" are typically created to ensure regulatory requirements are satisfied.
I They can also be used to layout the technical bases and personnel responsibilities related to complex, multi-departmental processes.
2.3. Program Owner The individual responsible for maintaining the program, program documents, and assuring proper execution ofthe program requirements.
Each program shall have an individual assigned as the program owner. The appropriate Job title is determined by the responsible Department Manager.A summary of expectations for the program owner are contained in Appendix A ofAP 0098 and shall be referenced in all Program Procedures.
2.4. Single-Phase Flow: The flow in the piping system remains in the liquid phase at all design and operating pressures and temperatures.
2.5. Two-Phase Flow: The flow in the piping system may vary from liquid to wet steam. This depends on the I operating pressures and temperatures and varies with the specific location in the piping system.I 3.0 PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES Implementation ofthe tasks performed under this program involve several plant departments.
The organization for personnel performing tasks under this program is shown in Figure 1.3.1. The VY Design Engineering Mechanical!
Structural (DE AMIS) Department is responsible for the Piping FAC Inspection Program. The DE MIS Lead Design Engineer (LDE) has responsibility for the overall program management and administration and, for structural evaluation ofthinned piping components.
3.1.1. Establishment and maintenance ofcriteria and procedures for evaluation ofthinned wall piping components.
3.1.2. Performing structural evaluations o f thinned wall piping components.
I 3.2. The Vermont Yankee Piping FAC Inspection Program Coordinator (FACPC) works within the Mechanical Structural (DE MIS) Department under the direction of the DE MIS LOE. The responsibilities of the FAC Program Coordinator are: I*3.2.1. Maintenance of the Vermont Yankee Piping FAC Inspection Program Procedure and supporting documents to ensure that program meets commitments to GL 89-08 and the "Expectations of I Program Owners" as defined in Appendix A ofAP 0098.3.2.2. Continual assessment of FAC inspection program to insure program effectiveness.
3.2.31 Participation in relevant industry working groups, benchmarking with current industry practice, evaluation ofindustry events; and implementation ofrevisions, changes, and process improvements which result from the participation.
3.2.4. Establishment and maintenance of criteria for selection o fpiping systems and components susceptible to FAC and for maintenance ofthe "FAC Susceptible Piping Identification" document which screens all current plant piping systems and identifies piping susceptible to FAG 3.2.5. Establishment and maintenance ofcriteria for selection and scheduling ofcomponents to be inspected during refueling outages including:
initial inspections, follow-on inspections, and scope expansion and/or reduction.
PP 7028 Original Page 5 of 15 LPC#l NEC004918 3.2.6. Establishment and maintenance ofcriteria for use and control ofthe CHECWORKS predictive software used to evaluate piping, plan inspections, track inspection results, wear rates, piping component data, and repair and/or replacement history.3.2.7. Review ofdesign change and maintenance documents as necessary to assess the impact ofthe proposed tasks on the inspection program, and'recommend action when appropriate.
3.2.8. Ensure that all physical and operational changes or additions to plant piping systems are incorporated into theprogram.
3.2.9, Analytical evaluation ofplant piping systems for FAC using the EPRI CHECWORKS codes as appropriate.
3.2. 10. Pre-outage activities including:
* Development of inspection scope for each refueling outage.* Perform/update analytical evaluations (CHECWORKS models) as required.Provide pre-inspection implementation support.3.2. 11. Outage activities including: " Providing engineering support for inspection implementation.
.Evaluation and disposition ofall inspection results." Recommend changes to the planned inspection scope upon discovery oftmacceptable conditions.
Providing assistance as required in the development ofrepair/replacement options.* Providing written summary ofinspection results to ISIPC prior to plant startup.* Ensure that cognizant departments and the Control Room are informed of unacceptable conditions discovered during evaluation of inspection results and facilitate completion ofappropriate paperwork (ER's, WOR, IDR, etc.).3.2.12. Post-outage activities including:
* Development of outage inspection report including trending analyses and long term recommendations.
* Update/maintain the plant CHECWORKS models and maintain a history of all piping inspections.
* Update/maintain
'FAC Susceptible Piping Identification" document to reflect plant changes as required.3.2.13. Keep DE MIS LDE informed on the progress ofFAC related tasks.PP 7028 Original Page 60f 15 NEC004919 33.. Th-e- V o fi-iont Yankee In--Service Inspection Program Coordinator(ISTPC):
works within the System Engineering Department under the direction ofthe SuperintendentofSystern Engineering.
The responsibilities ofthe ISIPC include: 3.3.1. Provide for overall coordination with the Vermont Yankee In-Service Inspection Program if inspection results on safety class piping indicate violations ofthe piping design code.3.3.2. Coordination ofpre-outage activities including:
* Input to the development ofoutage schedules and budgets relative to FAC activities.
P providing oversight ofwork order planning and coordination with ISI Program resources.
* Arrange on-site services as required.3.3.3. Coordination ofoutage activities including:
* Ensure components scheduled for inspection are properly prepared and accessible.
* Perfonnance ofinspections.
* Postinspection restoration ofcomponents.
* Repair/replacement effort ofunacceptable components.
3.3.4. Interface with the cognizant departments, as needed to insure all safety related repair/replacement ISI examination requirements are satisfied.
3.3.5. Ensure that required piping repairs and/or replacements are perfonned according to plant procedures and repairs to safety class piping and components are performed in accordance with, ASME Section XI requirements.
3.3.6. Ensure that cognizant departments and the Control Room are informed ofunacceptable conditions discovered during evaluation ofinspection results and facilitate completion of appropriate paperwork (ER's, WOR, IDR, etc. ).*3.3.7. Ensure that inspection records are temporarily stored per AP 6807 and permanently stored per AP 6.809 and available far the plant lifetime.3.3.8. Keep the Superintendent afSystem Engineering informed on the progress afFAC related tasks.3.3.9. Provide technical advice on implementation and inspection aspects ofthe FAC program.3.3.10. NDE procedure development and maintenance.
PP 7028 Original Page 7 ofl 5 NEC004920 3.4. Level ill I1I51 Supervisor is a certified Level III UT examiner and works un~hdert i&Cihof the ISIPC. The responsibilities ofthe Level i I I IISI Supervisor include: 3.4.1. Review ofapplicable NDE procedures used in pipe tJT wall thickness measurements.
3.4.2. Ensuring that UT inspectors are properly qualified and trained to the applicable inspection procedures.
3.4.3. Review ofinspection results for compliance to the applicable procedures.
3.4.4. Resolution of anomalies found in inspection data.3.4.5. Recommendations for augmented or special NDE procedures or techniques as required.3.4.6. Direct supervision ofinspection personnel to ensure that the inspection personnel accurately and efficiently execute the inspection plan, complete inspections, and appropriately document inspection results.3.4.7. Control ofall inspection data during the refueling outage.3.4.8. At the completion ofinspections forwarding all inspection records to the ISIPC for pennanent storage per the requirements ofSection 6.2 3.5. Non Destructive Examination (NDE) Personnel 3.5.1. Meet Applicable qualification Standards.
Personnel perfonning ultrasonic inspections shall be qualifiedto the requirements ofNE 8043.3.5.2. Perfonn assigned setup, calibrations, and examinations.
.3.5.3. Documentation ofresults in accordance with approved procedures.
3.6. Plant Support Services'The Project Engineering Department is responsible for providing staging, lighting, insulation removal, surface preparation ofpiping components, and for component restoration after inspections are performed.
Activities are controlled through the VY Work Order process in accordance with plant procedures.
PP 7028 Original Page 8 of 15 NEC004921 4.0 PROCEDURE 4.1. Program Maintenance The FACPC shall maintain the Yankee Piping FAC Inspection Program Procedure, PP 7028 and supporting documents to ensure that program meets commitments to GL 89-08 by: 4.1.1. Continual reassessment ofthe piping FAC inspection program to insure program effectiveness.
A FAC Program SelfAssessment shall be performed at least once per operating cycle.4.1.2. Participation in relevant industry working groups, benchmarking with current industry practice, evaluation ofindustry events; and implementation ofrevisions, changes, and process improvements which result from the participation.
4.1.3. Adaptation ofcurrent or developing industry practices:
for selection and scheduling of components to be inspected, follow-on inspections, scope expansion and/or reductions, and criteria and procedures for evaluation ofthinned wall piping components.
4.1.4. Review design change and maintenance documents as necessary to assess the impact of the proposed tasks on the inspection program, and recommend action when appropriate.
4.1.5. Incorporate all physical and operational changes or additions to plant piping S'stems into the program as applicable.
4.2. Initial Screening and Identification ofFAC Susceptible Piping 4.2.1. A screening and evaluation ofall plant piping systems for susceptibility to FAC shall be performed.
The screening shall use the EPRI Guidelines from reference 5.4.8., industry experience, and previous Vermont Yankee inspection results. The evaluation shall be performed and reviewed by engineers with FAC experience and familiar with plant systems. The resulting document shall be controlled by the FACPC.4.2.2. The FACPC shall revise the "FAC Susceptible Piping Identification" document as required to reflect changes in plant operation, piping configuration, and/or materials.
4.3. CHECWORKS Modeling 4.3.1. Evaluate the susceptible plant piping systems for FAC using the EPRI CHECWORKS code. The evaluations shall be performed, reviewed, and documented per the requirements ofAppendix D.PP 7028 Original Page 9 oi 15 NEC004922 4.4. Outage to Outage Activities
...Inspection and evaluation efforts performed under the program follow a cyclic pattern. Once inspection data from a given outage is obtained, it is incorporated into the appropriate predictive model and the results are then used in conjunction with otherFAC related information to establish the inspection scope for the next refueling outage.NOTE Each large bore piping component within the scope ofthis program has been given a unique identification number as described in Appendix A. The location (building and elevation) of each large bore component is obtained from the Component Location, Sketches in Appendix A. Small bore piping inspection locations included in the program I are identified in Appendix B.I The tasks performed each refueling outage to implement the piping inspections under the FAC inspection program are detailed below. These are also broken out chronologically in a flow chart* included here as Figure 2.4.4.1. The outage inspection scope is determined by the FACPC using previous inspection data, the results ofthe CHECWORKS models, industry experience, and the guidelines contained in Appendix E.4.4.2. The outage inspection scope is reviewed by the ISIPC for impact on and conflicts with-the overall outage plan. The ISIPC will plan and organize the on-site resources required I to implement the piping inspections.
4.4.3. A work package is assembled for each piping component or group ofcomponents.
This package includes component location sketches, support requirements such as scaffolding, I lighting, etc., surface preparation and gridding requirements, and any special inspection requirements as determined by the FACPC.4.4.4. Prepare piping components for inspection.
4.4.4.1. As directed by the ISIPC, scaffolding, lighting, insulation removal, and surface preparation ofeach piping component to be inspected are performed by on-site services in accordance with the applicable plant procedures.
4.4.4.2. Surface preparation and gridding ofpiping components for inspection shall I conform to the guidelines in NSAC 202L (reference 5.4.8.). Specific instructions for surface preparation are given in NE 8044. Specific instructions for gridding ofpiping components are given in Attachment A ofNE 8053, or as I further directed by the FACPC.I I pp 7028 Original'Page 10 of 15 NEC004923 NEC-UW 20 PP7028 Piping FACJnspectlon Program FAC INSPECTION PROGRAM RECORDS FOR 2005 REFUELING OUTAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS TAB Pages 1 FAC 2004-2005 Program EWC Program Scoping Memo & Level 3 Fragnet 2-5 (4 pages)2 2005 Refueling Outage Inspection location Worksheets 6-19 Methods and Reasons for Component Selection (14 pages)3 VYM 2004/007a Design Engineering
-MIS Memo: J.C.Fitzpatrick to 20-37 S.D.Goodwin subject, Piping FAG Inspection Scope for the 2005 Refueling Outage (Revision la), dated 5/5/05. (18 pages)4 VYPPF 7102.01 VY Scope Management Review Form for deletion of FAG 38-43 Large Bore Inspection Nos. 2005-24 through 2005-35 from RF025, dated 11/1/06 (6 pages)5 2005 RFO FAG Piping Inspections Scope Challenge Meeting Presentation, 44 -46 5/4/05 (3 pages)6 ENN Engineering Standard Review and Approval Form from VY for: "Flow 47-48 Accelerated Corrosion Component Scanning and Glidding Standard", ENN-EP-S-005, Rev. 0. dated 9/22/05 (2 pages)7 ENN Engineering Standard Review and Approval Form from VY for: "Pipe 49-50 Wall Thinning Structural Evaluation" ENN-CS-S-008, Rev, 0. dated 9/22/05 & VY Email: Communication of Approved Engineering Standard date 9/27/05 (2 pages)8 EN-DC-147 Engineering Report No. VY-RPT-06-00002, Rev.O, "VY Piping 51 -69 Flow Accelerated Corrosion Inspection Program (PP 7028) -2005 Refueling Outage Inspection Report (RF025 -Fall 2005) (19 pages)9 Large Bore Component Inspections:
Index and Evaluation Worksheets 70 -327 (258 pages)10 Small Bore Component Inspections:
Index and Evaluation Worksheets 328 -347 (20 pages)Page 1 of 347 NEC037099 I ENN Nuclear Management Manual Non QA Administrative Procedure ENN-DC.183 Rev.1 Facsimile of Attachment 9.10 Program or Component Scoping Memorandum 2004-2005 Program Scope Mem.o _ _Vermont Yankee -Engineering Department
.I I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r g_____r_____a_
Pmrppl NtimhPr--I ~ -. .-. -El title: Piping Flow Accelerated Corrosion (I-AC) Inspection Program 2004 &12005 Prooram Related Efforts Depar-tment:
Desi gn Enigineerh~--_echanicaf
/Structural Owner. s James fitzpatrick
---Backup: Thomas O'Connor Procedure No. PP 7 0 2 8"*, Vermont Yankee Piping Flow Accelerated Corrosion& Tille: Inspection Prooram Detailed Scope of Proj ect(Explanation);
Engineering activities to support ongoing Inspection Program 10 provide a systemalic approach to insure thai Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC) does not lead to degradation of plant piping systems. Currently" Program Procedure PP 7028 controls engineering and inspection activities to predict, detect, monitor, and evaiuate pipe wall thinning due to FAC. Activities include modeling of plant piping using the EPRI CHECWORKS code to predict susceptibility to FAC damage, selection of components for inspection, UT inspections of piping components, evaiuation of data, trending, monitoring of industry events and best practices, participation in industry groups, and recommending future repairs and lor replacements prior to component failure.* Expected to adopt a new ENN Standard Program Procedure ENN-DC-315 (which is currently under development with an accelerated deveiopment date of 6!30!04), E'gpxecte-d-Benefi-ts-AJ-us-tiffcatiom):_V-Y conimi-tted-oha-ve-an-effecti-ve pipingEAC inspRQtionr_
program in response to GI 89-08_Conseque-nces of Deferral:
Possible hazards to plant personne_l Loss of plant availability, unscheduled repairs, and deviationlrom previous regulatory commitments.
I I I I I I I I I I I I.I I I I I Duration of Progqarn:
Life of plant!004 Key Deliverables Of Milestones:
Completion Estimate Compiete Focused SA write up & generate appropriate corrective 6/18104 actions' (coordinate ack'ities with program standardization Completion of RFO 24 documentation, write and issue RFO 2004 7/23104 1nspection Report Software QA on XP platform for CHECWORKS FAC module Version 1 8/13/04 1.0G-TuTMIMTr-!)
Oiutage IrispecuonL acope, ricluuilyg coplrlig 97'1/04 worksheets.
Update Piping FAC susceptibility screening'To account for piping and 8/13/04 drawing updates_ Include effects from NMWC, power uprate, & life extension.
Update pn abasend devetop new priority 10/01/04 iogic for inspection scheduling, Page l of2 NEC037100 I ENN Nuclear Management Manual Non QA Administrative Procedure ENN-DC-183 Rev.1 Facsimile of Attachment 9.10 Program or Component Scoping Memorandum U,.Jpdate CHECWORKS models using Version 1.OG with latest 2002 RFO & 2004 RFO Inspection data (Note ideally results are to be used In determining the 2005 inspection scope, however schedule nilestones override pp rOa logic, ,doption ofENN-DC-315 ENN Standard FAC program to include all previous improvements identified 30if Assessmenls.
Completion Estimate 12/31/04 12t3 t/04 1:ngoing Program Maintenance, Includes:
procedure revisions, 3rogram improvements, benchmarking, attendance at industry (EPRI HUG) meetings, evaluation of industry events (industry awareness)
Ifl ffects on VY, license renewal -rolect Irnut, and .feet su.ppo.2 5 --------------
r--iest nes Perform Proqram Self Assessment minimum once "er cvci[..C.;version of CHECHWORKS1,OG models to SFA VersiOll 2, lx RFO 25 sup art -.. .. ......Completioll of RFO 25 documentation, develop RFO 25 Outage IlIsnection Report Ongoing Program Maintellance, Includes:
procedure revisions, program improvements, benchmarking, attendance at industry (EPRI CHUG) meetings, evaluation of industry events (industry awareness) for effects on VY, and fleet suwoort.411/05 911/05 11115/05 12/31/05 r- I JIssue 2005 Outage Inspectioll Report I tp qFA Priclicrfivi Mncw*lg with ?NN.F RFf rfqfq 1/15106 All1/ I Ar ml p Ongoing Program Maintenance.
Includes:
procedure re program improvements, benchmarking, attendance at industry (EPRI CHUG) meetings, evaluation of industry events (Industry awareness) for effects on VY, and fleet sunnort.Estimated Bud Wet or Ex enses: Ca tured in DE Mech.IStructural Base Bud at others impacted B Pro ect ,Esimt 12/31/06 AmountlHrs N/A~dHours Desi n En ineerin FlUid S tems En ineerin Electrical!l&C En ineerin a Mechanical!
Strucwral Desi n 40------ 3 F nel: Attached -----------------
Performance Indicators for FAC Program are contained in the Program Health Report (Attached)
Page 2 of 2 1'NEC037101 2004-2005 Piping FAC Inspe,.n Program Level 3 Fragnet YEAR 2004 {2 nd half)(Time Line from 6J01 04 to 12131,04 /I-Task No, Task Description Preparer (HRS}Estimated Reviewer (HRS)Estimated.
TOTAL (HRS)Estimated.
Est, Sta rt Est. Delivery 1 Completion Date Complete Focused SA write up & generate appropriate corrective actJions (coordinate actvites Wth program standardizationr efforts).20 10 30 611/04 Completion of RFo 24 documentation, write and issue RFO 2004 Inspection Report 60 20.30 10 90 6114104 6/18104 7/23104 8/13104 8113/04 Software QA on XP platform fur CHECWORKS FAC modulo Version I.OG 04-3 30 1 711/04 7/12104 04-4 Update Piping FAC susceptibility screening to account fur piping and draving updates, Include effects from NMWC, power uprate,& life extensinn.
1 40 20 60& lieetnin 04-5 04-6 04-7 048 Update piping Small bore piping database and develop new priority logic for inspection scheduling.-Upd ate models usir4-Version-JTO-fwilli latest.-2002 RFO &2004 RFO Inspection data Issue 2005 RFO Outage Inspection Scope. InclUding Seaping worksheets.
40 20 60 160 40 8G 20 40 240 60 9/6104 8/23104 812104 10101/04 12131104 911/04 10131104+ I*-* DevelapmerlTadoption of ENN-DC-315 ENN Standard FAC program Procedure to include all previous improvements idertitfed Self Assessments.
80 120 6(2/04 04.9 Ongoing Program Maintenance.
Includes:
procedure revisions, 160 , 40 200 W11/04 12/31104 program improvements, benchmarking, Attendance at industry (EPRt CHUG) meetings, evaluatLon of industry events (industrywareness'-f--effects-en W. LR uroiect inout,-and-fleet suooorl TOTAL {From end of RFO 24 to December 31, 2004) 620 270 890 H RS 54 Page 1 of2 NEC037102--m --m -m ------m m-- m ----
M M M m m M m m M M m nM M m M 2004-2005 Piping FAC Inspe, ,n Program Level 3 Fragnet YEAR 2005 (1/1/05 TO 12/31/05)Task No.Task D&scrlptlon Preparer (HRS)Estimated Reviewer (HRS)Estimated.
TOTAL (HIRS)Estimatec Est.Start Est.Delivery I Completion 1"q fp Perform Program Self Assessment (minimum once p-.r cycle).05-1 40 20 60 3/1/05 4/01/05 Conversion ofCHECHWORKS O.0G models to SFA Version 2_1x 05-2 360 160 540 411/05 9/01/05 RFO 26 Preparatlin
& Outago SIppQrt 05-3 160 60 240 9/1/05 1111510504 05-4 Completion of RFO 25 documentation, develop RFO 25 Outge lnspedlion Report 60 30 90 11115/05 12/31105 05-5 Ongoing Prograrnain6eriace.
Includes:
pmcedure revislons, program rmprovements, benchmarking, a3ttndanC at irtdlstry (EPRI CHUG) meetings, evaluatlon or industiy events (industry 40 20 60 1 1/01/05 112/31/05 1-- ---- VF4 V I. &#xfd;tt&#xfd; I IV&#xfd;% &#xfd;&#xfd; -1, Total Fh 990 J I I .Page 2 of 2 NEC037103 Th~z I VY Piping FAC Inspection Program PP 7028 -2005 Refueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets I Methods and Reasons for Component SelectionL.-.- ~
...... -![ ..A I Note" RIsed for VY and g4dj_ Events and O abzien~.e on 311105 Piping components are selected for irispebtion during the 2004 refueling oUlage based on the following groupings and/or criteria.Lame Bore ieping LA: Compollents selected from measured or apparent wear found in previous inspection results.LB: Components ranked high for susceptibility from current CHECWORKS evaluation.
LC: Components identified by industry events/experence via the Nuclear Network or through the EPR] CHUG. U LD: Components selected to calibrate the CHECWORKS models, LE: Components subjected to off normal flow conditions.
Primarily isolated lines to the condenser in which leakage is indicated from the lurbine p6rformance monitoring systoem. {through the Systems Engineering Group)_LF: Engineedng judgment I Other LG: Piping idehtihed froth EMIAC Work Orders (malfuinctioning equip., leaking valves. etc.)Small B46re FLhino SA: SusbopliN6 piping locations (groups of components) contained In the Small Bore Piping data base which haVe:; rnt received an initial inspeotidn.
S8: componriets seloieed trom measured or apparent wear found In previous inspection results.SC: romp'6he.tsfd i0dutVi eav'e sei' ence via the Nuclear Netwotk or thb0gh the E&#xfd;P'RI lHUG.S):
subji.tcd to. .f normal Ilow cohditions.
Primarily isolated lines to the cond~nsor In Whiich lea1ooe Is 1th turbrie p0rfbrmance monitoring system. (through theSy-tes" Ehgiaerihg Group).SE: Engineering Judgment!
Other.SG: Piping identified tram EMPAC Work Orders (malfunctioning equip., leaking valves, elc.)________ Heater Shells I No feedwater heateT &sect;hell Inspectlnris will beperlormed during the 2005 RFO. All 10 of the leedwater heater shells have been replaced With FAC resistant Materials,I I I Page 1 of 14 NEC037104 VY Piping FAC InspactJon Program PP 7028 -2005 Refueling Outage Inspection Localion Worksheets
/ Methods and Reasons for Component Selection LA: Large Bore Components selected(idenlified) from previous Inspection Results From the 19951199611998/1999120011200212004 Refueling Outage Inspections (Large Bore Piping) these components were identified as requiring thiure monitoring.
The following components have either yet l0 be inspected as recommended, or the recommended inspection is in a future outage.Inspect. Loc. ComponenllD Notes IComments I Conclusions No. SK.q6-18 001 FD13EL05 199&#xfd; Repobrt: calculaled time to tmin is 11.5 & t2 cycles based on a 98-19 FD13SP06 single measurement.
The 2005 RFO is 6 cycles since the inspection.
liT ins ectelbow and downstream 0l In 209Q8 96-36 002 FD02SP05 1996 fkeport: calculated time to Tmin is 9.5 cycleS based on a single measurement.
The 2005 RFO is 6.cycles sinoe the inspection.
U..T _.n elb.ow cn dow.A, tream0i1e in 20V'?98-37 005 FD07SPOI 1AN6 R port: 6Ealbuf6.d Uih6 10 Terh is !96 .cycles based on a Sitgle measureraent The 2005 REO is 6 cycles since, the inspection,____________
t _Asec ekj0w0' flfltea i"I 2007 96.39 005 FD07SP02US 1 fl"6d: "A16 t4d t 6 Tiri i 105&ycles based on a -ingIe measurement.
The 2005 RFO is 6 cyolds since the inspection.
U0.lii i..aw Id44wflstIfaInl-elI 20.08 9$.0 005 FPZ0EL06 19V08.Repont:
s 7:5& 6.76ycies bas- on a W,8-07 FD07EL07 strigle.measurement.
The 2005 fRFO is 5 cycles since the iris0ction.
Gvenbno significaft wear lound i,n adjacent .compnents (R-SL =04.3 cyc.es -n FD07SPO.7) defer in~ectioln unlll R.A026. UT f00l6SOt eplboveH QLO7*40- a00d dw ra bi~8I 9913 011 FI'DO8EL04 1109" pot WiTmii. I T.7:9 & 12:5"y.ies 6t.'td dn a FO08SP04 single UIh inspectin.
The 211 0.5 :RQ is 4 ciycles sin-ce the:fhjpe'6tton.
U~te, under ~the dlown.ra UY lpn'l Inib6l 2 99162 011 FDOP040pe ) 10o Fepor: calulad t~iietto Tmin ii 6.2& cycles based dn. .aslte 99-33 CND-Nz32-A sle mesUreti ent. Th e 20t 5 RFO is 4 cyle s so incethinpco.
0208 01 FD14Eb01 2002 recohtrfendati0P to$ Vnspet t'hie at dWinps2r007 oae mnonr 109-29 FDttSPO2S 2me4suGiven th.lrr o-nlye elbow rad dofwerestflrem pipe i~nt2erb7e 04.03 001 FDncfTE0t 204 ReomeQdto wor inspuedt tegaerine20 f basdnthe d.ef1autr w~ear loated und0,0 r tnh/ce, Relbw-tInspectuplra elbow FD14 lee&99-16 F.820180 99320 017 FDO4TE01 (ppeca) 04 Rprt:cammcudatedn toeimse to min i620&611 yce based on th e autwa 99-3 C:D-rozat-A single o0,0eum05min
: t. The205RFO-h ssp 4edc cyle sineo w tnspectimon UT jnsn1telbow and deIn00 ownstr fnln I 200 99-32 019 FD06TEO 1(pipe cap) 1999 Reoport: calculated lime to Tmi n is 6-.2 & 68. Cycles basod on a 99-36 CND-Noz32-C single measurement.
The 2005 AFe> is 4 cycles since the inspection.
UT rinsp&1t elbow4and downstream pip0 lii 2005S 02-08 016 FD18ELO1 2002 rchentbnto inspec the elboW in &#xfd;&#xfd;O07 based on a~sirigie 02-09 FiD15SFO2US measurement.
Re-inSPeCCt elbow and do'wnstream pipe in 2007(3_______cycles from 20021-04-03 001 FDOITEOS 2004 recommendation to inspect tee in 2008 based on the default wear rate of 0,005 inch/cycle, Re-inspect upstream elbow and lee in N 002 FD02RDOI 2004 recommendation to re-inspect in 2011 based on the default wear rate of 0,005 inch/cycle.
Re-Inspect reduceor with downstream
______elbow and tee In 2007.Page 2 of 14 NEC03710S VY Piping FAC Inspection Program PP 7028 -2005 Refueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets I Methods and Reasons for Component Selection LA: Large Bore Components selected(idenlifled) from previous Inspection Results -continued Inspeot. Lac. Component 10 Notes/Comments I Conclusions 04.08 001 FOOZTE01 Z004 recohmmendation to inspect tee in 07 based on the default wear rate of 0.005 inch/cyde.
Actual point to poini measurements from 1999 to 2004 [ndicate no wear, Given EPU operation, re-inspect wih u streanil *bow and reducer In 2007.04-09 001 FO03SPOI 200.4 recommendation to inspetet pipe secticn in 2011 based en a single inspection and the default wear rale of 0.005 inch/cycle.
Re-inrsnect in 2011.04-10 001 FDQ7SP02DS 2004 recommendation to ihspect pipe section In 2008 based on a sin le ins ection. Re-Ins ect with downslr.eam elbow In 2Q08.04-13 001 FD14EzL03 2004 recdmmendai-n dn to intpect Row 13 pup piece1o OS volve In 2008 is based on a sinole UT insoection.
Re-Insp~ect In 2008.04-23 001 MSD9TtO1 to 2004 recomrmendaticn to inspect pipe section in 2010 due to localized___.__ _ ._ MS.9-TE0 wear directl under 2 lines. RoIn$p. t In 2010.04-23 001 MSO9OL05 .2004 racorhrriendltion to inspect plPe section in 2010 base on a single fnseetion.
in 2016.Turbin'e (2ip$3-around Piping: Previous Intemal Visual UT & Repair History: I "..tn (V i ...m. Tb " '.6 "ff S'*0...RF021 RFO022 RF023 S SFf1959 8200.1 f,-0.2 ,.'i~t z ___________V_
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 00WS 1_: originial Y V V.UT, R V V VJUTI VAST R V Y V V V V V I: Ut .:: P .r ...r... I -yWiT4' .NOTE; Reference Dwg. No. 5920-6841 Sh. 1 of 2 needs to be updated with oorreotlnformation.
This will be performed during the EPU design ohange effort.The HP turbine rotor was replaced in 2004. Internal visual inspection oj all four 36"dlameter lines was Perorrmed, An internal visual Inspection of the 30"C line (firsl inspection sincethe 1993 replacement) and the 30" D line W8s performed.
2005 RFO based on increased flows and the possibility of different flow regimes in both the 36 & 30 inch piping, perform a visual Inspection.
LP tUfbine work in 2005 RFO may provide opportunity
]or access to the 30 " lines. As a ,minimum inspect (2) 36 inch lines and the carbon steel 30" B line.Page 3 of 14 I I I I I NEC037106 VY Piping FAC Inspection Program PP 7028 -2004 Refueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets I Methods and Reasons lor Component Selection LB: Large Bore Components Ranked High for Susceptibility from CHECWORKS Evaluation The current CHECWORKS wear rafe calculations contain inspection data up to the 1999 RFO and wear rate predictions are current to the 2001 RFO. The 2001 and 2002 RFO inspection daja has been entered into the CHECWGRKS database.
However, updated wear rate calculations are not cormiMte, and won't be in time to support the schedule date for issuirng Ihe inspection scope for the 2005 outage. Basedon a review ot the 2001 and 2002 RFO inspection data for components onlhe Feedwater, Condensate, and Heater Drain Systems, the CHECWORKS models still appear to over-predict actual wear. Nothing new or unanticipated was observed in either 2002 or 2004.Feedwater
$&siom Listed beWow are components which meet the followihg criteria: a) negative tihe to Tmin frorf the predictive CHECWORKS runs which include Inspection data up to the 1999 RFO.b) n'o inspections have been performed on these components or the corresponding components in a parallal train Since the 1999 RFO.Comrpnent Location Location Notes l15 Sko.toh F Q7..L0.5 605 TB FPP Elev. 241 Conm ortts .-on train were rin 0.cted S-Oo'flto 006 V. Heater Bay Eisvs 228 Comro'nehts on 6ther tealn were Intcted In 1998.FDO7EL11 & 248 Results indiGate minimal Wear. -After updatIng the CHEOW.O-Ks mrdel with newer data, assess need___foradditiqna.lio.pow~ris in 2007 RFs.FDOIEL12 006 T.B Heater Bay Elev. 248 F:e&#xfd;ed&#xfd;tr heater irplacemnnt occurred in 2004 RFO, Informal visual inspeotions of intemals and cut pipa profile inticated a stable red oxide and no distinguishable winr pa4eyr,.FDPSTEt01 012 T.B Heater Bay.Clevs 228 htnerhih Wa6t components FDOSEL06 &,FDQESP06 Weare FD68ELO7 & 248 In 1988. Re~uats h'dicate minimal wear. After upda'ting OE-IWORKs.model With newer, data, assess nreed for inspecting components on the train vs..thb', FID08aL4Y 0.12 T.B HWeater Bay E.e'v. 248 Feef t': heater replaeerment ocurred in 0044TRaO.lnfor'mal vI.Ual inspef.*ons 01 internals a pippe prof1e a s 6t]e red oxide and rno weAe piat_ srnI FD15ELO8 013 RX Steam Tunnel El. 266 intrnaV1bsuai
<if elbow-erforme6d iP 1996 duirlifg 46tok vaivereplacement, no incdicaton of wall loss at thdt.tine.
Corresponding component on line 16"- FDW-14 was inspected in RF024. After updating CHECWORKs model with newer data, assess need for inspecting I this COomlonent in 2007 RFO, Page 4 of 14 NEC037107 VY Piping FAC Inspection Progr=am PP 7028 -2005 Refueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets/
Methods and Reasons for Component Selection LB: large Bore Components Ranked High for Susceptibility Irom CHECWORKS Evaluation
-continued Condensate System Only one component wasidentified as having a negative time to Tmin. This was CD3ITEQ2DS, the downstream side of a 24x24x20 tee on the condensate header in the teed pump room. The CHECWORK$
prediction tor the downstream side of the tee has a small negative hrs relative to the remainder ot the components in the system and relaftive to the upstream side of the same tee. Other tees on the same header have been previously inspedtod and show no significant wear. The CHECWORKS model includes UT data up to the 1999 RFO. The inspections on this system performed in 2001 indicate minimal wear. Components CD3STEO2 and CD30SP04 were inspectjd iii 2004. This dala along with the 2001 inspection data will be input to CHECWORKS to better calibrate the imodel.Moisture See.arator Drains & Heater Drain System No compontnts idehtified as having negative times to Tmin. No components wete selected icr inspection in 2001, 2002, or 2004 based on high susceptibility.
However future operation under HWC will change dissoived oxygen in system.- A separate evaluation has been perforrmed and components were selected for inspection in 2002. See Section LD below, Extraction Steam System Three components on this system with negative time to code min, wall: The piping is Chrome-Moiy.
ES4ATEOI &E&sect;4AI"t02, 30inch diameter tees inside the condenser have neggtqi'e prediction
(-3426Hrs.)
for trriie to gti6 wl The rheqpve times to tmin may be conservative based on the modeling 1t00n[ ques used. Relinement of th'4i 3rnpd#lt.i0t6is s mWtifis--
iprogross.
The tiegtttive titi if most likely.a function of ta6k of inspoction data Vs&#xfd; ut .at utex.-.otehal lagpqlng on tills pipirng and the lWoation inside the condonser, no:coniponoents are na UT -irins';pOtin in 20b4 based 66t high susceptibility.
HoWever, ar oqp*p~rn!ty to perforti an iitfftp&#xfd;Q Of all the Extraotion .Steaiti lires Inside the condenser during planed [P turbine work in !Iie 20bo5AFb rka'y: itSdf. Sde Section LF below.Note the short section of straight pipe on line 12"-ES-1A at the connection to the 36 inch A cross atountd is. azssum-ned to beAl 06 Gr. B carbon steel is not modeled in CHECWORKS.
This componenlwas inspected in 2W004 by eAf6Wl UT anid an internal visual inspectic0 from the 36" cross around line.-I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I Page 5 of 14 NEC037108 I VY Piping FAC Inspection Program pp 7028 -2005 Refueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets I Methods and Reasons for Component Selection LC: Large Bore Ccmponents Identified by Industry Events/Experience.
Review of FAC related Large Bore Operating Experience (OE) and/or piping failures reported since April 2003 8/9/2004 Mihama3 -PWR Deseri tion & Recommended Actions at VY 0E193681OE18895:
RuptiUre of Condensate line downstream of restriction orifice.PWR system highly susceptible to single phase FAC due to low DO. Similar region of system as 1986 Surry evant (5 fatalities).
Based on info gathered by INPO/CHUGfFACnet the location was omitted from previous inspections due to clerical error, once discovered management missed opportunllyto inspect and deferred inspection until 9104. TOO late. Lesson: inake sure all h~ghly susceptible locations get inspected.
PWR Condensateffeectwater piping is much more suscdptible to single phase FAC than BWR with 02 injectioh.
GiVen that, previous inspection hlslory, and condensate CHtCWORKS modeling; inspect pipihg bs of all flow orifioes rn the higher temperature condensate system that have not been previous!y inspected in RFO25. Inspect CDO3rEQl I QO"ELl.I / CD130$P02 in Rr.2. (re-peat lnspe'tlon from 1090). Aiso, inspect C. Firtoi eI.$-2EL64
/10117103 Duane Arnold -OE1.7300:
Through wall leak In 4" diaireter ohrome-moly Heater(.Drain System BWR bypass line to the condenser.
The line was a temporary inst-allation due-t delayed FWD heater installation.
The cause of the leak ,ppears to be droplet:imping4nent erosion due to use of a bypass control vilvo. The equivalent litlesat VY ard the Heater Drain bypass lines to the condopser downstream 61i-'. high leavtl hetrl valxes Teselin hvdMD~attaehed'to -rttionftor 1e66k.00qe int1ih idrftdeer*0TPM sytem). ome ispe-iins have b~en p6tdrrhd4
..thIf."es Conalder for"i4/03 South Texas OSPYY Rfin~g &in~ternal6 wear -fond ondisct-iarge ipin c5it Odntkosh*
tt Proiet -PWR Polishing System. Pipe, ieaton Ste(elIlowwater t8emprature"(.O to.1 neutral pH, and velocity of 12.2 Ft/,sec Tortuoues floW.th and 'controtValves, we.r.may-be mpin.ement, PWR system Low. drssclvedoex#yg.
Equivatfntsyste.
at VY is Con0tiisate Lihminerafizer System which is to6W .temnp ansdt*reeIspe6t N.S.Ac P2L______as not: *I letPA lte"'r'irNoGEa 3W.~~~~t 11/07103 .faldweod 2- 0.1,4 d O.FD .. .-
-{6i  fe6~t~t~ sytem heitl'sry has 10w 0.00. therefbdre m ro4 Sp i tQ- 1, l la0 pufip disohafge nozzies.and dewhste&#xfd;a&#xfd;rnpip'ng hiaV. No further arAr atqjt from this 6E.'10/31/03 Clinton _BWR -0EZ17412fOElg947:
Throu.(h-wall leak-sin2_A TB h--1&-r Ven-lihes t-5ble-he (lager bore lines assumed given description of backing rings in piping). Apparerit cause attributed to steam jet impingement from wei steam. Equivalent line at VY is common 4 inch feedwater heater vent line 101 No.4 FDW heaters. This line is included in the SSB database since It connects to (2) 2-1/2" lines. Inspection priority will be determined in the small bore ranki! andydoriization.
1T119/03 Hope Greek -OE17700; Pinhole leak aid wall thinning in 8e in carbon steel.Extraction Stearl BWR suppiy iine to Steam Seal Evaporator.
Location of wear is downstrean of pressure safety valves. Apparent Cause of leak & wear is due to liqUid droplet inipinpeMeht due to high flows from failure 01 pressure safety relief valves, No e4tiivalent confiouration at VY.1/24/04 LaSalle 1 -BWR 0E171991 OE18381: Tough-waii hOles in extraction steam piping Inside condenser.
Location of holes at inlet nozzles to No.2 FDW heaters located In the neck oj the condensers (2nd lowest stage). All 12 nozzle are CS. with A335-P1 1 upstrearn piping. VY has only the No.5 FDW heaters in the neck of the condenser.
The No.5 FDW heaters were replaced with Chromo-moly shells. ES piping Is A335-P1 1 or e uivalent which is FAC resistant.
No further actions are anticinated from this OE, Page 601 14 NEC037109 VY Piping FAC Inspection Program PP 7028 -2005 Refueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets
/ Methods and Reasons for Component Selection LC: Large Bore Components Identified by Industry Events/Experlence
-continLued Date 2/17/04 8/26/04 Pfant -- T e Peach Bottom 2 BWR PaeVerde 3-PWR Descn tion & Recommended AClions at VY OE18637: Online leak inlO inch main steam drainlille header to the condenser.
Hole was located directly below the connection of I" main steam lead drain. The header was replaced with 1-1/4 Chrome material approx. 5 years before the leak.Also, ROs in steam drains were modified.
The cause was attributed to steam impingement
'Additional information to follow after next RFO. The oniy large bore drain COllectorat VY is the 8 inch diameter low point drain header, line S"MSD-9.Flow Is through steam traps and ICVs vs. a continuous flow through a restriction orifice. This line is now part of the AST ALT boundary, Inspections of the entire bottom 01 this headerwere performed during RF024 with recommendations for retieat insoedtions In 2010.-9124f04WL Palisades-PWR OE20S86: Through wall leak found on a 10 Inch flashing tee cap on the IP feedwater-heater drains. Problems with inspection of flashing tees in program. Only 14 QUi 011.53 susoeptible tocations have UT data at Palo Verde 1,2,3. There are no flashing tees 0.8. of LCVs on the heater drain system at VY. The onty flashing toes al VY are located on the FWD pump min flow lines at the condsnspr.
01 all.3.lines A FP 4 WE-F and) 6".F..WEPi t&sect; s -schedduled for R F02,5.OGiM94-: Wall thinning In carb6n steel Extraction steatn piping. Increased
-Iocali2ed wear downstream of Bleedertrip valve, Equivalent piping at VY Is ExtractioR Steam piping downstream of the reverse c.urrent valves. ES piping at VY is A.5-P i lwIdh is.AC rislanft N 6futth'er
&btidd is f.ei uifed GE., OEi9sO: W0a-lthinning~feuoTir diff'ie'tareiasorn FDW piping. Two areas- are not considered specific to Ctawba. 1)Area wher4 main fdedetafr by..s reg valves reonters the feedwator header and 2) dOWnstream 01 the main l1etN'ater reg valves. PWk feodwatfer system Ohemistryhas loW D.O. therefore me susceptible to wall loss due 10 single phase :FAC than BWR feedwater piping. At VY area 1)doses -not exist (bypass linros$ump to the cbndenseO
: 2) Inspections havbdNlen pnrfqtnied.. aq.d doynstreaM of.both mainlfed rep, valves. hrft!a tiq'n of" o'? a.re sdeai~
NbO re I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I U I I I-9/18/04'Catawaba 2 -PWR fir 11/3/04 216105 Ojane Arnold -BWR Calvert Cliffs 1 -PWR 0'1t'Wfl tciTfiifiifoCWnstr&aIl orus Gooling Test Re4ti#:HeOT.Isdiation Valve. Apparent cause was c8aviat!n erosion duo to lhrotting invalve &fhng!Jq4F'C I& b 10 ..tet ing. At VY, the-equiVaIeht valVes are V1O-34A &.348. Tre"d&.e-of oavltalien.presnt Is depafdent of the system design and may vary fiorm-Pl&ht to plant, Previous UT inspections were performed on valve bodies and ddwft&#xfd;treati reducers in early 90s. No significant wear was lound. Consider inspectfon of downstream pipi9 In RF026 if additional OE warraflts It.OE2Qt27: Through-wal1 leak in 6 inch steam vent header for MSR rain tank. VYnnt hauc4q rnnficnuratinn.
NO Mnistiire Senarator Re-heaters doesnoth-Prri-6tonfinorntion NO Moisture Separator Re-heaters
-2117/0.5 Clinton ,BWR Grand Gull f-BWR OE20246, Qatastrophlo failure 01 turbine extraction steam line bellows inside condenser, Found through-wall holes ES piping OS 01 bellows due 10 FAC.Apparent cause was attributed to the steam jet Irotin the holes inducing vibration of the expansion joint that led to high cycle latlgue lailure. At VY extraotion steam piping inside the condenser is A335.P1 1 or equivalent which is FAC resistant.
No further actions are anticipated from this OE.Pip Hole-Leak in 4 inch-carbon steel elbUVV in KHN min tlow line. System has low use at VY <<2% of time). (Perry also found thinning at elbow per C.Burton at CHUG meeting.)
A review of VY drawings VYI.RHR.Pari 14 Sht.ill and VYI.RHR Part 15 Sht.1 It show elbows downstream of restriction orifices.
Previous VY Inspections downstream 01 orilices on HPCIfand CS systems found no problems.
Keep OE listed for future conslderali.oo.
Page 7 of 14 L N EC0371 10 VY Piping FAC Inspection Program PP 7028
* 2005 Refueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets
/ Methods and Reasons for Component Selection LC: Large Bore Components Identified by Industry Events/Experience-c,onllnued Date .. e 9124102 IP2 -PWR 1/15/02 CHUG Meeting surry 1-PWK Descri ion & Recommended Actions at VY Pin hole leak on 26 1/2N2 cross-under piping (HP 10 MSR) in vicinity of dog bones at expansion joint under location of weld overlay localized Wear under/around a previous weld overlay repair. VY has solid piping (no expansioo joints). Visual Inspections of 30' B CAR carbon steelip-pin.
will be performed in 2085.Leak in 8 inch Condenser drain header for 3 pl. FDW Heater vents. Also thinning in Gland Steam Pipidg inside the condenser and Ihel 2" Condensor Drain header from MS Drain trhp lines. The only large bore drain collector at VY is the 8 inch diameter low point drain header, line 8WMSD-9. This line is now part of the AST ALT boundary.
Inspections 01 selected components on this line Were pertoimed during RF024 with recommendations for repeat inspections in 2010 (Section LB above). Given this line is part of the ALT Boundary Inspect approx. 2 fl. long sctAion at condentser wall durinLjq AO2f026 t 7' or RFO2Y f2O.LD: Large Bore Components Selected to Calibrale CHECWORKS The CHECWORKS models have been upgraded 10 inciude the 96, 98, & 99 RFO inspection data. The 2001 and 20-2 ingp0otion data has been loaded however wear rate analyses have not been completed allhis time.InZl001 corhpinents 011 the higher lemperature end of the Conden.sale System were Inspoced to calibrate
!tie CNEOWOI3KS nki*4. The inspection data indicate minimal wear- and should reinloroe the assbesshie6t of low wear in the Con :4densate&#xfd;
&#xfd;&#xfd;tem. Additional compon;ents selected for inlpedtfon in 2004 in Section LB above will be used 10 rliibiiateihe CHECWORKS modet HEatir.Dfnain.Moiftre Setarator Drains:164t6*.22 REO there was limited inspection data for the Heater Drain system. The current CHECWORKS
! (b tidtb. e Pass 2) indicate low wear rates, During 2002 a number 01 new inspections Weiretn arbo steeopiping upstream of the level control valves (LCV) 40 obtain it baslirne:prWt6 h operation wAter chemistry.
PipIng down slream 01 the LCVs is rAC resfstant material excfpt o0r ihlet l1 No.5 Feedvater" heaters. No additional components on the Healer Drain system will be inspected in 2005.Eesdwa ter No inspeotions on line 18".FDW-'2 have been inspecled:
Inspect FD12EL06 and FD12SP08US in 2005 Main.Steam Only 2 components In the Main Sleam system on line 18'MS-7A in Ihe drywell have been inspectedlO date. Inspect MS1 DEL07 and MS1DSP13US In 20105. (Nole this also addresses a license renewal consideration tor monitoring of Main Steam Piping).Page 8 of 14 NEC0371 11 VY Piping FAC Inspection Program PP 7028 -2005 Refueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets
{Methods and Reasons for Component Selection LE: Large BOTe Components subjected to off normal flow conditions Identified by turbine performance mpnitpring system (Systems Engineering Group).The Systerhs Engineering Production Variance Reports for 2003 listed the "B1 and "C' !eadwates pump min flow valves as leaking into the condenser.
There are sections on carbon steel piping at Ihe connection "0 the condenser on all three lines. As /li minimum inspect the '(8" and "C" lines In 2005.There have been concems with cavitation at condensate min low valve FCV-4. An internal inspection 01 the valve petformed in RFO 24 showed some damage to the valve internals.
However, due 10 a leaking isolation valve the piping was 1 10000d and an internal visual inspection coutd not be performed.
UT Inspect the upstream and'do0wnstream piping during RF025, The valVe is operated during outages and startup at relatively low temperatures for FAC to occur. The piping is un-Insulated and close to the l100r. No insulation removal or scalolding will be rdquired.Since startUp from 2004 (RF024), no other leaking valves or steam trapS have been identilled (to date) using Ihe Tubine Petformance Monitoring (rPM} system. However, it new data Indicates leaking valves then, additions to the Outage scope may be required.LF: Englneetrng Judgment /Other Nine AME Soelion XI Class 1 Category 8-J welds are to be inspected by the FAC program per Code Case N-560.in I10.,j 01 a $ection XI volumetric weld inspection.
The VY ISI Program Interval 4 schedule for inspedf6in of thlse Welds Is as tallows: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JusTnriF Outage Section Xl ISr PreIgtaI Weld 10 Description i-AU; Vrogram L;omponeflIs rw1e9-M3B to tee "A" Feedwater on Sketch 010 M -,.,, FW&#xb6;9-F30 tas-to reducer FD19TEO1 ftierval 4 FW1-F4 redtcer to pipe FD1lU0D0 P~eti;hd 1, FW21-F1 tee to pipe FD1OSP-4 Outage 1. F021SPOt Fall 2011 (RF029) FWI8-3A upstream pipe to tee "8" Feedwater on Sketch 016 Interval 4 FW20.3A tee to reducer F018TE01 Period 3, FW20-F1 reducer 10 pipe FD20RD01 OUlage 6, FW20-F1B horizontal pipe to pipe FD20SPOl FW18.F4 teo to hibe F01.8SP64 Continued I I I I Page 9 of 14 NEC0371 12 VY Piping FAC Inspection Program PP 7028 -2005 Refueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets I Methods and Reasons for Component Selection LF: Engineering JUdgment!
Other -continued Extended Power Uprate (EPU)Eeedwater system: EPU evaluation tor Feedwater System: The primary focus of Work to date (for PUSAR and RAIs) was on velocity changes given only-slight inoreases iA temps and no chemistry changes. With all 3 FOW pumps running the 16 inch diameter lines to Ihe 24 inch FDW header have approx. [1.2(213)
= 0.80120% reduction in velocity, Velocities In the remainder 01 the sysfem Increase approx. 20%. The highest velobites are at the 1 0 Inch reducers upstrkni and downstream of ihe FOW REG valves. The expander and downstream piping have mUllIple inspection datA.With FD07RD03/FDQ1SP03 last inspected in 2001 and FEI08RD03/FDOBSP02 last inspected in 1999. Both ot these se:gmerits should be re- inspected after soie lime of operation at EPU flows. Assuming EPU startilngeatly in 2005d, inspect components FDOSR[DO3
& FD08$P02 In 2005 to obtain an up to date pre-EPU measureltLit.
Inspect FD07RD031 FDO7SP03 In 2007 for a post EPU measurement.
Cond~ens~ae_ Given the 8104 Mihama event: consider addiUonal component in lhe condensate system for inspection:
downstream of flow orifices & venturies:
FE-102-4 and downstream pipe on 24"C-8 venturi type (TB condensate pump 100m overhead)
Given low oper(atihg te1'erg&tures and upstream of oxygen injection point, scope oui and evaluate for inspectio'i In RFb261 n 2007 FE-52-1"A to FE-SZI.E on Condensate De-mlnei(Rlzer Sy.tem (Restriction Orifices).
Gven low opiratfng termeratur.s end upstream 01 d6,yfdn, injection point, scope out and evaluate tor inr$ptction in RF0.62 In 2;007 FE-i02-7and doWnsfrearh pipe on 14"C-21 venturi type TB Heater Bay E1237.5 Given low operiating tetfperatures and used for start-up, scope. out-And eVueV t.fOr it$sPectinh in RF026in n0 FE-1 02-2A 06. 0)-3"il0C 9-0ed10 thO ITYPPM 1b~fl pmlA (venturi typej) Previously inspected tn 19&#xfd;89 Petnet:FE aind doWntstream pipin.-1i1RF025
.- (2-in the lb 'FPR above FDW Pi1p 1 B (venturitype)
No prevMous inspection data. Inspeot and dewn*stream pfping In  FE-1 02-2C on 20"C.32, located in the TB FPR above FDW pump 1C (venturi type) Previously inspected in 2001 All Extracflon Sleam piping is A335-P1 1, a. 1-114 chrome material, except for a short carbon steel stub piece in line 12'-ES-1A af Ihe connection to the 36" A cross around line. An inlernal visual inspection ollhis stub piece has'performed with the cross around inspection in RF024. Also an UT inspection of ESIASP01 was performed in RF024.Extraction Steam piping in the condenser has external lagging which requires significant effort Ior removal when performing external UT inspections (piUS there are significant staging costs). The piping is A335.P1 1. However an_ipportunity fo perform anlnternai visual inspecticn of all the Extraction Sleam lines inside the condenser during planed LP turbine work in the 2005 RFO may present itself.Page 10 of 14 NEC0371 13 VY Piping FAC Inspection Program PP 7028 -2005 Refueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets I Methods and Reasons for Component Selection LG: Piping Identilled from EMPAC Work Orders (malfunctioning equip., leaking valves, etc.)Word searches of open work orders on EMPAC were performed
[or Ihe following keywords.
trap, leak, valve, replace, repair, erosion, corrosion, sleam, FAC, wear, hole, drain, and inspect. No previ.0osly unidentified components or piping were identified as monitoring during the Fall 2005 RFO.Note: the internal baffle piate in Condenser B Ior the AOG train tank return line to Ihe condenser is 10 be replaced in RFO 25 (ER 04-1454/ ER 05-2321 ER 05-0274).
Erosion on baffle plate is from condenser side (not piping side).Internal visual inspection 01 LCV-103-3A-2 during RFO 24 indicated some type of casting flaw. The System Engtrteer suspects possible leaking by the normally closed valve. The downstream piping was last inspected in 1990. The line typiically has no flow. Re-evaluate using the Thermai Performance Monitoring System Data and cOIlsider inspection 01 downstream piping in RF026.Through vwall leak in the steam seal header supply line ISSH4 discovered on 9/24/04 (CR-VTY-200402985).
A temporary leak enclosure was Installed and a planned permanent repair is scheduled for RF025. The feaks are on the bott6im of un-insulated piping upstream of tha gland seal. Field Inspection of the leak location shows that the piping at the leak sloping doWn 10 the gland seal, not sloping up to the seal a shown on the design drawings.
UT data on the top of the piping nearthe leak shows tull wall thickness.
At this time, the exact mechanism which calased the leak is nol knoWn. Additional inspections t;o determine the extent ot condition on the 3 other gland seal Mteam supply lines are required Insp.et the 90 degrde elbow andapprOx.
2 ft. of downstream piping on lines 1 SSH3; 1 SSH4, IS.SH5, and 1S4' 0" duri hg: R "-FO ..0 .Also bas.d on Industry OE and sirmilar piping geometry, inspect 2 of the sPE lines (1 SPE3 And 1-ft5.dUring AFO 25.Page 11 of 14 I I I I I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I NEC037114 VY Piping FAC Inspection Program PP 7028 -200S Refueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets f Methods and Reasons for Component Selection Small Bore Piping SASusceptlble piping locations (groups of components) contained in the Small Bore Piping data base which have nol received an Initial inspection.
Locations on the continuous FDW heater vents to the condensetr on the No.3 heaters were inspected in 2002. The continuous vents on the No.4 heater were installed new in 1995. The start up vents operate less than 2% of operating tine. No wearwss found in irevious inspections on Heater Vent piping from the No.1 & 2 heaters. Given that and the lower pressure in the No.4, shells a complete Inspection of the remainder oi the No.4 heater vent piping can be deferred.
The existing small bore date base and the piping susceptibility analysis is under revision.
No additional compenents from Revision 1 of the data base will be inspected.
SB;Compothlets selected from measured or apparent wear found in previous inspection results.Small Bore Point No. 20. 211/2. MSD-6 @ connection to condenserA at Nozzle 33 (Inspection No. 96-8B01 identified a low readingat weld on stub to condenser).
Upstream valves are normally closedt TPM system does not indicate any abnormal flow. tnspect this piping In REO 26 Athrough wall leak in the turbine bypass valve chest 1&#xfd;t sealleak-olf line form the No. 1 bypass vales occurred in 20fl. (Vt Evenit Report 2o00-04:4).
A Iteporar leak enclosure
%W:.S lhst~led (TM,2003-002) to contain the leak}.W:O. 0,3-2364 was writtin to inspecl/repaleffd ace/1ine.
A localjzed iike-forlike (cparbon steel) replac~eteht of the leak locationwa8 perf&mad in .RFO 24. Additional inspections on this line rderftifiea 0Icawlized WUI loss and one adaifional like-for-like repair was performed.
EngiMering Request ER 04.0963 was widttehlfo cotipletely replace this pipig With hiob-rn-oly piping. (Dresdan has already done this). The repltacdemj'ent (ER 04,0964) iS curiteilly stfibduled for, RFO 26. If this ad6ivi[y gqits 'de-&#xfd;sooped" thea, additionalin gpectlons Will be retlired to insute the piping is for cni'tnuoed operatoan.
Page 12 of 1.4 NEC037115 VY Piping FA,C inspection Program PP 7028 -2005 flefueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets f Methods and Reasons for Component Selection Small Bore Piping SC: Components identified by Industry events/experience via the Nuclear Network or through the EPRI CHUG.Date 11/7/2003 Plant-Type Limerick 1, BWR Description
& Recommended Actions at VY 01217818:
Through wall leak In 1 inch drain line back to condenser oft 12S piping at the conneclion to the large bore line. Normaliyno flow in line due to N.C.valve. Piping downstream of valves to wndenser on all 3 lines was scheduled for replacernont.
Location US of valve was thought not to be susceptible.
12$ piping at VY is FAC resistant A335P1 1 with no drains back to the condenser.
Lesson from this event is any carbon steel line In a Wet steam system is susceptible
& should be monitored.
Also fuft line replacemenrt insures all susce ptLbQe Bjpq is __&#xa2;,__f1 01217654:
Potdbtial tend tor adverse equipment condition downstream of orifices. (Ref. Previous experience a Clinton with CRDpump min flow R08)anscect ORD oumD min flw orifices also Dinino 0S .01 RO-64-2 in frF025 1116/04 Clinton BWR 12/08/04 V.C. Summer- 0E1C.9798:
Coniplete f ailkre ola 1 indh E line at the l&6ationi of .pfeviciUsly PWR Installed Fe(manite clamp repair. Previous leak a,1 weld instaled in MAY 2004.See presentatfon at January 2 0 0 5 CHUG meiting. (They did not do UT on the_..ie._ assuws~,tructyral integtv c.rior to instaifnwtheciann) 311105 McGui,e 2- -Thou'h-wa~
Id-akin -a-2inch t Vent fe on theMb- heating steam PWR vent line.
FAC when tlashing'ocourrdd upstream of Rd (design J 9 ogj) No. M$-.RS or ec uivel~nt I! cation at VY.4/29799 Darlington I -l at s .Ae.n teooh t:i threaded connectiOn.
E quivyiat to PHWR HHS sytern at VY. (INPOK Event 931-990429-1)
Threaded connections..typicahly oh 6onednsate side of HHSpiSipingi.
Lower energy/co6sequence 61 166k.' Include HHSplpiripin FAC SuStibIfty.Fivlew, and in the Small Bore Datdba'ie.
6/14/99 Datljrigtoli 2 -I LUak oh steaiir tf0 go -p .ipa -A hed cbnneOtion.
Equival~iht tb HHS PHWR sv-9ten at VY. INPO Even 9&#xfd;.614-11 Same ad abbve.9/1101 PFath Bottom (From 1114102 CHUG .Metihg) ma. on I lflh :Sab 80Q.:1e il Ga- Re-3-BWA ~ oiib pltocQqdenser Pefrmadtif re&#xfd;i~wd AiG 8ta ~ ~ ~ FA Suscitihih Revi~w. Updatelfgfrt6 A small botWte o incud rAki an con Voens ot failure.Vi /6#2 Hatch 1f2 -BWR Coode~nserin Loakdge due 1 th6:oubgh Well erosion' (&#xfd;te&#xfd; i) of'011/2 iodh "slop" OHUG Mt1. drains lines insid. the endensee.
Lines In each unit were cut.and eapped similar events at ByTrn Unit I (0C 1t2609) and Columbia (OE1214'S).
Urnerick &Dresden. VY slop drain lines Inside condenser were walked down during RF024. Some external erosion or, oi ina and SUODOrts was found.1/15102 Catawba 2 -Leak in HP lurbine pocket shell drain 1 inch dia. OEM showed pipe as P-11.CHUG Mig. PWR However, A106 Gr. B was installed.
Inspections were be performed on Ihis line In 2004 to base line condition rnlor to HP turbine rotor re lacement.1/15/02 Dresden 2 Thinning found in Bypass valve lqak-off line to the 7 stage extraction stean CHUG Mtg. BWR line, Line is 2" Soh, 80, GE B4A39B. Lowest reading was 0.070" found using PhOsphor Plate radiog'aphy.
Line was replaced with A335 P-11. Same line as 2003 VY through wall ieak. Partial GS replacement was. performed In RFK124.Pi inQ Is scheduled to be replaced with A335-P1 1 In RFO2.S (ER 04-0965).I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I I Page 13 of 14 NEC037116 I VY Piping FAC Inspection Program PP 7028 -2005 Refueling Outage Inspection Location Worksheets
/ Methods and Reasons for Component Selection Small Bore Piping SD:Comrp~onents subjected to off normal flow conditions, as Indicated froanthe turbine performance monitoring system (Systems Engineering Group).No small bore lines have been identified by Systems Engineering on or bejore 3/1 105.SE: Engineering judgment Look at piping DS at orif-ices based on BWR OE Condensate:
Given the 8104 Mihama event: consider additional component In the condensale system tor inspection downstream of floW orific4es
& venturies.
FE-102-6 and downstream pipe on 21rT'C-43 venlurllype (TB healer bay elev. 230+/- Given low operating temperatures and upstream of oxygen injection point, scope oul and evaluate for Inspftfin iii RZ6 in 2007 SG: Piping Identffled from EMPAC Work Orders (malfunctioning equip., leaking valves, etc,)See LG above, The EMPAC search performed in LG above is applicable 10 both Large and Smaii compdnehts.
Page 14 of 14 NEC037117 MEMORANDUM I Vermont Yankee Design Engineering To S.D.Goodwin Date -May 5 2005 From James Fitzpatrick File # VYM Z004!007a Subject Piping FAC Inspection Scope for the 2005 Relueiing Outage (Revision la)REFERENCES (a) PP 7028 Piping Flow Acceleraled Corrosion Inspection Program, LPG 1, 12/6/2001.(b) V.Y. Piping F.A.C. Inspection Program -1996 Relueling Outage Inspectfon Report, March 23,1999, I (cl V.Y. Piping F.A.C. Inspection Program -1998 Refueling Outage lnspection Report, April 2,1999.(d) V.Y. Piping FAG, Inspection Program -1999 Refueling Outage Inspection Reporl, February 11, 2000, (e) V.Y. Piping FAG. Inspection Program -2001 Refueling Outage Inspection Report, August 11,2001.(f) V.Y. Piping FAG. Inspection Program -2002 Refueling Outaga Inspeotion Report, January 20, 2003, (g) V.Y. Piping FAC. Inspection Program- 2004 Refueling Outage Inspection Report, February 15, 2005 (h) DiSCUSSION Altached please lind the Piping FAC Inspeotion Scope for the 2005 Refueling Outage. The scope includes locations identified using: previous inspeotion resuits, theCHECWORKS models, industry and I plant operating experience, input from the Turbine Performance Monitoring System, the CHECWORKS study performed to postulate affects 01 Hydrogen Water Chemistry operation on FAC wear rates in plant piping, and engineering jUdgment.
3 The planned 2005 RFO inspection scope consists 0137 large bore components at 16 locations, internal ihspection 01 three legs 01 the turbine cross around piping, and 5 sections 01 small bore piping.Also, any industry or plant events that occur in the interim may necessitate an increase in the planned scope.Iwill be available to support planning and inspections as necessary.
Ii you have any questions or need additional information please contact me.(Revision 1 identifies Small Bore Inspections due to IndUstry OEI.'(Revision la adds component Nos. to SSH & SPE piping & oorrects inor typos in Attachment) am $ .Fitzpatrick D .n Engineering Mechanioal/Structural Group ATTACHMENT:
2005 RFO FAC Inspection Scope 3111/05 (3 Pgs) Revlsed 515/05 CC LLukeos Code Programs Supervisor OoKIng (0SI)T.I.OConnor (Design Engineering)
Neil Fales (Systems Engineering)
I NEC0371 18I m-m-m m m m m m -m--- M M -M M M mM ATTACHMENT tv. ,YM 2004!007a VERMONT YANKEE PIPING FAC INSPECTION PROGRAM 2005 INSPECTION SCOPE (515105)Page 1 0 13 LARGE BORE PIPING: External UT Inspections Point No.2005-01 2005-02 2005-03 2005-04 2005-05 2005-06 2005-07 2005-08 Component ID FD14EL03 FD14SP03US FD04RD01 FD04TE01 Gond Noz32A FD05RD01 FDOS TE01 Gond Noz 328 location Sketch 008 008 017 017 017 01'018 018 010 location T.B. Htr. Ba Elev.267.T.B. Htr. Ba Elev.24S.It IF ii It i! II Previous Inspections 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1993 1993 1993 Reason /Comments I Notes 1999 recommendation for repeat inspection.
Inspect per 1999 calculated wear rate.TPM system indicated leakage by normally closed valve.In~nc't rzt r lqQ r~Icii~t~
l %Ah\-Ar rnff Al--_n T.B. Htr. Ba T Nr Qg Elev.245.* II il ......I ["1 O-LC-L---
F I -j 1 11 -11 M k! I 7F I U Z7 1--2005-11 2005-12 2005.13 2005-14 2005-15 2005-16 2005-17 2005-18 Cond Noz32C FD08RD03 FD08SP02 FD12EL06 FD12SP08US GD30FE01 CD30ELl 1 CD30SP12 019 011 011 007 007 037 037 037 T.B. FPR Elev.231 T.B. Htr. Ba E!ev.264.T.B. FPR E!ev.241 above "A" FDW pump 1999 1999 1999 NO NO 1989 1989 1989 1 rilvi byb~teill IIIUI~dLfUU I&#xfd;-d~d~ge uy IUIId closed valve.EPU flows increase Ghecworks Mode! Calibration.
Asbestos removal required.FE-102-2A (Millama Event)NEC037119 ATTACHMENT t% vfM 2004/007a I POint Component ID Location Location Previous Reason I Comments / Notes No. Sketoh Inspections 2005-19 CD31 FE01 038 T.B. FPA Elev. 241 NO FE-102-2B (Mlhama Event)2005-20 CD3 EL04 038 above 1B" FDW pump NO Asbestos removal required.2005-21 CD31SP04 038 NO 2005-22 CD21RD02 040 T.B. Htr, Ba Elev.230.
NO Inspect piping upstream and downstream of 2005-23 CD21RD01 040 NO FCV-102-4 (piping is not insulated).
2005-24 1SSH3EL05
&deg; Turbine deck at packing NO LP Turbine Steam Seal supply lines due to 2005-25 1SSH3SP06US 3 Htr, Bay Efev, 254. through wall leak at elbow on nne I SSH4.2005-26 1SSH4EL01 Turbine deck at packing NO 2005-27 ISSH4SP02US 4 Htr. Bay Elev, 254. 'See markup 01 Dwg. 5920-1239_______0_iq~;P n Tiirhinp dlarL n] n~ir'kinri No____________________
2005-29 1SSH5SP02US
&deg; 5 Htr. Bav Elev. 254.2005-30 1SSH6EL06 Turbine deck at packing NO 2005-31 1SSH6SP08US 6 Htr. Bav Elev. 254.2005-32 2SPE3EL01
&deg; Turbine deck at packing NO IP Turbine SteamPacking Exhaust at packing 3 2005-33 2SPE3SP01 US &deg; 3 HIr. Bay Elev. 254. and 5 due 10 Ihrough wall leak at elbow on line 2005-34 2SPE5EL01
+ Turbine deck at packing NO 1SSH4.2005-35 2SPE5SP01 US 5 Htr. Bay EIev, 254.'See Markuo of Dwn. 5920-1239 2005-36 MS1DEIO7 080 AX Stm Tunnel Elev. NO EPU and LR data required for Main Steam lines 2005-37 MISIDSP13US 080 2b410UZU NU LARGE BORE UT NOTES, 1. Coordinate minimum extent of insulation to be removed with J.Fitzpatrick or T.M. O'Connorirom DE-MIS.2. A 'No"' in the previous inspeotlon oolumn indicates asbestos abatement may be required.SPage 2 of 3 NEC037120---n-m m-m- --m- --m m-m
------n- m --m m -m m ATTACHMENT tk, VYM 20041007a LARGE BORE PIPING: Internal Visual Inspections (With supplemental UT as required In. etion Point No. Deserl ion 2005-38 36" CAR A (36 inch diameter Line A Turbine Cross Around under HP turbine)2005-39 36" CAR C (36 inch diameter Line C Turbine Cross Around under HP turbine)2005-4 0 30"CAR B 30 inch diameter Line- B Turbine Cross Around uqpepr east side of heater ba SMALL BORE PIPING Small Bore S.B. System Description Location Drawings Reason lComments inspection Data Number Base-No.-05-SBOt 11 Condensate 1" piping OS of R.O. 64.2 T.R Heater Bay G191157Sht,1 InduslryOE17654 5920- FSI -17 05-SB02 128 CRD I" Piping D.S. 01 R.O.-3-24A Rx. SW Elev, 232,5 G1911701G191212 Industry OE17654 1 P3E-IA IG191215 05-S803 12 CRD 1" Piping D.S. of R.O,-3-25A Rx. SW Elev. 232.5 G191170 1G191212 IndustryOE17654 P38-IA IG191215 05-S804 130 CRD 1'" Piping D.S. of R,O,-3.24B Rx, SW Eisv. 232.5 G1911701 G191212 Industry 0E17654 P38-1B IG191215 05-8805 431 CRD 1' Piping D,S, of R.O.--3-25B Rx. 8W Elev, 232.5 G191170 1 G191212 IndustryOE17654
_ 1 P38'1B IG191215 Page 3 of 3 NEC037121 6-VOMICAt (COLUL" LUC m f&#xfd;AVH. 0Cf Sk1MH IRo.8M L 161XVr RECUCER 1i DIA OIUTLT -L NOZZLE HeATfE Cl-IA EVISION 11 11/21/9J VERMONT YANKEE PIPING EROSION-CORROSION iNSPECTION PROGRARM FEGEWAThR LINE Th-FDW-14 0%TUROINE BUILDINQO'EATGR BAY Gig 11 57/J1!9 I IS2,C 191 COMPONENT LOCATION SKETCH No0,8O-J &Appe-Adx A PP 7029 Original Pagc" 13 of 102 NEC037122 M m M M m m m m m m m m m m m -m -m
= --m- m --- -= = m = -- -m ,> ~TURBINE BULPD!N-FEED PUMP ROOM/HEATER .DAY REFERENCES, G1I1 157,GI91 82,G 191163 5"9S0"FS-124,5B920-FS-CS5 REVISION It 11124/91 VERMONT YANKxL r r'illut eROSION-CORROSION INSPECTION PROGRAM FEEDWATER lINE 4'-FDW-4 0%COMPONENT LOCATION SKETCH No.017 4-FP70ZS-digius Pa etof102 NEC037123 II ,- ..AOQ~VI'T-IViUl I YAINRE- rROStON-1 CORROSION INSPECTION PROGRAM FEEDWATIER LIW2 -FDW-S TUR5'NE BVULNG-FEED PUMP ROOM/HEATER BAY REFERENCES, Gi 19 15"7,219G)13!_,C41183 5950-F5-424,5920-F  COMPON-ENT LOCATION SKETCH "40.01 8-4 t App ondjx A PP 7028 Oginal Pagp 2"3 iIl III2 NEC037124----m ---m --- -m m ----m --
--m ---- m m --m m ---m ---m1/2ID z rrE FIVI /oDge 4-X6- p&#xfd;01jCkp w trEATe 0A.j~ ) COeCNSER A REVISION 11 11/25/91 VERMONT YANKEE PIPING EROSi0N-CORROSION INSPECTION PROGRAM TURGNE BEtONG-FEED PUMP ROOM/H&#xfd;ATER BAY FEEDWATER LINE 4'--DW-6 GI9J 157,G)9 191MZ191 193 59S0-PS-124,5920-FS-125 COMPONENT LOCATION SKETCH No.019 AppendixA PP7028Original Pagc 24of 102
.4-%*-f;9O8BELfl3 TURBNE BUILDNG-FEED PUMP ROOM REFERENCES G191157,G191 102,G19118,9o2O-F5-:24 VERMUNIYYANKEE PJPING ENOSIUN-"-D CORROSION INSPECTION PROGRAM, FEEDWATER LNEI B'-"Dw-B COmPONtENTr LOCATION SKETCH NoaO1 I-.1 -I Appendi, A PP 7028 UhOgnmJ Pzsz 16 of 102 NEC037126--m --m -----I m ------I-
--m --- --- ------ ----:j 5-PD 2tLO7'Et NOZZLE.I-EATBR E--JA FDI1SP2O-.-/_ FD  EL 251'-4' REF PO 12W.9 TURBNt4. BUJLDJNG-HEATER SAY REFERENCES C91 157,O191 182,GI9' 15S.s592D-FS-i25 REVISION I: 11/24/91 VERMONT YANKEE PIPING EROSION-CORROSION INSPECTION PROGRAM FEEOWATER LINE IS' FZW-12-4 COMPONENT LOCATION SKCETcH No.007 Appendix A PP 702-8 Original Pgc 12 of OZ NEC037127 EL 2411-G'(FLANGED SPOOL  FEFDWATI' PUMP--1/2VERMONT YANKEE APING EROSION-TLSBNE BULDONG-FEDWATER PUMP ROOM REPER?4QC2S:
G191157.G
\9 &#xfd;I, I9 I, 1l975920-FS-K)6 CORROSION INSPECTION PROGRAM CONDENSATh UNE 2tr-C-30 (CONTINUED)
COMPONENT IQCAnON SK.TC,-I No. c&#xfd;,7-I.Apptn~dixA PP7028OzinnzI Pa?&p42falf 2 NEC037128--------m ----m ---m ---
-m-m m m m-mm-mm m m m m m m m C IANE S POA 16'1 XJX REDUCER FiEOWATEP PUMP REVISION O&#xfd; 7/13/90 VERMONT YANKEE PIPING EROSION-CORROSION INSPECTION PROGRAM CON0E.NSATE LINE 20'-C-3I-TURBINE Ut(D1NG-F'i)WATER PUMP ROOM R-EFERENC"ESi G191l I150 ,0 191 187,5920-,FS-3.
IS COMPONENT LOCATION S<ETCH No. 03E 4 4 A~ppt:nd'x A PP 7028 Oyig&#xfd;,nm Pagc 43 of 102 NEC037129 K z C*)w ''REVISION 1 6/17/93 (b" -', VERMONT YANKEE Pi SION-CORROSION INSPECTION PROGRAM TUR, E UI.ULONG4ZATER BAY UNE !4 1-C-2---C
,-1COMPONENT LOCATCON SKETCH No-,.0Q49 AppendiX A PP 7028 Oriinal Pag- 45 of 102-m ---m a --- -------- -
m a a. -a a a a a a a a a -a -a!A a 94 I 41- VY F4.:: Ym&i~ 'z5 rb%5 fi NOZZLE NSD EL. 3 $61-6'-x ,-181-MS-70 W'07 mS'PO FW CO]L#TnWD I ON SKETCH 09 1 s#AWL~w / MS7O5Pto%ObC -32/ # ,, 0,,,v A REVISION 3, 6/23/93 VERMONT YANKEE PIPING EROSION-CORROSION INSPECTION PROGRAM MAIN STEAM UNE I8"-.M5-U
& 1 Y"-M$-7D QRYWELL & STEAM TUNNEL EF ERENCE$i G 191167,G 1911862,5920-F5-lP COMPONENT LOCATION SKCETCH No.080 UnOinaJ Ftigefl85otiO NEC037132---m ---m-- --m --m ----m-m
-to "\ cowr siri* E --FIELD TO L ?JJ COMM/ 2"4.e 0 4."- "-.C4-, FOP CONT.S.Et G. -&#xb6; I198 (C-B)C xv I To<n I R lm4O'VOr4 e4 -&t M50 ~W$ALL- tY tEL $%t 1~4 yr p I I1 I-7'S RJe~t ~y4 I NFL-nq7J 9.z n.0-4 w/!:P Pw,$4 tI at.R.DPeTA L 5/Thwr ISo)1r,At&#xb6;...*D-D~ ~el 1 "3 l '>ek .4 .Ma, c &#xf7;r.-4 sa .zr-o-r t .:.t " " s , , &deg;A.; -r r z r s ,s-t a I ; e m m -m m --- --m m -m m -m l iMR w*- I.,1 MiD ft~tIW 4N~tA~qdLtj6 t~fl4M i mI1, WtADo LWdI t S 4 PRM A -11Nt6,"1"r Ww egiseta~p T4dfl=fyN fl.o MVEM&#xb6;co"LN. c " qFot% wob$to l&#xb6;A.kaIY CW 'Jif"hJL, 0 w=-C*AI F=&#xfd;Z 4MPnwv A% 'l~ss toflqo Uql4I VYQt? tT,4 AV -R FFf2O0~ 44Q0t Ii ,14-ft--T IN--4L S.{L00 4Or-i ClAiA.*.A.0
^flf&. Pm-Q-Kft*AC&#xb6;0f Cb.NTRl,.
-=ab iIVNII. WvT'sit. " ,ILJG.ftO&rIafl
-&#xfd;PCVT-111.
--&#xfd;N P#Pe~ F491LIO JIM hi I U U II a 'gfm II V r.An&#xfd;-PI--
&#xfd;'I 0'5. SUO wp vqok 4 j 'iTIMf tMf.LAZ IA U $TA1O#PtAw~ VV Q* 085V8M =;=7J P!!M-PLA-w4-jo~ -I!t 5 Pin I1I( -PA$njnC* , 4m MM v I n Ii isa*1 rm..l ...II of I ......NEU03/135 17 0 ..10 VERMONT YANKEE 4-SCOPE MANAGEMENT REV[BW FORM Date: Tracking Nwnber: "_ I (Assigned by Work Scope Control Coordinator)
Work Order Number: 04- " __ kdcrTn.eccrejnni r C Initiator:
AKiZowf 6Xtbthrt3cA T_ _ T Location of Work to be Perfonned:
I .Dept. MgT. I ADDITIONQ DELETION &deg; GEIANGEf Description Justification for Request I QA&S14 :g~4i~a&c aci~ m~Review Process Additional Cost: Dillation and Schedufling Impact: Assigned DeptAqflan-t-lours to Complete: Source of Manpower/Other Scope Impacted: Dose, Chemistry, Safety Implication:
Engineenng Impact- Man-Hours/Engineering Dept.Optional Ways to Address: Approval Process tlease provide a brief justification Scope Review Committee RecommendatioW/Plannming Priority:
,,1 Priority "C" WO Responsible Depl Approval CGenral Manager, ____-_-___.-____"-
Plant Operations:
App roy isapprove Date: 4 Coproc&#xfd;isprv eD&Pririt EMPAC Change Made for ent_ oe & Priori s Date Log Updated: d Go, ig;4, t, W ork Q,,0 w- -sch du hi -" VYPPF 7102.01 PP 7102 Rev. 2 Pagelofl NEC037136 Prepared By: James Fitzpatrick Date: 11/1/05 RFO 25 FAG Program inspections location nos. 2005-25 through 2005.35 References Work Order 04-004983-000, FAC Inspections Work Order 04-004983-010, Surface Preparation on SSH piping TM 04-031 Work Order 04.004884-006 ER-05-0190 CR-VTY-04-2985 CA3
 
==Background:==
 
CR-VTY-2004-02925 doouments a steam/water leak on the turbine steam seal piping, line 1 SSH4 to the No.4 packing. TM 2004-031 installed a temporary leak enclosure on this line.Inspections on Turbine Steam Seal Piping were included in the scope of the FAG program for RFO 25 per CA3 of CA-vrY-2004-02925.
The purpose of these inspections is to determine the extent of condition on the remaining steam seal piping.Work pe These inspections require access to the SSH & SPE piping on elevation 272 of the Turbine Building.
The piping is located under the IP turbine appearance lagging deck plates and requires removal of section of the plates to access the piping for surface preparation and inspection.
It was intended that these inspections be performed along with restoration of Temp Mod 2004-031 (W.O.2004-4884-006).
Discussion Restoration of TM 2004.031 was removed from the outage soope on 10/24/05 due 10 interference with critical path work planned on the LP lurbines.
A detailed ralionale for delaying resloration of the TM from RF025 was deveioped by George Benedict on 9/98105 and is attaohed here. The same reasoning and technioal basis applies to these Inspections.
In addition these inspeotions are not programmatically required under PP 7028 (Piping FAG Inspection Program).
The inspeotions were added to the RFO 25 scope to determine the condition of the piping at parallel and similar locations on the Steam Seal piping as the 2004 through wall leak.The system is a low pressure system with piping Iooated in the heater bay or under the turbine deck plating. Deferral ot these inspections does not. pose a significant personal safety hazard as exposure to these lines during operation is minimal. The possibility of a leak at another location on the Steam Seai piping still exists_ However, the low operating pressures and the results of UT measuremenls made on Ihe 1SSH41ine at the location of the existing leak indicate that any failure would be a pinhole type leak vs, a catastrophic failure of the pipe.NEC037137 I Aft Prepared By: G.13enedict l3ate: 9/28105 I-2Ttergy Replacement ofN4 Steam Supply Piping I Work Order 04-48S4-06 TM 2004-031 ER 05-0190 I The steam seal supply line to TB4I-JA, N4 packing developed a leak from what appears to be I the result o.fpipe erosion on one ofthe pipe radiuses.
Team Inc. was contacted 10 develop on-line repair options and determined that,the most appropriale long tenn repai.r would be to instill! a pre-fabricated clamping device. The cIamp was fabricated as recommended.
and successfully installed per the above referenced Temporary Modification (TM 2004-03!).
The permanent repair for the N4 steam&#xfd; seal supply line is currently scheduled to be implemented during RFO 25. The pipe clamp and the degraded section ofpipe will be removed and new piping will be field fit and installed.
To facilitate this work, it will be necessary to re.move sections ofthe LP turbine appearance lagging deck plates to gain access to the piping. Use ofthe overhead crane will also be required to remOVe/install piping and dcck plates.ItM -MmSal EiAvsp ?x nz&#xfd;dn During RFO 25 a significant amount ofwork will be pcrfonned on thc LP turbines which are located in the immediate area of the degraded N4 steam seal supply line. The LP turbines will be completely dismantled to facilitate the installation of the new 8 stage diaphragms and to perform the required tcn year inspection.
The location of the degraded steam seal line is directly betweevn both LP turbines and implementing the LP inspection in conjunction with the steam scal line repair will create personnel safety hazards, potential equipment damage, and logistical NomplicaCions.1 I I NEC037138I Prepared By; G. Benedict-EDate: 9128105 The following represents the specific issues that will be present during the implementation of the N4 steam seal line replacement and the LP turbine inspection:
PeTsonnel Safety:> Fall and drop halzards will be created by both work crews in proximity to both work areas. Open holes will exist on. the turbine deck appearance lagging deck plates and in the area between the LP inner casings and exhaust hoods. Although, personnel protection barriers and equipment will be utilized to mitigate fall and drop hazards, personnel awareness, focus, and goal will be on each individuals own task. The drop and fall hazards will be continually changing as each work activity progresses and although peisOnnel are required to communicate changes to safety hazards these types ofcbanges will be extremely difficult to manage due to the pace of the LP turbine inspection activity,> The crew working on the stemn seal piping will continually be interrupted due to overhead hazards from materials being removed and returned to the LP turbine centerline.
Once again dne to the pace of the LP Iturbine inspection and the fact that the steam seal piping replacement crew will be in and out ofthe work area which is not visible from the turbine floor only increases the potential to inadvertently transfer a load over the piping replacement crew.Equipment Safety and Quality: The removal and installation of the steam seal piping will involve welding and grinding activities.
Shielding can and must be installed to prevent inadvertent weld flash, slag, and grinding dust, however, performing these types ofactivities in the vicinity ofopen bearing oil sumps, exposed shaft journals, and bearing babbitt surfaces increases the risk for accidental damage.Schedule and Logistics The LP turbine work is the primary critical path activity for the Outage and any delays encouutered by the implementation ofthe N4 steam seal supply line repair will most likely result in an increase in duration.
The repair of the steam seal line will require a moderate use of the turbine building crane to remove/install deck plates, piping, and appearance lagging. In addition, crane support will be required to remove damaged pipe...install and fit-up new pipe sections.. ,remove new section to perform non-field welds.,.and permanent installation, TIlere is zero turbine building crane availability during RFO 25, The open hole caused by the removal ofdeck plating will cause the "A" LP to be logistically separated from the "B" LP on the right side of the centerline which NEC037139 aai Wer ('ri-1 Prepared 'By: G. Benedicl Date&#xfd;: 9/28/05 ,will create a delay in the txansfer oftooling and materials between LP "A" and> Asbestos coneem: There is a potential that the steam seal line being repaired contains asbestos insulation.
Any asbestos insulation issues could shutdown work on the turbine deck.> Maintenance resources:
Mamtellallce crewS assigned to the steam seal line repair have 7 shifts available to perform this repair- lfthere are any delays in perbrrmng the repair (e.g. coordination issues or emergent issues during the work), the maintenance crew would be required to leave the steam seal pipe repair and return to the refuel floor.Team Inc. was contacted (o determine the feasibility ofoperating the unit fol' an additional cycle with the Team clamp in place, The response from Team IIIC. was very faverable with regard to operating an additional cycle with the clamp in place. According to Jim Savoy (Team Inc.District Manager) many commercial industrial facilities that have utilized clamps similar to the one installed on the N4 steam seal supply line have operated for extended periods much greater than the requested 18 months.The steam seal supply is approximately 2 -5 lbs. of pressure with a maximum temperature of 255 degrees F. This is cotsidered very low in comparison to many ofthe applications that Team Inc. has installed similar long term clamps on. Ifthe clamp is left installed for an additional operating cycle there is a risk that the clamp will teak once the plant is placed back online.Although considered a low probability, the risk is due to the thermal cycling ofdissimilar materials that are utilized in the clamping and sealing process. Ifa leak were to occurTeam Inc.would re-inject the clamp with sealant which has been successfully perfOlmed at othcr locations.
NEC037140 I I I I U I U I I I I I I I I I I I I VERMONT YANKEE SCOPE MANAGEMENT REVIEW FORM Date: / 4)tc&#xfd;\Vork Order Number: olV 4 -ac Initiator:
IWo to ie t ef re L.ocation of Work to be Per-formed:
'~ 3~c Tracking Number: (Assigned by Work Scope Control Coordinator)
Reference Documen t M .ooA -ct -3 1 (ER, MM, TI, 0028, etc,)Approved By: Dept. 77gr.-7 AA~T ION 0 DELETION 2 CBANGE t]Description Justification fo, Request$ge~ ~ ~~b aca mZe'. A't ke~t tA >a6 42a? tA jao-4 J1 Review Process Additional Co,t:__._.
Duration and Scheduling Impact: Assigned Dept./Man-Hours to Complete:
------Soumrce of ManpowerlOtler Scope Impacted: Dose-, Chemistry, Safely implication:.
ngineening-mpac Tan-Hoursi..ngine..ng Dept. _ =Optional Ways to Address: Approval Process Please prgrid. a b Scope Review Committee RecomnrnendationfPlanning Priority-, Priority "C" ,,. nsib. Dept Approval__--.
Pi~ntManaj
~ JA ~ PA prv Disapprove-Date:.I9 2 ,4q- q or~vertC-~Pri rity_____EMPAC Cw-- or Even( Co{e Pfi riy ....8CC Date Log Updated: -CopieA to Work Control, Outage Scheduling.
VYPPF7I02.01 pp 7102 Rev. I Pagelofl LKPC ,15 NEC037141 i outa.RFO-25 Piping FAC Inspections Outage Scope Challenge Meeting 5/4/05 ..-.Short or Cryrptic summary of what the roiect involves and why we need to complete the proeec' in RFO 25 e_., regulatory requirement.
dsk to generation.
program requirement.
appropriate management of the assetI In response to USNRC Generic letter89-08, inspections of piping components susceptible to damage from Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC) are performed each refueling outage. I The planning, inspection, and evaluation activities are currently defined in program procedure PP 7028, "Piping Flow Accelerated Corrosion Inspection Program".
Before the start of RF025, VY will transition to a new Entergy procedure "Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program", ENN-DC-315.
Description of the s of the ioec.L what it encompasses.
o that have been considered
{identiy minima required m discretionary could be deferred s o that interlaces'with or can be included in this prole.tu Impact on others.The scope of the inspections for each refueling outage is based on previous inspection results, predictive modeling, industry and plant operating experience, postulated power uprate effects, and engineering judgment.
The scope for the Fall 2005 RFO is defined in I Design Engineering-MIS Memo VYM 2004/007, Revision 1. The 2005 RFO Scope includes: External Ultrasonic Thickness (UT) Inspection of 37 large bore components at 16 locations.
I Includes:* 5 components recommended for repeat inspections based on prior UT data% 2 components for CHECWORKS model calibration I* 6 components based on Operating Experience (Mihama Event)% 6 components downstream of leaking N.C. valves (identified from TPM)* 4 components based on increased EPU flows i% 2 components D.S of FCV -104-4 (suspected cavitation), 12 components based on current through wall leak in SSH at LP turbines External Ultrasonic Thickness (UT) Inspection of 5 sections of small bore piping based on industry experience.
Includes 4 sections of piping downstream of restriction orifices at the CRD pumps. i Internal Visual Inspection of two 36 inch CAR lines to assess changes in flows from HP turbine modifications installed in RFO 24. Internal Visual inspection of the only remaining carbon steel 30 inch diameter line 30"-8.Pre-outage scoe and lg Lead time parts/contract that have been identified, None 3 Page 1 of3 I NEC037142 RFO-25 Piping FAC Inspections Outage Scope Challenge Meeting 5/4/05 Initiatives.
creative opportunities, unique prnblems associated with the project.None The inspecUon process used is the industry standard.
Removal of insulation and surface preparation are required for the UT equipment.
Remote methods which do not require insulation removal are still in the development stage, and do not currently have the accuracy required to trend low wear rates (EPRI CHUG). Phosphor Plate Radiography which is currently being adopted to screen small bore components without insulation removal is primarily applicable to PWR plants. limited use on BWRs, Design Engineering
-MIS has minimized the number of Inspections performed each RFO.VY has traditionally trended well below industry average number of components inspected each RFO. This is primarily due the original design of the plant and replacements with Chrome-Moly piping_ Recent trends in numbers of components inspected at other plants show reduced numbers of inspections based on piping replacements.
Identify additional organizational support requied, and specifically, management support 1_ces a r-V.Inspections will be performed by the ISI personnel.
Scheduling and staffing will be coordinated with other ISI activities.
Inspections are performed using approved NDE procedures.
Training on inspection procedures is performed under the ISI program, Grid marking per new ENN Standard ENN-EP-S-005 Primary DE-MIS interface is the ISI level ill and/or ISI Program Engineer for coordination in review and approval of inspection data. Interface with craft & other plant groups is normally through establIshed links in the ISI program. Unusual situations which require additional support will be raised to management level as required, Two DE-MIS engineers (J.Fitzpatrick
& T.O'Connor) currently trained in evaluation procedures and have prior VY FAC Program Experience.
Other DE-M/S engineers with pipe stress experience can be trained on shari notice. The number of inspections Is slightly higher than the last two outages, Coverage will be provided 7 days a week (or as required) to evaluate UT data.The FAC Program Coordinator (J,Fitzpatrick) is responsible to insure that inspections are performed and the data is evaluated in accordance with the program requirements.
Activities will be coordinated with the 151 coordinator (Dave King), Any problems that arise that can not be handled at the engineer level, will be elevated per outage management guidelines (30 minute rule, etc.), Page 2 of3 NEC037143
./,:/" RFO.25 Piping FAC Inspections Outage Scope Challenge Meeting 5/4/05aDy preparation issues necessary Q meet upcoming otae_ milestones," Coordination with LP Turbine work for inspection of SSH components (physical space)" Coordination with LIP Turbine/Condenser work for ventilation path (opening) for the 30" B Cross Around Line and for a window to perform inspections (noise issue)." ER for Design Engineering
-Fluid Systems to develop a (paper) Design Change to reduce the piping design pressure in the Feedwater Pump Bypass Lines at the condenser.
Current design pressure for the piping attached directly to the condenser is 1900 PSI. Local sections of carbon stee! piping remain at the condenser.
Leaking valves during past operation cycles may have resulted in increased wear in carbon steel section of line.Identify if all necessar outage and re-outaae WO's for the proiecUprogram scope are generated.
Work Orders to for support activities and inspections (04-4983-000 series) J _4 ,1 entiv if a opportunities to perfonn any Part of this scope could be completed pre-outage?
The only components which are not high temperature and are in an accessible location during plant operation are 4 sections of smali bore piping downstream of restriction orifices at the CRD pumps. These may be inspected during operation.
However, this is a high I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I noise area.CI~~Page 3 of 3 NEC037144 I I Engineering Standard Review & Approval Form* ..... Engineering Standard Change Class]fication Tempora r N~qj evisedt E Cancel S Editorial t I CC Flow Accelerated Corrosion Component Scanning and ENN-EP-S-005 N/A Grkddinc Standard I ur? nctplonaA7I,&#xfd; 11 -nI11 Manua uth r Engineering Programs Jeffery Goldstein Ian Mew 6Si -hnducn Reviews I AO 0 ECH 0 GONS 0 W F3 0 n lAP P N PS WPO 6 Review T Technical Review (See Not. belom for DesIg_ Chnrge _Standards)
Independelli Design Verification (See Note below for Oesirmn Change Standards)
Yes No James C F_-_z Date I0CFRS3059IProeess Applicability Review{ z c&#xa2; .te n in q Dn d , <.v &#xfd;u alio n d jo c u m ne n ts zl) E D 0 J a r e s 0, F &#xfd;I z p a td , " .Sa. Nole t'rlow ior Deii] n C.har c Sea-dardel Note: ReW ' o a/aChange Stan~dards ara CVoaaoented w/th/n IAe 91 Nu6 appiicabie ER*An ER Number Is Oa ured for jasi Chann e S(8,ed rds, on , Cross Discipline Reviews I O1, 1 !geiwr__e___t_
e Reviewer Name L[Sfqnaturt I IaChangde {TCN Approval[Signalure:
IGl I Name,.I Comments Section mments Made .- Cornmer~ts' trkp Pd I flt... ---VtM I I .1 IL.1 L dII 13  CommentsiTCH Chalwe This standard replaces VY specific 'Component Gridding Guidelines" previously contained in Appendix A o0 VY NDE procedure NEtS,05.9.
NE-80543 has bedn superseded.by ENN-NDE-9.05 All VY comments were resolved during development of Ehis standard.Lb.----------NEC037145
/9 ENTERGY ENN ENGINEERING STANDARD ENN-Ep.$-005 Rev. 0 EffecOve Dale: JAFIWPO.9/1/04 PII- 61110$IPEC.1 01.1104 Flow Ac&#xa3;,celerated coQrfs~jln CO Ig -and Griddkog Standard Applicable Site(s): 11,10 11'2 [] 11'3 [ JAF L PNPS 9 V Safety Related: Yes x No Prepared by: Approved by:___ 6~ ~ 514 Dale:gif(Engineering Gui~e Owrngr NEC037146
'Th(S YM4id 16pil-0 New Engineering Standard Review & Approval Form-n- Ineer[n Standard Chan e Classification Iz Revised I 0 CancenPl I 0 Editorial -L 0 Temporary I 0 (TCNI En Ineerin Standard Title Pipe Wall Thinning Structural Evaluation Doc, 0. RevNo. TeN No.Standard Owner En ineerln andard Preparer Functional Diec lite En lresri lR. Penny H. Y. Chang Site Cond~uctin Reviews JAF I PNP$$tW H Review T .Yes. No RevlewerNa elSi ore Date Techinical Revielw0 (See Note below for Peslgnr Change Standards) 0 James C._Fitzpa.rick Indopenden, Design Verificatlon I15 0 --flzptro" (See Note below ic Design Change Standarde James .t 100RSOS~lrocssAppFicabWiity R-eview (attach screening and evaluation doroumen, 2t 0l-,atic k,.,e Note telow for Desr Chr~e Standards)
James C.NcAea .eviews Ior<eslnR Change Staadsrds rar Oocunnted wdhin the am)-fiable ER. RNunbe-r.An Cl e rvxww- ,e s 1 w t &#xa2;rnanj p& a ardos jIC Cross Discipline ReviewsI -IK Site Enaineerina Standard Charnnlon Scott D. Goodwin Editorial Change ITCN Approval IName: ISignature:
_JDate~ ____I Comments Sectlon I{C~UI~fWUflFT At~ l V l II I TCN Effective(Expiratlon Date I CommentsfrCN Change All VY comments resolved during development of this standard.NEC037147 Pagelofl Fitzpatrick, Jim"Tom: Fitzpatrick, Jim ,ent' Tuesday, September 27, 2005 11:45 AM To: VTYEngineering-Mechanical Structural; VTY EFINDL
 
==Subject:==
FW: Communication of Approved Engineering Standard I This is a new fleet standard for evaluation ot thinned wall piping components which will replace ENN-DC-133 ENN-I)C-133 will be superseded, I VY Department Procedure DP 0072, "Structural Evaluation of Thinned Wall Piping Components will be revised or superseded as required when ENN-DC-315 is adopted.Entiy Conditions for this Standard will be in ENN -DC-315 "Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program" and ENN-OC-185"Through wall leaks in ASME Section X) Class 3 Moderate Energy Piping Systems".
WPO has the responsibility to revise the references to ENN-DC-133 in these procedures.
3 Qualifications(frainillq; At present there is no ENN QUAL CARD for use of this Engineering Standard, Calculations performed using standard are documented per ENN-004-26.
Based on the scope of this standard, only Design Engineering-Civil! Structural personnel and the Mechanical types in EFIN with previous pipe stress experience have the charter and background to apply this standard.Summary ot Changes from ENN-OC-133 as applicable to VY: More tormalized ties to ENN-OC-315, Wear rate determination for FAC program inspections is the responsibility oj the FAC Program Engineer* Calculation of componellt Wear, Wear Rate and Predicted Thickness is consistent the same as OP0072. The only change Jrom OPDOn is a reduction on the Safety Factor (SF) from i .2 to 1.1.* The methods used to calculate the code required thickness for pressure and moment loads are consistent with OPO072, but presented in a differentformat.
* No significant changes to application oJ ASME Code Case N-513 for though wall leaks.Added attachment for guidance in oatculation of component wear rates. I* Excel spreacdaheel templates are available to facilitate calculations.
From: Ettlinger, Alan I sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 9:33 AM To: Casella, Richard; Fitzpatrick, Jim; LO, Kai; Pace, Raymond Cc: Unsal, Ahmet
 
==Subject:==
Communication of Approved Engineering Standard In accordance with EN-DC-146, as the Site Procedure Champion (SPC) at your site, please inJorm and communicate to applicable site personnel, the issuance of the following fleet NMM Engineering Standard.
I ENN-CS-S-008, revision 0 Pipe Wall Thinning Structural Evaluation ThiS standard supersedes ENN.DC-133.
The standard can be accessed in IDEAS on the Citrix server.The standard becomes effective, and will be posted on September 28, 2005.If you have any questions, please give me a call, I 10122f2005 NEC037148
,NEC-UW_21 Second victim dies of burns from power plant explosion Milwaukee Sentinel, Mar 9, 1995 by BETSY THATCHER* E-mail" Print" Link A second victim of the Feb. 12 steam explosion at Wisconsin Electric Power Co.'s Pleasant Prairie plant died Tuesday., Ad Feedback WEPCO employee Gregory A. Schultz, of Waterford, died at St. Mary's Hospital in Milwaukee, where the 37-year-old operating supervisor was being treated for severe bums after a steam pipe ruptured at the Kenosha County power plant.Schultz and another operating supervisor, Steven Baker, were performing a routine inspection of the piant when a 12-inch pipe that carries hot, pressurized water into the boiler of Unit 1 ruptured.
Baker, 38, of Kenosha, died at the plant.Schultz, who had worked for the company since 1978, received second- and third-degree burns over 60% of his body.Related Results"Words can't express the sorrow and regret we feel," WEPCO President Richard Grigg said in a statement. "We are remembering the Schultz and Baker families in our thoughts and prayers." An investigation into the cause of the rupture is expected to be completed by the end of the week, company spokesmen said.Preliminary results indicate there was substantial thinning of the pipe wall, which resulted in a break, a company statement said.Employees of the Pleasant Prairie plant plan to buy a granite marker to place near a flagpole outside the plant in memory of the men.Copyright 1995 Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.
NRC: A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues (NUREG-0933)
-ISSUE... http://www.nrc.gov/reading'r&#xfd;i&#xfd;1/8trrn ,collections/nuregs/staff/srO933/sec3.,-
NE-C-UW_22 Index I Site Map J FAQ I Facility Info I Reading Rm I New I Help I Glossary I Contact Us : GooiC7. =S Abu R uclear&#xfd; Nuclear Radioactive
:Nuclear:
Publ'6icMeetin~s R- -eactors;;
MaeralWst Secursit Mat reiint!W t I Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections
> NUREG-Series Publications
> Staff Reports > NUREG-0933
> ISSUE 139: THINNING OF CARBON STEEL PIPING IN LWRs (REV. 1)I ISSUE 139: THINNING OF CARBON STEEL PIPING IN LWRs (REV. 1)DESCRIPTION I Historical
 
===Background===
This issue was raised 1 0 8 9 as a result of a pipe rupture in the main feedwater (MFW) system at the Surry Unit 2 nuclear power plant on December 9, 1986. The MFW pipe rupture followed a reactor trip from full power shortly after the unit returned to operation on December 8, 1986, following a scheduled refueling outage. The staff presented briefings on the incident to the Commission on February 25, 1987, and to the ACRS at its 322nd Meeting on February 5, 1987.The Surry pipe rupture was in the 18-inch "A" MFW pump suction line immediately downstream of a compound 90 elbow and T-section connecting the 18-inch pipe to the 24-inch condensate header. The rupture was a catastrophic, 360 circumferential break. A piece of the ruptured pipe (approximately 4 feet by 2 feet in size) was blown some distance from the break point.i The piping still attached to the pump suction rotated away from the break point and came to rest against a portion of the "B" MFW pump discharge piping. No significant damage to the "B" MFW pump was noted.The failed 18-inch suction line was fabricated from ASTM A-106 Grade B carbon steel and ASTM A-234 Grade WPB carbon steel wrought fittings with a nominal wall thickness of 0.5 inches. Visual inspections of the inside surface of the elbow revealed a dimpled surface and general pipe wall thinness as small as 0.05 inches. Ultrasonic thickness measurements indicated the wall-thinning to be a gradual change over most of the elbow fitting. The licensee concluded that the pipe ruptured because of the thinned wall and that the thinning was a result of erosion/corrosion.
I On January 15, 1987, the Honorable Edward Markey (U.S. House of Representatives) requested the GAO to assess NRC actions following the Surry event and several other technical problems at nuclear power plants. The GAO assessment 1 0 9 0 of actions taken related to the Surry event and similar piping deteriorations detected at other LWRs was issued in March 1988.The major GAO conclusions and recommendations are provided in the conclusion of this analysis.A similar pipe rupture occurred at the Trojan plant following a reactor/turbine trip on March 9, 1985 (See LER 85002, Docket No. 5000344).
The pipe rupture at the Trojan plant was in the 14-inch heater drain pump discharge line immediately downstream of a globe valve leading to the condensate header and MFW suction side. The piping was the same ASTM A-106 Grade B material with a required minimum wall thickness of 0.375 inches. The wall thickness in the region of the rupture was thinned to approximately 0.1 inches and the cause was attributed to wall-thinning by erosion/corrosion.
In both events, the fluid medium was single-phase, subcooled water at nominally 350F and 450 psi. Water velocities were in the range of 20 to 40 fps and the flow in the ruptured locations was subject to turbulence induced by piping and fitting configurations, with pressure increases resulting from automatic MFW isolation.
Historically, erosion/corrosion in nuclear and fossil plants has occurred primarily in wet steam (two-phase) lines and has not I been reported in dry steam lines (EPRI NP-5410).1 0 9 2 The erosion/corrosion in single-phase (water) systems was not expected and differs in the mechanisms contributing to the process, being a complex phenomenon dependent on many variables such as alloy content, temperature, Ph, and flow velocities and perturbations caused by piping and fitting i configurations.
Following the Surry event, the staff issued a series of Information Notices informing the industry of the Surry pipe rupture.On July 9, 1987, the staff issued NRC Bulletin No. 87-011093 requesting licensees to submit information concerning their I programs for monitoring the thickness of pipe walls in high-energy, single- and two-phase, carbon steel piping systems.Staff review of the licensees' responses to Bulletin 87-011093 were reported in SECY-88-50 1 0 9 4 and Information Notice No.88-17.1095 A staff report on the status of the industry erosion/corrosion program was provided in SECY-88-50A.
1 0 9 6 For two-phase, high-energy, carbon steel piping systems, responses indicated that licensees had programs at all plants for I of 7 4/28/2008 1:11 AM NRC: A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues (NUREG-0933)
-ISSUE... http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/srO933/sec3...
inspecting pipe wall-thinning.
However, because the guidelines were not required to be implemented, the scope and extent of the programs varied significantly from plant to plant.For single-phase piping systems such as in the feedwater/condensate lines, a limited number of inspections were conducted following the Surry event. Based on the Bulletin 1 0 9 3 responses up to the time this issue was evaluated in November 1988, 23 out of a total of 110 units had not established an inspection program for the single-phase lines. Of these units, 17 were I operating plants and 6 were under construction.
The staff review1 0 9 1 showed that wall-thinning in the feedwater/condensate systems was more prevalent in PWRs than in BWRs. The review indicated that licensees of 27 PWRs and 6 BWRs identified various degrees of wall-thinning in feedwater I piping and fittings.
The pipe wall-thinning problem was widespread for single- and two-phase, high-energy, carbon steel piping systems in PWR and BWR plants. Since the problem was more prevalent in PWRs, this analysis focused on PWR plants. However, due to the nature of the problem, the resolution indicated that the issue related to all LWRs.Safety Significance There were no requirements for the industry to have an inspection program for monitoring and examining the ASME i minimum wall thickness for carbon steel piping. Therefore, even though a pipe break is a design basis event for which plants are designed, the potential frequency of such breaks was higher than previously anticipated.
Lacking inspection requirements to provide assurance of the defense-in-depth against catastrophic pipe ruptures in the secondary power conversion systems (and specially the feedwater/condensate systems), plants may not have adequate assurance that they meet the design basis life.The higher pipe rupture frequencies could also introduce additional challenges to safe plant shutdown from potential systems interactions of the high-energy steam/water releases that may damage, or affect, other systems (see "Systems Interactions from Pipe Ruptures" below). Thus, risks from design basis pipe ruptures that did not account for erosion/corrosion wall-thinning in the secondary piping systems may be greater than previously evaluated.
Possible Solution The staff was continuing its review of pipe wall-thinning and was expected to assess the results obtained from inspections to be performed during the 1988 Spring refueling outages.1 0 9 4 1 0 9 6 This assessment included visiting up to ten plants to I review their inspection methods and results. The staff anticipated that its review would be completed by December 1988 and could, if necessary, provide the basis for new requirements1094,1096 in single- and two-phase carbon steel piping systems.A possible solution for the single-phase piping systems, which unlike the two-phase systems that have existing monitoring programs, mnight include inspections to be conducted at each refueling outage. However, for the long term solution, the staff planned to continue working with NUMARC and EPRI to arrive at an implementation program and schedule for the resolution of pipe wall-thinning in both single- and two-phase carbon steel piping systems.PRIORITY DETERMINATION Pipe ruptures from erosion/corrosion-induced wall-thinning of carbon steel piping had not been reported prevalent in dry-steam lines 1 0 9 2 such as the main steam lines. Two-phase piping lines, such as the turbine crossover/under piping and steam extraction lines, had experienced erosion/corrosion wall-thinning and ruptures even though licensees had monitoring and inspection methods (though not required) in place to various degrees for some time. This indicated that improvements were needed in the existing inspection programs to provide timely detection of the piping degradations.
I Single-phase carbon steel piping runs, which were not believed to be susceptible to erosion/corrosion wall-thinning, were not in general (prior to the Surry event) monitored or inspected for potential wall-thinning.
The single-phase systems in the secondary power conversion systems which had been found to be susceptible to wall-thinning were the I feedwater/condensate systems and the high pressure feedwater heater drain pump discharge piping lines. These single-phase lines transport water at a nominal temperature of 350 0 F and water velocities ranging from 20 to 40 fps. Both of these I conditions tend to exacerbate the erosion/corrosion phenomenon in carbon steel piping systems carrying single-phase fluid (water).AFW piping lines that typically draw water at lower temperatures from the condensate storage tank, and do not experience 1 continuous flow during power production, had not been reported to be susceptible to erosion/corrosion wall-thinning.
Because it was difficult to determine the effectiveness of the two-phase piping systems inspections, lacking information on previous repairs and replacements resulting from the inspections, the two-phase rupture frequency was assumed equivalent to the single-phase carbon steel piping rupture frequency estimated below. Without existing inspections, the two-phase 2 of 7 4/28/2008 1:11 AM NRC: A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues (NUREG-0933)
-ISSUE... http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3...
piping systems would be expected to have a higher rupture frequency.
As stated above, this analysis focused on evaluating the carbon steel wall-thinning pipe ruptures in single-phase piping systems and the wall-thinning ruptures in two-phase piping systems of PWR power conversion systems. Based on existing inspection results, BWRs appeared to have a similar problem, but to a lesser degree. Therefore, this analysis bounded the issue for all LWRs.Recovery of Power Conversion Systems I The power conversion systems feed into one another through various piping configurations, including straight lines or headers and various valving or fitting arrangements.
Therefore, a rupture in either the single- or two-phase piping systems could disable the PWR power conversion systems to various degrees. Thus, the probability of recovering the power I conversion systems was uncertain.
Therefore, it was conservatively estimated that the probability of non-recovery of the power conversion systems (PCSNR) was 0.5, given a rupture in the secondary systems.Carbon Steel Pipe Rupture Frequency I he data on erosion/corrosion-induced wall-thinning resulting in ruptures of carbon steel piping carrying single-phase fluid was limited to the Surry and Trojan events described earlier. This limited data was used to estimate upper and lower bounds of the subject pipe rupture frequency.
I For the upper bound estimate, the plant-specific experiences of Surry and Trojan were used. At the Trojan plant, the pipe rupture occurred after approximately 9 years of operation.
At the Surry plant, the pipe rupture occurred after approximately 14 years of operation.
This data yielded an upper bound rupture frequency of 9 x 10-2/RY. For the lower bound estimate, I the two pipe ruptures were ratioed over the total number of PWR reactor-years of operation (approximately 600 RY). This yielded a lower bound estimate of 3.3 x 10-3/RY.The rupture frequency was approximated by a log normal distribution with an error factor of five and the upper and lower I bounds were assumed as two symmetrically located percentiles (0.05 to 0.95) of a log normal distribution.
The calculated mean rupture frequency was 3 x 10-2/RY. As stated earlier, it was assumed that the rupture frequency of 3 x 10-2/RY was applicableto the secondary side carbon steel piping systems identified herein.I Most of the pipe ruptures that might occur in the non-safety-related portions of the secondary systems are likely to be outside of containment because most (90%) of the secondary side piping is located outside containment.
Pipe ruptures in the safety-related portion of the MFW piping inside containment can result in the secondary side of the affected steam i generator blowing down to the containment atmosphere.
For these lower frequency ruptures, (0.1)(3 x 10-2) = 3 x 10-3/RY, isolation of AFW to the affected steam generator will reduce the chance of containment overpressurization from continued long-term steaming due to decay heat from the reactor core. Automatic AFW isolation is necessary to ensure that the containment design pressure will not be exceeded.
This event, like other ruptures that may occur in the PWR power I conversion systems, was treated as a total loss of main feedwater.
This sequence was bounded by the TMLU rupture event sequence described below. However, pipe ruptures inside containment are less likely and will not likely induce the negative systems interaction problems that can result from pipe ruptures outside containment.
i Systems Interactions from Pipe Ruptures Communication Systems Failures:
During the MFW pipe rupture at the Surry plant, the Cardox and Halon fire suppression systems were actuated by steam/water intrusion into their control panels. The security repeater which was located approximately five feet from a Cardox discharge nozzle failed and was later found to be covered with a thick layer of ice. As a result, security communications were temporarily limited to the non-repeater hand-held radios. Therefore, actuation of the Surry fire protection system (FPS) resulted in loss of a train of the communication systems.Given that loss of one train of plant communications occurred in one of the two pipe rupture events, the probability that failure of this train of communication can occur as a result of pipe ruptures in the secondary systems outside containment was estimated to be 0.5.To estimate the probability of loss of the backup hand-held communication radios, the following.were assumed: probability of battery failure = 0.1; probability of operator error in not replacing the batteries
= 0.1; and probability that other units are not readily available
= 0.1. The probability of loss of both communication systems, given a pipe rupture in the secondary systems outside containment, was estimated to be 5 x 10-4.To estimate the impact of the loss of plant communication systems, it was assumed that loss of communications would increase operator errors in the four event sequences affected by the pipe rupture. Based on an examination of the fault trees 5 4 for the four sequences, and adjusting the operator errors to account for loss of communications, the percentage increase in core-melt frequency for each sequence was estimated as follows: 4/28/2008 1:11 AM NRC: A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues (NUREG-0933)
-ISSUE... http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-*ollections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3..
Loss of Communications Sequence % Increase In Sequence Core-Melt Frequency TMQH 7 TMKU negligible TML(PCSNR)U 7 TMQD 2 Actuation of FPS: Within minutes of the MFW pipe rupture at Surry, 62 sprinkler heads opened in the immediate area of the rupture. As a result of the sprinkler water and the feedwater discharge, the Cardox and Halon suppression systems control panels were affected by intrusion of steam/water.
The intrusion caused the time limit, battery charger, and the dual zone modules to short. Thus, the manual remote actuation circuit located in the control room was affected.
I In Issue 57, the effects of actuation of the FPS actuation and the potential increases to core-melt frequency were estimated; the sequence evaluated was the TMLU sequence and the safety system evaluated was the AFW system. Because one of the two pipe rupture events (Surry and Trojan) affected the FPS manual remote control, the estimates in Issue 57 were adjusted I by assigning a probability of 0.5 to failure of the FPS manual control. With this adjustment, the increase in unavailability of the AFW system, given actuation of the FPS water deluge system, was estimated to be2 x 10-5. Assuming typical AFW unavailability of 5 x 10-5 (discussed later), the combined AFW unavailability, given actuation of the FPS, was 7 x 10-5.Using the same 2 x 10-5 increased unavailability for other safety systems in the event sequences of this issue, no significant effect was found because the other safety systems were less sensitive to the 2 x 10-5 estimate.
This conclusion was consistent with the Issue 57 assessment.
Electric Door Lock Failures:
At tl'ie time of the Surry pipe rupture event, water and steam saturated a security card-reader located approximately 50 feet from the break point. As a result, key-cards would not open plant doors. The control room doors were opened to provide access to the control room and security personnel were assigned to the control room to I provide the access security.
Onel operator was temporarily trapped in a stairway due to the card-reader failure. At the time of this evaluation, the Surry plant was considering installing electric override switches to remedy this problem.In Issue 81, the impact of the electric lock (card-reader) failure at Surry was evaluated.
The results from Issue 81 indicated that failure of electric locks, without override protection, may contribute approximately 2% to core-melt accidents from pipe ruptures outside containment.
Frequency Estimate To estimate the core-melt frequency from ruptures in PWR secondary systems, an example PRA 5 4 was used together with additional information provided in NUREG/CR-2800.
6 4 The pertinent accident sequences were then adjusted to account for I pipe ruptures in the secondary side of PWR plants. The accident sequences used in this analysis were TMQD,'TMKU, TMQH, and TML(PCSNR)L where: TM -a loss of power conversion system (PCS) transient caused by other than loss-of-offsite power. For this analysis, TM I corresponds to the secondary system pipe rupture frequency (3 x 10--2/RY) resulting in loss of the main feedwater system (M = 1);Q -the pressurizer safety/relief valve demanded opens (0.01) and any pressurizer safety/relief valve fails to re-close ( 0.J0 5); I D -failure to provide sufficient ECCS injection (10-3);K- failure of the RPS (2.6 x 10-5); I H -failure of the ECCS recirculation system (7 x 10-3 PCSNR failure to recover the PCS (0.5, as discussed earlier);
I U -failure of the operator to start high pressure injection, or feed-and-bleed is initiated, but is unsuccessful.
For this analysis, U = 0.2 was assumed;L -failure of the AFW system. For 3-train AFW system plants, a typical AFW unavailability was 1.8 x 10-5 /demand.For 2-train AFW system plants, the goal of Issue 124 was to upgrade the AFW systems to 10-4/demand.
Therefore, a typical value of 5 x 10-5/demand was used in this analysis.4of7 4/28/2008 1 INRC: A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues (NUREG-0933)
-ISSUE... http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3...
Table 3.139-1 includes the sequences with and without the effects of systems interactions from pipe ruptures in the secondary systems outside of containment.
Examination of the results indicate that collectively the systems interactions may increase the core-melt frequency from pipe ruptures in the secondary systems outside containment by approximately 20% (9 x 10-8/RY). The total core-melt frequency, with the systems interactions (SI) effects included, was estimated to be 5 x 10-7/RY.TABLE 3.139-1[Sequence Without (SI) I Communications (SI) IFPS (SI) Locked Doors (SI) TOTAL I TMQD 1.50 x 10-8 3.00 x 10-10 ,neg. 3.0 x 10-10 1.56 x 10-8 TMQD 1.50 x 10.7  ineg. neg. [3.0x 10-9 1.53x 10-7 ITMQH 1.05 x 10-7 7.40 x 10-9  ;neg. 2.1 x 10-9 1.15 x 10-7 1.0 111 x 0 TML f 8 6 io 130x1f 1.50 x 10f 7  1.05 x 10-8 x 10-8 13.0 x 10-9 2.24 x 10-7 IIS-8 F 8 --14.20 x 10i7 1.80 x 10-8 6 x 7' x 1u x 0 Consequence Estimate The core-melt sequences under consideration involve no large breaks initially in the reactor coolant system pressure boundary.
The reactor is likely to be at high pressure until the core melts through the lower vessel head with a steady discharge of steam and gases through the PORV(s). These are conditions that may produce significant H 2 generation and I combustion.
F~or these sequences, a 3% probability of containment failure due to H 2 burn and a 1% probability of containment isolation i failure were used. If the containment does not fail by H 2 burn or isolation failure, it was assumed to fail by basemat melt-through.
The conditional releases for these containment failure modes had a weighted average core-melt release of 1.7 x 105 I man-rem. The calculated releases were based on a core inventory typical of a 1120 MWe plant, a uniform population density of 340 persons per square mile from an exclusion area of one-half mile out to a 50-mile radius from the plant, no evacuation of people, no injestion pathways, and meteorology typical of a midwest site.I The annual public risk from secondary side piping ruptures due to wall-thinning was the product of the core-melt frequency (5 x 10-7/RY) and the weighted average release (1.7 x 10-5 man-rem).
Therefore, the public risk was 8.5 x 10-2 man-rem /RY. Assuming a remaining plant life of 30 years, the cumulative public risk was 3 man-rem/reactor.
Cost Estimate I Industry Cost: A possible solution for early detection of wall-thinning in carbon steel piping in the secondary systems was to implement and conduct inspection programs for these systems during each refueling outage. A report was prepared by EPR1 1 0 9 2 to provide guidance to the industry for conducting NDE of ferritic piping systems for wall-thinning caused by erosion/corrosion in nuclear and fossil power plants. The EPRI report contained the results of investigations of various NDE methods that may be applicable to the detection of erosion/corrosion effects. EPRI reported that virtually all plants used manual ultrasonic thickness measurements.
Four utilities had performed automated ultrasonic thickness measurements from the outside surface of the piping. One EPRI source reported that an automated examination would cost approximately
$50,000 and take one week, whereas a manual team of two operators could perform the examination in one afternoon.
Therefore, the cost of the manual inspection was estimated to be $10,000 per outage.The difference noted by EPRI was that the manual team would acquire data on a 4-inch grid pattern and the automated I system could acquire data continuously over the entire surface. Additional setup time was also required for the automated system. Therefore, the above $10,000 cost for the manual inspection could have been overestimated.
An additional cost associated with the inspections was the removal and disposal of asbestos insulation and re-insulation.
I These costs were reported to range from $300,000 to $750,000 per outage. In some plants, asbestos insulation was programatically being removed due to strict state and local guidelines associated with health hazards to workers from E of7 4/28/2008 1:11 AM NRC: A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues (NUREG-0933)
-ISSUE... http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3...I asbestos.Approximately half (44) of the 92 plants contacted in the EPRI survey had asbestos insulation.
Thirty-two of the forty-four had at least partially replaced asbestos with other insulation, or were planning to remove the asbestos, and the remaining twelve plants were undecided.
Based on the above, any NRC requirement to conduct NDE inspections at each refueling outage could provide an additional incentive for the 12 plants (13% of all plants) to remove and replace the asbestos insulation with other types of insulation.
Therefore, on an average, the industry costs to remove and dispose of the asbestos insulation to facilitate NDE inspections was estimated to be a one-time cost of (0.13)($750,000
+ $300,000)/2
= $68,000/plant.
However, the argument could be I made that the cost of asbestos removal could be driven by the state and local requirements, and not by NRC inspection requirements.
Assuming a remaining plant life of 30 years and a typical time between refueling outages of 1.5 years, the cumulative number of inspections that may be conducted during each refueling outage for each plant was 20. The annual cost over 30 years was (20)($10,000)/30
= $6,700/plant.
The present value of the NDE annual costs over 30 years, considering a 5%discount rate, was approximately
$100,000/plant.
The combined one-time costs for asbestos insulation removal and disposal and the sent value NDE cost over 30 years is $168,000/plant.
I NRC Cost: It was estimated that one man-year of effort may be needed to reach a staff position on this issue and an additional man-year of effort to develop a Regulatory Guide or SRP Section. Assuming $100,000/man-year, the NRC costs were estimated to be $200,000.
When distributed over approximately 100 plants, this cost was $2,000/plant.
Total Cost: The combined industry and NRC cost for the possible solution was estimated to be $170,000/plant.
Value/Impact Assessment Based on the estimated risk reduction of 3 man-rem/reactor and implementation costs of $170,000/plant for the possible solution (NDE examinations at each plant refueling outage), the value/impact score was given by: 3 rna- rem$0.17M= 17.6mma- rem/$M Other Considerations Accident Avoidance Cost: The present value of onsite property damage conditional on a core-melt for a remaining plant life of 30 years, assuming a 5% discount rate, was $20 b'illion.
For a core-melt frequency of 5 x 10-7/R'Y attributed to pipe ruptures in the secondary systems, the accident avoidance cost by eliminating or significantly reducing the probability of pipe ruptures was $10,000/plant.
Industry Rupture Avoidance Cost: The rupture avoidance costs are the plant costs estimated to result from a pipe rupture in the secondary systems, assuming the plant responds as designed and no core-melt from potential equipment failures ensues. For a pipe rupture frequency of 3 x 10-2/RY, the chance of a pipe rupture in the secondary side can approach unity over the life of a plant.To estimate the costs of plant repairs after a forced outage from a pipe rupture in the secondary system, historical plant operational data indicates that a best estimate repair cost from forced outages for a typical nuclear power plant is approximately
$1,000/hour.1 0 8 2 The Trojan plant outage time following a pipe rupture in the secondary system was 6 days, I whereas the Surry plant outage time lasted approximately 90 days. Based on the above, the plant repair costs from these two events was estimated to range from $140,000 to $2M. The replacement power costs resulting from the forced outages of 6 days for the Trojan plant and 90 days for the Surry plant were $3M and $45M, respectively; the cost of replacement power was estimated at $500,000/day.
It was assumed that the above cost estimates reflected lower and upper bound costs that could be represented by a log normal distribution with an error factor of 4. The combined repair costs and replacement power costs, adapted to a log normal distribution, yielded an estimated value of $17M as the mean plant costs resulting from a pipe rupture in the I secondary systems.The $10,000/plant accident (core-melt) avoidance costs were small compared to the estimated rupture avoidance costs of 6 of 7 4/28/2008 1:11 AM NRC: A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues (NUREG-0933)
-ISSUE... http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3...
$17M/plant.
The low core-melt frequency of 5 x 10-7/RY drove down the accident avoidance costs. However, based on the estimated pipe rupture frequency of 3 x 10-2/RY, the chance of a pipe rupture in the secondary systems over the life of a plant approaches unity. Thus, the rupture avoidance costs dominated the combined accident and rupture avoidance costs.When the implementation cost ($170,000/plant) is offset by the accident and rupture avoidance costs (a $17M/plant cost savings), the denominator of S becomes negative.
The negative denominator of approximately
$17M/plant indicates a substantial potential cost savings (industry incentive) by avoiding piping ruptures in the secondary systems.I Occupational Safety: Erosion/corrosion-induced ruptures in high energy carbon steel piping lines described in this analysis resulted in injury and fatalities to plant personnel and contractor employees working in the area of the ruptures.
At the time of the Surry pipe rupture, 8 contractor employees were working in the area of the pipe rupture; 6 of these individuals were I hospitilized for treatment of severe burns and 2 were treated at a clinic and released.
Four of the severely burned individuals died and the other two were in serious to critical condition.
One of the two remained in serious condition for more than a month after the accident.
Following the pipe rupture at the Trojan plant, one member of the plant operating staff received first and second degree burns and was treated at a local hospital over a three-week period.I CONCLUSION The estimated core-melt frequency of 5 x 10-7/Ry and the potential risk reduction of 3 man-rem/reactor indicated that pipe ruptures in the PWR secondary systems from erosion/corrosion-induced wall-thinning is of low safety significance to the public. Since inspection results indicated that erosion/corrosion wall-thinning of carbon steel piping is less prevalent in BWR plants, the above PWR risk estimates should be bounding.
Therefore, as a generic safety issue, this issue would have been i given a low priority ranking. However, the erosion/corrosion-induced wall-thinning of carbon steel piping in secondary systems was not expected to be a significant cause of pipe ruptures.
Pipe ruptures were more generalized as limiting faults: postulated, but not expected to occur. Thus, knowledge and an understanding of this phenomena was limited. This analysis indicated that, without adequate defensive methods or measures, pipe rupture induced by wall-thinning can be expected I within the lifetime of a plant: an infrequent event with a higher frequency than the limiting fault (postulated) pipe ruptures.The GAO concluded that the Surry accident initiated a new era of understanding regarding erosion/corrosion at nuclear power plants and demonstrated that unchecked erosion/corrosion can lead to a fatal accident.
The GAO also concluded that NRC needed a mechanism to ensure that utilities periodically assess the integrity of piping systems to reduce the risk of future injury to plant personnel or damage to equipment caused by erosion/corrosion.
The GAO recommended that NRC require utilities to: (1) inspect all nuclearlplants to develop data regarding the extent that erosion/corrosion existed in piping systems, including straight sections of pipe;(2) replace piping that did not meet the industry's minimum allowable thickness standards; and I (3) periodically monitor piping systems and use the data developed during these inspections to monitor the spread of erosion/corrosion in the plants.Based on the potential low public risk, the NRC need (References 1090, 1094, 1096) to establish a new position or I requirement on the previously unexpected phenomena, and a significant industry cost incentive to address and resolve the issue, this issue was classified as a Regulatory Impact issue by RES consistent with the ongoing levels of staff and. industry actions described.
in SECY-88-501 0 9 4 and SECY-88-50A.
1 0 9 6 However, NRR considered the issue to be resolved based on: (1) guidelines on erosion/corrosion in single-phase piping, as developed by NUMARC and found acceptable by the staff; (2).participation in a timely way by all 113 operating LWR plants; (3) acceptable analytical procedures for the evaluation and selection of piping to be inspected; (4) replacement of components as needed; and (5) a long-term as well as a short-term program for continuing evaluation and inspection of both single-phase and two-phase piping. 1 1 3 2 I Privacy Policy I Site Disclaimer
* Friday, February 23, 2007 4/28/2008 1:11 AM UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. William H. Reed In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)))))))Docket No. 50-271-LR ASLBP No. 06-849-03-LR NEW ENGLAND COALITION, INC.CONTENTION 2A and 2B PREFILED EXHIBITS NEC-JH_25-NEC-JH 35 NECJH_62 April 28, 2008 Volume 2
-~1 0- -'*___4.,-.......-41 I':3 2 I 66.~.i2~62~.65,y65.7 "1' 2002.1'.6 b5,StO St A 050 61-3% 2 trIOs (OVa.- 5bVC~O.O.VO2 6.4, ~ ,s'.,6U 55 0r.3.5 5054.I-. (5000000.50 AL 5 -I 4. ~'o t.5 fl50 88.:. 12 ,CV soc or srsSbco~c, oiL.00042~-.ji .9tt.~ooon
'Is 'sois...At8A7~.Sjn, sos'-'O.K too-A I G EDGAUGE DATA L 8.4.62 IB.4-4,7.0i5 DIMENONAR DATA LOCAT ION A BN1 C I POST FWL 013.12o1.781 12.513 47500.531 64751 80 3.120 .781 2,500 374813516 6,366 180 3.106 .761 2.512 3.728 3. 3316.310 270 3.180 S.781 2.0003.745 3,480 6.352 DETAILs COMPLETED WELD OVERLAY 2:-1~ -,PAM6~OHV~65V2 6.5051 8 50 104OU SLTW0.R00 SPRIN 4. ft. vO.s Q'p&#xfd; WE4W 1.000 a fly09. 10 055*05.5".
RE. '*SUItAS$
Ilk m56. K506406 B 66.(246400
-'51. 1600006RtiE3A 7.k R510t XU006 .406 044SNOF O.505 4 054000Vn03 5 5,0265064 w.066.tkp'41 .L0501*P.O, NY-706102 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED REVISED PER 7-14-05 .72-4 q,, 8 R-VIY-2003-00466 ML I r R7 EINSED PER 5-16-78 5-16-76 5-17-78 7 EDCR 77-8 EU AG AVR REV .FSCRIPT)ON 8 07020. AP60.GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.APED -SAN JOSE VPF# 1842-182-7 EP# 2-1-1-0 1~kJ~zIz 6 r ~ItJ ~54 'S. 4'II 6 0 ~i~ 0.*0..~J 0 0 n0Sb t'--25 -.6 Enter&y I -- 4 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE VERNON, VERMONT DRAWING TITLE REACTOR 81N DIA NOZZLE MK N5A &B DRAWING NCT 5920-624 550'4r~t0-04VZfl~5..j0Zt' NO NEC044849 NEC-JH 26 NUREG/CR-6909 ANL-06/08 Effect of LWR Coolant Environments on the Fatigue Life of Reactor Materials Final Report Argonne National Laboratory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555-0001 I I NUREG/CR-6909 ANL-06/08 I Effect of LWR Coolant Environments on the I Fatigue Life of 3 Reactor Materials I Final Report I Manuscript Completed:
November 2006 Date Published:
February 2007 Prepared by O. K. Chopra and W. J. Shack Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 H. J. Gonzalez, NRC Project Manager Prepared for Division of Fuel, Engineering and Radiological Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 NRC Job Code N6187 41 I I I Abstract The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code provides rules for the design of Class I components of nuclear power plants. Figures 1-9.1 through 1-9.6 of Appendix I to Section III of the Code specify design curves for applicable structural materials.
However, the effects of light water reactor (LWR) coolant environments are not explicitly addressed by the Code design curves. The existing fatigue strain-vs.-life (c-N) data illustrate potentially significant effects of LWR coolant environments on the fatigue resistance of pressure vessel and piping steels. Under certain environmental and loading conditions, fatigue lives in water relative to those in air can be a factor of z12 lower for austenitic stainless steels, z3 lower for Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, and &#xfd;l 7 lower for carbon and low-alloy steels. This report summarizes the work performed at Argonne National Laboratory on the fatigue of piping and pressure vessel steels in LWR environments.
The existing fatigue c-N data have been evaluated to identify the various material, environmental, and loading parameters that influence fatigue crack initiation, and to establish the effects of key parameters on the fatigue life of these steels. Fatigue life models are presented for estimating fatigue life as a function of material, loading, and environmental conditions.
The environmental fatigue correction factor for incorporating the effects of LWR environments into ASME Section III fatigue evaluations is described.
The report also presents a critical review of the ASME Code fatigue design margins of 2 on stress (or strain) and 20 on life and assesses the possible conservatism in the current choice of design margins.iii This page is intentionally left blank.iv Foreword This report summarizes, reviews, and quantifies the effects of the light-water reactor (LWR)environment on the fatigue life of reactor materials, including carbon steels, low-alloy steels, nickel-chromium-iron (Ni-Cr-Fe) alloys, and austenitic stainless steels. The primary purpose of this report is to provide the background and technical bases to support Regulatory Guide 1.207, "Guidelines for Evaluating Fatigue Analyses Incorporating the Life Reduction of Metal Components Due to the Effects of the Light-Water Reactor Environment for New Reactors." Previously published related reports include NUREG/CR-5704, "Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design Curves of Austenitic Stainless Steels," issued April 1999; NUREG/CR-6717, "Environmental Effects on Fatigue Crack Initiation in Piping and Pressure Vessel Steels," issued May 2001; NUREG/CR-6787, "Mechanism and Estimation of Fatigue Crack Initiation in Austenitic Stainless Steels in LWR Environments," issued August 2002; NUREG/CR-6815, "Review of the Margins for ASME Code Fatigue Design Curve -Effects of Surface Roughness and Material Variability," issued September 2003; and NUREG/CR-6583, "Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design Curves of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels," issued February 1998. This report provides a review of the existing fatigue &-N data for carbon steels, low-alloy steels, Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, and austenitic stainless steels to define the potential effects of key material, loading, and environmental parameters on the fatigue life of the steels. By drawing upon a larger database than was used in earlier published reports, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been able to update the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) fatigue life models used to estimate the fatigue curves as a function of those parameters.
In addition, this report presents a procedure for incorporating environmental effects into fatigue evaluations.
The database described in this report (and its predecessors) reinforces the position espoused by the NRC that a guideline for incorporating the LWR environmental effects in the fatigue life evaluations should be developed and that the design curves for the fatigue life of pressure boundary and internal components fabricated from stainless steel should be revised. Toward that end, this report proposes a method for establishing reference curves and environmental correction factors for use in evaluating the fatigue life of reactor components exposed to LWR coolants and operational experience.
Data described in this review have been used to define fatigue design curves in air that are consistent with the existing fatigue data. Specifically, the published data indicate that the existing code curves are nonconservative for austenitic stainless steels (e.g., Types 304, 316, and 316NG). Regulatory Guide 1.207 endorses the new stainless steel fatigue design curves presented herein for incorporation in fatigue analyses for new reactors.
However, because of significant conservatism in quantifying other plant-related variables (such as cyclic behavior, including stress and loading rates) involved in cumulative fatigue life calculations, the design of the current fleet of reactors is satisfactory.
Brian W. Sheron, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission v
This page is intentionally left blank.vi Contents Abstract ...............................................................................................................
iii Foreword ..............................................................................................................
v Executive Summary.................................................................................................
xv Abbreviations
........................................................................................................
xvii Acknowledgments
..................................................................................................
xix 1. Fatigue Analysis ..............................................................................................
: 2. Fatigue Life .....................................................................................................
7 3. Fatigue Strain vs. Life Data...................................................................................
9 4 Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels ................................................................................
I11 4.1 Air Environment...........I............................................................................
11 4.1.1 Experimental Data........................................................................
11 4.1.2 Temperature
...............................................................................
12 4.1.3 Strain Rate.................................................................................
12 4.1.4 Sulfide Morphology
......................................................................
13 4.1.5 Cyclic Strain Hardening Behavior......................................................
13 4.1.6 Surface Finish.............................................................................
14 4.1 .7 Heat-to-Heat Variability
.................................................................
15 4.1.8 Fatigue Life Model .......................................................................
17 4.1.9 Extension of the Best-Fit Mean Curve from 106 to 10 11 Cycles ...................
18 4.1.10 Fatigue Design Curve...................................................................
19 4.2 LWR Environment...................................................................................
21 4.2.1 Experimental Data........................................................................
21 4.2.2 Strain Rate..................................................................................
22 4.2.3 Strain Amplitude..........................................................................
23 vii 4.2.4 Temperature...............................................................................
26 4.2.5 Dissolved Oxygen ........................................................................
29 4.2.6 Water Conductivity.......................................................................
30 4.2.7 Sulfur Content in Steel...................................................................
30 4.2.8 Tensile Hold Period ......................................................................
31 4.2.9 Flow Rate..................................................................................
33 4.2.10 Surface Finish ...........................................................................
34 4.2.11 Heat-to-Heat Variability................................................................
35 4.2.12 Fatigue Life Model .....................................................................
36 4.2.13 Environmental Fatigue Correction Factor ...........................................
38 4.2.14 Modified Rate Approach...............................................................
38 5 Austenitic Stainless Steels.....................................................................................
41 5.1 Air Environment
......................................................................................
41 5.1.1 Experimental Data........................................................................
41 5.1.2 Specimen Geometry ......................................................................
43 5.1.3 Temperature...............................................................................
43 5.1.4 Cyclic Strain Hardening Behavior .....................................................
44 5.1.5 Surface Finish.............................................................................
45 5.1.6 Heat-to-Heat Variability
.................................................................
45 5.1 .7 Fatigue Life Model.......................................................................
46 5.1.8 New Fatigue Design Curve..............................................................
48 5.2 LWR Environment..............................................
...... ****".....
49 5.2.1 Experimental Data........................................................................
49 5.2.2 Strain Amplitude..........................................................................
51 5.2.3 Hold-Time Effects........................................................................
52 viii 5.2.4 Strain Rate .................................................................................
53 5.2.5 Dissolved Oxygen ........................................................................
54 5.2.6 Water Conductivity.......................................................................
54 5.2.7 Temperature...............................................................................
55 5.2.8 Material Heat Treatment.................................................................
56 5.2.9 Flow Rate..................................................................................
57 5.2.10 Surface Finish ...........................................................................
58 5.2.1 1 Heat-to-Heat Variability................................................................
58 5.2.12 Cast Stainless Steels ....................................................................
60 5.2.13 Fatigue Life Model......................................................................
61 5.2.14 Environmental Correction Factor.....................................................
63 6 Ni-Cr-Fe Alloys and Welds ...................................................................................
65 6.1 Air Environment
......................................................................................
65 6.1.1 Experimental Data........................................................................
65 6.1.2 Fatigue Life Model........................................................................
66 6.2 LWR Environment
...................................................................................
67 6.2.1 Experimental Data........................................................................
67 6.2.2 Effects of Key Parameters................................................
I...............
68 6.2.3 Environmental Correction Factor ......................................................
68 7 Margins in A SME Code Fatigue Design Curves...........................................................
71 7.1 Material Variability and Data Scatter ..............................................................
73 7.2 Size and Geometry....................................................................................
73 7. 3 Surface Finish .........................................................................................
74 7.4 Loading Sequence.....................................................................................
74 7.5 Fatigue Design Curve Margins Summarized......................................................
75 ix 8 Sum mary ...............................................................................................................................................
79 References
...................................................................................................................................................
83 APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................................
A.I Figures 1. Schematic illustration of growth of short cracks in smooth specimens as a function of fatigue life fraction and crack velocity as a function of crack depth ........................................................
7 2. Crack growth rates plotted as a function of crack depth for A533-Gr B low-alloy steel and Type 304 SS in air and LW R environm ents ..................................................................................
8 3. Fatigue strain vs. life data for carbon and low-alloy steels in air at room temperature
..............
II 4. Fatigue strain vs. life data for carbon and low-alloy steels in air at 288&deg;C .................................
12 5. Effect of strain rate and temperature on cyclic stress of carbon and low-alloy steels ................
13 6. Effect of surface finish on the fatigue life of A106-Gr B carbon steel in air at 289&deg;C ...............
14 7. Estimated cumulative distribution of constant A in the ANL models for fatigue life for heats of carbon steels and low -alloy steels in air ....................................................................................
16 8. Experimental and predicted fatigue lives of carbon steels and low-alloy steels in air ................
18 9. Fatigue design curve for carbon steels in air ..................................................................................
20 10. Fatigue design curve for low -alloy steels in air ..............................................................................
20 11. Strain amplitude vs. fatigue life data for A533-Gr B and AI06-Gr B steels in air and high-dissolved-oxygen w ater at 288&deg;C ..................................................................................................
.21 12. Dependence of fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels on strain rate ....................................
23 13. Fatigue life of A106-Gr B carbon steel at 288&deg;C and 0.75% strain range in air and water environments under different loading waveforms
........................................................................
24 14. Fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels tested with loading waveforms where slow strain rate is applied during a fraction of tensile loading cycle ...............................................................
25 15. Experimental values of fatigue life and those predicted from the modified rate approach w ithout consideration of a threshold strain .....................................................................................
26 16. Change in fatigue life of A333-Gr 6 carbon steel with temperature and DO ..................
26 17. Dependence of fatigue life on temperature for carbon and low-alloy steels in water. ................
27 18. Waveforms for change in temperature during exploratory fatigue tests .......................................
28 19. Fatigue life of A333-Gr 6 carbon steel tube specimens under varying temperature, indicated by ho rizo ntal bars .............................................................................................................................
2 8 20. Dependence on DO of fatigue life of carbon steel in high-purity water .......................................
29 xi
: 21. Effect of strain rate on fatigue life of low-alloy steels with different S contents ........................
30 22. Effect of strain rate on the fatigue life of A333-Gr 6 carbon steels with different S contents...
31 23. Fatigue life of AI06-Gr B steel in air and water environments at 288&deg;C, 0.78% strain range, and hold period at peak tensile strain ..............................................................................................
32 24. Effect of water flow rate on fatigue life of A333-Gr 6 carbon steel at 289&deg;C and strain amplitude and strain rates of 0.3% and 0.01%/s and 0.6% and 0.001%/s ....................................
33 25. Effect of flow rate on low-cycle fatigue of carbon steel tube bends in high-purity water at 2 4 0 0 C ............................................................................................................................................
34 26. Effect of surface roughness on fatigue life of A106-Gr B carbon steel and A533 low-alloy steel in air and high-purity w ater at 289&deg;C ..................................................................................
34 27. Estimated cumulative distribution of parameter A in the ANL models for fatigue life for heats of carbon and low-alloy steels in LWR environments
........................................................
35 28. Experimental and predicted fatigue lives of carbon steels and low-alloy steels in LWR en v iro nm en ts ....................................................................................................................................
3 7 29. Application of the modified rate approach to determine the environmental fatigue correction factor Fen during a transient
.............................................................................................................
39 30. Fatigue c-N behavior for Types 304, 316, and 316NG austenitic stainless steels in air at vario us tem peratures
........................................................................................................................
4 1 31. Influence of specimen geometry on fatigue life of Types 304 and 316 stainless steel ................
43 32. Influence of temperature on fatigue life of Types 304 and 316 stainless steel in air ...................
43 33. Effect of strain amplitude, temperature, and strain rate on cyclic strain-hardening behavior of Types 304 and 316N G SS in air .....................................................................................................
.44 34. Effect of surface roughness on fatigue life of Type 316NG and Type 304 SSs in air .................
45 35. Estimated cumulative distribution of constant A in the ANL model for fatigue life for heats of austenitic SS in air .......................................................................................................................
46 36. Experimental and predicted fatigue lives of austenitic SSs in air .................................................
47 37. Fatigue design curve for austenitic stainless steels in air .............................................................
48 38. Strain amplitude vs. fatigue life data for Type 304 and Type 316NG SS in water at 288'C ...... 49 39. Higher-magnification photomicrographs of oxide films that formed on Type 316NG stainless steel in simulated PWR water and high-DO water .........................................................
50 xii
: 40. Schematic of the corrosion oxide film formed on austenitic stainless steels in LWR environments
..............................................
...............
50 41. Effects of environment on formation of fatigue cracks in Type 316NG SS in air and low-DO w ater at 2 8 8'C ..................................................................................................................................
5 1 42. Results of strain rate change tests on Type 316 SS in low-DO water at 325&deg;C ..........................
52 43. Fatigue life of Type 304 stainless steel tested in high-DO water at 260-288&deg;C with trapezoidal or triangular w aveform .................................................................................................
.52 44. Dependence of fatigue lives of austenitic stainless steels on strain rate in low-DO water .........
53 45. Dependence of fatigue life of Types 304 and 316NG stainless steel on strain rate in high-and low -D O w ater at 288&deg;C ............................................................................................................
53 46. Effects of conductivity of water and soaking period on fatigue life of Type 304 SS in high-D O w ater ...........................................................................................................................................
5 5 47. Change in fatigue lives of austenitic stainless steels in low-DO water with temperature
..........
55 48. Fatigue life of Type 316 stainless steel under constant and varying test temperature
.................
56 49. The effect of material heat treatment on fatigue life of Type 304 stainless steel in air, BWR and PWR environments at 289&deg;C, z0.38% strain amplitude, sawtooth waveform, and 0.004% /s tensile strain rate ..............................................................................................................
57 50. Effect of water flow rate on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs in high-purity water at 289&deg;C .... 57 51. Effect of surface roughness on fatigue life of Type 316NG and Type 304 stainless steels in air and high-purity w ater at 289&deg;C .................................................................................................
58 52. Estimated cumulative distribution of constant A in the ANL model for fatigue life for heats of austenitic S Ss in w ater .................................................................................................................
59 53. Dependence of fatigue lives of CF-8M cast SSs on strain rate in low-DO water at various strain am p litud es ...............................................................................................................................
6 0 54. Estimated cumulative distribution of constant A in the ANL model for fatigue life of wrought and cast austenitic stainless steels in air and water environments
...............................................
61 55. Experimental and predicted values of fatigue lives of austenitic SSs in LWR environments
... 63 56. Fatigue s-N behavior for Alloys 600 and 690 in air at temperatures between room tem perature and 3 15'C ....................................................................................................................
65 57. Fatigue s-N behavior for Alloys 82, 182, 132, and 152 welds in air at various temperatures...
66 58. Fatigue s-N behavior for Alloy 600 and its weld alloys in simulated BWR water at z289&deg;C...
67 xiii
: 59. Fatigue c-N behavior for Alloys 600 and 690 and their weld alloys in simulated PWR water at 3 15 or 32 5&deg;C .................................................................................................................................
6 7 60. Dependence of fatigue lives of Alloys 690 and 600 and their weld alloys in PWR water at 325&deg;C and Alloy 600 in BW R water at 289&deg;C ...............................................................................
68 61. The experimental and estimated fatigue lives of various Ni alloys in BWR and PWR env ironm ents ....................................................................................................................................
69 62. Fatigue data for carbon and low-alloy steel and-Type 304 stainless steel components
..............
72 63. Estimated cumulative distribution of parameter A in the ANL models that represent the fatigue life of test specimens and actual components in air ...........
...................
77 Tables 1. Sources of the fatigue c-N data on reactor structural materials in air and water environments.
9 2. Values of parameter A in the ANL fatigue life model for carbon steels in air and the margins on life as a function of confidence level and percentage of population bounded ........................
16 3. Values of parameter A in the ANL fatigue life model for low-alloy steels in air and the margins on life as a function of confidence level and percentage of population bounded ..........
17 4. Fatigue design curves for carbon and low-alloy steels and proposed extension to 1011 cycles. 20 5. Fatigue data for STS410 steel at 289&deg;C in water with I ppm DO and trapezoidal waveform....
33 6. Values of parameter A in the ANL fatigue life model for carbon steels in water and the margins on life as a function of confidence level and percentage of population bounded.........
36 7. Values of parameter A in the ANL fatigue life model for low-alloy steels in water and the margins on life as a function of confidence level and percentage of population bounded ..........
36 8. Values of parameter A in the ANL fatigue life model and the margins on life for austenitic SSs in air as a function of confidence level and percentage of population bounded>.
..................
46 9. The new and current Code fatigue design curves for austenitic stainless steels in air ................
48 10. Values of parameter A in the ANLI. fatigue life model and the margins on life for austenitic SSs in water as a function of confidence level and percentage of population bounded ..............
59 11. The median value of A and standard deviation for the various fatigue E-N data sets used to evaluate m aterial variability and data scatter .................................................................................
73 12. Factors on life applied to mean fatigue c-N curve to account for the effects of various material, loading, and environmental parameters
....................................
76 13. Margin applied to the mean values of fatigue life to bound 95% of the population
............
77 xiv Executive Summary Section 1I1, Subsection NB, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code contains rules for the design of Class I components of nuclear power plants. Figures 1-9.1 through 1-9.6 of Appendix I to Section III specify the Code design fatigue curves for applicable structural materials.
However, Section II1, Subsection NB-3121 of the Code states that the effects of the coolant environment on fatigue resistance of a material were not intended to be addressed in these design curves. Therefore, the effects of environment on the fatigue resistance of materials used in operating pressurized water reactor (PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR) plants, whose primary-coolant pressure boundary components were designed in accordance with the Code, are uncertain.
The current Section-Ill design fatigue curves of the ASME Code were based primarily on strain-controlled fatigue tests of small polished specimens at room temperature in air. Best-fit curves to the experimental test data were first adjusted to account for the effects of mean stress and then lowered by a factor of 2 on stress and 20 on cycles (whichever was more conservative) to obtain the design fatigue curves. These factors are not safety margins but rather adjustment factors that must be applied to experimental data to obtain estimates of the lives of components.
Recent fatigue-strain-vs.-life (F-N)data obtained in the U.S. and Japan demonstrate that light water reactor (LWR) environments can have potentially significant effects on the fatigue resistance of materials.
Specimen lives obtained from tests in simulated LWR environments can be much shorter than those obtained from corresponding tests in air.This report reviews the existing fatigue s-N data for carbon and low-alloy steels, wrought and cast austenitic stainless steels (SSs), and nickel-chromium-iron (Ni-Cr-Fe) alloys in air and LWR environments.
The effects of various material, loading, and environmental parameters on the fatigue lives of these steels are summarized.
The results indicate that in air, the ASME mean curve for low-alloy steels is in good agreement with the available experimental data, and the curve for carbon steels is somewhat conservative.
However, in air, the ASME mean curve for SSs is not consistent with the experimental data at strain amplitudes
<0.5% or stress amplitudes
<975 MPa (<141 ksi); the ASME mean curve is nonconservative.
The results also indicate that the fatigue data for Ni-Cr-Fe alloys are not consistent with the current ASME Code mean curve for austenitic SSs.The fatigue lives of carbon and low-alloy steels, austenitic SSs, and Ni-Cr-Fe alloys are decreased in LWR environments.
The reduction depends on some key material, loading, and environmental parameters.
The fatigue data are consistent with the much larger database on enhancement of crack growth rates in these materials in LWR environments.
The key parameters that influence fatigue life in these environments, e.g., temperature, dissolved-oxygen (DO) level in water, strain rate, strain (or stress)amplitude, and, for carbon and low-alloy steels, S content of the steel, have been identified.
Also, the range of the values of these parameters within which environmental effects are significant has been clearly defined. If these critical loading and environmental conditions exist during reactor operation, then environmental effects will be significant and need to be included in the ASME Code fatigue evaluations.
Fatigue life models developed earlier to predict fatigue lives of small smooth specimens of carbon and low-alloy steels, wrought and cast austenitic SSs, and Ni-Cr-Fe alloys as a function of material, loading, and environmental parameters have been updated/revised by drawing upon a larger fatigue s-N database.
The functional form and bounding values of these parameters were based on experimental observations and data trends. An approach that can be used to incorporate the effects of LWR coolant environments into the ASME Code fatigue evaluations, based on the environmental fatigue correction factor, Fen, is discussed.
The fatigue usage for a specific stress cycle of load set pair based on the Code fatigue design curves is multiplied by the correction factor to account for environmental effects.xv The report also presents a critical review of the ASME Code fatigue design margins of 2 on stress and 20 on life and assesses the possible conservatism in the current choice of design margins. Although these factors were intended to be somewhat conservative, they should not be considered safety margins.These factors cover the effects of variables that can influence fatigue life but were not investigated in the experimental data that were used to obtain the fatigue design curves. Data available in the literature have been reviewed to evaluate the margins on cycles and stress that are needed to account for such differencesI and uncertainties.
Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine the margin on cycles needed to obtain a fatigue design curve that would provide a somewhat conservative estimate of the number of cycles to initiate a fatigue crack in reactor components.
The results suggest that for both carbon and low-I alloy steels and austenitic SSs, the current ASME Code requirements of a factor of 20 on cycle to account for the effects of material variability and data scatter, as well as size, surface finish, and loading history in low cycle fatigue, contain at least a factor of 1 .7 conservatism.
Thus, to reduce this conservatism, fatigue design curves have been developed from the ANL fatigue life model by first correcting for mean stress effects, and then reducing the mean-stress adjusted curve by a factor of 2 on stress or 12 on cycles, whichever is more conservative.
These design curves are consistent with the existing fatigue c-N data.A detailed procedure for incorporating environmental effects into fatigue evaluations is presented.
xvI Abbreviations ANL Argonne National Laboratory ANN Artificial Neural Network ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers BWR Boiling Water Reactor CGR Crack Growth Rate CUF Cumulative Usage Factor DO Dissolved Oxygen EAC Environmentally Assisted Cracking ECP Electrochemical Potential EPR Electrochemical Potentiodynamic Reactivation EPRI Electric Power Research Institute GE General Electric Co.IHI Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries KWU Kraftwerk Union Laboratories LWR Light Water Reactor MA Mill Annealed MEA Materials Engineering Associates MHI Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MPA Materialprufungsanstalt MSC Microstructurally Small Crack NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory PVRC Pressure Vessel Research Council PWR Pressurized Water Reactor RCS Reactor Coolant System RT Room Temperature SCC Stress Corrosion Cracking SICC Strain Induced Corrosion Cracking SS Stainless Steel UTS Ultimate Tensile Strength WRC Welding Research Council xvii This page is intentionally left blank.xviii Acknowledgments The authors thank W. H. Cullen, Jr., and J. Fair for their helpful comments.
This work is sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under NRC Job Code N6187; Project Manager: H. J. Gonzalez.xix This page is intentionally left blank.xx
: 1. Fatigue Analysis The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Subsection NB, which contains rules for the design of Class I components for nuclear power plants, recognizes fatigue as a possible mode of failure in pressure vessel steels and piping materials.
Fatigue has been a major consideration in the design of rotating machinery and aircraft, where the components are subjected to a very large number of cycles (e.g., high-cycle fatigue) and the primary concern is the endurance limit, i.e., the stress that can be applied an infinite number of times without failure. However, cyclic loadings on a reactor pressure boundary component occur because of changes in mechanical and thermal loadings as the system goes from one load, set (e.g., pressure, temperature, moment, and force loading) to another. The number of cycles applied during the design life of the component seldom exceeds 105 and is typically less then a few thousand (e.g., low-cycle fatigue).
The main difference between high-cycle and low-cycle fatigue is that the former involves little or no plastic strain, whereas the latter involves strains in excess of the yield strain. Therefore, design curves for low-cycle fatigue are based on tests in which strain rather than stress is the controlled variable.The ASME Code fatigue evaluation procedures are described in NB-3200, "Design by Analysis," and NB-3600, "Piping Design." For each stress cycle or load set pair, an individual fatigue usage factor is determined by the ratio of the number of cycles anticipated during the lifetime of the component to the allowable cycles. Figures 1-9.1 through 1-9.6 of the mandatory Appendix I to Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code specify fatigue design curves that define the allowable number of cycles as a function of applied stress amplitude.
The cumulative usage factor (CUF) is the sum of the individual usage factors, and ASME Code Section III requires that at each location the CUF, calculated on the basis of Miner's rule, must not exceed 1.The ASME Code fatigue design curves, given in Appendix I of Section III, are based on strain-controlled tests of small polished specimens at room temperature in air. The design curves have been developed from the best-fit curves to the experimental fatigue-strain-vs.-life (c-N) data, which are expressed in terms of the Langer equation' of the form ea = Al(N)-n1 +A2, (,)where Ea is the applied strain amplitude, N is the fatigue life, and Al, A2, and nI are coefficients of the model. Equation 1 may be written in terms of stress amplitude Sa instead of Fa. The stress amplitude is the product of Ea and elastic modulus E, i.e., Sa = E-a (stress amplitude is one-half the applied stress range). The current ASME Code best-fit or mean curve described in the Section III criteria document 2 for various steels is given by E 100 )B a N f 0 -+B , (2)where E is the elastic modulus, Nf is the number of cycles to failure, and Af and Bf are constants related to reduction in area in a tensile test and endurance limit of the material at 107 cycles, respectively.
The current Code mean curve for carbon steel is expressed as Sa = 59,734 (Nf)-0 5+ 149.2, (3)I I for low-alloy steel, as Sa = 49,222 (Nf)-0 5 + 265.4, (4) m and for austenitic SSs, as Sa = 58,020 (Nf)-0-5 + 299.9. (5)Note that because most of the data used to develop the Code mean curve were obtained on specimens that I were tested to failure, in the Section III criteria document, fatigue life is defined as cycles to failure.Accordingly, the ASME Code fatigue design curves are generally considered to represent allowable number of cycles to failure. However, in Appendix I to Section III of the Code the design curves are I simply described as stress amplitude (Sa) vs. number of cycles (N).In the fatigue tests performed during the last three decades, fatigue life is defined in terms of the number of cycles for tensile stress to decrease 25% from its peak or steady-state value. For typical cylindrical specimens used in these studies, this corresponds to the number of cycles needed to produce an f 3-mm-deep crack in the test specimen.
Thus, the fatigue life of a material is actually being described in terms of three parameters, viz., strain or stress, cycles, and crack depth. The best-fit curve to the existing fatigue c-N data describes, for given strain or stress amplitude, the number of cycles needed to develop a 3-mm deep crack. The fatigue c-N data are typically expressed by rewriting Eq. 1 as ln(N) = A -B ln(ca -C), (6)where A, B, and C are constants; C represents the fatigue limit of the material; and B is the slope of the log-log plot of fatigue c-N data. The ASME Code mean-data curves (i.e., Eqs. 3-5) may be expressed in terms of Eq. 6 as follows. The fatigue life of carbon steels is given by ln(N) = 6.726 -2.0 ln(ca -0.072), (7)for low-alloy steels, by ln(N) = 6.339 -2.0 ln(Ea -0.1 2 8), (8)and, for austenitic SSs, by ln(N) = 6.954 -2.0 ln(ca -0.167). (9)The Code fatigue design curves have been obtained from-the best-fit (or mean-data) curves by first adjusting for the effects of mean stress using the modified Goodman relationship given by S =Sa!u YI for Sa < Oy, (10)and S' S, for Sa > y, (11) G 2 I where S, is the adjusted value of stress amplitude, and Gy and au are yield and ultimate strengths of the material, respectively.
Equations 10 and 11 assume the maximum possible mean stress and typically give a conservative adjustment for mean stress. The fatigue design curves are then obtained by reducing the fatigue life at each point on the adjusted best-fit curve by a factor of 2 on strain (or stress) or 20 on cycles, whichever is more conservative.
The factors of 2 and 20 are not safety margins but rather adjustment factors that should be applied to the small-specimen data to obtain reasonable estimates of the lives of actual reactor components.
As described in the Section III criteria document, 2 these factors were intended to account for data scatter (including material variability) and differences in surface condition and size between the test specimens and actual components.
In comments about the initial scope and intent of the Section III fatigue design procedures Cooper 3 states that the factor of 20 on life was regarded as the product of three subfactors:
Scatter of data (minimum to mean) 2.0 Size effect 2.5 Surface finish, atmosphere, etc. 4.0 Although the Section III criteria document 2 states that these factors were intended to cover such effects as environment, Cooper 3 further states that the term "atmosphere" was intended to reflect the effects of an industrial atmosphere in comparison with an air-conditioned laboratory, not the effects of a specific coolant environment.
Subsection NB-3 121 of Section III of the Code explicitly notes that the data used to develop the fatigue design curves (Figs. 1-9.1 through 1-9.6 of Appendix I to Section 11) did not include tests in the presence of corrosive environments that might accelerate fatigue failure. Article B-2131 in Appendix B to Section III states that the owner's design specifications should provide infornation about any reduction to fatigue design curves that is necessitated by environmental conditions.
Existing fatigue c-N data illustrate potentially significant effects of light water reactor (LWR)coolant environments on the fatigue resistance of carbon and low-alloy steels and wrought and cast austenitic SSs.445 Laboratory data indicate that under certain reactor operating conditions, fatigue lives of carbon and low-alloy steels can be a factor of 17 lower in the coolant environment than in air.Therefore, the margins in the ASME Code may be less conservative than originally intended.The fatigue c-N data are consistent with the much larger database on enhancement of crack growth rates (CGRs) in these materials in simulated LWR environments.
The key parameters that influence fatigue life in these environments, e.g., temperature, dissolved-oxygen (DO) level in water, strain rate, strain (or stress) amplitude, and, for carbon and low-alloy steels, S content of the steel, have been identified.
Also, the range of the values of these parameters within which environmental effects are significant has been clearly defined. If these critical loading and environmental conditions exist during reactor operation, then environmental effects will be significant and need to be included in the ASME Code fatigue evaluations.
Experience with nuclear power plants worldwide indicates that the critical range of loading and environmental conditions that leads to environmental effects on fatigue crack initiation can occur during plant operation.
4 5-6 1 Many failures of reactor components have been attributed to fatigue; examples include piping, nozzles, valves, and pumps.4 6-5 3 The mechanism of cracking in feedwater nozzles and piping has been attributed to corrosion fatigue or strain-induced corrosion cracking (SICC).5 4-5 6 A review of significant occurrences of corrosion fatigue damage and failures in various nuclear power plant systems has been presented in an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report.4 5 In piping components, several failures were associated with thermal loading due to thermal stratification and striping.
Thermal stratification is 3 I caused by the injection of low-flow, relatively cold feedwater during plant startup, hot standby, or variations below 20% of full power, whereas thermal striping is caused by rapid, localized fluctuations of the interface between hot and cold feedwater.
Significant cracking has also occurred in nonisolable piping connected to a PWR reactor coolant system (RCS). In most cases, thermal cycling was caused by interaction of hot RCS fluid from turbulent penetration at the top of the pipe, and cold valve leakage fluid that had stratified at the bottom of the pipe. Lenz et al.5 5 have shown that in feedwater lines, strain rates I are 10-3-10-5%/s due to thermal stratification and 10-1%/s due to thermal shock. They also have reported that thermal stratification is the primary cause of crack initiation due to SICC. Full-scale mock-up tests to generate thermal stratification in a pipe in a laboratory have confirmed the applicability of laboratory I data to component behavior.4 4 , 6 2 A study conducted on SS pipe bend specimens in simulated PWR primary water at 240'C concluded that reactor coolant environment can have a significant effect on the fatigue life of SSs.6 3 Relative to the fatigue life in an inert environment, life in the PWR environment at ai strain amplitude of 0.52% was decreased by factor of 5.8 and 2.8 at strain rates of 0.0005%/s and n 0.01%/s, respectively.
These values show excellent agreement with the values predicted from the correlations presented in Section 5.2.14 of this report. 3 Thermal loading due to flow stratification or mixing was not included in the original design basis analyses.
Regulatory evaluation has indicated that thermal-stratification cycling can occur in all PWR surge lines.6 4 In PWRs, the pressurizer water is heated to z227&deg;C. The hot water, flowing at a very low I rate from the pressurizer through the surge line to the hot-leg piping, rides on a cooler water layer. The thermal gradients between the upper and lower parts of the pipe can be as high as 149&deg;C.Two approaches have been proposed for incorporating the environmental effects into ASME Section 1II fatigue evaluations for primary pressure boundary components in operating nuclear power plants: (a) develop new fatigue design curves for LWR applications, or (b) use an environmental fatigue correction factor to account for the effects of the coolant environment.
In the first approach, following the same procedures used to develop the current fatigue design curves of the ASME Code, environmentally adjusted fatigue design curves are developed from fits to I experimental data obtained in LWR environments. ) Interim fatigue design curves that address environmental effects on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels and austenitic SSs were first proposed by Majumdar et al.6 5 Fatigue design curves based on a more rigorous statistical analysis of experimental data were developed by Keisler et al.6 6 These design curves have subsequently been revised on the basis of updated ANL models.4 ,6, 3 8 ,3 9 However, because, in LWR environments, the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels, nickel-chromium-iron (Ni-Cr-Fe) alloys, and austenitic SSs depends on several loading and environmental parameters, such an approach would require developing several design curves to cover all possible conditions encountered during plant operation.
Defining the number of these design curves or the loading and environmental conditions for the curves is not easy.The second approach, proposed by Higuchi and Jida, 1 3 considers the effects of reactor coolant environments on fatigue life in terms of an environmental fatigue correction factor, Fen, which is the ratio of fatigue life in air at room temperature to that in water under reactor operating conditions.
To incorporate environmental effects into fatigue evaluations, the fatigue usage factor for a specific stress cycle or load set pair, based on the ASME Code design curves, is multiplied by the environmental fatigue correction factor. Specific expressions for Fen, based on the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) fatigue life models, have been developed.
3 9 Such an approach is relatively simple and is recommended in this report.I I This report presents an overview of the existing fatigue s-N data for carbon and low-alloy steels, Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, and wrought and cast austenitic SSs in air and LWR environments.
The data are evaluated to (a) identify the various material, environmental, and loading parameters that influence fatigue crack initiation and (b) establish the effects of key parameters on the fatigue life of these steels.Fatigue life models, presented in earlier reports, for estimating fatigue life as a function of material, loading, and environmental conditions have been updated using a larger database.
The Fen approach for incorporating, effects of LWR environments into ASME Section III fatigue evaluations is described.
The report also presents a critical review of the ASME Code fatigue design margins of 2 on stress (or strain)and 20 on life and assesses the possible conservatism in the current choice of design margins.5 This page is intentionally left blank.6
: 2. Fatigue Life The formation of surface cracks and their growth to an engineering size (3-mm deep) constitute the fatigue life of a material, which is represented by the fatigue e-N curves. Fatigue life has conventionally been divided into two stages: initiation, expressed as the number of cycles required to form microcracks on the surface; and propagation, expressed as cycles required to propagate the surface cracks to engineering size. During cyclic loading of smooth test specimens, surface cracks 10 ptm or longer form early in life (i.e., <10% of life) at surface irregularities either already in existence or produced by slip bands, grain boundaries, second-phase particles, etc.4 , 5 Thus, fatigue life may be considered to constitute propagation of cracks from 10 to 3000 Ltm long.Mechanically Small Crack /
.A(5 3/-_ Small Crack // ! _ 7 G Mechanically Small Crack AG 2  " .'a (Stage II Tensile Crack) /)> --- ~. " I ,/,- ." " U -- -\AG A 1 51 * , Linear-elastic or (1) >Mirsrcrly.
i fracture mechanics',/Small Crack (MSC) 2 > AGI CJ:roacks ng S(StageIShearCrack).A 3> A(2> AG 1 I I i I i i i [ i 00.2 0.4 0.6 0.8.1 Life Fraction Crack Depth (a) (b)Figure 1. Schematic illustration of (a) growth of short cracks in smooth specimens as a function of fatigue life fraction and (b) crack velocity as a function of crack depth.A schematic illustration of the initiation and propagation stages of fatigue life is shown in Fig. 1.The initiation stage involves growth of "microstructurally small cracks" (MSCs), characterized by decelerating crack growth (Region AB in Fig. Ia). The propagation stage involves growth of"mechanically small cracks," characterized by accelerating crack growth (Region BC in Fig. la). The growth of the MSCs is very sensitive to microstructure.
5 Fatigue cracks greater than a critical depth show little or no influence ofmicrostructure and are considered mechanically small cracks. Mechanically small cracks correspond to Stage Ia (tensile) cracks, which are characterized by striated crack growth, with the fracture surface normal to the maximum principal stress. Various criteria, summarized in Section 5.4.1 of Ref. 6, have been used to define the crack depth for transition from microstructurally to mechanically small crack. The transition crack depth is a function of applied stress () and epicrostructure of the material; actual values may range from 150 to 250 pgm. At low enough stress levels (Aa 1), the transition from MSC growth to accelerating crack growth does not occur. This circumstance represents the fatigue limit for the smooth specimen.
Although cracks can form below the fatigue limit, they can grow to engineering size only at stresses greater than the fatigue limit. The fatigue limit for a material is applicable only for constant loading condtonins.
Under variable loading conditions, MSCs can grow at high stresses (Aa 3) to depths larger than the transition crack depth and then can continue to grow at stress levels below the fatigue limit (Adrj).7 I Studies on the formation and growth characteristics of short cracks in smooth fatigue specimens in LWR environments indicate that the decrease in fatigue life in LWR environments is caused primarily by the effects of the environment on the growth of MSCs (i.e., cracks <200 jim deep) and, to a lesser extent, on the growth of mechanically small cracks.4 , 7 Crack growth rates measured in smooth cylindrical fatigue specimens of A533-Gr B low-alloy steel and austenitic Type 304 SSs in LWR environments and air are shown in Fig. 2. The results indicate that in LWR environments, the period spent in the growth of I MSCs (region ABC in Fig. Ia) is decreased.
For the A533-Gr B steel, only 30-50 cycles are needed to form a 100-mm crack in high-DO water, whereas z450 cycles are required to form a 100-mm crack in low-DO water and more than 3000 cycles in air. These values correspond to average growth rates of zi2.5, 0.22, and 0.033 jLm/cycle in high-DO water, low-DO water, and air, respectively.
Relative to air, CGRs for A533-Gr B steel in high-DO water are nearly two orders of magnitude higher for crack sizes<100 pm, and one order of magnitude higher for crack sizes >100 im. I ti i i I I i, ' , i I i i ' ' i iI 102 A533 Gr. B Low-Alloy Steel 288&deg;C 102 Type 304 SS 288&deg;C Strain Range: 0.75%Strain Range: 0.80%I Strain Rate: 0.004%/s .Strain Rate: 0.004%/s (-3 101 101_ II E .T S10&deg; , ( / " 10&deg; " S100 o- ' -1 C) C 10-2 -- High-Dissolved Oxygen Water 10"2 -.- -PWR------ High-Dissolved Oxygen Water ---High-DO Water SAir Air (Estimated)
I i i i i i i r Ir l , , ' , I I l l l 100 1000 100 1000 Crack Depth (gm) Crack Depth (rim)(a) (b)Figure 2. Crack growth rates plotted as a function of crack depth for (a) A533-Gr B low-alloy steel and (b) Type 304 SS in air and LWR environments.
The fatigue a-N data for carbon and low-alloy steels in air and LWR environments have been i examined from the standpoint of fracture mechanics and CGR data.6 7 , 6 8 Fatigue life is considered to consist of an initiation stage, composed of the growth of microstructurally small cracks, and a propagation stage, composed of the growth of mechanically small cracks. The growth of the latter has been I characterized in terms of the J-integral range AJ and crack growth rate data in air and LWR environments.
The estimated values show good agreement with the experimental
&-N data for test specimens in air and water environments.
8
: 3. Fatigue Strain vs. Life Data The existing fatigue s_-N data developed at various establishments and research laboratories worldwide have been compiled by the Pressure Vessel Research Council (PVRC), Working Group on F-N Curve and Data Analysis.
The database used in the ANL studies is an updated version of the PVRC database.
A summary of the sources included in the updated PVRC database, as categorized by material type and test environment, is presented in Table 1.Unless otherwise mentioned, smooth cylindrical gauge specimens were tested under strain control with a fully reversed loading, i.e., strain ratio of-1. Tests on notched specimens or at values of strain ratio other than -1 were excluded from the fatigue c-N data analysis.
For the tests performed at ANL, the estimated uncertainty in the strain measurements is about 4% of the reported value. For the data obtained in other laboratories, the uncertainty in the reported values of strain is unlikely to be large enough to significantly affect the results.In nearly all tests, fatigue life is defined as the number of cycles, N 2 5 , necessary for tensile stress to drop 25% from its peak or steady-state value. For the specimen size used in these studies, e.g., 5.1-9.5 mm (0.2-0.375 in.) diameter cylindrical specimens, this corresponds to a z3-mm-deep crack. Some of the earlier tests in air were carried out to complete failure of the specimen, and life in some tests is defined as the number of cycles for peak tensile stress to decrease by 1-5%. Also, in fatigue tests that were performed using tube specimens, life was represented by the number of cycles to develop a leak.Table 1. Sources of the fatigue c-N data on reactor structural materials in air and water environments.
Source Material Environment Reference General Electric Co. Carbon steel, Type 304 SS Air and BWR water 8-11 Japan; including Ishikawajima-Carbon and low-alloy Air, BWR, and PWR JNUFAD* database, Harima Heavy Industries (IHI) steel, wrought and water 12-33 Co., Mitsubishi Heavy cast austenitic SS, Industries (MHI) Ltd., Hitachi Ni-Cr-Fe alloys Research Laboratory Argonne National Laboratory Carbon and low-alloy Air, BWR, and PWR 4-7, 34-40 steel, wrought and cast water austenitic SS Materials Engineering Carbon steel, austenitic SS Air and PWR water 41-43 Associates (MEA) Inc.Germany; including MPA Carbon steel 44-45 France; including studies Austenitic SS Air and PWR water 69-71 sponsored by Electricite de France (EdF)Jaske and O'Donnell Austenitic SS, Air 72 Ni-Cr-Fe alloys Others Austenitic SS, Air 73-78 Ni-Cr-Fe alloys Private communication from M. Higuchi, Ishikawajima-Hariina i-eavy Industries Co. Japan, to M. Prager of the Pressure Vessel Research Council, 1992. The old database "Fadal" has been revised and renamed "JNUFAD." 9 I I For the tests where fatigue life was defined by a criterion other than 25% drop in peak tensile stress (e.g., 5% decrease in peak tensile stress or complete failure), fatigue lives were normalized to the 25%drop values before performing the fatigue data analysis.4 The estimated uncertainty in fatigue life determined by this procedure is about 2%.An analysis of the existing fatigue E-N data and the procedures for incorporating environmental effects into the Code fatigue evaluations has been presented in several review articles 7 9-9 0 and ANL topical reports.4 ,6,7,38-4 0 The key material, loading, and environmental parameters that influence the fatigue lives of carbon and low-alloy steels and austenitic stainless steels have been identified, and the I range of these key parameters where environmental effects are significant has been defined.How various material, loading, and environmental parameters affect fatigue life and how these effects are incorporated into the ASME Code fatigue evaluations are discussed in detail for carbon and low-alloy steels, wrought and cast SSs, and Ni-Cr-Fe alloys in Sections 4, 5, and 6, respectively.
1 I I I I I I I I I I 10 I 4 Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels The primary sources of relevant c-N data for carbon and low-alloy steels are the tests performed by General Electric Co. (GE) in a test loop at the Dresden 1 reactor;8 , 9 work sponsored by EPRI at GE;1 0 ,1 I the work of Terrell at Mechanical Engineering Associates (MEA);4 1-4 3 the work at ANL on fatigue of pressure vessel and piping steels;4-7, 3 4 4 0 the large JNUFAD database for "Fatigue Strength of Nuclear Plant Component" and studies at Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (IHI), Hitachi, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) in Japan;1 2-3 0 and the studies at Kraftwerk Union Laboratories (KWU) and Materialprufungsanstalt (MPA) in Germany.4 4-4 5 The database is composed of z1400 tests;z60% were obtained in the water environment and the remaining in air. Carbon steels include z12 heats of A333-Grade 6, A106-Grade B, A516-Grade 70, and A508-Class I steel, while the low-alloy steels include z16 heats of A533-Grade B, A302-Gr B, and A508-Class 2 and 3 steels.4.1 Air Environment 4.1.1 Experimental Data In air, the fatigue lives of carbon and low-alloy steels depend on steel type, temperature, and for some compositions, applied strain rate and sulfide morphology.
Fatigue c-N data from various investigations on carbon and low-alloy steels are shown in Fig. 3. The best-fit curves based on the ANL models (Eqs. 15 and 16 from Section 4.1.8) and the ASME Section III mean-data curves (at room temperature) are also included in the figures. The results indicate that, although significant scatter is apparent due to material variability, the fatigue lives of these steels are comparable at less than 5 x 105 cycles, and those of low-alloy steels are greater than carbon steels for >5 x 105 cycles. Also, the fatigue limit of low-alloy steels is higher than that of carbon steels.1.0 E 0.0.1 Carbon Steel i Room Temperature Airi 41. CA333-6 Best-Fit Air ANL Model ASME Code<Mean Carve 1.0 0 U)0.1 Low-Alloy Steel--"Room Temperature Ai 0 Aaoa-3 I Best-Fit Air ANIL Model----_ -------S E C d fMea Cu:`rv 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Fatigue Life (Cycles) Fatigue Life (Cycles)Figure 3. Fatigue strain vs. life data for carbon and low-alloy steels in air at room temperature (JNUFAD database and Refs. 4,12,13,41).
The existing fatigue c_-N data for low-alloy steels are in good agreement with the ASME mean data curve. The existing data for carbon steels are consistent with the ASME mean data curve for fatigue life:S5 x 105 cycles and are above the mean curve at longer lives. Thus, above 5 x 105 cycles, the Code mean curve is conservative with respect to the existing fatigue c-N data.I1 I 9 The current Code mean data curves are either consistent with the existing fatigue E-N data or are somewhat conservative under some conditions.
g 4.1.2 Temperature In air, the fatigue life of both carbon and low-alloy steels decreases with increasing temperature; however, the effect is relatively small (less than a factor of 1.5). Fatigue a-N data from the JNUFAD database and other investigations in air at 286-300'C are shown in Fig. 4. For each grade of steel, the data represent several heats of material.
The best-fit curves for carbon and low-alloy steels at room I temperature (Eqs. 15 and 16 from Section 4.1.8) and at 289&deg;C (Eqs. 13 and 14 from Section 4.1.8) are also included in the figures. The results indicate a factor of z1.5 decrease in fatigue life of both carbon and low-alloy steels as the temperature is increased from room temperature to 300&deg;C. As discussed later in Section 4.1.7, the greater-than-predicted difference between the best-fit air curve at room temperature and the data for A106-Gr B steel at 289&deg;C is due to heat-to-heat variability and not temperature effects.& The effect of temperature is not explicitly considered in the mean data curve used for obtaining the I fatigue design curves; variations in fatigue life due to temperature are accounted for in the subfactor for"data scatter and material variability."" Carbon .Steel i I I Low-Alloy Steel 288-300C ' Air 286-300&deg;C Air Best-Fit Air Bet-i Air.ANL Model II \\ / ANL Model Room Temperature Room Temperature C) A333 i 0 A508-3 1 ...0 I Ii._ I qi C r Si. * -i .... Beatq_ FitoO~ Air,/. ,-N Moe -.-. ANL- 01 ._ o9 deI!Best Fit Ai 01 NL 28est ... 01o-del _ _ _ _ _ _ 1_102 10 3  10 4  10 5  1 06 10 7  108 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Fatigue Life (Cycles) Fatigue Life (Cycles)Figure 4. Fatigue strain vs. life data for carbon and low-alloy steels in air at 288&deg;C (JNUFAD database, and Refs. 4,12,13,42,43).
I 4.1.3 Strain Rate The effect of strain rate on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels in air appears to depend on the material composition.
The existing data indicate that in the temperature range of dynamic strain aging (200-370'C), some heats of carbon and low-alloy steel are sensitive to strain rate; with decreasing strain rate, the fatigue life in air may be either unaffected, 4 decrease for some heats, 9 1 or increase for others.9 2 The C and N contents in the steel are considered to be important.
Inhomogeneous plastic I deformation can result in localized plastic strains. This localization retards blunting of propagating cracks that is usually expected when plastic deformation occurs and can result in higher crack growth rates.9 1 The increases in fatigue life have been attributed to retardation of CGRs due to crack branching and suppression of the plastic zone. Formation of cracks is easy in the presence of dynamic strain aging.9 2* Variations in fatigue life due to the effects of strain rate are not explicitly considered in the fatigue design curves, they are accounted for in the subfactor for "data scatter and material variability." 12 1100 1000 CL 900 0< 800 0O 700 600 tO A106-Gr B Carbon Steel A t 0.7 '" -I o A'A~Strain Rate %Is)Open Sym~bp s 0~4A Closed Symaols: 0.004 Al.R. a A... ...... ....... ...L+ Ro om-Temperature Air'1100 1000 900-I''"! ' ''''" ' '' ' " ' '' ' " A533-Gr B Low-Alloy Steel i 7 5t o/07 5--A~t =0.7 %-0 D to 0~0 e5 0t Co 0at U)ouu 700 600 500 Stra__ i R ______Open S" Closed Symbols: 0.004 288 C Air _A Room Temperature Air 500'+u 4UU 100 lot 102 Number of Cycles 40U 101 102 Number of Cycles 103 104 Figure 5. Effect of strain rate and temperature on cyclic stress of carbon and low-alloy steels.4.1.4 Sulfide Morphology Some high-S steels exhibit very poor fatigue properties in certain orientations because of structural factors such as the distribution and morphology of sulfides in the steel. For example, fatigue tests on a high-S heat of A302-Gr. B steel in three orientations*
in air at 288&deg;C indicate that the fatigue life and fatigue limit in the T2 orientation are lower than those in the R and TI orientations.
4 At low strain rates, fatigue life in the T2 orientation is nearly one order of magnitude lower than in the R orientation.
In the orientation with poor fatigue resistance, crack propagation is preferentially along the sulfide stringers and is facilitated by sulfide cracking.* Variations in fatigue life due to differences in sulfide morphology are accountedfor in the subfactor for "data scatter and material variability.
" 4.1.5 Cyclic Strain Hardening Behavior The cyclic stress-strain response of carbon and low-alloy steels varies with steel type, temperature, and strain rate. In general, these steels show initial cyclic hardening, followed by cyclic softening or a saturation stage at all strain rates. The carbon steels, with a pearlite and ferrite structure and low yield stress, exhibit significant initial hardening.
The low-alloy steels, with a tempered bainite and ferrite structure and a relatively high yield stress, show little or no initial hardening and may exhibit cyclic softening with continued cycling. For both steels, maximum stress increases as applied strain increases and generally decreases as temperature increases.
However, at 200-370'C, these steels exhibit dynamic strain aging, which results in enhanced cyclic hardening, a secondary hardening stage, and negative strain rate sensitivity.
9 1 , 9 2 The temperature range and extent of dynamic strain aging vary with composition and structure.
The effect of strain rate and temperature on the cyclic stress response of AI 06-Gr B carbon steel and A533-Gr B low-alloy steel is shown in Fig. 5. For both steels, cyclic stresses are higher at 288&deg;C than at room temperature.
At 288&deg;C, all steels exhibit greater cyclic and secondary hardening because of dynamic strain aging. The extent of hardening increases as the applied strain rate decreases.
Both transverse (T) and radial (R) directions are perpendicular to the rolling direction, but the fracture plane is across the thickness of the plate in the transverse orientation and parallel to the plate surface in the radial orientation.
13 I The cyclic strain hardening behavior is likely to influence the fatigue limit of the material; variations in fatigue life due to the effects of strain hardening are not explicitly considered in the fatigue design curves, they are accounted for in the subfactor for "data scatter and material variability." 4.1.6 Surface Finish 3 The effect of surface finish must be considered to account for the difference in fatigue life expected in an actual component with industrial-grade surface finish, compared with the smooth polished surface of a test specimen.
Fatigue life is sensitive to surface finish; cracks can initiate at surface irregularities I that are normal to the stress axis. The height, spacing, shape, and distribution of surface irregularities are important for crack initiation.
The most common measure of roughness is average surface roughness Ra, which is a measure of the height of the irregularities.
Investigations of the effects of surface roughness on the low-cycle fatigue of Type 304 SS in air at 593&deg;C indicate that fatigue life decreases as surface roughness increases.
9 3 , 9 4 The effect of roughness on crack initiation Ni(R) is given by Ni(Rq) = 1012 Rq 0 2 1 , (12) i where the root-mean-square (RMS) value of surface roughness Rq is in pim. Typical values of Ra for surfaces finished by different metalworking processes in the automotive industry 9 5 indicate that an Ra of 3 jim (or an Rq of 4 jim) represents the maximum surface roughness for drawing/extrusion, grinding, honing, and polishing processes and a mean value for the roughness range for milling or turning processes.
For carbon steel or low-alloy steel, an Rq of 4 ltm in Eq. 12 (the Rq of a smooth polished I specimen is z0.0075 jim) would decrease fatigue life by a factor of z3.9 3 Fatigue test has been conducted on a A106-Gr B carbon steel specimen that was intentionally roughened in a lathe, under controlled conditions, with 50-grit sandpaper to produce circumferential I scratches with an average roughness of 1.2 [Lm and an Rq of 1.6 jim (z62 micro in.).3 9 The results for smooth and roughened specimens are shown in Fig. 6. In air, the fatigue life of a roughened A106-Gr B specimen is a factor of z3 lower than that of smooth specimens.
Another study of the effect of surface finish on the fatigue life of carbon steel in room-temperature air showed a factor of 2 decrease in life when Ra was increased from 0.3 to 5.3 gm.9 6 These results are consistent with Eq. 12. Thus, a factor of 2-3 on cycles may be used to account for the effects of surface finish on the fatigue life of carbon and I low-alloy steels.~i At06 Gr B Carbon Steel O Air. 0.0041,.s 289'C A Air., 0,01 1.0-.Figure 6.it '- Effect of surface finish on the fatigue life of E-.. Al 06-Gr B carbon steel in air at 289eC.< ASME Code A -c Design Curve U) 0.1 Open Symbols: Smooth Specimens Closed Symbols: Rough Surface, 50 grt paper 102 10 3  104 105 106 Fatigue Life (Cycles)14
* The effect of surface finish was not investigated in the mean data curve used to develop the Code fatigue design curves; it is included as part of the subfactor that is applied to the mean data curve to account for "surface finish and environment." 4.1.7 Heat-to-Heat Variability Several factors, such as small differences in the material composition and structure, can change the tensile and fatigue properties of the material.
The effect of interstitial element content on dynamic strain aging and the effect of sulfide morphology on fatigue life have been discussed in Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4, respectively.
The effect of tensile strength on the fatigue life has been included in the expression for the mean data curve described in the Section III criteria document, i.e., constant Af in Eq. 2. Also, the fatigue limit of a material has been correlated with its tensile strength, e.g., the fatigue limit increases with increasing tensile yield stress.9 7 The effects of material variability and data scatter must be included to ensure that the design curves not only describe the available test data well, but also adequately describe the fatigue lives of the much larger number of heats of material that are found in the field. The effects of material variability and data scatter are often evaluated by comparing the experimental data to a specific model for fatigue crack initiation, e.g., the best-fit (in some sense) to the data. The adequacy of the evaluation will then depend on the sample of data used in the analysis.
For example, if most of the data have been obtained from a heat of material that has poor resistance to fatigue damage or under loading conditions that show significant environmental effects, the results may be conservative for most of the materials or service conditions of interest.
Conversely, if most data are from a heat of material with a high resistance to fatigue damage, the results could be nonconservative for many heats in service.Another method to assess the effect of material variability and data scatter is by considering the best-fit curves determined from tests on individual heats of materials or loading conditions as samples of the much larger population of heats of materials and service conditions of interest.
The fatigue behavior of each of the heats or loading conditions is characterized by the value of the constant A in Eq. 6. The values of A for the various data sets are ordered, and median ranks are used to estimate the cumulative distribution of A for the population.
9 8 , 9 9 The distributions were fit to lognormal curves. No rigorous statistical evaluation was performed, but the fits seem reasonable and describe the observed variability adequately.
Results for carbon and low-alloy steels in air are shown in Fig. 7. The data were normalized to room-temperature values using Eqs. 13 and 14 (section 4.1.8). The median value of the constant A is 6.583 and 6.449, respectively, for the fatigue life of carbon steels and low-alloy steels in room-temperature air. Note that the two heats of A 106-Gr B carbon steel are in the 10-25 percentile of the data, i.e., the fatigue lives of these heats are much lower than the average value for carbon steels.The A values that describe the 5th percentile of these distributions give fatigue c-N curves that are expected to bound the fatigue lives of 95% of the heats of the material.
The cumulative distributions in Fig. 7 contain two potential sources of error. The mean and standard deviation of the population must be estimated from the mean and standard deviation of the sample, 1 0 0 and confidence bounds can then be obtained on the population mean and standard deviation in terms of the sample mean and standard deviation.
Secondly, even this condition does not fully address the uncertainty in the distribution because of the large uncertainties in the sample values themselves, i.e., the "horizontal" uncertainty in the actual value of A for a heat of material, as indicated by the error bars in Fig. 7. A Monte Carlo analysis was performed to address both sources of uncertainty.
The results for the median value and standard deviation of the constant A from the Monte Carlo analysis did not differ significantly from those determined directly from the experimental values.15 I 1 .0 ......... ....I ' ' 'J. ... .. .1 .0 .....i .....-% , -l .....-:Carbon Steel-.. .___j .... .Low-Alloy Steel---Air -Air 0. .75th Percentile 0.8 75th Percentile
.........
.. -r .. ..... r ... ...... .... ...= ...................
I ...... ...o _ I / ,I 0.6 -!0.6.t Median 6.583 I Median 6.449 .358 Data Points CI ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ...,-. ... ..i .. ... ....... .....r-li ....19 Heats --- [ 153 Data Points I --->5 0.4 .7" 1 8 Heats .V A302-B...---- E ......L ( A533-8 A.I ...... .." A5 3-B ,l,.. .0 0 AS33- 51 e51hn le l~6 Percen ile ~ v P02l.......2 t .... .: .! ........ .... .. ............. .....A 0 -1.... .3.(" ....... 0.2 A508-3(1)......J .. ..Ll......l.........
A, A333-6 (2) 0 < A508- (7)0 A 333-6(3) A 508 0M)55 6 .5 7A A333-6(5 A333-6 (7) A 15MnN63 0.000 0 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 Constant A Constant A I (a) (b)Figure 7. Estimated cumulative distribution of constant A in the ANL models for fatigue life for heats of (a) carbon steels and (b) low-alloy steels in air.The results for carbon and low-alloy steels are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively, in terms of values for A that provide bounds for the portion of the population and the confidence that is desired in the estimates of the bounds. In air, the 5th percentile value of Parameter A at a 95% confidence level is 5.559 for carbon steels and 5.689 for low-alloy steels. From Fig. 7, the median value of A for the sample is 6.583 for carbon steels and 6.449 for low-alloy steels. Thus, the 95/95 value of the margin to account for material variability and data scatter is 2.8 and 2.1 on life for carbon steels and low-alloy steels, respectively.
These margins are needed to provide 95% confidence that the resultant life will be greater than that observed for 95% of the materials of interest.
The margin is higher for carbon steels because the analysis is based on a smaller number of data sets, i.e., 19 for carbon steels and 32 for low-alloy steels.* The mean data curve used to develop the Code fatigue design curves represents the average behavior;heat-to-heat variability is included in the subfactor that is applied to the mean data curve to account for"data scatter and material variability." Table 2. Values of parameter A in the ANL fatigue life model for carbon steels in air and the margins on life as a function of confidence level and percentage of population bounded. I Confidence Percentage of Population Bounded (Percentile Distribution of A)Level 95(5) 90(10) 75(25) 67(33) 50(50)Values of Parameter A 50 5.798 5.971 6.261 6.373 6583 75 5.700 5.883 6.183 6.295 6.500 95 5.559 5.756 6.069 6.183 6.381 Margins on Life 50 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 75 2.4 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.1 95 2.8 2.3 1.7 1.5 1.2 I I I I I 16 Table 3. Values of parameter A in the ANL fatigue life model for low-alloy steels in air and the margins on life as a function of confidence level and percentage of population bounded.Confidence Percentage of Population Bounded (Percentile Distribution of A)Level 95 (5) 90(10) 75(25) 67(33) 50 (50)Values of Parameter A 50 5.832 5.968 6.196 6.284 6.449 75 5.774 5.916 6.150 6.239 6.403 95 5.689 5.840 6.085 6.175 6.337 Margins on Life 50 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.0 75 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.0 95 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.1 4.1.8 Fatigue Life Model Fatigue life models for estimating the fatigue lives of these steels in air based on the existing fatigue c-N data have been developed at ANL as best-fits of a Langer curve to the data.4 , 3 9 The fatigue life, N, of carbon steels is represented by In(N) = 6.614 -0.00124 T -1.975 ln(Ea- 0.113), (13)and that of low-alloy steels, by ln(N) = 6.480 -0.00124 T -1.808 ln(Ea- 0.151), (14)where Fa is applied strain amplitude
(%), and T is the test temperature
(&deg;C). Thus, in room-tetnperature air, the fatigue life of carbon steels is expressed as In(N) = 6.583 -1.975 ln(aa -0.113), (15)and that of low-alloy steels, by In(N) = 6.449- 1.808 ln(Ea- 0.151). (16)Note that these equations have been updated based on the analysis presented in Section 4.1.7;constant A in the equations is different from the value reported earlier in NUREG/CR-6583 and 6815.Relative to the earlier model, the fatigue lives predicted by the updated model are z2% higher for carbon steel and -16% lower for low-alloy steels. The experimental values of fatigue life and those predicted by Eqs. 15 and 16 for carbon and low-alloy steels in air are plotted in Fig. 8. The predicted fatigue lives show good agreement with the experimental values; the experimental and predicted values are within a factor of 3.9 The fatigue life models represent mean values offatigue life of specimens tested under fully reversed strain-controlled loading. The effects of parameters (such as mean stress, surface finish, size and geometry, and loading history) that are known to influence fatigue life are not explicitly considered in the model; such effects are accountedfor in the several subfactors that are applied to the mean data curve to obtain the Code fatigue design curve.17 I Carbon Steels Carbon Steels V C--Room Temperature
---- --- -- , --.. 100-290&deg;Cl rAr.................
.. "- ;i...., 0e o o1: : .j .. z&#xfd; -&#xa2; o. 6 0~ a 02--- ---- -1024 6 .G ..,, " !0 A333-GG. 0 ' ; -A333-Gr 10 ..... .101 .I.... ..101 10t to0 102 103 104 1o 5  10 6  101 102 103 104 10 5  106 Observed Life (Cycles) Observed Life (Cycles)(a) (b)I Low-Alloy Steels Low-Alloy Steels (b)Room Temperature Air 50-35 &deg;C Air 6 0-.7--..----[
104 ' .-7.." 0~0-t1o, 10 I I S-- ,-- -.1 0 1 1 0 3 1 , ....'a -? I 0 0 ! I 102 .... % *:- a;- ';. ... ? .... 102 I'.. ..0 A500-2 t le 1 10'lot 102 102 to 4  105 10e 10' 102 102 i04 10 106 I Observed Life (Cycles) Observed Life (Cycles)(c) (d)Figure 8. Experimental and predicted fatigue lives of (a, b) carbon steels and (c, d) low-alloy steels in air.4.1.9 Extension of the Best-Fit Mean Curve from 106 to 1011 Cycles The experimental fatigue c-N curves that were used to develop the current Code fatigue design I curve for carbon and low-alloy steels were based on low-cycle fatigue data (less than 2 x 105 cycles). The design curves proposed in this report are developed from a larger database that includes fatigue lives up to 108 cycles. Both the ASME mean curves and the ANL models in this report use the modified Langer equation to express the best-fit mean curves and are not recommended for estimating lives beyond the I range of the experimental data, i.e., in the high-cycle fatigue regime.An extension of the current high-cycle fatigue design curves in Section II and Section VIII, I Division 2, of the ASME Code for carbon and low-alloy steels from 106 to 101 cycles has been proposed by W. J. O'Donnell for the ASME Subgroup on Fatigue Strength.!
In the high-cycle regime, at temperatures not exceeding 371 'C (700'F), the stress amplitude vs. life relationship is expressed as 3 Sa = EFa = CIN-0 0 5 , (17)*W. J. O'Donnell, "Proposed Extension of ASME Code Fatigue Design Curves for Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels from 10 6 to l10l Cycles for I Temperatures not Exceeding 700&deg;F," presented to ASME Subgroup on Fatigue Strength December 4, 1996.-18 where Ea is applied strain amplitude, E is the elastic modulus, N is the fatigue life, and C 1 is a constant.
A fatigue life exponent of -0.05 was selected based on the fatigue stress range vs. fatigue life data on plain plates, notched plates, and typical welded structures given in Welding Research Council (WRC) Bulletin 398.101 Because these data were obtained from load-controlled tests with a load ratio R = 0, they take into account the effect of maximum mean stresses and, may over estimate the effect of mean stress under strain-controlled loading conditions.
Also, the fatigue data presented in Bulletin 398 extend only up to 5 x 106 cycles; extrapolation of the results to 1011 cycles using a fatigue life exponent of -0.05 may yield conservative estimates of fatigue life.Manjoine and Johnson 9 7 have developed fatigue design curves up to 1011 cycles for carbon steels and austenitic SSs from inelastic and elastic strain relationships, which can be correlated with ultimate tensile strength.
The log-log plots of the elastic strain amplitudes vs. fatigue life data are represented by a bilinear curve. In the high-cycle regime, the elastic-strain-vs.-life curve has a small negative slope instead of a fatigue limit.9 7 For carbon steel data at room temperature and 371&deg;C and fatigue lives extending up to 4 x 107 cycles, Manjoine and Johnson obtained an exponent of -0.01. The fatigue E-N data from the present study at room temperature and with fatigue lives up to 108 cycles yield a fatigue life exponent of approximately
-0.007 for both carbon and low-alloy steels. Because the data are limited, the more conservative value obtained by Manjoine and Johnson 9 7 is used. Thus, in the high-cycle regime, the applied stress amplitude is given by the relationship S, = EEa = C 2 N-0 0 1.(18)The high-cycle curve (i.e., Eq. 18) can be used to extend the best-fit mean curves beyond 106 cycles; the mean curves will exhibit a small negative slope instead of the fatigue limit predicted in the modified Langer equation.
The constant C 2 is determined from the value of strain amplitude at 108 cycles obtained from Eq. 15 for carbon steels and from Eq. 16 for low-alloy steels.4.1.10 Fatigue Design Curve Although the two mean curves for carbon and low-alloy steels (i.e., Eqs. 7 and 9) are significantly different, because the mean stress correction is much larger for the low-alloy steels, the differences between the curves is much smaller when mean stress corrections are considered.
Thus, the ASME Code provides a common curve for both carbon and low-alloy steels. Fatigue design curves for carbon steels and low-alloy steels based on the ANL fatigue life models can be obtained from Eqs. 15 and 18, and Eqs.16 and 18, respectively.
The best-fit curves are first corrected for mean stress effects by using the modified Goodman relationship, and the mean-stress adjusted curve is reduced by a factor of 2 on stress or 12 on cycles, whichever is more conservative.
The discussions presented later in Section 7.5 indicate that the current Code requirement of a factor of 20 on cycles, to account for the effects of material variability and data scatter, specimen size, surface finish, and loading history, is conservative by at least a factor of 1.7. Thus, to reduce this conservatism, fatigue design curves based on the ANL model for carbon and low-alloy steels have been developed using factors of 12 on life and 2 on stress. These design curves are shown in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively.
The current Code design curve for carbon and low-alloy steels with ultimate tensile strength (UTS) <552 MPa (<80 ksi) and the extension of the design curve to 1011 cycles proposed by W. J. O'Donnell are also included in the figures. The values of stress amplitude (Sa) vs. cycles for the ASME Code curve with O'Donnell's extension, and the design curve based on the updated ANL fatigue life model (i.e., Eqs. 15 and 18 for carbon steel and, 16 and 18 for low-alloy steel) are listed in Table 4.19
* For low-alloy steels, the current Code fatigue design curve for carbon and low-alloy steels with ultimate tensile strength <552 MPa (<80 ksi) is either consistent.
or conservative with respect to the existing fatigue E-N data. Also, discussions presented in Section 7.5 indicate that the current Code requirement of a factor of 20 on life is conservative by at least a factor of 1.7. Fatigue design curves have been developed from the ANL model using factors of 12 on life and 2 on stress.103 U)E Carbon Steels I UTS :552 MPa (-80 ksi)Air up to 371'C (7007F)E = 206.8 Ga..... -ASME Code Curve.ANL Model& Eq. 17____ANL Model & Eq 18 Carbon Steels .z"T lp7 u = 551.6 VMPa .oy = 275,8 MPa Figure 9.Fatigue design curve for carbon steels in air. The curve developed from the ANL model is based on factors of 12 on life and 2 on stress.102 101 102 10 3  104 105 106 10 7  108 log 1010 1011 Number of Cycles N IL CL~0 2 UO 103 Low-Alloy Steels UTS <552 MPa (-<80 ksi)Air up to 371'C (700TF):= E 206.8 GPa ASMOE Code Curve IANL ModeI & Eq.1___.... ANL Model & Eq 18 Low-Alloy Steels o = 689.5 MPa oy = 482.6 MPa i i I... ._...... J I I I ..I I Figure 10.Fatigue design curve for low-alloy steels in air. The curve developed from the ANL model is based on factors of 12 on life and 2 on stress.m I I m m I I I I m I m m I 102.101 102 103 104 10 5  106 107 108 109 1010 1011 Number of Cycles N Table 4. Fatigue design curves for carbon and low-alloy steels and proposed extension to 1011 cycles.Stress Amplitude (MPa/ksi)
Stress Amplitude (MPa/ksi)ASME Code Eqs. 15 & 18 Eqs. 16 & 18 ASME Code Eqs. 15 & 18 Eqs. 16 & 18 Cycles Curve Carbon Steel Low-Alloy Steel Cycles Curve Carbon Steel Low-Alloy Steel I E+O1 3999 (580) 5355 (777) 5467 (793) 2 E+05 114(16.5) 176 (25.5) 141 (20.5)2 E+01 2827 (410) 3830 (556) 3880 (563) 5 E+05 93 (13.5) 154 (22.3) 116(16.8)5 E+01 1896 (275) 2510 (364) 2438 (354) 1 E+06 86(12.5) 142 (20.6) 106 (15.4)1 E+02 1413 (205) 1820 (264) 1760 (255) 2 E+06 130 (18.9) 98(14.2)2E+02 1069(155) 1355(197) 1300(189) 5E+06 120(17.4) 94(13.6)5 E+02 724 (105) 935 (136) 900 (131) 1 E+07 76.5 (11.1) 115(16.7) 91 (13.2)1 E+03 572 (83) 733 (106) 720 (104) 2 E+07 110(16.0) 90(13.1)2 E+03 441 (64) 584 (84.7) 576 (83.5) 5 E+07 107 (15.5) 88(12.8)5 E+03 331 (48) 451 (65.4) 432 (62.7) 1 E+08 68.3 (9.9) 105 (15.2) 87(12.6)1 E+04 262 (38) 373 (54.1) 342 (49.6) 1 E+09 60.7 (8.8) 102 (14.8) 83 (12.0)2 E+04 214(31) 305(44.2) 276(40.0) 1 E+010 54.5(7.9) 97(14.1) 80(11.6)5 E+04 159(23) 238(34.5) 210(30.5) 1 E+01 1 48.3 (7.0) 94(13.6) 77(11.2)1 E+05 138 (20.0) 201 (29.2) 172 (24.9)20 4.2 LWR Environments 4.2.1 Experimental Data Fatigue a-N data on carbon and low-alloy steels in air and high-DO water at 288&deg;C are shown in Fig. 11. The curves based on the ANL models (Eqs. 20 and 21 in Section 4.2.12) are also included in the figures. The fatigue data in LWR environments indicate a significant decrease in fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels when four key threshold conditions are satisfied simultaneously, viz., applied strain range, service temperature, and DO in the water are above a minimum threshold level, and the loading strain rate is below a threshold value. The S content of the steel is also an important parameter for environmental effects on fatigue life. Although the microstructures and cyclic-hardening behavior of carbon steels and low-alloy steels are significantly different, environmental degradation of fatigue life of these steels is identical.
For both steels, environmental effects on fatigue life are moderate (i.e., it is a factor ofz2 lower) if any one of the key threshold conditions is not satisfied.
A533-Gr. B Low-Alloy Steel Strain Rate (%/s)288&deg;C 40.4 0, .004/0.4-ANL Model 17 0.4/0004* i 288&deg;C Air 1.0 ..... ] --... ..; -.........................
..... 1 .0 4) ANL Model Ia.289&deg;C High-DO Water-- 0 004%/s Strain Rate"-*i-.. E V- E* ,b->- ~ d-,>e 0 .1 .........
0 .1 Open Symbols: Air Closed Symbols: High DO Water I .... .I .... I I I I -..I Al 06-Gr. B Low-Alloy Stool Strain Rate (%/s)288&deg;C .- 0 4;0A 0, 0.004'0 4-I ANL Model V 0.4/0 004 i 288CAir A.... .--- --- -..- --,. ... .. ... ....,o -..-" ANL Model_ I 289&deg;C High-DO Water-.., .0004 %Is Strain Rate_, I --i. I Open Symbols: I Closed Symbols: High DO Water t 102 10 3  10 4  105 106 107 102 10 3  104 10 5  106 107 Fatigue Life (Cycles) Fatigue Life (Cycles)(a) (b)Figure 11. Strain amplitude vs. fatigue life data for (a) A533-Gr B and (b) A106-Gr B steels in air and high-dissolved-oxygen water at 2880C (Ref. 4).The existing fatigue data indicate that a slow strain rate applied during the tensile-loading cycle is primarily responsible for environmentally assisted reduction in- fatigue life of these steels.4  The mechanism of environmentally assisted reduction in fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels has been termed strain-induced corrosion cracking (SICC).4 8 , 5 5 , 5 6 A slow strain rate applied during both the tensile-load and compressive-load portion of the cycle (i.e., slow/slow strain rate test) does not further decrease the fatigue life, e.g., see solid diamonds and square in Fig. I lb for A 106-Gr 3 carbon steel.Limited data from fast/slow tests indicate that a slow strain rate during the compressive load cycle also decreases fatigue life. However, the decrease in life is relatively small; for fast/slow strain rate tests, the major contribution of environment most likely occurs during slow compressive loading near peak tensile load. For example, the fatigue life of A533-Gr B low-alloy steel at 288&deg;C, 0.7 ppm DO, and Z0.5%strain range decreased by factors of 5, 8, and 35 for the fast/fast, fast/slow, and slow/fast tests, respectively, i.e., see solid circles, diamonds, and inverted triangles in Fig. 1 la. Similar results have been observed for A333-Gr 6 carbon steel;1 7 relative to the fast/fast test, fatigue life for slow/fast and fast/slow tests at 288&deg;C, 8 ppm DO, and 1.2% strain range decreased by factors of 7.4 and 3.4, respectively.
The environmental effects on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels are consistent with the slip oxidation/dissolution mechanism for crack propagation.
1 0 2 , 1 0 3 A critical concentration of sulfide 21 (S 2-) or hydrosulfide (HS-) ions, which is produced by the dissolution of sulfide inclusions in the steel, is required at the crack tip for environmental effects to occur. The requirements of this mechanism are that a protective oxide film is thermodynamically stable to ensure that the crack will propagate with a high aspect ratio without degrading into a blunt pit, and that a strain increment occurs to rupture that oxide film and thereby expose the underlying matrix to the environment.
Once the passive oxide film is ruptured, crack extension is controlled by dissolution of freshly exposed surface and by the oxidation characteristics.
The effect of the environment increases with decreasing strain rate. The mechanism assumes that environmental effects do not occur during the compressive load cycle, because during that period water does not have access to the crack tip.A model for the initiation or cessation of environmentally assisted cracking (EAC) of these steels in low-DO PWR environments has also been proposed.1 0 4  Initiation of EAC requires a critical concentration of sulfide ions at the crack tip, which is supplied with the sulfide ions as the advancing crack intersects the sulfide inclusions, and the inclusions dissolve in the high-temperature water. Sulfide ions are removed from the crack tip by one or more of the following processes: (a) diffusion due to the concentration gradient, (b) ion transport due to differences in the electrochemical potential (ECP), and (c) fluid flow induced within the crack due to flow of coolant outside the crack. Thus, environmentally enhanced CGRs are controlled by the synergistic effects of S content, environmental conditions, and flow rate. The EAC initiation/cessation model has been used to determine the minimum crack extension and CGRs that are required to maintain the critical sulfide ion concentration at the crack tip and sustained environmental enhancement of growth rates.* A L WR environment has a significant effect on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels; such effects are not considered in the current Code design curve. Environmental effects may be incorporated into the Code fatigue evaluation using the Fen approach described in Section 4.2.13.4.2.2 Strain Rate The effects of strain rate on fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels in LWR environments are significant when other key threshold conditions, e.g., strain amplitude, temperature, and DO content, are satisfied.
When any one of the threshold conditions is not satisfied, e.g., low-DO PWR environment or temperature
<150'C, the effects of strain rate are consistent with those observed in air.When all thresholdconditions are satisfied, the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels decreases logarithmically with decreasing strain rate below 1%/s. The fatigue lives of A106-Gr B and A333-Gr 6 carbon steels and A533-Gr B low-alloy steel 4 , 1 7 are plotted as a function of strain rate in Fig. 12. Only a moderate decrease in fatigue life is observed in simulated (low-DO) PWR water, e.g., at DO levels of<0.05 ppm. For the heats of A 106-Gr B carbon steel and A533-Gr B low-alloy steel, the effect of strain rate on fatigue life saturates at zO.001%/s strain rate. Although the data for A333-Gr 6 carbon steel at 250'C and 8 ppm DO do not show an apparent saturation at zO.001%/s strain rate, the results are comparable to those for the other two steels.In L WR environments, the effect of strain rate on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels is explicitly considered in Fen given in Eqs. 27 and 28 (Section 4.2.13). Also, guidance is provided for defining the strain rate for a specific stress cycle or load set pair.I 22!
A106-Gr B Carbon Steel A333-Gr 6 Carbon Steel 104 288 &deg;C. E! =0.4% 104 250 &deg;C, E&#xfd; =0.6%&#xfd;p 103 gj" 103 A x a) a)LL U_102 ...r ....-. 102 -A 0Simulated P0,,R 0 Samulated PWR[ i 0.7 ppm DO 8 ppm DO 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 Strain Rate (%/s) Strain Rate (%/s)(a) (b)1 .- ' .......! ........ 102......A533-Gr B Low-Alloy Steel 104 288&deg;C, =0.4%. .U) 0...Figure 12..2 10 3  ,.-.*Dependence of fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy a) steels on strain rate (Refs. 4, 17).LL, 102 .... ... Ar C sndwU~d P/P/n A 60.7 ppm DO...... I ......t .... ..i ,. ..... .I , , ,, 10-5 10-4 10-3  10-2 10-1 100 Strain Rate (%/s)(c)4.2.3 Strain Amplitude A minimum threshold strain range is required for environmentally assisted decrease in fatigue life, i.e., the LWR coolant environments have no effect on the fatigue life of these steels at strain ranges below the threshold value. The fatigue lives of A533-Gr B and A 106-Gr B steels in high-DO water at 288&deg;C and various strain rates 4 are shown in Fig. 11. Fatigue tests at low strain amplitudes are rather limited.Because environmental effects on fatigue life increase with decreasing strain rate, fatigue tests at low strain amplitudes and strain rates that would result in significant environmental effects are restrictively time consuming.
For the limited data that are available, the threshold strain amplitude (one-half the threshold strain range) appears to be slightly above the fatigue limit of these steels.Exploratory fatigue tests with changing strain rate have been conducted to determine the threshold strain range beyond which environmental effects are significant during a fatigue cycle. The tests are performed with waveforms in which the slow strain rate is applied during only a fraction of the tensile loading cycle.4 , 1 8 The results for AI06-Gr B steel tested in air and low- and high-DO environments at 288&deg;C and z0.78% strain range are summarized in Fig. 13. The waveforms consist of segments of loading and unloading at fast and slow strain rates. The variation in fatigue life of two heats of carbon steel and one heat of low-alloy steel 4 , 1 8 is plotted as a function of the fraction of loading strain at slow strain rate in Fig. 14. Open symbols indicate tests where the slow portions occurred near the maximum tensile strain, and closed symbols indicate tests where the slow portions occurred near the maximum compressive strain. In Fig. 14, if the relative damage was the same at all strain levels, fatigue life should decrease linearly from A to C along the chain-dot line. Instead, the results indicate that during a strain 23 I cycle, the relative damage due to slow strain rate occurs only after the strain level exceeds a threshold value. The threshold strain range for these steels is 0.32-0.36%.
Loading histories with slow strain rate applied near the maximum tensile strain (i.e., waveforms C, D, E, or F in Fig. 13) show continuous decreases in life (line AB in Fig. 14) and then saturation when a portion of the slow strain rate occurs at strain levels below the threshold value (line BC in Fig. 14). In contrast, loading histories with slow strain rate applied near maximum compressive strain (i.e., waveforms G, H, or I in Fig. 13) produce no damage (line AD in Fig. 14a) until the fraction of the strain is sufficiently large that slow strain rates are occurring for strain levels greater than the threshold I value. However, tests with such loading histories often show lower fatigue lives than the predicted values, e.g., solid inverted triangle or solid diamond in Fig. 14a.Similar strain-rate-change tests on austenitic SSs in PWR environments have also showed the i existence of a strain threshold below which the material is insensitive to environmental effects.2 9 The threshold strain range Acth appears to be independent of material type (weld metal or base metal) and temperature in the range of 250-325&deg;C, but it tends to decrease as the strain range is decreased.
The n threshold strain range has been expressed -in terms of the applied strain range Ac by the equation Acth/Ac = -0.22 Ae + 0.65. (19)This expression may also be used for carbon and low-alloy steels.Fmcbon of st in at slow tot 0 Ft-rof tniin ar srole: IFraction of strain at slow tate: 0170 A B C Air: 3,253; 3,753 Air: 3,721; 3,424; 6,275 Air: 4,122 PWR: 2,230; 1,525 PWR: 2,141 PWR: -Hi DO: 2,077; 1,756 Hi DO: 303; 469 Hi DO: 888 Fractron of strain at slow ale: 0.347 F action of strain a so, rate: 0666 F'racton of strain at slow rate: 083_~ 7 i, D E F Air: 5,139 Air: 5,261 Air: 3,893 PWR: -PWR: -PWR: -Hi DO: 615; 553 Iii DO: 545 Hi DO: 340 Fraction of strain at slow rate: 0.167 Fraction of strain at slo rate. 0.334 Fraction of strain at slow rate: 065 V , i VV G H I Air: 4,087 Air: -Air: 4,356 I PWR: -PWR: -PWR: -Hli DO: 1,649; 2,080 Hi DO: 1,935 Hi DO: 615 Figure 13. Fatigue life of A106-Gr B carbon steel at 2880C and 0.75% strain range in air and water environments under different loading waveforms (Ref. 4). I 24 101 A!A 1 O0 A W 0 -_0t.X Slew nte applied neat Open Sytbo[s peak tesle S Ceaed Symnols peat tempt.Al 06-&r. B Carbon Steel 289"C Strain Range nO.78%Average Life in Air 10 103 A 0O5Pt ptt 00 Avc Life in PVWR.Water STS410 Carbon Steel 288&deg;C Stnain Range -1.2%Average Life in Air AV. Life in PWR Water 8 =036%&deg;e~v train ,w .iv t, , .in , , i c!1 13 2 %.........
r,, -0.32%C SOtot rate applied near Open Symbols: peak tensile Wttain Closed Spybols: peak eampteaine strain D 0,0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Fraction of Strain at Slow Strain Rate (a)1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Fraction of Strain at Slow Strain Rate (b)1.0 10 4 S!f-A533-Gr. B Low-Alloy Steel 289*C Strain Range =0.78%Average Life in Air Av. Life in PWR WNater A PWP 0 .8 pp o B t 0 h 0.32%Slo tate applied near Open Symbols: peak tensile niean CIosed Symbols: peak conptnese train Figure 14.Fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels tested with loading waveforms where slow strain rate is applied during a fraction of tensile loading cycle (Refs. 4, 18).101 C ln2 .,,it,,,,,i,,,',,,]0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Fraction of Strain at Slow Strain Rate (c)1.0 The modified rate approach, described in Section 4.2.14, has been used to predict the results from tests on four heats of carbon and low-alloy steels conducted with changing strain rate in low- and high-DO water at 289'C.1 8 The results indicate that the modified rate approach, without the consideration of a strain threshold, gives the best estimates of life (Fig. 15). Most of the scatter in the data is due to heat-to-heat variation rather than any inaccuracy in estimation of fatigue life; for the same loading conditions, the fatigue lives of Heat #2 of STS410 steel are a factor of z5 lower than those of Heat #1. The estimated fatigue lives are within a factor of 3 of the experimental values.* In L WR coolant environments, the procedure for calculating Fen, defined in Eqs. 27 and 28 (Section 4.2.13), includes a threshold strain range below which environment has no effect on fatigue life, i.e., Fen= 1. However, while using the damage rate approach to determine Fen for a stress cycle or load set pair, including a threshold strain (Eq. 31 in Section 4.2.14) may yield nonconservative estimates of life.25 10~4 102 Carbon & Low-Alloy Steels V STS410 Ili (, STS4t0 #2 AlSo-b Fa ctor ..A-//Figure 15.Experimental values of fatigue life and those predicted from the modified rate approach without consideration of a threshold strain (Ref. 18).0 , .' Modified Rate Approach without strain threshold Slow rate measured from peak Open Symbols: tensile strain Closed Symbols: compressive strain I ...I. ....I .../I I I I I I I U I I 102 103 Experimental Life (Cycles)4.2.4 Temperature The change in fatigue life of two heats of A333-Gr 6 carbon steel 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 6 with test temperature at different levels of DO is shown in Fig. 16. Other parameters, e.g., strain amplitude and strain rate, were kept constant; the applied strain amplitude was above and strain rate was below the critical threshold.
In air, the two heats have a fatigue life of -3300 cycles. The results indicate a threshold temperature of 150'C, above which environment decreases fatigue life if DO in water is also above the critical level.In the temperature range of 150-320'C, the logarithm of fatigue life decreases linearly with temperature; the decrease in life is greater at high temperatures and DO levels. Only a moderate decrease in fatigue life is observed in water at temperatures below the threshold value of 150&deg;C or at DO levels <0.05 ppm.Under these conditions, fatigue life in water is a factor of z2 lower than in air; Fig. 16 shows an average life of zz2000 cycles for the heat with 0.015 wt.% S, and z1200 cycles for the 0.012 wt.% S steel.a)a)U-103 -*to:- IO5 10 3 3 102 300 350 0 3-Gr 6 Carbon Steel 0.6%, S = 0.012 wt.%----- ----li t I, 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Temperature
(&deg;C)0 50 100 150 200 250 Temperature
(&deg;C)Figure 16. Change in fatigue life of A333-Gr 6 carbon steel with temperature and DO.26 I I I I An artificial neural network (ANN) has also been used to find patterns and identify the threshold temperature below which environmental effects are moderate.1 0 5  The main benefits of the ANN approach are that estimates of life are based purely on the data and not on preconceptions, and by learning trends, the network can interpolate effects where data are not present. The factors that affect fatigue life can have synergistic effects on one another. A neural network can detect and utilize these effects in its predictions.
A neural network, consisting of two hidden layers with the first containing ten nodes and the second containing six nodes, was trained six times; each training was based on the same data set, but the order in which the data were presented to the ANN for training was varied, and the initial ANN weights were randomized to guard against overtraining and to ensure that the network did not arrive at a solution that was a local minimum. The effect of temperature on the fatigue life of carbon steels and low-alloy steels estimated from ANN is shown in Fig. 17 as dashed or dotted lines. The solid line represents estimates based on the ANL model, and the open circles represent the experimental data. The results indicate that at high strain rate (0.4%/s), fatigue life is relatively insensitive to temperature.
At low strain rate (0.004%/s), fatigue life decreases with an increase in temperature beyond a threshold value of z1 50'C. The precision of the data indicates that this trend is present in the data used to train the ANN.Nearly all of the fatigue c-N data have been obtained under loading histories with constant strain rate, temperature, and strain amplitude.
The actual loading histories encountered during service of nuclear power plants involve variable loading and environmental conditions.
Fatigue tests have been conducted in Japan on tube specimens (1- or 3-mm wall thickness) of A333-Gr 6 carbon steel in oxygenated water under combined mechanical and thermal cycling.1 5 Triangular waveforms were used for both strain and temperature cycling. Two sequences were selected for temperature cycling (Fig. 18): En (-2 II).0 76 LL 10 4 10 3 102 Carbon Steels 0.012 wt.% Sulfur 0 Dissolved Oxygen = 0.2 ppm Strain Rate 0.4 %/s E =0.6%aI)Li)-u C-L 0 50 100 150 200 250 Temperature
(&deg;C)300 350 10-Carbon Steels 0.012 wt.% Sulfur 3.103' """-Lo Dissolved Oxygen 0.2 ppm Strain Rate 0.004 %/s= 0.6%102 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Temperature
(&deg;C)104 , ,I -Low-Alloy Steels 0.012 wt.% Sulfur=0.6%3 10 -~Dissolved Oxygen 0.2 ppm Strain Rate 0.004 %/s 102 .1 ..." .I .I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Temperature
(&deg;C)CU ci)104 Low-Alloy Steels 0.012 wt.% Sulfur=0.6%3 10 Dissolved Oxygen = 0.2 ppm Strain Rate = 0.4 %/s U)ci)>4 0 ci)-J ci)0)(S U-1U-0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Temperature
(&deg;C)350 Figure 17. Dependence of fatigue life on temperature for carbon and low-alloy steels in water.27 an in-phase sequence in which temperature cycling was synchronized with mechanical strain cycling, and another sequence in which temperature and strain were out of phase, i.e., maximum temperature occurred at minimum strain level and vice versa. Three temperature ranges, 50-290'C, 50-200'C, and 200-290'C, were selected for the tests. The results are shown in Fig. 19; an average temperature is used to plot the thermal cycling tests. Because environmental effects on fatigue life are moderate and independent of temperature below 150'C, the temperature for tests cycled in the range of 50-290'C or 50-200'C was determined from the average of 150"C and the maximum temperature.
The results in Fig. 19 indicate that load cycles involving variable temperature conditions may be represented by an average temperature, e.g., the fatigue lives from variable-temperature tests are comparable with those from constant-temperature tests.0.6 0.6 C._)High CL E I-Low C ci, High E 4)I--Low-0.6-0.6 Figure 18. Waveforms for change in temperature during exploratory fatigue tests.C)10, LL 102 A333-Gr. 6.Carbon Steel Tube specimen; 3-mm wall-&#xfd; = 0.6%; c = 0.002 %/s S = 0.012 wt.%; DO 1 ppm... ..........
.....................
[ ................ ' " Temperature.
I 0 Constant I A In phase --.. ..O ut of p"rase 104~75 103 a)2)76 0)....I ...I ...I ....i ....i ...i ...A333-Gr. 6 Carbon Steel I Temperature]
i0 Constant Tube specimen; 1-mm walt i E. = 0.6%.: = 0.002 %Is A M phasieI S = 0.012 wt.%, DO t ppmat.. ...... .........
......................
......... ...... .I ..........., , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Temperature
(&deg;C)35 03 50 100 150 200 250 300 Temperature
(&deg;C)350 Figure 19. Fatigue life of A333-Gr 6 carbon steel tube specimens under varying temperature, indicated by horizontal bars.However, the nearly identical fatigue lives of the in-phase and out-of-phase tests are somewhat surprising.
If we consider that the tensile-load cycle is primarily responsible for environmentally assisted reduction in fatigue life, and that the applied strain and temperature must be above a minimum threshold value for environmental effects to occur, then fatigue life for the out-of-phase tests should be longer than for the in-phase tests, because applied strains above the threshold strain occur at temperatures above 150"C for in-phase tests, whereas they occur at temperatures below 150'C for the out-of-phase tests. If environmental effects on fatigue life are considered to be minimal below the threshold values of 150'C for temperature and <0.25 % for strain range, the average temperatures for the out-of-phase tests at 28 50-290&deg;C, 50-200'C, and 200-290'C should be 195, 160, and 236&deg;C, respectively, instead of 220, 175, and 245&deg;C, as plotted in Fig. 19. Thus, the fatigue lives of out-of-phase tests should be at least 50%higher than those of the in-phase tests. Most likely, difference in the cyclic hardening behavior of the material is affecting fatigue life of the out-of-phase tests.* In L WR environments, the effect of temperature on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels is explicitly considered in Fen defined in Eqs. 27 and 28 (Section 4.2.13). Also, an average temperature may be used to calculate Fen for a specific stress cycle or load set pair.4.2.5 Dissolved Oxygen The dependence of fatigue life of carbon steel on DO content in water 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 6 is shown in Fig. 20.The test temperature, applied strain amplitude, and S content in steel were above, and strain rate was below, the critical threshold value. The results indicate a minimum DO level of 0.04 ppm above which environment decreases the fatigue life of the steel. The effect of DO content on fatigue life saturates at 0.5 ppm, i.e., increases in DO levels above 0.5 ppm.do not cause further decreases in life. In Fig. 20, for DO levels between 0.04 and 0.5 ppm, fatigue life appears to decrease logarithmically with DO. Estimates of fatigue life from a trained ANN also show a similar effect of DO on the fatigue life of carbon steels and low-alloy steels.1 0 4 .....J ........I ....1 0 4 ..........t ....A333-6 Steel 288'C A333-6 Steel 250'C Strain Amplitude:
0.6% Strain Amplitude:
0.6%'AA O103-U 13C W 0U 00--J O 0) O .Strain Rate (%Nsi i o' Strain Rate (%/s), C0 0.004 (0012% S) ' 0 0.004 (0.012% S)0A 0.0 1005 i ,0;51, 10 102 001 (0.015% S &#xfd; 1 0 C 0.002 (0.012% S)102 0 ",,r.,.,,:S'*
0102 0 0.002 iO, 012% S)F .-I .l I , I I I I 'd I --f llll .I 1 I I 1 -I .' 1 -1 .I I -I I .I .... ! .' , , ;10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 10'Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) Dissolved Oxygen (ppm)Figure 20. Dependence on DO of fatigue life of carbon steel in high-purity water.Environmental effects on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels are minimal at DO levels below 0.04 ppm, i.e., in low-DO PWR or hydrogen-chemistry BWR environments.
In contrast, environmental enhancement of CGRs has been observed in low-alloy steels even in low-DO water.1 0 4 This apparent inconsistency of fatigue c-N data with the CGR data may be attributed to differences in the environment at the crack tip. The initiation of environmentally assisted enhancement of CGRs in low-alloy steels requires a critical level of sulfides at the crack tip.1 0 4 The development of this critical sulfide concentration requires a minimum crack extension of 0.33 mm and CGRs in the range of 1.3 x 10-4 to 4.2 x 10-7 mrm/s. These conditions are not achieved under typical s-N tests. Thus, environmental effects on fatigue life are expected to be insignificant in low-DO environments.
e In L WR environments, effect of DO level on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels is explicitly considered in Fen, defined in Eqs. 27 and 28 (Section 4.2.13).29 I 4.2.6 Water Conductivity In most studies the DO level in water has generally been considered the key environmental I parameter that affects the fatigue life of materials in LWR environments.
Studies on the effect of the concentration of anionic impurities in water (expressed as the overall conductivity of water), are somewhat limited. The limited data indicate that the fatigue life of WB36 low-alloy steel-,at 177&deg;C in water with :8 ppm DO decreased by a factor of z6 when the conductivity of water was increased from 0.06 to 0.5 gS/cm.4 8'1 0 6 A similar behavior has also been observed in another study of the effect of conductivity on the initiation of short cracks. 1 0 7  ** Normally, plants are unlikely to accumulate many fatigue cycles under off-normal conditions.
Thus, effects of water conductivity on fatigue life have not been considered in the determination of Fen.4.2.7 Sulfur Content in Steel It is well known that S content and morphology are the most important material-related parameters I that determine susceptibility of low-alloy steels to environmentally enhanced fatigue CGRs.1 0 8-1 11 A critical concentration of S2- or HS- ions is required at the crack tip for environmental effects to occur.Both the corrosion fatigue CGRs and threshold stress intensity factor AKth are a function of the S content l in the range 0.003-0.019 wt.%.1 10 The probability of environmental enhancement of fatigue CGRs in precracked specimens of low-alloy steels appears to diminish markedly for S contents <0.005 wt.%.The fatigue c-N data for low-alloy steels also indicate a dependence of fatigue life on S content. *When all the threshold conditions are satisfied, environmental effects on the fatigue life increase with increased S content. The fatigue lives of A508-C1 3 steel with 0.003 wt.% S'and A533-Gr B steel with 0.010 wt.% S are plotted as a function of strain rate in Fig. 21. However, the available data sets are too sparse to establish a functional form for dependence of fatigue life on S content and to define either a threshold for S content below which environmental effects are unimportant or an upper limit above which the effect of S on fatigue life may saturate.
A linear dependence of fatigue life on S content has been assumed in correlations for estimating fatigue life of carbon steels and low-alloy steels in LWR environments.
4 , 7 9 The limited data suggest that environmental effects on fatigue life saturate at S contents above 0.015 wt.%.4 The existing fatigue c-N data also indicate significant reductions in fatigue life of some heats of carbon steel with S levels as low as 0.002 wt.%. The fatigue lives of several heats of A333-Gr 6 carbon Low-Alloy Steel 288TC Strain Amplitude:
0.6% I .I 8 ppm Dissolved Oxygen , .Figure 21.1 3 ....... .......:igure 21" ..I Effect of strain rate on fatigue life of low-alloy V I steels with different S contents (JNUFAD U-102 --database and Ref. 4).0i I50-Cl 3 (0o003 Mio% S) 1 V A533-Gr B (0,010 M.1% S)101 10-5  10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 Strain Rate (%is)30lI steel with S contents of 0.002-0.015 wt.% in high-DO water at 288&deg;C and 0.6% strain amplitude are plotted as a function of strain rate in Fig. 22.4 Environmental effects on the fatigue life of these steels seem to be independent of S content in the range of 0.002-0.015 wt.%. However, these tests were conducted in air-saturated water (z8 ppm DO). The fatigue life of carbon steels seems to be relatively insensitive to S content in very high DO water, e.g., greater than I ppm DO; under these conditions, the effect of DO dominates fatigue life. In other words, the saturation DO level of 0.5 ppm most likely is for medium- and high-S steels (i.e., steels with >0.005 wt.% S); it may be higher for low-S steels.10 4 A333-Gr 6 Carbon Steel 288&deg;C Strain Amplitude:
0.6%8 ppm Dissolved Oxygen 103 ..............................
.Figure 22.L)V Effect of strain rate on the fatigue life of-.A333-Gr6 carbon steels with different S contents.0 102 ..... ................
Le Sulfur (wt.%)0 0.006 V7 0.012 A 0.002 101 -J I 1 '1 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 Strain Rate (%Is)In L WR environments, the effect of S content on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels is explicitly considered in Fen, defined in Eqs. 27 and 28 (Section 4.2.13). However, evaluation of experimental data on low-S steels (<O.005 wt. % S) in water with >1 ppm DO should be done with caution; the effect of S may be larger than that predicted by Eqs. 2 7 and 28.4.2.8 Tensile Hold Period Fatigue tests conducted using trapezoidal waveforms indicate that a hold period at peak tensile strain decreases the fatigue life of carbon steels in high-DO water at 289'C.4 , 1 8 However, a detailed examination of the data indicated that these results are either due to limitations of the test procedure or caused by a frequency effect. Loading waveforms, hysteresis loops, and fatigue lives for the tests on A106-Gr B carbon steel in air and water environments are shown in Fig. 23.4 A 300-s hold period is sufficient to reduce fatigue life by '50% (z2000 cycles without and z 1000 cycles with a hold period); a longer hold period of 1800 s results in only slightly lower fatigue life than that with a 300-s hold period.For example, two 300-s hold tests at 288&deg;C and z0.78% strain range in oxygenated water with 0.7 ppm DO gave fatigue lives of 1,007 and 1,092 cycles; life in a 1800-s hold test was 840 cycles. These tests were conducted in stroke-control mode and are somewhat different from the conventional hold-time test in strain-control mode, where the total strain in the sample is held constant during the hold period.However, a portion of the elastic strain is converted to plastic strain because of stress relaxation.
In a stroke-control test, there is an additional plastic strain in the sample due to relaxation of elastic strain from the load train (Fig. 23). Consequently, significant strain changes occur during the hold period; the ,measured plastic strains during the hold period were z0.028% from relaxation of the gauge and 0.05-0.06% from relaxation of the load train. These conditions resulted in strain rates of 0.005-0.02%/s during the hold period. The reduction in life may be attributed to the slow strain rates during the hold period.Also, frequency effects may decrease the fatigue life of hold time tests, e.g., in air, the fatigue life of stroke-control test with hold period is z50% lower than that without the hold period.31 Hold-time tests have also been conducted on STS410 carbon steel at 289&deg;C in water with 1 ppm DO. The results are given in Table 5.M8 The most significant observation is that a reduction in fatigue life occurs only for those hold-time tests that were conducted at fast strain rates, e.g., at 0.4%/s. At lower strain rates, fatigue life is essentially the same for the tests with or without hold periods. Based on these results, Higuchi et al.1 8 conclude that the procedures for calculating Fen need not be revised. Also, as discussed in Section 4.2.11, the differences in fatigue life of these tests are within the data scatter for the fatigue E-N data in LWR environments.
The existing data do not demonstrate that hold periods at peak tensile strain affect the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels in L WR environments.
Thus, any revision/modazcation of the method to determine Fen is not warranted 600 02 400 200 0-200-ij V /,.... .i .-- i .'. .... --i. -- -. .-----; I I 'I I-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 Strain (o 600 400 200 a 600 K I , I , T1 I, 400 0 200 R 0-200 i i -! .... ... ... ....-i / ; /i-7/l /ii_,j_ / i /. i _-/.. /," .~ ... ! ] i-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 04 Strain (%)I I I I I I I I I I I-400-600-200-400-600-400-600 Strain (%)Fraction of strain at slow rate: 0 Strain or Stroke Control Air: 4740+/-1250 cycles PWR: 1965+/-385 cycles High DO: 2077 cycles Strain Control Air: 6,275 cycles Stroke Control (5-min hold)Air: 2592 cycles High DO: 1007, 1092 cycles Stroke Control (30-min hold)High DO: 840 cycles I Figure 23. Fatigue life of Al 06-Gr B steel in air and water environments at 288&deg;C, 0.78% strain range, and hold period at peak tensile strain (Ref. 4). Hysteresis loops are for tests in air.32 I I I Table 5. Fatigue data for STS410 steel at 289&deg;C in water with 1 ppm DO and trapezoidal waveform.Strain Ampl. Hold Period at Peak Tensile / Compressive Strain Rate (%/s)(%) Tensile Strain (s) 0.4 /0.4 0.04 /0.4 0.01 /0.4 0.004 /0.4 0.6 0 489 240 118 0.6 60 328,405 238 138 0.6 600 173,217 --0.3 0 3270 1290 737 508 0.3 60 1840, 1760 1495 875 587 0.3 600 436, 625 --4.2.9 Flow Rate Nearly all of the fatigue E-N data for LWR environments have been obtained at very low water flow rates. Recent data indicate that, under the environmental conditions typical of operating BWRs, environmental effects on the fatigue life of carbon steels are at least a factor of 2 lower at high flow rates (7 m/s) than at 0.3 m/s or lower.1 9 , 2 0 , 4 4 The beneficial effects of increased flow rate are greater for high-S steels and at low strain rates.1 9 , 2 0  The effect of water flow rate on the fatigue life of high-S (0.0 16 wt.%) A333-Gr 6 carbon steel in high-purity water at 289&deg;C is shown in Fig. 24. At 0.3% strain amplitude, 0.01%/s strain rate, and all DO levels, fatigue life is increased by a factor ofz2 when the flow rate is increased from z10-5 to 7 m/s. At 0.6% strain amplitude and 0.001%/s strain rate, fatigue life is increased by a factor ofz6 in water with 0.2 ppm DO and by a factor of=3 in water with 1.0 or 0.05 ppm DO. Under similar loading conditions, i.e., 0.6% strain amplitude and 0.001%/s strain rate, a low-S (0.008 wt.%) heat of A333-Gr 6 carbon steel showed only a factor of increase in fatigue life with increased flow rates. Note that the beneficial effects of flow rate are determined from a single test on each material at very low flow rates; data scatter in LWR environments is typically a factor ofZ2.A factor of 2 increase in fatigue life was observed (Fig. 25) at KWU during component tests with 180' bends of carbon steel tubing (0.025 wt.% S) when internal flow rates of up to 0.6 m/s were established.
4 4 The tests were conducted at 240'C in water that contained 0.2 ppm DO.e Because of the uncertainties in the flow conditions at or near the locations of crack initiation, the beneficial effect offlow rate on the fatigue life is presently not included in fatigue evaluations.
104 ....A333-Gr 6 Carbon Steel (High-S) A333-Gr 6 Carbon Steel (High-S).104 z---------------------
0----,_.. .. .. _o. ..------q 103 ...... O 0-2) g 102 _8" DO (ppm) DO (ppm)ELLu 289'C e 1.0 289&deg;C G 1.0 Strain Amplitude 0.3% 0.2 Strain Amplitude 0.6% 0.2 102 Strain Rate 0.01%/s A-- 0.05 Strain Rate 0.001%/s A 0.05 L ,I , , , .., _ _"* I , 0, , , ,l, 5 ..H .I ,10 1 ,, , -I , , , , ,,,, , ,, , , , .,, I ",I ., 1 10-5  10-4  10-3  10-2 10-1 100 101 10-5 10-4  10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 Flow Rate (m/s) Flow Rate (m/s)(a) (b)Figure 24. Effect of water flow rate on fatigue life of A333-Gr 6 carbon steel at 289&deg;C and strain amplitude and strain rates of (a) 0.3% and 0.01 %/s and (b) 0.6% and 0.001 %/s.33 1.0 W 6 E 0.1 10;. .......ii I .....i ........; ; i i i I 'Carbon Steel (0.025% S)240'C, Strain Rate: 0.001%/s Best-Fit Curv' " RRT Air ASME Code " Design Curve 00 " Dissolved Oxygen 0; 0.2 ppm O 0.01 ppm Open Symbols; Low flow Closed Symbols: 0.6 m/s flow rate o 111 ve Figure 25.Effect of flow rate on low-cycle fatigue of carbon steel tube bends in high-purity water at 2400C (Ref. 44). RT = room temperature.
I I I1 102 103 Fatigue Life (Cycles)104 4.2.10 Surface Finish Fatigue testing has been conducted on specimens of carbon and low-alloy steels that were intentionally roughened in a lathe, under controlled conditions, with 50-grit sandpaper to produce circumferential scratches with an average roughness of 1.2 ltrm and Rq of 1.6 ltm (z62 micro in.).3 9 The results for A106-Gr B carbon steel and A533-Gr B low-alloy steel are shown in Fig. 26. In air, the fatigue life of rough A106-Gr B specimens is a factor of 3 lower than that of smooth specimens, and, in high-DO water, it is the same as that of smooth specimens.
In low-DO water, the fatigue life of the roughened A I06-Gr B specimen is slightly lower than that of smooth specimens.
The effect of surface roughness on the fatigue life of A533-Gr B low-alloy steel is similar to that for A106-Gr B carbon steel;in high-DO water, the fatigue lives of both rough and smooth specimens are the same. The results in water are consistent with a mechanism of growth by a slip oxidation/dissolution process, which seems unlikely to be affected by surface finish. Because environmental effects are moderate in low-DO water, surface roughness would be expected to influence fatigue life.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 a)n 0.F C CV U)I I I I II I I I'll I I I r TTI 1 1 Tj _ &#xfd; 1 1,1 A106 Gr B Carbon Steel .Air. 0.04D',/s 289&deg;C A Air, 0.0 %/s= 700 ppb DO Water, 0.004%/s V 5 ppb DO Water, ASME Code ." Design Curve 0 ".Open Symbols: Smooth Specimens Closed Symbols: Rough Surface, 50 grit paper 1.0 0 0.1..1I &#xfd; I I : ..l H .-.1 &#xfd; --I .i &#xfd;~~A533 Gr B Low-Alloy Steel .Ai 0.004%/s 289&deg;C A Air. 0.4%/s 0 =700 ppb DO Water,* 0.004%/s x...ASME Code Design Curve Open Symbols: Smooth Specimens Closed Symbols: Rough Surface, 50 grit paper 0.1 102 10 3  104 Fatigue Life (Cycles)10 5  101 102 1(0 3  10 4  105 Fatigue Life (Cycles)106 Figure 26. Effect of surface roughness on fatigue life of (a) A106-Gr B carbon steel and (b) A533 low-alloy steel in air and high-purity water at 289&deg;C.34 i i
* The effect of surface finish is not considered in the environmental fatigue correction factor; it is included in the subfactor for "surface finish and environment" that is applied to the mean data curve to develop the Code fatigue design curve in air.4.2.11 Heat-to-Heat Variability The effect of material variability and data scatter on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels has also been evaluated for LWR environments.
The fatigue behavior of each of the heats or loading conditions is characterized by the value of the constant A in the ANL models (e.g., Eq. 6). The values of A for the various data sets are ordered, and median ranks are used to estimate the cumulative distribution of A for the population.
Results for carbon and low-alloy steels in water environments are shown in Fig. 27. The median value of A in water is 5.951 for carbon steels and 5.747 for low-alloy steels. The results indicate that environmental effects are approximately the same for the various heats of these steels.For example, the cumulative distribution of data sets for specific heats is approximately the same in air and water environments.
The ANL model seem to overestimate the effect of environment for a few heats, e.g., the ranking for A533-Gr B heat 5 is --42 percentile in air and =95 percentile in water, and for A106-Gr B heat A, it is z17 percentile in air and varies from 2 to 60 percentile in water. Monte Carlo analyses were also performed for the fatigue data in LWR environments.
1.0 ...I I ..1 1 1 ..1 .. .I 11 0 W-carbon Steel t .... Low-Alloy Steel-Water Environmet Water
.0.8 -_ _.. -- 0.8 75th Percentile
/75th P 7 r e .......... .01 P-0.6 ------_T__ 0.6 -1" -...-. ___. 0 --Median5951
] _ rr -.---13Heat.--Median 5. L Median 5.747 i 327 Data Points-I--------
> -- ---..- , S ,e~a 8 Data Points 0.4 12 Heats 7 A302-8 0 I F'IU Prcetil~~~0 .A533-B (1.)5t i jjI j-- ( A,0- (T---25th ---
* A533-t3 U "I -es: --A533-B (1)Percenttile 0 A__-B (A) 02__ X A533-B (M)0.2 4 .. A3 06-B (2) 0.2 -V A-o-- (1 0.2i......}
i -A A333-6 (2) -.._ A508-2 (1)..........-
0 ---l A508-3 ( 1)0 A333-6 (3) 8 A0- 1_ _ ",A A333-6 (5) 0 A508-3 (7)A333-6 7) A508(M)0 .0 ,, 0 .0 11.. ... ............
.4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 Constant A Constant A Figure 27. Estimated cumulative distribution of parameter A in the ANL models for fatigue life for heats of carbon and low-alloy steels in LWR environments.
The results for carbon and low-alloy steels in LWR environments are summarized in Tables 6 and 7, respectively, in terms of values for A that provide bounds for the portion of the population and the confidence that is desired in the estimates of the bounds. In LWR environments, the 5th percentile value of parameter A at 95% confidence level is 5.191 for carbon steels and 4.748 for low-alloy steels. From Fig. 27, the median value of A for the sample is 5.951 for carbon steels and 5.747 for low-alloy steels.Thus, the 95/95 value of the margin to account for material variability and data scatter is 2.1 and 2.7 on life for carbon steels and low-alloy steels, respectively.
These margins are needed to provide 95%confidence that the resultant life will be greater than that observed for 95% of the materials of interest.35 Table 6. Values of parameter A in the ANL fatigue life model for carbon steels in water and the margins on life as a function of confidence level and percentage of population bounded.Confidence Percentage of Population Bounded (Percentile Distribution of A)Level 95(5) 90(10) 75(25) 67 (33i 50(50)Values of Parameter A 50 5.333 5.469 5.697 5.786 5.951 75 5.275 5.417 5.652 5.742 5.906 95 5.191 5.342 5.587 5.678 5.840 Margins on Life 50 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.0 75 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.0 95 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.1 Table 7. Values of parameter A in the ANL fatigue life model for low-alloy steels in water and the margins on life as a function of confidence level and percentage of population bounded.Confidence Percentage of Population Bounded (Percentile Distribution of A)Level 95(5) 90(10) 75(25) 67(33) 50 (50)Values of Parameter A 50 4.950 5.126 5.420 5.534 5.747 75 4.867 5.052 5.355 5.470 5.680 95 4.748 4.944 5.261 5.378 5.585 Margins on Life 50 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.0 75 2.4 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.1 95 2.7 2.2 1.6 1.4 1.2 The effect of heat-to-heat variability is not considered in the environmental fatigue correction factor;it is included in the subfactor for "data scatter and material variability" that is applied to the mean data curve to develop the Code fatigue design curve in air.4.2.12 Fatigue Life Model Fatigue-life models for estimating the fatigue lives of carbon and low-alloy steels in LWR environments based on the existing fatigue F-N data have been developed at ANL.4 , 3 9 The effects of key parameters, such as temperature, strain rate, DO content in water, and S content in the steel, are included in the correlations; the effects of these and other parameters on the fatigue life are discussed below in detail. The functional forms for the effects of strain rate, temperature, DO level in water, and S content in the steel were based on the data trends. For both carbon and low-alloy steels, the model assumes threshold and saturation values of 1.0 and 0.001%/s, respectively, for strain rate; 0.001 and 0.015 wt.%, respectively, for S; and 0.04 and 0.5 ppm, respectively, for DO. It also considers a threshold value of 150'C for temperature.
In the present report these models have been updated based on the analysis presented in Section 4.2.11, e.g., constant A in the models differs from the value reported earlier in NUREG/CR-6583 and -6815. Relative to the earlier model, the fatigue lives predicted by the updated model are z6% lower for carbon steels and z2% higher for low-alloy steels. In LWR environments, the fatigue life, N, of carbon steels is represented by I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ln(N) = 5.951 -1.975 ln(Ea-0.113)+0.10l S* T* O* *, (20)36 106"3 104 .. .V ' *a)102 1 3~~0 lo , Ae 101,/ .101 102 103 104 105 Observed Life (Cycles)106 102 10 3  10 4  105 Observed Life (Cycles)(a)(b)Figure 28. Experimental and predicted fatigue lives of (a) carbon steels and (b) low-alloy steels in LWR environments.
and that of low-alloy steels, by ln(N) =5.747 -l.808 ln(aa,, -0.15 1) +0.101 S* T*0* t *(21)where S*, T*, 0*, and
* are transformed S content, temperature, DO level, and strain rate, respectively, defined as: S* = 0.015 S* = 0.001 S*= S S*= 0.015 T* =0 T* = T -150 (DO > 1.0 ppm)(DO <1.0 ppm and S < 0.001 wt.%)(DO _<1.0 ppm and 0.001 < S < 0.015 wt.%)(DO <1.0 ppm and S > 0.015 wt.%)(22)(23)(T  150-C)(150 < T < 350-C)0*6=0 0*= ln(DO/0.04) 0* = ln(12.5)t ln(0.00 1)(DO < 0.04 ppm)(0.04 ppm < DO < 0.5 ppm)(DO > 0.5 ppm)(t > 1%/s)(0.001 < a _< 1%/s)(t; < 0.001%/s).
(24)(25)These models are recommended for predicted fatigue lives <100 cycles. Also, as discussed in Section 4.2.7, because the effect of S on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels appears to depend on the DO level in water, Eqs. 20-25 may yield nonconservative estimates of fatigue life for low-S (<0.007 wt.%) steels in high-temperature water with >1 ppm DO. The experimental values of fatigue life and those predicted by Eqs. 20 and 21 are plotted in Fig. 28. The predicted fatigue lives show good agreement with the experimental values; the experimental and predicted values differ by a factor of 3.37 I The ANL fatigue life models represent the mean values offatigue life as a function of applied strain amplitude, temperature, strain rate, DO level in water, and S content of the steel. The effects of parameters (such as mean stress, surface finish, size and geometry, and loading history) that are known I to influence fatigue life are not included in the model.4.2.13 Environmental Fatigue Correction Factor The effects of reactor coolant environments on fatigue life have also been expressed in terms of environmental fatigue correction factor, Fen, which is -defined as the ratio of life in air at room temperature, NRTair, to that in water at the service temperature, Nwater. Values of Fen can be obtained from the ANL fatigue life model, where ln(Fen) = ln(NRTair)
-ln(Nwater).
(26) I The environmental fatigue correction factor for carbon steels is given by Fen = exp(0.632
-0.101 S* T* 0* t*) (27)and for low-alloy steels, by Fen = exp(O.702
-0.101 S* T* 0* t*) (28)where the constants S*, T*, r *, and 0* are defined in Eqs. 22-25. Note that because the ANL fatigue m life models have been updated in the present report, the constants 0.632 and 0.702 in Eqs. 27 and 28 are different from the values reported earlier in NUREG/CR-6583 and -6815. Relative to the earlier expressions, correction factors determined from Eq. 27 for carbon steels are '8% higher, and those I determined from Eq. 28 for low-alloy steels are z18% lower. A threshold strain amplitude (one-half of the applied strain range) is also defined, below which LWR coolant environments have no effect on fatigue life, i.e., Fen = 1. The threshold strain amplitude is 0.07% (145 MPa stress amplitude) for carbon I and low-alloy steels. To incorporate environmental effects into a ASME Section I1 fatigue evaluation, the fatigue usage for a specific stress cycle of load set pair based on the current Code fatigue design curves is multiplied by the correction factor. Further details for incorporating environmental effects into fatigue evaluations are presented in Appendix A.0 The Fen approach may be used to incorporate environmental effects into the Code fatigue evaluations.
n 4.2.14 Modified Rate Approach Nearly all of the existing fatigue a-N data were obtained under loading histories with constant strain rate, temperature, and strain amplitude.
The actual loading histories encountered during service of nuclear power plants are far more complex. Exploratory fatigue tests have been conducted with waveforms in which the test temperature and strain rate were changed.4 , 1 5 , 1 8 The results of such tests provide guidance for developing procedures and rules for fatigue evaluation of components under complex loading histories.
The modified rate approach has been proposed to predict fatigue life under changing test m conditions.
3 1 , 3 2  It allows calculating Fen under conditions where temperature and strain rate are changing.
The correction factor, Fen(t, T), is assumed to increase linearly from I with increments of m 38 I strain from a minimum value Emin (%) to a maximum value Fmax (%). Increments of Fen, dFen, during increments of strain, de, are calculated from dFen = (Fen -1) de /(Fmax -Emin)- (29)Integration of Eq. 29 from Smin to max provides the environmental fatigue correction factor under changing temperature and strain rate. The application of the modified rate approach to a strain transient is illustrated in Fig. 29; at each strain increment, Fen( ,T) is determined from Eqs. 27 and 28. Thus, Fen for the total strain transient is given by n A en = -, (30)k=1 rmax min where n is the total number of strain increments, and k is the subscript for the k-th incremental segment.As discussed in Section 4.2.3, a minimum threshold strain, Eth (one-half of the applied strain range), is required for an environmentally assisted decrease in fatigue life. During a strain cycle, environmental effects are significant only after the applied strain levelexceeds the threshold value. In application of the modified rate approach when a threshold strain Eth is considered, F,, for the total strain transient is given by n e Fe I~ Fen~k('k,Tk)
(31)n k1Fmax -(mn+ Eth)()k=Ik Emax --------------Figure 29.Application of the modified rate approach to T Adetermine the environmental fatigue correction factor Fen during a transient.
U) T3 AE E,---------
----E AEk Ek =--Atk Time The modified rate approach has been used to evaluate fatigue life under cyclic loading conditions where both temperature and strain rate were varied during the test.1 8 , 3 1 , 3 2 The studies demonstrate the applicability of the damage rate approach to variable loading conditions such as actual plant transient.
Also, the following conclusions may be drawn from these studies.(a) The use of a strain threshold, Fth, for calculating Fen by the modified rate approach (i.e., Eq. 3 1) is not necessary because it does not improve the accuracy of estimation.
3 2 As discussed earlier in 39 I Section 4.2.3, application of the modified rate approach, without the consideration of a strain threshold, gives the best estimates of fatigue life.(b) Under load cycles that involve variable strain rate, estimates of Fen based on an average strain rate[i.e., in Fig. 29, total strain (Fmax -Emin) divided by the total time for the transient]
are the most conservative.1 8 Thus, calculations of Fen based on an average strain rate for the transient will always yield a conservative estimate of fatigue life.(c) An average temperature for the transient may be used to estimate Fen during a load cycle.0 Where information is available regarding the transients associated with a specific stress cycle or load set pair, the modified rate approach may be used to determine Fen.I I I I I I I I I I I 40i I 5 Austenitic Stainless Steels The relevant fatigue a-N data for austenitic SSs in air include the data compiled by Jaske and O'Donnell 7 2 for developing fatigue design criteria for pressure vessel alloys, the JNUFAD database from Japan, studies at EdF in France, 6 9 and the results of Conway et al.7 3 and Keller.7 4 In water, the existing fatigue a-N data include the tests performed by GE in a test loop at the Dresden I reactor;8-1 1 the JNUFAD data base; studies at MHI, IHI, and Hitachi in Japan;1 8-3 0 the work at ANL;6 ,7, 3 6-4 0 and the studies sponsored by EdF.7 0-7 1 Nearly 60% of the tests in air were conducted at room temperature, 20%at 250-325&deg;C, and 20% at 350-450'C.
Nearly 90% of the tests in water were conducted at temperatures between 260 and 325&deg;C; the remainder were at lower temperatures.
The data on Type 316NG in water have been obtained primarily at DO levels >0.2 ppm, and those on Type 316 SS, at <0.005 ppm DO; half of the tests on Type 304 SS are at low-DO and the remaining at high-DO levels.5.1 Air Environment 5.1.1 Experimental Data The fatigue a-N data for Types 304, 316, and 316NG SS in air at temperatures between room temperature and 456'C are shown in Fig. 30. The best-fit curve based on the updated ANL fatigue life model (Eq. 32 in Section 5.1.7) and the ASME Section II1 mean-data curves are included in the figures.The results indicate that the fatigue life of Type 304 SS is comparable to that of Type 316 SS; the fatigue 1.0 E 0.1 Type 304 SS P. i>v 300'C -ASME Code Mean Curve Best Pd Airt-ANL Model I IO &deg;E 0 Type 316 SS (C 290-C , 325^C> 400'C V 456'C ASME Code -Mean Curve -Best-Fit Air , ANL Model H 11. I r ...... I r1. ..I rrrrrrrr I r ....... I 0.1 102 10 3  104 10 5  106 107 108 Fatigue Life (Cycles)102 103 10 4  10 5  106 Fatigue Life (Cycles)107 108-. 1. .1 .. ......1 ..... ..1.1 1.0 E U)0.1 Type 316NG L- 320WC ASME Code Mean Curve Figure 30.Fatigue E-N behavior for Types 304, 316, and 316NG austenitic stainless steels in air at various temperatures (Refs. JNUFAD data, 7, 36-38, 72, 73, 74).Best-Fit Air ANL Model 102 10 3  10 4  105 106 107 108 Fatigue Life (Cycles)41 I life of Type 316NG is slightly higher than that of Types 304 and 316 SS at high strain amplitudes.
Some of the tests on Type 316 SS in room-temperature air have been conducted in load-control mode at stress levels in the range of 190-230 MPa. The data are shown as triangles in Fig. 30, with strain amplitudes of U 0.1-0.12%
and fatigue lives of 7 x 104-3 x 101. For these tests, the strain amplitude was calculated only as elastic strain. Based on cyclic stress-vs.-strain correlations for Type 316 SS,38 actual strain amplitudes for these tests should be 0.23-0.32%.
These results were excluded from the analysis of the I fatigue s-N data to develop the model for estimating the fatigue life of these steels in air.The results also indicate that the current Code mean-data curve is not consistent with the existing fatigue s-N data. At strain amplitudes
<0.3% (stress amplitudes
<585 MPa), the Code mean curve predicts significantly longer fatigue lives than those observed experimentally for several heats of austenitic SSs with composition and tensile strength within the ASME specifications.
The difference between the Code mean curve and the best-fit of the available experimental data is due most likely to differences in the tensile strength of the steels. The Code mean curve represents SSs with relatively high strength; the fatigue s-N data obtained during the last 30 years were obtained on SSs with lower tensile strengths.
Furthermore, for the current Code mean curve, the 106 cycle fatigue limit (i.e., the stress amplitude at a fatigue life of 106 cycles) is 389 MPa, which is greater than the monotonic yield strength of austenitic I SSs in more common use (z303 MPa). Consequently, the current Code design curve for austenitic SSs does not include a mean stress correction for fatigue lives below 106 cycles. Recent studies by Wire et al.1 12 and Solomon et al.7 0 on the effectfof residual stress on fatigue life clearly demonstrate that mean stress can decrease the 106 cycle fatigue limit of the material; the extent of the effect depends on the cyclic hardening behavior of the material, and the resultant decrease in strain amplitude developed during load-controlled cycling. Strain hardening is more pronounced at high temperatures (e.g., 288-320'C) or at high mean stress (e.g., >70 MPa); therefore, as observed by Wire et al. and Solomon et al., fatigue life I for load-controlled tests with mean stress is actually increased at high temperatures or large values of mean stress. In both studies, under load control, mean stress effects were observed at low temperatures (150'C) or at relatively low mean stress (<70 MPa). I Wire et al.1 12 performed fatigue tests on two heats of Types 304 SS to establish the effect of mean stress under both strain control and load control. The strain-controlled tests indicated "an apparent reduction of up to 26% in strain amplitude in the low- and intermediate-cycle regime (<106 cycle) for a mean stress of 138 MPa." However, the results were affected both by mean stress and cold work.Although the composition and vendor-supplied tensile strength for the two heats of Type 304 SS were within the ASME specifications, the measured mechanical properties showed much larger variations than I indicated by the vendor properties.
Wire et al. state, "at 288&deg;C, yield strength varied from 152-338 MPa.These wide variations are attributed to variations in (cold) working from the surface to the center of the thick cylindrical forgings." After separating the individual effect of mean stress and cold work, the Wire I et al. results indicate a 12% decrease in strain amplitude for a mean stress of 138 MPa. These results are consistent with the predictions based on conventional mean stress models such as the Goodman correlation.
* The current Code mean data curve, and therefore the Code design curve, is nonconservative with respect to the existing fatigue E-N data for austenitic SSs. A new Code fatigue design curve, which is consistent with the existing fatigue data, has been proposed (see Section 5.1.8for details).I 42 I 5.1.2 Specimen Geometry The influence of specimen geometry (hourglass vs. gauge length specimens) on the fatigue life of Types 304 and 316 SS is shown in Fig. 31. At temperatures up to 300'C, specimen geometry has little or no effect on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs; the fatigue lives of hourglass specimens are comparable to those of gauge specimens.
Type 316 SS 1.0 to 0U)1.0 0.1 Best-Fit Air I R T ANL Model 0 2900C 0*Hourglass Specimens pen Symbols: Type 316 SS osed Symbols: Type 316L SS 0.C01-0 102 10 3  10 4  105 106 101 108 102 10 3  104 10 5  10 6  10 7  108 Fatigue Life (Cycles) Fatigue Life (Cycles)Figure 31. Influence of specimen geometry on fatigue life of Types 304 and 316 stainless steel (JNUFAD data).Fatigue c-N data obtained either on hourglass or straight gauge specimens may be used to develop the Code fatigue design curves.5.1.3 Temperature The fatigue life of Types 304 and 316 SS in air at temperatures between 100 and 325&deg;C is plotted in Fig. 32; the best-fit curve based on the ANL model (Eq. 32 in Section 5.1.7) and the ASME Code mean curve are also shown in the figures. In air, the fatigue life of austenitic SSs is independent of temperature from room temperature to 400'C. Although the effect of strain rate on fatigue life seems to be significant 2 1.0 E 0)0.1 Type 304 SS Air~r V 100&deg;C L 260COC-00 2881C> 300&deg;0-ASME Code 0_ " Mean Curve 0 325 "C-Best-Pit Air Ul ANL Model m- ..I.. I. I. .... -... I 1.0 E 0.1.... ..I ..... ... .. F II. ....Ij ........ I r i I .....Type 316 SS Air n 290D'C.an2Curv 0 .ASME Code.-. rMean Curve Best-Fit Air -.ANL Model -- ---,, I. ....I ....I .....I ........1 I. ....II ..... .10 2  10 3  104 105 106 Fatigue Life (Cycles)10 7 108 10 2  10 3  104 10 5  106 10 7  108 Fatigue Life (Cycles)life of Types 304 and 316 stainless steel in air Figure 32. Influence of temperature on fatigue (Ref. 38, JNUFAD database).
43 at temperatures above 400 0 C, variations in strain rate in the range of 0.4-0.008%/s have no effect on the fatigue lives of SSs at temperatures up to 4000C.6 9 In air, the fatigue s-N data can be represented by a single curve for temperatures from room temperature Up to 400 0 C.Recent data indicate that temperature can influence the fatigue limit of austenitic SSs because of differences in the secondary hardening behavior of the material due to dynamic strain aging.7 1 For a heat of Type 304L SS, the fatigue limit was higher at 300'C than at 150'C because of significant secondary hardening at 300'C.* Temperature has no significant effect on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs at temperatures from room temperature to 400'C. Variations in fatigue life due to the effects of secondary hardening behavior are accountedfor in the factor applied on stress to obtain the design curve from the mean data curve.5.1.4 Cyclic Strain Hardening Behavior Under cyclic loading, austenitic SSs exhibit rapid hardening during the first 50-100 cycles; as shown in Fig. 33 the extent of hardening increases with increasing strain amplitude and decreasing temperature and strain rate.3 8 The initial hardening is followed by a softening and saturation stage at high temperatures, and by continuous softening at room temperature.
* The cyclic strain hardening behavior is likely to influence the fatigue limit of the material; variations in fatigue life due to such effects are accounted for in the factor of 2 on stress.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 300250 E 200 t 150 Type 316NG SS Strain Amplitude
(%)288&deg;C Air a' < 0.50 -Strain Rate (%Is) ) 0.75 Open Symbols: 0.5 Closed Symbols: 0.005 S.. ... .&7a E U)Type 304 SS Strain Amplitude
(%)288&deg;C Air a 007 300 -0.50 250 o a a -200 -a.' A AA 150 Strain Rate (%/s) A Open Symbols: 0.4 Closed Symbols: 0.004 10 &#xfd; '.. .. .. I ....." &#xfd; .... .I .... -' ......- J ...... I 100 lot 102 10 3  104 1 0 5 1 0 6 Number of Cycles I-ad CL u))100 101 10 2  10 3  10 4  105 1 0 6 Number of Cycles 3 5 0 .... .....I ........ I .... .1.. ..1 1 ........ I 3C a : v Type 316NG SS v,. Room Temperature Air 3001 -:, 250 ouu.Strain A Amplitude
(%)200 n 1."-0.50 150 -0.35 0.27 Strain Rate: 0.17 -1.0 %Is IG L .... .I ....... I ...... I ........ I .... .I .... .I 10 0  101 10 2  10 3  10 4  105 106 Number of Cycles Figure 33.Effect of strain amplitude, temperature, and strain rate on cyclic strain-hardening behavior of Types 304 and 316NG SS in air.I I 44 5.1.5 Surface Finish Fatigue tests have been conducted on Types 304 and 3 16NG SS specimens that were intentionally roughened in a lathe, under controlled conditions, with 50-grit sandpaper to produce circumferential cracks with an average surface roughness of 1.2 gin. The results are shown in Figs. 34a and b, respectively, for Types 316NG and 304 SS. For both steels, the fatigue life of roughened specimens is a factor ofz3 lower than that of the smooth specimens.
-The effect of surfacefinish was not investigated in the mean data curve used to develop the Code fatigue design curves; it is included as part of the subfactor that is applied to the mean data curve to account for "surface finish and environment." Type 316NG SS Heat D432804 Heat P91576 Type 304 SS Sawtooth Waveform 289&deg;C r A Air 289&deg;C Strain Rate = 0.004/0.4%/s 1.0 7 1.0-.Z7 1.0Strain Rate. 0.4 -0.0040/as a ~ .A -a*. ASME Code 12AStAE Code m Design Curve Design Curve 0.1 -.Open Symbols: Smooth Specimens Open Symbols: Smooth Specimens Closed Symbols: Rough Surface, 50 grit paper Closed Symbols: Rough Surface, 50 grit paper_____________________
11__ 1_1_i_______
iil__i____
I i , , I I II I________1_____I_____________________
103 104 105 106 103 104 105 106 Fatigue Life (Cycles) Fatigue Life (Cycles)(a) (b)Figure 34. Effect of surface roughness on fatigue life of (a) Type 316NG and (b) Type 304 SSs in air.5.1.6 Heat-to-Heat Variability The effects of material variability and data scatter must be included to ensure that the design curves not only describe the available test data well, but also adequately describe the fatigue lives of the much larger number of heats of material that are found in the field. As mentioned earlier for carbon and low-alloy steels, material variability and data scatter in the fatigue s-N data for austenitic SSs are also evaluated by considering the best-fit curves determined from tests on individual heats of materials or loading conditions as samples of the much larger population of heats of materials and service conditions of interest.
The fatigue behavior of each of the heats or loading conditions is characterized by the value of the constant A in Eq. 6. The values of A for the various data sets were ordered, and median ranks were used to estimate the cumulative distribution of A for the population.
The distributions were fit to lognormal curves. Results for various austenitic SSs in air are shown in Fig. 35. The median value of the constant A is 6.891 for the fatigue life of austenitic SSs in air at temperatures not exceeding 400'C. The values of A that describe the 5th percentile of these distributions give a fatigue s-N curve that is expected to bound the lives of 95% of the heats of austenitic SSs. A Monte Carlo analysis was performed to address the uncertainties in the median value and standard deviation of the sample used for the analysis.For austenitic SSs, the values for A that provide bounds for the portion of the population and the confidence that is desired in the estimates of the bounds are summarized in Table 8. From Fig. 35, the median value of A for the sample is 6.891. From Table 8, the 95/95 value of the margin to account for material variability and data scatter is 2.3 on life. This margin is needed to provide reasonable confidence that the resultant life will be greater than that observed for 95% of the materials of interest.45 1.0 0.8 t1L C: 0 0.6 0.4......I ....../ ' ! .."... .... .---Austenitic SSs ...--Air.._ ... ...........
...........
... -.. .. ... .. ..... ... ... .. .----- --- ... ... ..... ............
... .75th Percentile-I : ;I4;::* I .!.............-
-------- -------! ::::--I ~~...... ............Median 6.891 } 357 Data Points.1 38 Heats.> 316N-1.- , ... .. 316N-A~' 304-3___0 304-10 Pece i .. I X 304-21 Percen 'il-- e-_[--,--
V 304-A-*i
* 304-G.... ..... .-. .316-1 S "< 316-3 Z 316-12........ .. ,i,. .... ._ _............._
_ __- _Figure 35.Estimated cumulative distribution of constant A in the ANL model for fatigue life for heats of austenitic SS in air.0.2 n nL 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 Constant A 8 8.5 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 8. Values of parameter A in the ANL fatigue life model and the margins on life for austenitic SSs in air as a function of confidence level and percentage of population bounded, Confidence Percentage of Population Bounded (Percentile Distribution of A)Level 95(5) 90(10) 75(25) 67(33) 50(50)Values of Parameter A 50 6.205 6.356 6.609 6.707 6.891 75 6.152 6.309 6.569 6.668 6.851 95 6.075 6.241 6.510 6.611 6.793 Margins on Life 50 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.0 75 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 95 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.1* The Code fatigue design curves are based on the mean data curves; heat-to-heat variability is included in the subfactor that is applied to the mean data curve to account for "data scatter and material variability.
" 5.1.7 Fatigue Life Model The database used to develop the new air mean data curve is much larger and developed for more representative materials than were used as the basis for the existing ASME fatigue design curves. It is an updated version of the PVRC database; the sources are listed in Table 1 of the present report. The data were obtained on smooth specimens tested under strain control with a fully reversed loading (i.e., R = -1)in compliance with consensus standard approaches for the development of such data. The database for austenitic SSs consists of some 520 tests on Types 304, 316, 304L, 316L and 316NG SS; Z220 for Type 304 SS; 150 for Type 316 SS; and 150 for Types 316NG, 304L, and 316L SS. The austenitic SSs used in these studies are all in compliance with the compositional and strength requirements of the ASME Code specifications.
46 I I I I Several different best-fit mean &-N curves for austenitic SSs have been proposed in the literature.
Examples include Jaske and O'Donnell, 7 2 Diercks, 1 13 Chopra, 3 8 Tsutsumi et al., 2 8 and Solomon and Amzallag.1 1 4 These curves differ by up to 50%, particularly in the 10 4 to 107 cycle regime; the differences primarily occur because different database were used in developing the models for the mean&-N curves. The analyses by Jaske and O'Donnell and by Diercks are based on the Jaske and O'Donnell database.
The details regarding the database used by Tsutsumi et al. are not available.
The database used in NUREG/CR-5704 included the Jaske and O'Donnell data, data obtained in Japan (including the JNUFAD database), and some additional data obtained in the U.S. In the earlier ANL reports, separate models were presented for Type 304 or 316 SS and Type 316NG SS. In the present report, the existing data were reanalyzed to develop a single model for the fatigue c-N behavior of austenitic SSs. The model assumes that the fatigue life in air is independent of temperature and strain rate. Also, to be consistent with the models proposed by Tsutsumi et al.2 8 and Jaske and O'Donnell, 7 2 the value of the constant C in the modified Langer equation (Eq. 6) was lower than that in earlier reports (i.e., 0.112 instead of 0.126).The proposed curve yields an R 2 value of 0.851 when compared with the available data; the R 2 values for the mean curves derived by Tsutsumi et al., Jaske and O'Donnell, and the ASME Code are 0.839, 0.826, and 0.568, respectively.
In air, at temperatures up to 400'C, the fatigue data for Types 304, 304L, 316, 316L, and 316NG SS are best represented by the equation: ln(N) = 6.891 -1.920 ln(ca -0. 112) (32)where F, is applied strain amplitude
(%). The experimental values of fatigue life and those predicted by Eq. 32 for austenitic SSs in air are plotted in Fig. 36. The predicted lives show good agreement with the experimental values; for most tests the difference between the experimental and predicted values is within a factor of 3, and for some, the observed fatigue lives are significantly longer than the predicted values.The ANL fatigue life models represent mean values offatigue life. The effects of parameters such as mean stress, surface finish, size and geometry, and loading history, which are known to influence fatigue life, are not explicitly considered in the model; such effects are accounted for in the factors of 20 on life and 2 on stress that are applied to the mean data curve to obtain the Code fatigue design curve.Austenitic SSs Ausienitic S5s 21-325&deg;C Air 21-325&deg;Air Z -106 106 2-2' i.--1&deg;- - - -.,--  - - -~0 -0., co, ! 'o:2a .104 101 0~0 103 .. ---- _ --- ._ ._ .-__ .........
...... ....................
+ ....... 1032 ----102 ---------102A '04LSS 304SS 0 316L S 0 316SS Ss-E~101 "101 101 102 103 10 4  10i 106 101 10 2  103 104 105 106 Observed Life (Cycles) Observed Life (Cycles)Figure 36. Experimental and predicted fatigue lives of austenitic SSs in air.47 5.1.8 New Fatigue Design Curve As discussed in Section 5.1.1, the current Code mean-data curve that was used to develop the Code fatigue design curve, is not consistent with the existing fatigue c-N data. A fatigue design curve that is consistent with the existing database may be obtained from the ANL model (Eq. 32) by following the same procedure that was used to develop the current ASME Code fatigue design curve. However, the discussions presented later in Section 7.5 indicate that the current Code requirement of a factor of 20 on cycles, to account for the effects of material variability and data scatter, specimen size, surface finish, and loading history, is conservative by at least a factor of 1.7. Thus, to reduce this conservatism, fatigue design curve based on the ANL model for austenitic SSs (Eq. 32) may be developed by first correcting for mean stress effects using the modified Goodman relationship and then lowering the mean-stress-adjusted curve by a factor of 2 on stress or 12 on cycles, whichever is more conservative.
This curve and the current Code design curve are shown in Fig. 37; values of stress amplitude vs. cycles for the current and the proposed design curves are given in Table 9. A fatigue design curve that is consistent with the existing fatigue c-N data but is not based on the ANL model (Eq. 32) has also been proposed by the ASME Subgroup on Fatigue Strength.8 9 Table 9. The new and current Code fatigue design curves for austenitic stainless steels in air.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Stress Amplitude (MPa/ksi)Cycles New Design Curve Current Design Curve I E+01 6000 (870) 4881 (708)2 E+01 4300(624) 3530(512)5 E+01 2748 (399) 2379 (345)1 E+02 1978 (287) 1800 (261)2 E+02 1440(209) 1386(201)5 E+02 974(141) 1020(148)1 E+03 745 (108) 820 (119)2 E+03 590 (85.6) 669 (97.0)5 E+03 450 (65.3) 524 (76.0)1 E+04 368 (53.4) 441 (64.0)2 E+04 300 (43.5) 383 (55.5)5 E+04 235 (34.1) 319(46.3)1 E+05 196 (28.4) 281 (40.8)Stress Amplitude (MPa/ksi)New Design Curve Current Desin Curve Cycles 2 E+05 5 E+05 I E+06 2 E+06 5 E+06 I E+07 2 E+07 5 E+07 I E+08 I E+09 I E+10 I E+ll 2 E+10 168 (24.4)142 (20.6)126(18.3)113 (16.4)102 (14.8)99(14.4)97.1 (14.1)95.8 (13.9)94.4 (13.7)93.7 (13.6)248 (35.9)214 (31.0)195 (28.3)157 (22.8)127(18.4)113(16.4)105 (15.2)98.6(14.3) 97.1 (14.1)95.8 (13.9)94.4 (13.7)93.7 (13.6)103 E 65 10~2 101 .102 103 104 105 106 107 108 10 9  1010 1011 Number of Cycles N Figure 37. Fatigue design curve for austenitic stainless steels in air.48 I I I I The proposed curve extends up to 1011 cycles; the two curves are the same beyond 108 cycles.Although the curve is based primarily on data for Types 304 and 316 SS, it may be used for wrought Types 304, 310, 316, 347, and 348 SS, and cast CF-3, CF-8, and CF-8M SS for temperatures not exceeding 371&deg;C (700'F).9 The current Code fatigue design curve for austenitic stainless steels is nonconservative with respect to the existing fatigue E-N data for fatigue lives in the range of 103 to 5 x 106 cycles. A new design curve, that is consistent with the existing data, has been developed.
To reduce the conservatism in the current Code requirement of 20 on life, the new curve was obtained by using factors ofe2 on life and 2 on stress.5.2 LWR Environment 5.2.1 Experimental Data The fatigue lives of austenitic SSs are decreased in LWR environments; the fatigue s-N data for Types 304 and 316NG SS in water at 288&deg;C are shown in Fig. 38. The c-N curves based on the ANL model (Eq. 32 in Section 5.1.7 and Eq. 34 in Section 5.2.13) are also included in the figures. The fatigue life is decreased significantly when three threshold conditions are satisfied simultaneously, viz., applied strain range and service temperature are above a minimum threshold level, and the loading strain rate is below a threshold value. The DO level in the water and, possibly, the composition and heat treatment of the steel are also important parameters for environmental effects on fatigue life. For some steels, fatigue life is longer in high-DO water than in low-DO PWR environments.
Although, in air, the fatigue life of Type 316NG SS is slightly longer than that of Types 304 and 316 SS, the effects of LWR environments are comparable for wrought Types 304, 316, and 316NG. Also, limited data indicate that the fatigue life of cast austenitic SSs in both low-DO and high-DO environments is comparable to that of wrought SSs in low-DO environment.
.... I .'.. .....I .. ..... 1 -, .., .' '. I I ........1 1 -M I ..I I I Type 304 SS Tensile/Compressiwe Type 316NG 288'C Water Strain Rate (%/s) 288&deg;C Water 0.005 ppm DO 8ppm DO" 004.-Best-Fit Air C 0004 7N S1.0 --ANL Model [I 1.0 Best-Fit Air ANI Modl ) ANL Model F .. a."i S Tensile/Compreissive
>- -.U) Strain Rate (%/s)ve 288&deg;C Low 00 Water :. .4 288&deg;C High DO Water 0.1 0.004%/s Strain Rate 0.1 'D 0,04.0.04 0.04%Is Strain Rate 102 10 3  104 10 5  106 102 10 3  10 4  10 5  106 Fatigue Life (Cycles) Fatigue Life (Cycles)(a) (b)Figure 38. Strain amplitude vs. fatigue life data for (a) Type 304 and (b) Type 316NG SS in water at 288&deg;C (JNUFAD and Refs. 7,38).The existing fatigue data indicate that a slow strain rate applied during the tensile-loading cycle (i.e., up-ramp with increasing strain) is primarily responsible for the environmentally assisted reduction in fatigue life. Slow rates applied during both tensile- and compressive-loading cycles (i.e., up- and down-ramps) do not further decrease fatigue life compared with that observed for tests with only a slow 49 (a) (b) 1 Figure 39. Higher-magnification photomicrographs of oxide films that formed on Type 316NG stainless steel in (a) simulated PWR water and (b) high-DO water.tensile-loading cycle (Fig. 38b). Consequently, loading and environmental conditions during the tensile-loading cycle (strain rate, temperature, and DO level) are important for environmentally assisted reduction of the fatigue lives of these steels. 3 For austenitic SSs, lower fatigue lives in low-DO water than in high-DO water are difficult to reconcile in terms of the slip oxidation/dissolution mechanism, which assumes that crack growth rates increase with increasing DO in the water. The characteristics of the surface oxide films that form on U austenitic SSs in LWR coolant environments can influence the mechanism and kinetics of corrosion processes and thereby influence the initiation stage, i.e., the growth of MSCs. Also, the reduction of fatigue life in high-temperature water has often been attributed to the presence of surface micropits that I may act as stress raisers and provide preferred sites for the fonnation of fatigue cracks.Photomicrographs of the gauge surfaces of Type 3 16NG specimens tested in simulated PWR water and high-DO water are shown in Fig. 39. Austenitic SSs exposed to LWR environments develop an oxide film that consists of two layers: a fine-grained, tightly-adherent, chromium-rich inner layer, and a crystalline, nickel-rich outer layer composed of large and intermediate-size particles.
The inner layer forms by solid-state growth, whereas the crystalline outer layer forms by precipitation or deposition from the solution.
A schematic representation of the surface oxide film is shown in Fig. 40. The structure and composition of the inner and outer layers and their variation with the water chemistry have been identified.]
15,116 Large-size Particles Intermediate-size Particles Outer Layer Outer Layer I Figure 40. Schematic of the corrosion oxide film formed on austenitic stainless steels in LWR environments.
5 50 I Experimental data indicate that surface micropits or minor differences in the composition or structure of the surface oxide film have no effect on the formation of fatigue cracks. Fatigue tests were conducted on Type 316NG (Heat P91576) specimens that were preexposed to either low-DO or high-DO water and then tested in air or water environments.
The results of these tests, as well as data obtained earlier on this heat and Heat D432804 of Type 316NG SS in air and low-DO water at 288'C, are plotted in Fig. 41. The fatigue life of a specimen preoxidized in high-DO water and then tested in low-DO water is identical to that of specimens tested without preoxidation.
Also, fatigue lives of specimens preoxidized at 288&deg;C in low-DO water and then tested in air are identical to those of unoxidized specimens (Fig. 41).If micropits were responsible for the reduction in life, the preexposed specimens should show a decrease in life. Also, the fatigue limit of these steels should be lower in water than in air, but the data indicate this limit is the same in water and air environments.
Metallographic examination of the test specimens indicated that environmentally assisted reduction in fatigue lives of austenitic SSs most likely is not caused by slip oxidation/dissolution but some other process, such as hydrogen-induced cracking.7 , 3 6 , 3 7* An LWR environment has a significant effect on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs; such effects are not considered in the current Code design curve. Environmental effects may be incorporated into the Code fatigue evaluation using the Fen approach described in Section 5.2.14.5.2.2 Strain Amplitude As in the case of the carbon and low-alloy steels, a minimum threshold strain range is required for the environmentally induced decrease in fatigue lives of SS to occur. Exploratory fatigue tests have also been conducted on austenitic SSs to determine the threshold strain range beyond which environmental effects are significant during a fatigue cycle.2 4 , 2 9 The tests were performed with waveforms in which the slow strain rate is applied during only a fraction of the tensile loading cycle. The results indicate that a minimum threshold strain is required for an environmentally assisted decrease in the fatigue lives of SSs (Fig. 42). The threshold strain range Asth appears to be independent of material type (weld or base metal)and temperature in the range of 250-3251C, but it tends to decrease as the strain range is decreased.
2 4 , 2 9 The threshold strain range may be expressed in terms of the applied strain range Ae by the equation AF-th/AE = -0.22 AE + 0.65. (33)The results suggest that A-th is related to the elastic strain range of the test and does not correspond to the strain at which the crack closes.Type 316NG SS Open Symbols: Air 289oC Closed Symbols: Low-DO water_Figure 41.Effects of environment on formation of Heat D432804 1.0 A 0.4%/s fatigue cracks in Type 316NG SS in air 0- 0.004%/s Best-Fit Air" Heat 91576 ANL Model and low-DO water at 2880C.Preoxidized Preoxidized specimens were exposed E Low-DO> 0.4%/s-. for 10 days at 288'C in water that Preoxidized contained either <5 ppb DO and o,9 High-DO =23 cm 3/kg dissolved H 2 or =500 ppb DO and no dissolved H 2 (Ref. 7).103 104 105 Fatigue Life (Cycles)51
* I Type 316 SS, 325&deg;C Strain Range Ac = 1.2%DO =0.005 ppmn G Figure 42.0I 103 Results of strain rate change tests on o 0 Type 316 SS in low-DO water at 325&deg;C. Low strain rate was applied during only a fraction of 0o -tensile loading cycle. Fatigue life is plotted as" 0 .a function of fraction of strain at high strain rate Threshold Strain (Refs. 24,29).102 I .0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Aefast Ac In LWR environments, the procedurefor calculating Fen, defined in Eq. 38 (Section 5.2.14), includes a threshold strain range below which LWR coolant environments have no effect on fatigue life, i.e., Fe, = 1.However, a threshold strain should not be considered when the damage rate approach is used to determine Fen for a stress cycle or load set pair.5.2.3 Hold-Time Effects Environmental effects on fatigue life occur primarily during the tensile-loading cycle and at strain levels greater than the threshold value. Information on the effect of hold periods on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs in water is very limited. In high-DO water, the fatigue lives of Type 304 SS tested with a trapezoidal waveform (i.e., hold periods at peak tensile and compressive strain)8 are comparable to those tested with a triangular waveform, 2 5 as shown in Fig. 43. As discussed in Section 4.2.8, a similar behavior has been observed for carbon and low-alloy steels: the data show little or no effect of hold I periods on fatigue lives of the steels in high-DO water.Type 304 SS High-DO Water 1.0 -Best-FitAir Figure 43.d O -\ ANL Model 0 oeFatigue life of Type 304 stainless steel-a 0 ---. tested in high-DO water at 260-288&deg;C E 0.< ASME Design Curve 9069 with trapezoidal or triangular waveform I-(Refs. 8,25).0 260'C, 0.2 ppm, =0.03%/s .es , Trapezoidal Waveform 0.1 0 288&deg;C, 8 ppm DO, =0.04%/s Triangular Waveform 1,,,1 I ........ I i , 1 1 , ,, ,,r.. ... I ....102 10 3  104 105 106 Fatigue Life (Cycles)The existing data do not demonstrate that hold periods at peak tensile strain affect the fatigue life of austenitic SSs in LWR environments.
Thus, any revision/modification of the method to determine Fei is not warranted.
52 5.2.4 Strain Rate The fatigue life of Types 304L and 316 SSs in low-DO water is plotted as a function of tensile strain rate in Fig. 44. In low-DO PWR environment, the fatigue life of austenitic SSs decreases with decreasing strain rate below Z0.4%/s; the effect of environment on fatigue life saturates at -0.0004%/s (Fig. 4 4).7,18,21-25,28,29,38-40 Only a moderate decrease in life is observed at strain rates greater than 0.4%/s. A decrease in strain rate from 0.4 to 0.0004%/s decreases the fatigue life by a factor of l 0.105 1 1 &#xfd;' " ., m ir"'1 -q '' " .300&deg;C; DO -0 0.1 ppm ...............
Type 304L SS Air 0.2 104 a) Air 0.50%103 C o oSt 102 I I I H ! , ~ ,I , , , ,,l,I , 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 Strain Rate (%Is)rain Amplitude
(%)0 0.50%0 0.35%A 0.25%--.,,n --TJl'a a,~0 0 a, a):3 05 ('3 U-325&deg;C; DO 0.005 ppm Open Symbols: Type 304 Air 0.25%Closed Symbols: Type 316 -. Air 0.3% ......j Estimated Air /, f', 1037-Strain Amplitude
(%102 Ls 0.30 0 0.25 I I 'l , , , , , l , ,Ir i , , , Il , 10-1 10S 10r5 10-4 Ra- t 10-2 Strain Rate (%/s)10-1 10o Figure 44. Dependence of fatigue lives of austenitic stainless steels on strain rate in low-DO water (Refs. 7,38,40,71).
In high-DO water, the effect of strain rate may be less pronounced than in low-DO water (Fig. 45).For example, for Heat 30956 of Type 304 SS, strain rate has no effect on fatigue life in high-DO water, whereas life decreases linearly with strain rate in low-DO water (Fig. 45a). For Heat D432804 of Type 316NG, some effect of strain rate is observed in high-DO water, although it is smaller than that in low-DO water (Fig. 45b).a, 0)15 U-104[103 Type 304 SS (Heat 30956)288&deg;C... ... ... ........ ...... ....... ..Strain Amplitude O =0.38%O =0.25%Open Symbols: <0.005 ppm DO Closed Symbols: =0.7 ppm DO 105- =: -, K Type 316NG SS (Heat F 288&deg;C a) 104&#xfd; -L a) L D432804)-. A-D a) .L 103 Strain Amplitude 1_ E) =0.4%-'0 =0.25%Open Symbols: <0.005 ppm DO Closed Symbols: >0.2 ppm DO 10 2  .L , 00 10-5  10-4 10-3  10-2 10-1 100 Strain Rate (%/s)10-5  10-4 10-3 10-2 Strain Rate (%/s)(a)10-1 1 (b)Figure 45. Dependence of fatigue life of Types (a) 304 and (b) 316NG stainless steel on strain rate in high- and low-DO water at 288&deg;C (Ref. 7,38,40).53 I In LWR environments, the effect of strain rate on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs is explicitly considered in Fen defined in Eq. 38 (Section 5.2.14). Also, guidance is provided to define the strain rate to be used to calculate Fen for a specific stress cycle or load set pair.5.2.5 Dissolved Oxygen 3 In contrast to the behavior of carbon and low-alloy steels, the fatigue lives of austenitic SSs decrease significantly in low-DO (i.e., <0.05 ppm DO) water. In low-DO water, the fatigue life is not influenced by the composition or heat treatment condition of the steel. The fatigue life, however, continues to decrease with decreasing strain rate and increasing temperature.
7 , 1 8 , 2 3-2 5 , 2 8 , 2 9 , 3 8-4 0 In high-DO water, the fatigue lives of austenitic SSs are either comparable to 2 3 , 2 8 or, in some cases, higher 7 , 3 8 , 4 0 than those in low-DO water, i.e., for some SSs, environmental effects may be lower in high-DO than in low-DO water. The results presented in Figs. 45a and 45b indicate that, in high-DO water, environmental effects on the fatigue lives of austenitic SSs are influenced by the composition and heat treatment of the steel. For example, for high-carbon Type 304 SS, environmental effects in high-DO water are insignificant for the mill-annealed (MA) material (Fig. 45a), whereas as discussed in Section 5.2.8, for sensitized material the effect of environment is the same in high- and low-DO water. For the low-C Type 316NG SS, some effect of strain rate is apparent in high-DO water, although it is smaller I than that in low-DO water (Fig. 45b). The effect of material heat treatment on the fatigue life of Type 304 SS is discussed in Section 5.2.8; in high-DO water, material heat treatment affects the fatigue life of SSs. I o In LWR environments, the effect of DO on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs is explicitly considered in Fen, defined in Eq. 38. Also, guidance is provided to define the DO content to be used to calculate Fen for a specific stress cycle or load set pair.5.2.6 Water Conductivity The studies at ANL indicate that, for fatigue tests in high-DO water, the conductivity of water and the ECP of steel are important parameters that must be held constant.7, 3 8 ,4 0 During laboratory tests, the time to reach stable environmental conditions depends on the autoclave volume, DO level, flow rate, etc.In the ANL test facility, fatigue tests on austenitic SSs in high-DO water required a soaking period of 5-6 days for the ECP of the steel to stabilize.
The steel ECP increased from zero or a negative value to above 150 mV during this period. The results shown in Fig. 45a for MA Heat 30956 of Type 304 SS in high-DO water (closed circles) were obtained for specimens that were soaked for 5-6 days before the test. The same material tested in high-DO water after soaking for only 24 h showed a significant reduction in fatigue life, as indicated by Fig. 46.The effect of the conductivity of water and the ECP of the steel on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs is shown in Fig. 46. In high-DO water, fatigue life is decreased by a factor of'2 when the conductivity of water is increased from z0.07 to 0.4 11S/cm. Note that environmental effects appear more significant for the specimens that were soaked for only 24 h. For these tests, the ECP of steel was initially very low and increased during the test.5 54I 4?'1)LL Type 304 SS 288&deg;C Strain range =0.77%Strain rate tensile 0.004%/s Air ............
& compressive 0.4 %/s DO =0.8 ppm 104 Simulated PWR 0 Open Symbols: ECP 155 mV (=120 h soak)Closed Symbols: ECP 30-145 mV (=24 h soak)I n 3 ..I ., I I ..I , .Figure 46.Effects of conductivity of water and soaking period on fatigue life of Type 304 SS in high-DO water (Ref. 7,38).10-2 10-1 Conductivity of Water (pS/cm)100 e Effects of water chemistry on fatigue life have not been considered in the determination of Fe,.Additional guidance may be needed for excursions of off-normal water chemistry conditions.
 
====5.2.7 Temperature====
The change in fatigue lives of austenitic SSs with test temperature at two strain amplitudes and two strain rates is shown in Fig. 47. The results suggest a threshold temperature of 150&deg;C, above which the environment decreases fatigue life in low-DO water if the strain rate is below the threshold of 0.4%/s. In the range of 150-325 0 C, the logarithm of fatigue life decreases linearly with temperature.
Only a moderate decrease in life occurs in water at temperatures below the threshold value of 1501C.[ 4 Austenitic SSs c 5=0.6%, DO0.005 ppm (ni a)CU)U---, Closed Symbols: Type 316 & 316NG A A 0'A-.. #o.,j A Austenitic SSs 0- 3 -ea = 0.3%, DO 0.005 ppm L1 Open Symbols: Type 304 0 0.4%/s Closed Symbols: Type 316 & 316NG An 0.01%/s 50 100 150 200 250. 300 350 400 50 100 150 200 250 0.4%/s A 0.01%/s A 0 -3 A 300 350 400 Temperature (TC)Temperature
(&deg;C)Figure 47. Change in fatigue lives of austenitic stainless steels in low-DO water with temperature (Refs.7,23-25,28,38-40).
Fatigue tests have been conducted at MHI in Japan on Type 316 SS under combined mechanical and thermal cycling.2 3 Triangular waveforms were used for both strain and temperature cycling. Two sequences were selected for temperature cycling: (i) an in-phase sequence, in which temperature cycling was synchronized with mechanical strain cycling, and (ii) a sequence in which temperature and strain were out of phase, i.e., maximum temperature occurred at minimum strain level and vice versa. Two temperature ranges, 100-325&deg;C and 200-325&deg;C, were selected for the tests. The results are shown in Fig. 48, along with data obtained from tests at constant temperature.
An average temperature is used in 55 Fig. 48 for the thermal cycling tests. Because environmental effects are considered to be moderate below threshold values of 150'C for temperature and -0.25% for strain range, the average temperature for the thermal cycling tests was determined from higher value between 150'C and temperature at threshold strain for in-phase tests, and the lower value between maximum temperature and temperature at threshold strain for out-of-phase tests.The results in Fig. 48 indicate that for load cycles involving variable temperature, average temperature gives the best estimate of fatigue life. Also, as expected, the fatigue lives of the in-phase tests are shorter than those for the out-of-phase tests. For the thermal cycling tests, fatigue life is longer for out-of-phase tests than for in-phase tests, because applied strains above the threshold strain occur at high temperatures for in-phase tests, whereas they occur at low temperatures for out-of-phase tests. The results from the thermal cycling tests (triangles) agree well with those from the constant-temperature tests (open circles).104 Type 316 SS 325&deg;C Ca=0.6%DO = <0.005 ppmStrain Rate 0.002%/s o _, -Figure 48.I Stan ae 02/............s Fatigue life of Type 316 stainless steel under constant and varying test I,, temperature (Ref. 23).'_ Temperature (Strain Rate, %/s)* Constant (0.01)A In phase (0.002)* Out of phase (0.002)1 0 2 ....Ii .i l ii l i ~ l i .l i l .I ..i 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Temperature
(&deg;C)Another study conducted by the' Japan Nuclear Safety Organization on Type 316 SS under combined mechanical and thermal cycling in PWR water showed similar results, e.g., the in-phase tests had lower fatigue lives than the out-of-phase tests.3 0 , 3 2 These results indicate that load cycles involving variable temperature conditions may be represented by an average temperature.
9 In LWR environments, the effect of temperature on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs is explicitly considered in Fen, defined in Eq. 38 (Section 5.2.14). Also, guidance is provided to define the temperature to be used to calculate Fen for a specific stress cycle or load set pair.5.2.8 Material Heat Treatment Limited data indicate that, although heat treatment has little or no effect on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs in low-DO and air environments, in a high-DO environment, fatigue life may be longer for nonsensitized or slightly sensitized SS.40 The effect of heat treatment on the fatigue life of Type 304 SS in air, BWR, and PWR environments is shown in Fig. 49. Fatigue life is plotted as a function of the EPR (electrochemical potentiodynamic reactivation) value for the various material conditions.
The results indicate that heat treatment has little or no effect on the fatigue life of Type 304 SS in air and PWR environments.
In a BWR environment, fatigue life is lower for the sensitized SSs; fatigue life decreases with increasing EPR value.56 Type 304 Stainless Steel-289oC 2 -,1104, _ Figure 49.The effect of material heat treatment on fatigue life of Type 304 stainless steel in air, BWR and PWR environments at 2890C, =0.38% strain-amplitude, sawtooth waveform, and 0.004%/s 0 tensile strain rate (Ref. 40).Strain amplitude
=0.38% -- ---Air 103 Saw-tooth waveform 0 BWR Strain Rate 0.004%/s tensile ---- -A---- PWR 0.4%/s compressive 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 EPR (C/cm 2)These results are consistent with the data obtained at MHI on solution-annealed and sensitized Types 304 and 316 SS.2 1 , 2 5 In low-DO (<0.005 ppm) water at 325&deg;C, a sensitization annealing had no effect on the fatigue lives of these steels. In high-DO (8 ppm) water at 300'C, the fatigue life of sensitized Type 304 SS was a factor of -2 lower than that of the solution-annealed steel. However, a sensitization anneal had little or no effect on the fatigue life of low-C Type 316NG SS in high-DO water at 288'C, and the lives of solution-annealed and sensitized Type 316NG SS were comparable.
* The effect of heat treatment is not considered in the environmental fatigue correction factor; estimates of Fen based on Eq. 38 (Section 5.2.14) may be conservative for some SSs in high-DO water.5.2.9 Flow Rate It is generally recognized that flow rate most likely affects the fatigue life of LWR materials because it may cause differences in local environmental conditions in the enclaves of the microcracks formed during early stages in the fatigue c-N test. As discussed in Section 4.2.9, data obtained under typical operating conditions for BWRs indicate that environmental effects on the fatigue life of carbon steels are a factor of z2 lower at high flow rates (7 mrns) than at low flow rates (0.3 m/s or lower).1 9 ,20 However, similar tests in both low-DO and high-DO environments indicate that increasing flow rate has no effect or may have a detrimental effect on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs. Figure 50 shows the effect of water flow rate on the fatigue life of Types 316NG and 304 SSs in high-purity water at 289&deg;C. Under Austenitic SSs 0.6% Rate: 0.001%/s 289 0 C Water....104... 316NG SS-A---- 304SS e.: 0.3% Rate: 0.01%/s -..iur.0...... N. Gt' .s .... 'S- F igure 50 ., A-. Effect of water flow rate on the fatigue life of 10: .... -austenitic SSs in high-purity water at 289&deg;C.-- -- ---- ..(Ref. 20).Dissolved Oxygen (ppm)Open Symbols: 0.2 Closed Symbols: 0.05 L, I ,,,,.l , I ,,,,,,, I ,,,,,,, , I , '',,d1 I l 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 Flow Rate (m/s)57 I all test conditions, the fatigue lives of these steels are slightly lower at high flow rates than those at lower rates or semi-stagnant conditions.
Fatigue tests conducted on SS pipe bend specimens in simulated PWR primary water at 240'C also indicate that water flow rate has no effect on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs. Increasing the flow rate from 0.005 m/s to 2.2 m/s had no effect on fatigue crack initiation in z26.5-mm diameter tube specimens.
I These results appear to be consistent with the notion that, in LWR environments, the mechanism of fatigue crack initiation in austenitic SSs may differ from that in carbon and low-alloy steels.9 Because of the uncertainties in theflow conditions at or near the locations of crack initiation and the insignificant effect offlow rate, flow rate effects on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs in L WR environments are presently not considered in the fatigue evaluations.
5.2;10 Surface Finish Fatigue tests have been conducted on Types 304 and 316NG SS specimens that were intentionally I roughened in a lathe, under controlled conditions, with 5-grit sandpaper to produce circumferential cracks with an average surface roughness of 1.2 .tm. The results are shown in Figs. 51 a and b, respectively, for Types 316NG and 304 SS. For both steels, the fatigue life of roughened specimens is lower than that of I the smooth specimens in air and low-DOwater environments.
In high-DO water, the fatigue life of Heat P91576 of Type 316NG is the same for rough and smooth specimens.
I I IIIII I I I I III IIII II I III 1 1 1 I I i i iiiii Type 316NG SS Heat D432804 Heat P91576 Type 304 SS Sawtooth Waveform 289&deg;C N Air A Air 289&deg;C Strain Rate = 0.004/0.4%/s 1.0 .. > PWR 0 PWR 1.0 C. Air V BWR 0 BWR -A Simulated PWR Water Strain Rate: 0.004%/s in Water --d " N -0.4 -0.004%/s in Air -z.. "" e i a)V [>D Best-Fit Air Best-Fit Air .E E7-<- N- <.9 ASME Code -. ..ASME Code -0 .Design Curve -" 0.1 Design Curve Open Symbols: Smooth Specimens Open Symbols: Smooth Specimens Closed Symbols: Rough Surface, 50 grit paper Closed Symbols: Rough Surface, 50 grit paper 10 3  10 4  105 106 103 10 4  10 5  106 Fatigue Life (Cycles) Fatigue Life (Cycles)(a) (b)Figure 51. Effect of surface roughness on fatigue life of (a) Type 316NG and (b) Type 304 stainless steels in air and high-purity water at 289&deg;C.The effect of surface finish is not considered in the environmental fatigue correction factor, it is included in the subfactor for "surface finish and environment, " which is applied to the mean data curve to develop the Code fatigue design curve in air.5.2.11 Heat-to-Heat Variability The effect of material variability and data scatter on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs has been evaluated for the data in LWR environments.
The fatigue behavior of each of the heats or loading conditions is characterized by the value of the constant A in the ANL model (e.g., Eq. 6). The values of A for the various data sets are ordered, and median ranks are used to estimate the cumulative distribution I of A for the population.
The results in water environments are shown in Fig. 52. The median value of A 58I in water is 6.157. The results indicate that environmental effects are approximately the same for the various heats of these steels. For example, the cumulative distribution of data sets for specific heats is approximately the same in air and water environments.
The ANL model seems to over-estimate the effect of environment for a few heats, e.g., the ranking for Type 304 SS heat 3 is z25 percentile in air (Fig. 35) and 485 percentile in water (Fig. 52).The values for constant A that provide bounds for the portion of the population and the confidence that is desired in the estimates of the bounds for austenitic SSs in LWR environments are summarized in Table 10. In LWR environments, the 5th percentile value of Parameter A at a 95% confidence level is 5.401. Thus, for the median value of 6.157 for the sample (Table 10), the 95/95 value of the margin to account for material variability and data scatter is 2.3 on life. This margin is needed to provide 95%confidence that the resultant life will be greater than that observed for 95% of the materials of interest.1.0 0.8 U-0.. 0.6 a)-I 0.4 E 0.3 0.2-Austenitic SSs ... ---Water ---__" j- _75th Percentile I OI __L L i i F " Median 6.157___ __~___
* 276 Data Points-14 Heats Z4, V 316N-1 -...... ..... -+, ... ..2____ 1 ,.....: h 0 31N-A-25th I- 0 304-3 -Percen file -T @ 304-9 X 304-21 V 304-A.... ..--- -o304L-E C) 316-14/1 316-12 -Figure 52.Estimated cumulative distribution of constant A in the ANL model for fatigue life for heats of austenitic SSs in water.I 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 Constant A Table 10. Values of parameter A in the ANL fatigue life model and the margins on life for austenitic SSs in water as a function of confidence level and percentage of population bounded.Confidence Percentage of Population Bounded (Percentile Distribution of A)Level 95 (5) 90(10) 75 (25) 67(33) 50(50)Values of Parameter A 50 5.481 5.630 5.880 5.976. 6.157 75 5.414 5.570 5.828 5.925 6.104 95 5.317 5.483 5.752 5.851 6.028 Margins on Life 50 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.0 75 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.1 95 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.1 The heat-to-heat variability is included in the Code fatigue design curves as part of the subfactor that is applied to the room-temperature mean data curve to account for "data scatter and material variability.
" 59 I 5.2.12 Cast Stainless Steels Available fatigue a-N data 2 3 , 2 8 , 3 7 ,3 8 indicate that, in air, the fatigue lives of cast CF-8 and CF-8M I SSs are similar to that of wrought austenitic SSs. The fatigue lives of cast austenitic SSs also decrease in LWR coolant environments.
Limited data suggest that the fatigue lives of cast SSs in high-DO water are approximately the same as those in low-DO water. In LWR environments the fatigue lives of cast SSs are comparable to those of wrought SSs in low-DO water. Also, the fatigue lives of these steels are relatively insensitive to changes in ferrite content in the range of 12-28%.23,28 Also, existing data are inadequate to establish the dependence of fatigue life on temperature in LWR environments.
I The effect of thermal aging at 250-400'C on the fracture toughness properties of cast SSs are well established, fracture toughness is decreased significantly after thermal aging because of the spinodal decomposition of the ferrite phase to form Cr-rich cc' phase. 117,118 The cyclic-hardening behavior of cast austenitic SSs is also influenced by thermal aging.3 8 At 288&deg;C, cyclic stresses of cast SSs aged for 10,000 h at 400'C are higher than those for unaged material or wrought SSs. Also, strain rate effects on cyclic stress are greater for aged than for unaged steel, i.e., cyclic stresses increase significantly with I decreasing strain rate. The existing data are too sparse to establish the effects of thermal aging on strain-rate effects on the fatigue life of cast SSs in air. Limited data in low-DO water at 288&deg;C indicate that thermal aging for 10,000 h at 400'C decreases the fatigue life of CF-8M steels, Fig. 53b.3 8 Note that I thermal aging of another heat of CF-8M steel for 25,200 h at 465&deg;C, Fig. 53a, had little or no effect on fatigue life. The different behavior for the two steels may be attributed to differences in the microstructure produced after thermal aging at 400'C as apposed to 465&deg;C. Thermal aging at 400'C results in spinodal decomposition of the ferrite phase which strengthens the ferrite phase and increases cyclic hardening.
Thermal aging at 465&deg;C results in the nucleation and growth of large &x' particles and other phases such as sigma phase, which do not change the tensile or cyclic hardening properties of the material.CF-8M Cast SS (FN 19.7) CF-8M Cast SS I 325&deg;C; DO 0.005 ppm Heat 74 Ferrite =18%Strain Amplitude
(%) Heat 75 Ferrite =28%0.6A 0.3 ..0 0.25 a) Open Symbols: Aged 25.200 h at 465'C 0 '. -103 Closed Symbols: Unaged n 288&deg;C: Ea =0.38%IL I_ DO <0.005 ppm I* 74 Unaged 2102 74 Aged 10,000 h at 400&deg;C 10 75 Aged 10,000 h at 400'C 1 0-6 10-5 10-4 10-3  10-2 10-1 100 1 0-6 10-5 10-4  10-3 10-2 10-1 100 Strain Rate (%Is) Strain Rate (%Is)(a) (b)Figure 53. Dependence of fatigue lives of CF-8M cast SSs on strain rate in low-DO water.at various strain amplitudes (Refs. 23,28,37,38).
The decrease in fatigue life with decreasing strain rate for three heats of CF-8M cast SS in low-DO water at 325 and 288&deg;C is shown in Fig. 53; the effects of strain rate on the fatigue life of cast SSs are similar to those for wrought SSs. However, for an unaged heat of CF-8M steel with -20% ferrite, environmental effects on life do not appear to saturate even at strain rates as low as 0.00001%/s.23,28 Similar results have also been reported for unaged CF-8M steels in low-DO water at 325&deg;C.1 19 Based 60 on these results, the saturation strain rate of 0.0004%/s, recommended for wrought SSs (Eq. 36 in Section 5.2.13), has been decreased to 0.00004%/s for cast SS. However, thermal aging may have influenced the results at very low strain rates. All of the tests at low strain rates were obtained on unaged material; as discussed above, available data indicate that thermal aging decreases the fatigue life of CF-8M steel (Fig. 53b). Limited data indicate that the effects of strain rate are the same in low- and high-DO water.Also, such low strain rates (i.e., less than 0.0004%/s) are not likely to occur in the field. In the present report the effects of strain rate and temperature on the fatigue life of cast austenitic SSs are assumed to be similar to those for wrought SSs.The estimated cumulative distribution of constant A in the ANL model for fatigue life for austenitic SSs, including several heats of cast SSs, in air and water environments are shown in Fig. 54. The results for cast SSs are evenly distributed and have insignificant effect on the median value of the constant A, e.g., the values with and without the cast SS data are 6.878 and 6.891, respectively, in air, and 6.147 and 6.157, respectively, in water. Thus, the ANL model for austenitic SSs adequately represent both wrought and cast SSs.--Austenitic S5s ---- -AusteniticSSss-1 ._ ....-A i .. ....... ........ ... ....... ... -..- ..W a ...t. ..e r.................
0.8 Z117- _eln _ ----_ -----,.. ... :ii-----I -i ----. 75--P-re~/~~ --U 75th Percentile 1 .hPretl .o ....~ --~. ......---------
-- ----- -.-_ 0 .6 ... .... ----. ... ...1.... .0 .6 .....t .. .-Median 687-8 -. ..". ..Median 6,147 -.----- --..---.--..---.---
-.-.----....
.5 0.4 -------E E ---- --........ ... ....... ... ..... ... .... .... ........,....... ....ercen, ie Percen tle --.0.2 -Cf_8M 0.2 a... ..... CFSM --S -V 316NG .-.---.----
V 316NG -S 014 SS -.... .. A 304SS.. ... .... .. ._ 316SS 00 -~" ."" ..316 .. .. ... --5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 Constant A Constant A (a) (b)Figure 54. Estimated cumulative distribution of constant A in the ANL model for fatigue life of wrought and cast austenitic stainless steels in (a) air and (b) water environments.
5.2.13 Fatigue Life Model In LWR environments, the fatigue life of austenitic SSs depends on strain rate, DO level, and temperature; the effects of these and other parameters on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs are discussed in detail below. The functional forms for the effects of strain rate and temperature are based on the data trends. For both wrought and cast austenitic SSs, the model assumes threshold and saturation values of 0.4 and 0.0004%/s, respectively, for strain rate and a threshold value of 150'C for temperature.
The influence of DO level on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs is not well understood.
As discussed in Section 5.2.5, the fatigue lives of austenitic SSs are decreased significantly in low-DO water, whereas in high-DO water they are either comparable or, for some steels, higher than those in low-DO water. In 61
~I high-DO water, the composition and heat treatment of the steel influence the magnitude of environmental effects on austenitic SSs. Until more data are available to clearly establish the effects of DO level on fatigue life, the effect of DO level on fatigue life is assumed to be the same in low- and high-DO water and for wrought and cast austenitic SSs.The least-squares fit of the experimental data in water yields a steeper slope for the F-N curve than i the slope of the curve obtained in air.3 8 , 8 2 These results indicate that environmental effect may be more pronounced at low than at high strain amplitudes.
Differing slopes for the E-N curves in air and water environments would add complexity to the determination of the environmental fatigue correction factor I Fen, discussed in the next section. In the ANL model, the slope of the curve is assumed to be the same in LWR and air environments.
In LWR environments, fatigue data for austenitic SSs are best represented by the equation: In(N) = 6.157 -1.920 ln(F-a -0. 112) + T' C' O', (34)where T', E'', and 0' are transformed temperature, strain rate, and DO, respectively, defined as follows: i T'= 0 (T < 150-C)T'= (T- 150)/175 (150 < T < 325-C) I T' 1 (T _> 325-C) (35)S=0 (t > 0.4%/s)ln( 2/0.4) (0.0004 < t < 0.4%/s)'= ln(0.0004/0.4) (t < 0.0004%/s)
(36)0' = 0.281 (all DO levels). (37) i These models are recommended for predicted fatigue lives :S106 cycles. Note that Eq. 34 is based on the updated ANL model for austenitic SSs in air (Eq. 32) and the analysis presented in Section 5.2.11. i A single expression is used for Types 304, 304L, 316, 316L, and 316NG SSs, and constant A and slope B in the equation are different from the values reported earlier in NUREG/CR-5704, -6815, and -6878.Equations 34-37 can also be used for cast austenitic SSs such as CF-3, CF-8, and CF-8M. Also, because the influence of DO level on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs may be influenced by the material composition and heat treatment, the ANL fatigue life model may be somewhat conservative for some SSs in high-DO water.The experimental values of fatigue life and those predicted by Eq. 34 for austenitic SSs in LWR environments are plotted in Fig. 55. The predicted fatigue lives show good agreement with the experimental values. The difference between the experimental and predicted values is within a factor of 3 I for most tests; the experimental fatigue lives of a few tests on Type 304 SS are up to a factor of z4 lower than the predicted values, all of these tests were on tube specimens with 1- or 3-mm wall thickness.
* The ANL model represent the mean values of fatigue life as a function of applied strain amplitude, I temperature, strain rate, and DO level in water. The effects of parameters such as mean stress, surface finish, size and geometry, and loading history, which are known to influence fatigue life, are not included in the model.62 106~0.....'4 ? -----101 .101 a 10 A V0, 0 0 1 5.2.4 Enionetl oretoFco 102 ---------
--345 103 0 f igue 102 10 3 1re 4  10 5  106 101 whic102 10 3  10efe a 106 Observed Life (Cycles) Observed Life (Cycles)Figure 55. Experimental and predicted values of fatigue lives of austenitic SSs in LWR environments.
5.2.14 Environmental Correction Factor The effects of reactor coolant environments on fatigue life have also been expressed in terms of a fatigue life correction factor F,,,, which is defined as the ratio of life in air at room temperature to that in water at the service temperature.
The fatigue life correction factor for austenitic SSs, based on the ANL model, is given by F,, = exp(0.734
-T' ' O'), (38)where the constants T', E', and 0' are defined in Eqs. 35-37. Note that because the ANL model for austenitic SSs has been updated in the present report, the constant 0.734 in Eq. 38 is different from the values reported earlier in NUREG/CR-5704, 6815, and 6878. Relative to the earlier expressions, correction factors determined from Eq. 38 are 45-60% lower. A threshold strain amplitude (one-half of the applied strain range) is also defined, below which LWR coolant environments have no effect on fatigue life, i.e., Fen = 1. The threshold strain amplitude is 0.10% (195 MPa stress amplitude) for austenitic SSs. To incorporate environmental effects into a Section III fatigue evaluation, the fatigue usage for a specific stress cycle, based on the proposed new fatigue design curve (Fig. 37 and Table 9 in Section 5.1.8), is multiplied by the correction factor. Further details for incorporating environmental effects into fatigue evaluations are presented in Appendix A.* The Fen approach may be used to incorporate environmental effects into the Code fatigue evaluations.
63 This page is intentionally left blank.64 6 Ni-Cr-Fe Alloys and Welds The relevant fatigue E-N data for Ni-Cr-Fe alloys and their welds in air and water environments include the data compiled by Jaske and O'Donnell 7 2 for developing fatigue design criteria for pressure vessel alloys; the JNUFAD database from Japan; studies at MHI, IHI, and Hitachi in Japan;3 3 studies at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory; 7 6 , 7 7 work sponsored by EPRI at Westinghouse Electric Corporation; 7 5 the tests performed by GE in a test loop at the Dresden I reactor;8 and the results of Van Der Sluys et al.7 8 For Alloys 600 and 690, nearly 70% of the tests in air were conducted at room temperature and the remainder at 83-325&deg;C.
For Ni-Cr-Fe alloy welds (e.g., Alloys 82, 182, 132, and 152) nearly 85% of the tests in air were conducted at room temperature.
In water, nearly 60% of the tests were conducted in simulated BWR environment (z0.2 ppm DO) and 40% in PWR environment
(<0.01 ppm DO); tests in BWR water were performed at 288&deg;C and in PWR water at 315 or 325'C. The existing fatigue data also include some tests in water with all volatile treatment (AVT) and at very high frequencies, e.g., 20 Hz to 40 kHz.7 5 As expected, environmental effects on fatigue life were not observed for these tests; the results in AVT water are not included in the present analysis.6.1 Air Environment 6.1.1 Experimental Data The fatigue e-N data for Alloys 600 and 690 in air at temperatures between room temperature and 316'C are shown in Fig. 56, and those for Ni-Cr-Fe alloy welds (e.g., Alloys 82, 182, 132, and 152) in air at temperatures between room temperature and 315'C are shown in Fig. 57. The best-fit curve for austenitic SSs based on the updated ANL model (Eq. 32 in Section 5.1.7) and the ASME Section III mean-data curve are included in the figures. The results indicate that although the data for Alloy 690 are very limited, the fatigue lives of Alloy 690 are comparable to those of Alloy 600 (Fig. 56). Similarly, the fatigue lives of Alloy 152 weld are comparable to those of Alloys 82, 182, and 132 welds (Fig. 57). Also, the fatigue lives of the Ni-Cr-Fe alloy welds are comparable to those of the wrought Alloys 600 and 690 in the low-cycle regime (i.e., <105 cycles) and are slightly superior to the lives of wrought materials in the high-cycle regime.Alloy 600 Alloy 690, Air Air ., Ream remp 204'C c' 315'C 0 260-316&deg;C 1.0 -_ J 1.0 ASME Code er ASME Code<> Mean Curve Z3 Mean Curve--AAustenitic SSs Austenitic SSs CL Best-Fit Air C. .Best-Fit Air< ANL Model <A Austenitic SSs ..Austenitic SSs 0.1 102 10 3  10 4  105 106 107 108 102 103 10 4  105 106 10 7  108 Fatigue Life (Cycles) Fatigue Life (Cycles)Figure 56. Fatigue c-N behavior for Alloys 600 and 690 in air at temperatures between room temperature and 315'C (Refs. JNUFAD data, 72, 75-78).65 I Alloys 82, 182, 132 Welds, Air Alloy 152 Weld, Air..> 21Tc 82) 11 315Tc A 315-C (A 82)?1.0 1.0 ASME Code ASME Code A. .-, Curve "c- .MeanCure E Austenitic SSs ..Austenitic SSs Best-Fit S~Best-Fit Air Best-Fit Air I 0.1 ANL Model 0.1 ANLModel Austenitic SSs Austenitic SSs 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 102 103 104 .105 106 107 108 Fatigue Life (Cycles) Fatigue Life (Cycles)Figure 57. Fatigue c-N behavior for Alloys 82, 182, 132, and 152 welds in air at various temperatures (Refs. JNUFAD data, 72-78).The fatigue lives of Alloy 600 are generally longer at high temperatures than at room temperature (Fig. 56a).7 5-7 7 A similar behavior is observed for its weld metal, e.g., Alloy 82 (Fig. 57a). However, limited data for Alloy 690 (Fig. 56b) and its weld metal, Alloy 152 (Fig. 57b), indicate little or no effect of temperature on their fatigue lives. The existing data are inadequate to determine the effect of strain rate on the fatigue life of Ni-Cr-Fe alloys.The results also indicate that the fatigue data for Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, including welds, are not consistent with the current ASME Code mean curve for austenitic SSs. The data for Alloys 600 and 690 show very good agreement with the updated ANL fatigue life model for austenitic SSs (Fig. 56a). Also, I the fatigue data for Alloys 82, 182, and 132 are consistent with the updated ANL model in the low-cycle regime and somewhat conservative with respect to the model in the high-cycle regime (Fig. 57a).* For Alloys 600 and 690 and their welds, the updated ANL fatigue life model proposed in the present report for austenitic SSs (Eq. 32) is either consistent or conservative with respect to the fatigue e-N data.6.1.2 Fatigue Life Model I For Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, fatigue evaluations are based on the fatigue design curve for austenitic SSs.However, the existing fatigue c-N data for Ni-Cr-Fe alloy and their welds are not consistent with the I current ASME Code fatigue design curve for austenitic SSs. As discussed above, the data are either comparable or slightly conservative with respect to the updated ANL model for austenitic SSs, e.g., Eq. 32. Thus, the new fatigue design curve proposed in the present report for austenitic SSs and presented in Fig. 37 and Table 9 adequately represents the fatigue c-N behavior of Ni-Cr-Fe alloys and their welds.* The new design curve for austenitic SSs may also be used for Ni-Cr-Fe alloys and their welds. I I I I 6.2 LWR Environment 6.2.1 Experimental Data The fatigue lives of Ni-Cr-Fe alloys and their welds are also decreased in LWR environments; the fatigue s-N data for various Ni-Cr-Fe alloys in simulated BWR water at z289&deg;C and PWR water at 315-325&deg;C are shown in Figs. 58 and 59, respectively.
The s-N curves based on the ANL model for austenitic SSs (Eq. 32 in Section 5.1.7) and the ASME Section III mean-data curve for austenitic SSs are also included in the figures. The results indicate that environmental effects on the fatigue life of Ni-Cr-Fe alloys are strongly dependent on key parameters such as strain rate, temperature, and DO level in water.Similar to SSs, the effect of coolant environment on the fatigue life of Ni-Cr-Fe alloys is greater in the low-DO PWR environment than in the high-DO BWR environment.
However, under similar loading and environmental conditions, the extent of the effects of environment is considerably less for the Ni-Cr-Fe alloys than for austenitic SSs. In general, environmental effects on fatigue life are the same for wrought and weld alloys.rm- ......................................................
20 10 0 a 2 10 U, 1.0 I'"1 ....I ........ I .... .' ...... ...... I .....I Alloy 600 Strain Rate (%/s)289&deg;C BWR Water Sri Re%, 1' 0,0 V 0.04 A 0.004 C* 0.001 ASME Code Mean Curve SSs Best Fit Air ANL Model Austenitic SSs ,,, .... .. ...,,I ... ... I ........ I ........ I ....1.0 E 0.1 Ni-Alloy Welds 289&deg;C BWR Water Strain Rate (%Is)0 0.04 ASMECode -Mean Curve -"Austnitic SSs j Best-Fit Air r ANL Model Austenitic SSs ,. ....I , ....I .....I ........ I ... .I ........ I -0.1 102 10 3 104 105 106 10 7 108 102 103 10 4 10 5 106 107 108 Fatigue Life (Cycles) Fatigue Life (Cycles)Figure 58. Fatigue s-N behavior for Alloy 600 and its weld alloys in simulated BWR water at =289&deg;C (Refs. JNUFAD data, 33).1.0 E 0.1 Alloy 600 & Alloys 132 & 82 Welds Strain Rate (%Is)215-325&deg;C PWR Water Alloy 600/132 V 0.4 Alloy 82"0 0.1 ASME Code > 0.01 Mean Curve V \ Austenitic SSs Best-Fit Air ANL Model Austenitic SSs:F 1.0 0.1 102 103 10 4  105 106 10 7  108 Fatigue Life (Cycles)102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Fatigue Life (Cycles)Figure 59. Fatigue s-N behavior for Alloys 600 and 690 and their weld alloys in simulated PWR water at 315 or 325&deg;C (Refs. 33, 78).67 I 105 1 .I.T... 10l 5 Strain Amplitude
.Ni-Alloys Alloy 600 .Alloy 690/152 325&deg;C PWR Water 289TC BWR Water I 04% lI Strain Amplitude o) .6% I C 0.3%Q" Alloy 600/132 In.)--'5% > 104 n- Z 075% .. i....0 04/s ., LL 103.... .k -- r ..... -...... I -.I ........10-5 10-4  10-3 10-2 10-1 100. 10-5 10-4  10-3 10-2 10-1 100 Strain Rate (%Is) Strain Rate (%Is) i Figure 60. Dependence of fatigue lives of Alloys 690 and 600 and their weld alloys in PWR water at 325&deg;C and Alloy 600 in BWR water at 289&deg;C (Refs. JNUFAD data, 33, 78). 3 6.2.2 Effects of Key Parameters The existing fatigue &-N data for Ni-Cr-Fe alloys in LWR environments are very limited; the I effects of the key loading and environmental parameters (e.g., strain rate,temperature, and DO level) on fatigue life of these alloys have been evaluated by Higuchi et al.3 3 The fatigue lives of Alloys 600 and 690 and their weld metals (e.g., Alloys 132 and 152) in simulated PWR and BWR water at different strain I amplitudes are plotted as a function of strain rate in Fig. 60. The fatigue life of these alloys decreases logarithmically with decreasing strain rate. Although fatigue data at strain rates below 0.001%/s are not available, for Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, the effect of strain rate is assumed to be similar to that for austenitic SSs;the effect saturates at 0.0004%/s strain rate. Also, the threshold strain rate below which environmental effects are significant cannot be determined from the present data. Higuchi et al.3 3 have defined a threshold strain rate of 1.8%/s in high-DO BWR water and 26.1%/s in low-DO PWR water. As discussed in Section 6.2.3, an average threshold value of 5%/s provides good estimates of fatigue lives of Ni-Cr-Fe I alloys in LWR environments.
The results also indicate that the effects of environment are greater in the low-DO PWR water than in high-DO BWR water. For example, a three orders of magnitude decrease in strain rate decreases the fatigue life of these alloys by a factor ofz3 in PWR water and by ;2 in BWR water.The existing data are inadequate to determine accurately the functional form for the effect of I temperature on fatigue life or to define the, threshold strain amplitude below which environmental effects on fatigue life do not occur. Such effects are assumed to be similar to those observed in austenitic SSs. It is also assumed that a slow strain rate applied during the tensile-loading cycle (i.e., up-ramp with increasing strain) is primarily responsible for the environmentally assisted reduction in fatigue life. Slow rates applied during both tensile- and compressive-loading cycles (i.e., up- and down-ramps) do not further decrease fatigue life compared with that observed for tests with only a slow tensile-loading cycle. I Thus, loading and environmental conditions during the tensile-loading cycle are important for environmentally assisted reduction of the fatigue lives of Ni-Cr-Fe alloys.6.2.3 Environmental Correction Factor The effects of reactor coolant environments on fatigue life of Ni-Cr-Fe alloys can also be expressed in terms of a fatigue life correction factor Fen, which is defined as the ratio of life in air at room I 68 temperature to that in water at the service temperature.
The existing fatigue data are very limited to develop a fatigue life model for estimating the fatigue life of Ni-Cr-Fe alloys in LWR environments.
However, as discussed above in Section 6.2.2, environmental effects for these alloys show the same trends as those observed for austenitic SSs. Thus, Fen for Ni-Cr-Fe alloys can be expressed as Fen = exp(T' t ' 0'), (39)where T', C', and 0' are transformed temperature, strain rate, and DO, respectively.
The functional forms for these transformed parameters were obtained from the best fit of the experimental data and are defined as follows: T' = T/325 T'=1 (T < 325-C)(T > 325&deg;C)t=0 S Iln(E/5.0)
C= ln(0.0004/5.0)
O' =0.09 O' =0.16 (t > 5.0%/s)(0.0004 < t < 5.0%/s)(t < 0.0004%/s)(NWC BWR water)(PWR or HWC BWR water).(40)(41)(42)The fatigue life of Ni-Cr-Fe alloys in LWR environments can be estimated from Eqs. 32 and 39-42. The experimental and estimated fatigue lives of various Ni-Cr-Fe alloys in BWR and PWR water are plotted in Fig. 61; the estimated values are either comparable or longer than those observed experimentally.
106 105 103 106 105~103 103 10 4  105 106 Observed Life (Cycles)Figure 61. The experimental and estimated fatigue lives environments (Refs. JNUFAD data, 33, 78).10 3  104 105 101 Observed Life (Cycles)of various Ni alloys in BWR and PWR A threshold strain amplitude (one-half of the applied strain range) is also defined, below which LWR coolant environments have no effect on fatigue life, i.e., Fen = 1. The value is assumed to be the same as that for austenitic SSs. The threshold strain amplitude is 0.10% (195 MPa stress amplitude) for Ni-Cr-Fe alloys. To incorporate environmental effects into a Section I11 fatigue evaluation, the fatigue 69 usage for a specific stress cycle, based on the proposed new fatigue design curve for austenitic SSs (Fig. 37 and Table 9 in Section 5.1.8), is multiplied by the correction factor. Further details for incorporating environmental effects into fatigue evaluations are presented in Appendix A.* The Fen approach may be used to incorporate environmental effects into the Code fatigue evaluations.
70 7 Margins in ASME Code Fatigue Design Curves Conservatism in the ASME Code fatigue evaluations may arise from (a) the fatigue evaluation procedures and/or (b) the fatigue design curves. The overall conservatism in ASME Code fatigue evaluations has been demonstrated in fatigue tests on components.
120,121 Mayfield et al.1 2 0 have shown that, in air, the margins on the number of cycles to failure for elbows and tees were 40-310 and 104-510, respectively, for austenitic SS and 118-2500 and 123-1700, respectively, for carbon steel. The margins for girth butt welds were significantly lower, 6-77 for SS and 14-128 for carbon steel. Data obtained by Heald and Kiss 1 2 1 on 26 piping components at room temperature and 288'C showed that the design margin for cracking exceeds 20, and for most of the components, it is >100. In these tests, fatigue life was expressed as the number of cycles for the crack to penetrate through the wall, which ranged in thickness from 6 to 18 mm. Consequently, depending on wall thickness, the actual margins to form a 3-mm crack may be lower by a factor of more than 2.Deardorff and Smith 1 2 2 discussed the types and extent of conservatism present in the ASME Section III fatigue evaluation procedures and the effects of LWR environments on fatigue margins. The sources of conservatism in the procedures include the use of design transients that are significantly more severe than those experienced in service, conservative grouping of transients, and use of simplified elastic-plastic analyses that lead to higher stresses.
The authors estimated that the ratio of the CUFs computed with the mean experimental curve for test specimen data in air and more accurate values of the stress to the CUFs computed with the Code fatigue design curve were -60 and 90, respectively, for PWR and BWR nozzles. The reductions in these margins due to environmental effects were estimated to be factors of 5.2 and 4.6 for PWR and BWR nozzles, respectively.
Thus, Deardorff and Smith 1 2 2 argue that, after accounting for environmental effects, factors of 12 and 20 on life for PWR and BWR nozzles, respectively, account for uncertainties due to material variability, surface finish, size, mean stress, and loading sequence.However, other studies on piping and components indicate that the Code fatigue design procedures do not always ensure large margins of safety.t 2 3 ,1 2 4 Southwest Research Institute performed fatigue tests in room-temperature water on 0.9 1-m-diameter carbon and low-alloy steel vessels.1 2 3 In the low-cycle regime, z5-mm-deep cracks were initiated slightly above (a factor of <2) the number of cycles predicted by the ASME Code design curve (Fig. 62a). Battelle-Columbus conducted tests on 203-mm or 914-mm carbon steel pipe welds at room temperature in an inert environment, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) performed four-point bend tests on 406-mm-diameter Type 304 SS pipe removed from the C-reactor at the Savannah River site.1 2 4 The results showed that the number of cycles to produce a leak was lower, and in some cases significantly lower, than that expected from the ASME Code fatigue design curves (Fig. 62a and b). The most striking results are for the ORNL "tie-in" and flawed "test" weld;these specimens cracked completely through the 12.7-mm-thick wall in a life 6 or 7 times shorter than expected from the Code curve. Note that the Battelle and ORNL results represent a through-wall crack;the number of cycles to initiate a 3-mm crack may be a factor of 2 lower.Much of the margin in the current evaluations arises from design procedures (e.g., stress analysis rules and cycle counting) that, as discussed by Deardorff and Smith, 1 2 2 are quite conservative.
However, the ASME Code permits new and improved approaches to fatigue evaluations (e.g., finite-element analyses, fatigue monitoring, and improved Ke factors) that can significantly decrease the conservatism in the current fatigue evaluation procedures.
71 Type 304 Stainless Steel Room Temp.ORNL*,, Tie-in we'd (5.6'0'a'i 103 102 Room emp Tes weid lack of penetrati ASME Code SDesign Curve )ail I-,, 10 3  104 10 5  106 Number of Cycles, N 103 104 105 Number of Cycles, N 106 (a) (b)Figure 62. Fatigue data for (a) carbon and low-alloy steel and (b) Type 304 stainless steel components (Refs. 123,124).The factors of 2 on stress and 20 on cycles used in the Code were intended to cover the effects of variables that can influence fatigue life but were not investigated in the tests that provided the data for the curves. It is not clear whether the particular values of 2 and 20 include possible conservatism.
A study sponsored by the PVRC to assess the margins of 2 and 20 in fatigue design curves concluded that these margins should not be changed.1 2 5 The variables that can affect fatigue life in air and LWR environments can be broadly classified into three groups: (a) Material (i) Composition (ii) Metallurgy:
grain size, inclusions, orientation within a forging or plate (iii) Processing:
cold work, heat treatment (iv) Size and geometry (v) Surface finish: fabrication surface condition (vi) Surface preparation:
surface work hardening (b) Loading (i) Strain rate: rise time (ii) Sequence:
linear damage summation or Miner's rule (iii) Mean stress (iv) Biaxial effects: constraints (c) Environment (i) Water chemistry:
DO, lithium hydroxide, boric acid concentrations (ii) Temperature (iii) Flow rate The existing fatigue c-N database covers an adequate range of material parameters (i-iii), a loading parameter (i), and the environment parameters (i-ii); therefore, the variability and uncertainty in fatigue life due to these parameters have been incorporated into the model. The existing data are most likely conservative with respect to the effects of surface preparation because the fatigue c-N data are obtained for specimens that are free of surface cold work. Fabrication procedures for fatigue test specimens 72 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I generally follow American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guidelines, which require that the final polishing of the specimens avoid surface work-hardening.
Biaxial effects are covered by design procedures and need not be considered in the fatigue design curves.As discussed earlier, under the conditions typical of operating BWRs, environmental effects on the fatigue life are a factor ofz2 lower at high flow rates (7 m/s) than those at very low flow rates (0.3 m/s or lower) for carbon and low-alloy steels and are independent of flow rate for austenitic SSs.19,20 However, because of the uncertainties in the flow conditions at or near the locations of crack initiation, the beneficial effect, of flow rate on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels is presently not included in fatigue evaluations.
Thus, the contributions of four groups of variables, namely, material variability and data scatter, specimen size and geometry, surface finish, and loading sequence (Miner's rule), must be considered in developing fatigue design curves that are applicable to components.
7.1 Material Variability and Data Scatter The effects of material variability and data scatter must be included to ensure that the design curves not only describe the available test data well, but also adequately describe the fatigue lives of the much larger number of heats of material that are found in the field. The effects of material variability and data scatter have been evaluated for the various materials by considering the best-fit curves determined from tests on individual heats of materials or loading conditions as samples of the much larger population of heats of materials and service conditions of interest.
The fatigue behavior of each of the heats or loading conditions is characterized by the value of the constant A in Eq. 6. The values of A for the various data sets are ordered, and median ranks are used to estimate the cumulative distribution of A for the population.
The distributions were fit to lognormal curves. The median value of A and standard deviation for each sample, as well as the number of data sets in the sample, are listed in Table 11. The 95/95 value of the margin on the median value to account for material variability and data scatter vary from 2.1 to 2.8 for the various samples. These margins applied to the mean value of life determined from the ANL fatigue life models provide 95% confidence that the fatigue life of 95 percentile of the materials and loading conditions of interest will be greater than the resultant value.Table 11. The median value of A and standard deviation for the various fatigue c-N data sets used to evaluate material variability and data scatter.Air Environment Water Environment Median Value Standard Number of Median Value Standard Number'of ofA Deviation Data Sets ofA Deviation Data Sets Carbon Steel 6.583 0.477 17 5.951 0.376 33 Low-Alloy Steel 6.449 0.375 32 5.747 0.484 26 Stainless Steel 6.891 0.417 51 6.328 0.462 36 7.2 Size and Geometry The effect of specimen size on the fatigue life was reviewed in earlier reports.6 , 3 9 Various studies conclude that "size effect" is not a significant parameter in the design curve margins when the fatigue curve is based on data from axial strain control rather than bending tests. No intrinsic size effect has been observed for smooth specimens tested in axial loading or plain bending. However, a size effect does occur in specimens tested in rotating bending; the fatigue endurance limit decreases by z25% if the specimen size is increased from 2 to 16 mm but does not decrease further with larger sizes. Also, some effect of size and geometry has been observed on small-scale-vessel tests conducted at the Ecole 73 I Polytechnique in conjunction with the large-size-pressure-vessel tests carried out by the Southwest Research Institute.
1 2 3 The tests at the Ecole Polytechnique were conducted in room-temperature water on 19-mm-thick shells with =305-mm inner diameter nozzles and made of machined bar stock. The results indicate that the fatigue lives determined from tests on the small-scale-vessel are 30-50% lower than those obtained from tests on small, smooth fatigue specimen.
However, the difference in fatigue lives in these tests cannot be attributed to specimen size alone, it is due to the effects of both size and I surface finish.During cyclic loading, cracks generally form at surface irregularities either already in existence or produced by slip bands, grain boundaries, second phase particles, etc. In smooth specimens, formation of surface cracks is affected by the specimen size; crack initiation is easier in larger specimens because of the increased surface area and, therefore, increased number of sites for crack initiation.
Specimen size is not likely to influence crack initiation in specimens with rough surfaces because cracks initiate at existing irregularities on the rough surface. As discussed in the next section, surface roughness has a large effect on fatigue life. Consequently, for rough surfaces, the effect of specimen size may not be considered in the margin of 20 on life. However, conservatively, a factor of 1.2-1.4 on life may be used to incorporate size effects on fatigue life in the low-cycle regime.7.3 Surface Finish 3 The effect of surface finish must be considered to account for the difference in fatigue life expected in actual components with industrial-grade surface finish compared to the smooth polished surface of a 3 test specimen.
Fatigue life is sensitive to surface finish; cracks can initiate at surface irregularities that are normal to the stress axis. The height, spacing, shape, and distribution of surface irregularities are important for crack initiation.
The effect of surface finish on crack initiation is expressed by Eq. 12 in terms of the RMS value of surface roughness (Rq).The roughness of machined surfaces or natural finishes can range from Z-0.8 to 6.0 gm. Typical surface finish for various machining processes is in the range of 0.2-1.6 gim for cylindrical grinding, I 0.4-3.0 jim for surface grinding, 0.8-3.0 jim for finish turning, and drilling and 1.6-4.0 jtm for milling.For fabrication processes, it is in the range of 0.8-3.0 [im for extrusion and 1.6-4.0 gm for cold rolling.Thus, from Eq. 12, the fatigue life of components with such rough surfaces may be a factor of 2-3.5 lower than that of a smooth specimen.Limited data in LWR environments on specimens that were intentionally roughened indicate that the effects of surface roughness on fatigue life is the same in air and water environments for austenitic SSs, but are insignificant in water for carbon and low-alloy steels. Thus, in LWR environments, a factor of 2.0-3.5 on life may also be used to account for the effects of surface finish on the fatigue life of austenitic SSs, but the factor may be lower for carbon and low-alloy steels, e.g., a factor of 2 may be used I for carbon and low-alloy steels.7.4 Loading Sequence The effects of variable amplitude loading of smooth specimens were also reviewed in an earlier report.3 9 In a variable loading sequence, the presence of a few cycles at high strain amplitude causes the fatigue life at smaller strain amplitude to be significantly lower than that at constant-amplitude loading, i.e., the fatigue limit of the material is lower under variable loading histories.
I 74.
As discussed in Section 2, fatigue life has conventionally been divided into two stages: initiation, expressed as the cycles required to form microstructurally small cracks (MSCs) on the surface, and propagation, expressed as cycles required to propagate these MSCs to engineering size. The transition from initiation to propagation stage strongly depends on applied stress amplitude; at stress levels above the fatigue limit, the transition from initiation to propagation stage occurs at crack depths in the range of 150 to 250 tim. However, under constant loading at stress levels below the fatigue limit of the material (e.g., AG, in Fig. 1), although microcracks z10 &#xfd;ltm can form quite early in life, they do not grow to an engineering size. Under the variable loading conditions encountered during service of power plants, cracks created by growth of MSCs at high stresses (AG 3 in Fig. 1) to depths larger than the transition crack depth can then grow to an engineering size even at stress levels below the fatigue limit.Studies on fatigue damage in Type 304 SS under complex loading histories 1 2 6 indicate that the loading sequence of decreasing strain levels (i.e., high strain level followed by low strain level) is more damaging than that of increasing strain levels. The fatigue life of the steel at low strain levels decreased by a factor of 2-4 under a decreasing-strain sequence.
In another study, the fatigue limit of medium carbon steels was lowered even after low-stress high-cycle fatigue; the higher the stress, the greater the decrease in fatigue threshold.1 2 7 A recent study on Type 316NG and Ti-stabilized Type 316 SS on strain-controlled tests in air and PWR environment with constant or variable strain amplitude reported a factor of 3 or more decrease in fatigue life under variable amplitude compared with constant amplitude.
1 2 8 Although the strain spectrum used in the study was not intended to be representative of real transients, it represents a generic case and demonstrates the effect of loading sequence on fatigue life.Because variable loading histories primarily influence fatigue life at low strain levels, the mean fatigue F-N curves are lowered to account for damaging cycles that occur below the constant-amplitude fatigue limit of the material.
However, conservatively, a factor of 1.2-2.0 on life may be used to incorporate the possible effects of load histories on fatigue life in the low-cycle regime.7.5 Fatigue Design Curve Margins Summarized The ASME Code fatigue design curves are currently obtained from the mean data curves by first adjusting for the effects of mean stress, and then reducing the life at each point of the adjusted curve by a factor of 2 on strain and 20 on life, whichever is more conservative.
The factors on strain are needed primarily to account for the variation in the fatigue limit of the material caused by material variability, component size, surface finish, and load history. Because these variables affect life through their influence on the growth of short cracks (<I 00 [tim), the adjustment on strain to account for such variations is typically not cumulative, i.e., the portion of the life can only be reduced by a finite amount. Thus, it is controlled by the variable that has the largest effect on life. In relating the fatigue lives of laboratory test specimens to those of actual reactor components, the factor of 2 on strain that is currently being used to develop the Code design curves is adequate to account for the uncertainties associated with material variability, component size, surface finish, and load history.The factors on life are needed to account for variations in fatigue life in the low-cycle regime.Based on the discussions presented above the effects of various material, loading, and environmental parameters on fatigue life may be summarized as follows: (a) The results presented in Table 11 may be used to determine the margins that need to be applied to the mean value of life to ensure that the resultant value of life would bound a specific percentile (e.g., 95 percentile) of the materials and loading conditions of interest.75 (b) For rough surfaces, specimen size is not likely to influence fatigue life, and therefore, the effect of specimen size need not be considered in the margin of 20 on life. However, conservatively, a factor of 1.2-1.4 on life may be used to incorporate size effects on fatigue life.(c) Limited data indicate that, for carbon and low-alloy steels, the effects of surface roughness on fatigue life are insignificant in LWR environments.
A factor of 2 on life may be used for carbon and low-alloy steels in water environments instead of the 2.0-3.5 used for carbon and low-alloy steels in air and for austenitic SSs in both air and water environments.(d) Variable loading histories primarily influence fatigue life at low strain levels, i.e., in the high-cycle regime, and the mean fatigue a-N curves are lowered by a &#xfd;factor of 2 on strain to account for damaging cycles that occur below the constant-strain fatigue limit of the material.
Conservatively, a factor of 1.2-2.0 on life may be used to incorporate the possible effects of load histories on fatigue life in the low-cycle regime.The subfactors that are needed to account for the effects of the various material, loading, and environmental parameters on fatigue life are summarized in Table 12. The total adjustment on life may vary from 6 to 27. Because the maximum value represents a relatively poor heat of material and assumes the maximum effects of size, surface finish, and loading history, the maximum value of 27 is likely to be quite conservative.
A value of 20 is currently being used to develop the Code design curves from the mean-data curves.Table 12. Factors on life applied to mean fatigue e-N curve to account for the effects of various material, loading, and environmental parameters.
Parameter Section III Criterion Document Present Report Material Variability and Data Scatter (minimum to mean) 2.0 2.1-2.8 Size Effect 2.5 1.2-1.4 Surface Finish, etc. 4.0 2.0-3.5*Loading History -1.2-2.0 Total Adjustment 20 6.0-27.4*A factor of 2 on life may be used for carbon and low-alloy steels in LWR environments.
To determine the most appropriate value for the design margin on life, Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the material variability and data scatter results given in Table 11, and the margins needed to account for the effects of size, surface finish, and loading history listed in Table 12.A lognonnal distribution was also assumed for the effects of size, surface finish, and loading history, and the minimum and maximum values of the adjustment factors, e.g., 1.2-1.4 for size, 2.0-3.5 for surface finish, and 1.2-2.0 for loading history, were assumed to represent the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively.
The cumulative distribution of the values of A in the fatigue E-N curve for test specimens and the adjusted curve that represents the behavior of actual components is shown in Fig. 63 for carbon and low-alloy steels and austenitic SSs.The results indicate that, relative to the specimen curve, the median value of constant A for the component curve decreased by a factor of 5.6 to account for the effects of size, surface finish, and loading history, and the standard deviation of heat-to-heat variation of the component curve increased by 6-10%.The margin that has to be applied to the mean data curve for test specimens to obtain a component curve that would bound 95% of the population, is 11.0-12.7 for the various materials; the values are given in 76 I I I I I I I I I I Table 13. An average value of 12 on life may be used for developing fatigue design curves from the mean data curve. The choice of bounding the 95th percentile of the population for a design curve is somewhat arbitrary.
It is done with the understanding that the design curve controls fatigue initiation, not failure. The choice also recognizes that there are conservatisms implied in the choice of log normal distributions, which have an infinite tail, and in the identification of what in many cases are bounding values of the effects as 95th percentile values.1.0 0.8 L-0 0.6.0.4 E 0.2 0.0 U-C: 23 0 5 Constant A Constant A 1.0 0.8 L.0 0.6-- 0.4 0 0.2 0.0 Figure 63.Estimated cumulative distribution of parameter A in the ANL models that represent the fatigue life of test specimens and actual components in air.4 5 6 Constant A 7 8 Table 13. Margin applied to the mean values of fatigue life to bound 95% of the population.
Material Carbon Steels Low-Alloy Steels Austenitic Stainless Steels Air Environment 12.6 11.0 11.6 77 I I These results suggest that for all materials, the current ASME Code requirements of a factor of 20 on cycles to account for the effects of material variability and data scatter, as well as specimen size, surface finish, and loading history, contain at least a factor of 1.7 conservatism (i.e., 20/12 ' 1.7). Thus, to reduce this conservatism, fatigue design curves may be obtained from the mean data curve by first correcting for mean stress effects using the modified Goodman relationship, and then reducing the mean-stress adjusted curve by a factor of 2 on stress or 12 on cycles, whichever is more conservative.
Fatigue design curves have been developed from the ANL fatigue life models using this procedure; the curves for carbon and low-alloy steels are presented in Section 4.1.10 and for wrought and cast austenitic SSs in Section 5.1.8.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 Summary The existing fatigue F-N data for carbon and low-alloy steels, wrought and cast austenitic SSs, and Ni-Cr-Fe alloys have been evaluated to define the effects of key material, loading, and environmental parameters on the fatigue lives of these steels. The fatigue lives of these materials are decreased in LWR environments; the magnitude of the reduction depends on temperature, strain rate, DO level in water, and, for carbon and low-alloy steels, the S content of the steel. For all steels, environmental effects on fatigue life are significant only when critical parameters (temperature, strain rate, DO level, and strain amplitude) meet certain threshold values. Environmental effects are moderate, e.g., less than a factor of 2 decrease in life, when any one of the threshold conditions is not satisfied.
The threshold values of the critical parameters and the effects of other parameters (such as water conductivity, water flow rate, and material heat treatment) on the fatigue life of the steels are summarized.
In air, the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels depends on steel type, temperature, orientation, and strain rate. The fatigue life of carbon steels is a factor of -1.5 lower than that of low-alloy steels. For both steels, fatigue life decreases with increase in temperature.
Some heats of carbon and low-alloy steels exhibit effects of strain rate and orientation.
For these heats, fatigue life decreases with decreasing strain rate. Also, based on the distribution and morphology of sulfides, the fatigue properties in the transverse orientation may be inferior to those in the rolling orientation.
The data indicate significant heat-to-heat variation; at 288&deg;C, the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels may vary by up to a factor of 3 above or below the mean value. Fatigue life is very sensitive to surface finish;the fatigue life of specimens with rough surfaces may be up to a factor of 3 lower than that of smooth specimens.
The results also indicate that in room-temperature air, the ASME mean curve for low-alloy steels is in good agreement with the available experimental data, and the curve for carbon steels is somewhat conservative.
The fatigue lives of both carbon and low-alloy steels are decreased in LWR environments; the reduction depends on temperature, strain rate, DO level in water, and S content of the steel. The fatigue life is decreased significantly when four conditions are satisfied simultaneously, viz., the strain amplitude, temperature, and DO in water are above certain minimum levels, and the strain rate is below a threshold value. The S content in the steel is also important; its effect on life depends on the DO level in water.Although the microstructures and cyclic-hardening behavior of carbon and low-alloy steels differ significantly, environmental degradation of the fatigue life of these steels is very similar. For both steels, only a moderate decrease in life (by a factor of <2) is observed when any one of the threshold conditions is not satisfied, e.g., low-DO PWR environment, temperatures
<1501C, or vibratory fatigue. The existing fatigue S-N data have been reviewed to establish the critical parameters that influence fatigue life and define their threshold and limiting values within which environmental effects are significant.
In air, the fatigue lives of Types 304 and 316 SS are comparable; those of Type 316NG are superior to those of Types 304 and 316 SS at high strain amplitudes.
The fatigue lives of austenitic SSs in air are independent of temperature in the range from room temperature to 427&deg;C. Also, variation in strain rate in the range of 0.4-0.008%/s has no effect on the fatigue lives of SSs at temperatures up to 400'C. The fatigue E-N behavior of cast SSs is similar to that of wrought austenitic SSs. The results indicate that the ASME mean-data curve for SSs is not consistent with the experimental data at strain amplitudes
<0.5% or stress amplitudes
<975 MPa (<141 ksi); the ASME mean curve predicts significantly longer lives than those observed experimentally.
79 The fatigue lives of cast and wrought austenitic SSs decrease in LWR environments compared to those in air. The decrease depends on strain rate, DO level in water, and temperature.
A minimum threshold strain is required for an environmentally assisted decrease in the fatigue life of SSs, and this strain appears to be independent of material type (weld or base metal) and temperature in the range of 250-325&deg;C.
Environmental effects on fatigue life occur primarily during the tensile-loading cycle and at strain levels greater than the threshold value. Strain rate and temperature have a strong effect on fatigue life in LWR environments.
Fatigue life decreases with decreasing strain* rate below 0.4%/s; the effect saturates at 0.0004%/s.
Similarly, the fatigue s-N data suggest a threshold temperature of 150'C; in the range of 150-325&deg;C, the logarithm of life decreases linearly with temperature.
The effect of DO level may be different for different steels. In low-DO water (i.e., <0.01 ppm DO)the fatigue lives of all wrought and cast austenitic SSs are decreased significantly; composition or heat treatment of the steel has little or no effect on fatigue life. However, in high-DO water, the environmental effects on fatigue life appear to be influenced by the composition and heat treatment of the steel; the effect of high-DO water on the fatigue lives of different compositions and heat treatment of SSs is not well established.
Limited data indicate that for a high-C Type 304 SS, environmental effects are significant only for sensitized steel. For a low-C Type 3 16NG SS, some effect of environment was observed even for mill-annealed steel (nonsensitized steel) in high-DO water, although the effect was smaller than that observed in low-DO water. Limited fatigue s-N data indicate that the fatigue lives of cast SSs are approximately the same in low- and high-DO water and are comparable to those observed for wrought SSs in low-DO water. In the present report, environmental effects on the fatigue lives of wrought and cast austenitic SSs are considered to be the same in high-DO and low-DO environments.
The fatigue s-N data for Ni-Cr-Fe alloys indicate that although the data for Alloy 690 are very limited, the fatigue lives of Alloy 690 are comparable to those of Alloy 600. Also, the fatigue lives of the Ni-Cr-Fe alloy welds are comparable to those of the wrought Alloys 600 and 690 in the low-cycle regime, i.e., <105 cycles, and are slightly superior to the lives of wrought materials in the high-cycle regime. The fatigue data for Ni-Cr-Fe alloys in LWR environments are very limited; the effects of key loading and environmental parameters on fatigue life are similar to those for austenitic SSs. For example, the fatigue life of these steels decreases logarithmically with decreasing strain rate. Also, the effects of environment are greater in the low-DO PWR water than the high-DO BWR water. The existing data are inadequate to determine accurately the functional form for the effect of temperature on fatigue life.Fatigue life models developed earlier to predict fatigue lives of small smooth specimens of carbon and low-alloy steels and wrought and cast austenitic SSs as a function of material, loading, and environmental parameters have been updated/revised using a larger fatigue s-N database.
The functional form and bounding values of these parameters were based on experimental observations and data trends.The models are applicable for predicted fatigue lives <106 cycles. The ANL fatigue life model proposed in the present report for austenitic SSs in air is also recommended for predicting the fatigue lives of small smooth specimens of Ni-Cr-Fe alloys.An approach, based on the environmental fatigue correction factor, is discussed to incorporate the effects of LWR coolant environments into the ASME Code fatigue evaluations.
To incorporate environmental effects into a Section III fatigue evaluation, the fatigue usage for a specific stress cycle of load set pair based on the current Code fatigue design curves is multiplied by the correction factor.The report also presents a critical review of the ASME Code fatigue design margins of 2 on stress and 20 on life and assesses the possible conservatism in the current choice of design margins. These factors cover the effects of variables that can influence fatigue life but were not investigated in the tests 80 that provided the data for the design curves. Although these factors were intended to be somewhat conservative, they should not be considered safety margins because they were intended to account for variables that are known to affect fatigue life. Data available in the literature have been reviewed to evaluate the margins on cycles and stress that are needed to account for the differences and uncertainties.
Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine the margin on cycles needed to obtain a fatigue design curve that would provide a somewhat conservative estimate of the number of cycles to initiate a fatigue crack in reactor components.
The results suggest that for both carbon and low-alloy steels and austenitic SSs, the current ASME Code requirements of a factor of 20 on cycles to account for the effects of material variability and data scatter, as well as size, surface finish, and loading history, contain at least a factor of 1 .7 conservatism.
Thus, to reduce this conservatism, fatigue design curves have been developed from the ANL model by first correcting for mean stress effects, and then reducing the mean-stress adjusted curve by a factor' of 2 on stress and 12 on cycles, whichever is more conservative.
A detailed procedure for incorporating environmental effects into fatigue evaluations is also presented in Appendix A.81 This page is intentionally left blank.82 References
: 1. Langer, B. F., "Design of Pressure Vessels for Low-Cycle Fatigue," ASME J. Basic Eng. 84, 389-402, 1962.2. "Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for Design by Analysis in Sections III and VIII, Division 2," The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1969.3. Cooper, W. E., "The Initial Scope and Intent of the Section III Fatigue Design Procedure," Welding Research Council, Inc., Technical Information from Workshop on Cyclic Life and Environmental Effects in Nuclear Applications, Clearwater, Florida, Jan. 22-21, 1992.4. Chopra, 0. K., and W. J. Shack, "Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design Curves of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels," NUREG/CR-6583, ANL-97/I 8, March 1998.5. Gavenda, D. J., P. R. Luebbers, and 0. K. Chopra, "Crack Initiation and Crack Growth Behavior of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels," Fatigue and Fracture 1, Vol. 350, S. Rahman, K. K. Yoon, S. Bhandari, R. Warke, and J. M. Bloom, eds., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 243-255, 1997.6. Chopra, 0. K., and W. J. Shack, "Environmental Effects on Fatigue Crack Initiation in Piping and Pressure Vessel Steels," NUREG/CR-6717, ANL-00/27, May 2001.7. Chopra, 0. K., "Mechanisms and Estimation of Fatigue Crack Initiation in Austenitic Stainless Steels in LWR Environments," NUREG/CR-6787, ANL-01/25, Aug. 2002.8. Hale, D. A., S. A. Wilson, E. Kiss, and A. J. Gianuzzi, "Low-Cycle Fatigue Evaluation of Primary Piping Materials in a BWR Environment," GEAP-20244, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Sept. 1977.9. Hale, D. A., S. A. Wilson, J. N. Kass, and E. Kiss, "Low Cycle Fatigue Behavior of Commercial Piping Materials in a BWR Environment," J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 103, 15-25, 1981.10. Ranganath, S., J. N. Kass, and J. D. Heald, "Fatigue Behavior of Carbon Steel Components in High-Temperature Water Environments," BWR Environmental Cracking Margins for Carbon Steel Piping, EPRI NP-2406, Appendix 3, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, May 1982.11. Ranganath, S., J. N. Kass, and J. D. Heald, "Fatigue Behavior of Carbon Steel Components in High-Temperature Water Environments," Low-Cycle Fatigue and Life Prediction, ASTM STP 770, C. Amzallag, B. N. Leis, and P. Rabbe, eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 436-459, 1982.12. Nagata, N., S. Sato, and Y. Katada, "Low-Cycle Fatigue Behavior of Pressure Vessel Steels in High-Temperature Pressurized Water," ISIJ Intl. 31 (1), 106-114, 1991.13. Higuchi, M., and K. lida, "Fatigue Strength Correction Factors for Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels in Oxygen-Containing High-Temperature Water," Nucl. Eng. Des. 129, 293-306, 1991.83 I 14. Katada, Y., N. Nagata, and S. Sato, "Effect of Dissolved Oxygen Concentration on Fatigue Crack Growth Behavior of A533 B Steel in High Temperature Water," ISIJ Intl. 33 (8), 877-883, 1993.15. Kanasaki, H., M. Hayashi, K. lida, and Y. Asada, "Effects of Temperature Change on Fatigue Life of Carbon Steel in High Temperature Water," Fatigue and Crack Growth: Environmental Effects, Modeling Studies, and Design Considerations, PVP Vol. 306, S. Yukawa, ed., American Society of I Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 117-122, 1995.16. Nakao, G., H. Kanasaki, M. Higuchi, K. Ilida, and Y. Asada, "Effects of Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Content on Fatigue Life of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels in LWR Water Environment," Fatigue and Crack Growth: Environmental Effects, Modeling Studies, and Design Considerations, PVP Vol. 306, S. Yukawa, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 123-128,1995.
: 17. Higuchi, M., K. lida, and Y. Asada, "Effects of Strain Rate Change on Fatigue Life of Carbon Steel in High-Temperature Water," Fatigue and Crack Growth: Environmental Effects, Modeling U Studies, and Design Considerations, PVP Vol. 306, S. Yukawa, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 111-116, 1995; also Proc. of Symp. on Effects of the Environment on the Initiation of Crack Growth, ASTM STP 1298, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1997.18. Higuchi, M., K. lida, and K. Sakaguchi, "Effects of Strain Rate Fluctuation and Strain Holding on Fatigue Life Reduction for LWR Structural Steels in Simulated PWR Water," Pressure Vessel and I Piping Codes and Standards, PVP Vol. 419, M. D. Rana, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 143-152, 2001.19. Hirano, A., M. Yamamoto, K. Sakaguchi, T. Shoji, and K. lida, "Effects of Water Flow Rate on Fatigue Life of Ferritic and Austenitic Steels in Simulated LWR Environment," Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards
-2002, PVP Vol. 439, M. D. Rana, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 143-150, 2002.20. Hirano, A., M. Yamamoto, K. Sakaguchi, and T. Shoji,, "Effects of Water Flow Rate on Fatigue Life of Carbon and Stainless Steels in Simulated LWR Environment," Pressure Vessel and Piping I Codes and Standards
-2004, PVP Vol. 480, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 109-119, 2004.21. Fujiwara, M., T. Endo, and H. Kanasaki, "Strain Rate Effects on the Low-Cycle Fatigue Strength of 304 Stainless Steel in High-Temperature Water Environment.
Fatigue Life: Analysis and Prediction," Proc. Intl. Conf. and Exposition on Fatigue, Corrosion Cracking, Fracture Mechanics, and Failure Analysis, ASM, Metals Park, OH, pp. 309-313, 1986.22. Mimaki, H., H. Kanasaki, 1. Suzuki, M. Koyama, M. Akiyama, T. Okubo, and Y. Mishima,"Material Aging Research Program for PWR Plants," Aging Management Through Maintenance I Management, PVP Vol. 332, I. T. Kisisel, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 97-105, 1996.23. Kanasaki, H., R. Umehara, H. Mizuta, and T. Suyama, "Fatigue Lives of Stainless Steels in PWR H Primary Water," Trans. 14th Intl. Conf. on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 14), Lyon, France, pp. 473-483, 1997. 3 84 I
: 24. Kanasaki, H., R. Umehara, H. Mizuta, and T. Suyama, "Effects of Strain Rate and Temperature Change on the Fatigue Life of Stainless Steel in PWR Primary Water," Trans. 14th Intl. Conf. on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 14), Lyon, France, pp. 485-493, 1997.25. Higuchi, M., and K. lida, "Reduction in Low-Cycle Fatigue Life of Austenitic Stainless Steels in High-Temperature Water," Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards, PVP Vol. 353, D. P.Jones, B. R. Newton, W. J. O'Donnell, R. Vecchio, G. A. Antaki, D. Bhavani, N. G. Cofie, and G. L. Hollinger, eds., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 79-86, 1997.26. Hayashi, M., "Thermal Fatigue Strength of Type 304 Stainless Steel in Simulated BWR Environment," Nucl. Eng. Des. 184, 135-144, 1998.27. Hayashi, M., K. Enomoto, T. Saito, and T. Miyagawa, "Development of Thermal Fatigue Testing with BWR Water Environment and Thermal Fatigue Strength of Austenitic Stainless Steels," Nucl.Eng. Des. 184, 113-122, 1998.28. Tsutsumi, K., H. Kanasaki, T. Umakoshi, T. Nakamura, S. Urata, H. Mizuta, and S. Nomoto,"Fatigue Life Reduction in PWR Water Environment for Stainless Steels," Assessment Methodologies for Preventing Failure: Service Experience and Environmental Considerations, PVP Vol. 410-2, R. Mohan, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 23-34, 2000.29. Tsutsumi, K., T. Dodo, H. Kanasaki, S. Nomoto, Y. Minami, and T. Nakamura, "Fatigue Behavior of Stainless Steel under Conditions of Changing Strain Rate in PWR Primary Water," Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards, PVP Vol. 419, M. D. Rana, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 135-141,2001.
: 30. Tsutsumi, K., M. Higuchi, K. lida, and Y. Yamamoto, "The Modified Rate Approach to Evaluate Fatigue Life under Synchronously Changing Temperature and Strain Rate in Elevated Temperature Water," Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards
-2002, PVP Vol. 439, M. D. Rana, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 99-107, 2002.31. Higuchi, M., T. Hirano, and K. Sakaguchi, "Evaluation of Fatigue Damage on Operating Plant Components in LWR Water," Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards
-2004, PVP Vol. 480, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 129-138, 2004.32. Nomura, Y., M. Higuchi, Y. Asada, and K. Sakaguchi, "The Modified Rate Approach Method to Evaluate Fatigue Life under Synchronously Changing Temperature and Strain Rate in Elevated Temperature Water in Austenitic Stainless Steels," Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards
-2004, PVP Vol. 480, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 99-108, 2004.33. Higuchi, M., K. Sakaguchi, A. Hirano, and Y. Nomura, "Revised and New Proposal of Environmental Fatigue Life Correction Factor (Feni) for Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels and Nickel Alloys in LWR Water Environments," Proc. of the 200 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., July 23-27, 2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada, paper # PVP2006-ICPVT-93194.
85 i 34. Chopra, 0. K., and W. J. Shack, "Evaluation of Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Life of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels," Effects of the Environment on the Initiation of Crack Growth, ASTM STP 1298, W. A. Van Der Sluys, R. S. Piascik, and R. Zawierucha, eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 247-266, 1997.35. Chopra, 0. K., and W. J. Shack, "Low-Cycle Fatigue of Piping and Pressure Vessel Steels in LWR U Environments," Nucl. Eng. Des. 184, 49-76, 1998.36. Chopra, 0. K., and D. J. Gavenda, "Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Lives of Austenitic Stainless Steels," J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 120, 116-121, 1998.37. Chopra, 0. K., and J. L. Smith, "Estimation of Fatigue Strain-Life Curves for Austenitic Stainless Steels in Light Water Reactor Environments," Fatigue, Environmental Factors, and New Materials, I PVP Vol. 374, H. S. Mehta, R. W. Swindeman; J. A. Todd, S. Yukawa, M. Zako, W. H. Bamford, M. Higuchi, E. Jones, H. Nickel, and S. Rahman, eds., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 249-259, 1998.38. Chopra, 0. K., "Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design Curves of Austenitic Stainless Steels," NUREG/CR-5704, ANL-98/31, 1999.39. Chopra, 0. K., and W. J. Shack, "Review of the Margins for ASME Code Design Curves -Effects of Surface Roughness and Material Variability," NUREG/CR-6815, ANL-02/39, Sept. 2003. i 40. Chopra, 0. K., B. Alexandreanu, and W. J. Shack, "Effect of Material Heat Treatment on Fatigue Crack Initiation in Austenitic Stainless Steels in LWR Environments," NUREG/CR-6878, ANL-03/35, July 2005. I 41. Terrell, J. B., "Fatigue Life Characterization of Smooth and Notched Piping Steel Specimens in 288&deg;C Air Environments," NUREG/CR-5013, EM-2232 Materials Engineering Associates, Inc., Lanham, MD, May 1988.42. Terrell, J. B., "Fatigue Strength of Smooth and Notched Specimens of ASME SA 106-B Steel in PWR Environments," NUREG/CR-5136, MEA-2289, Materials Engineering Associates, Inc., I Lanham, MD, Sept. 1988.43. Terrell, J. B., "Effect of Cyclic Frequency on the Fatigue Life of ASME SA-106-B Piping Steel in I PWR Environments," J. Mater. Eng. 10, 193-203, 1988.44. Lenz, E., N. Wieling, and H. Muenster, "Influence of Variation of Flow Rates and Temperature on the Cyclic Crack Growth Rate under BWR Conditions," Environmental Degradation of Materials in !Nuclear Power Systems -Water Reactors, The Metallurgical Society, Warrendale, PA, 1988.45. Garud, Y. S., S. R. Paterson, R, B, Dooley, R. S. Pathania, J. Hickling, and A. Bursik, "Corrosion Fatigue of Water Touched Pressure Retaining Components in Power Plants," EPRI TR-106696, Final Report, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Nov. 1997.46. Faidy, C., T. Le Courtois, E. de Fraguier, J-A Leduff, A. Lefrancois, and J. Dechelotte, "Thermal i Fatigue in French RHR System," Int. Conf. on Fatigue of Reactor Components, Napa, CA, July 3 1-August 2, 2000.86lI
: 47. Kussmaul, K., R. Rintamaa, J. Jansky, M. Kemppainen, and K. T6rr6nen, "On the Mechanism of Environmental Cracking Introduced by Cyclic Thermal Loading," in IAEA Specialists Meeting, Corrosion and Stress Corrosion of Steel Pressure Boundary Components and Steam Turbines, VTT Symp. 43, Espoo, Finland, pp. 195-243, 1983.48. Hickling, J., "Strain Induced Corrosion Cracking of Low-Alloy Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels under BWR Conditions," Proc. 10th Intl. Syrmp. on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems -Water Reactors, F. P. Ford, S. M. Bruemmer, and G. S. Was, eds., The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, Warrendale, PA, CD-ROM, paper 0156, 2001.49. Hickling, J., "Research and Service Experience with Environmentally Assisted Cracking of Low-Alloy Steel," Power Plant Chem., 7 (1), 4-15, 2005.50. lida, K., "A Review of Fatigue Failures in LWR Plants in Japan," Nucl. Eng. Des. 138, 297-312, 1992.51. NRC IE Bulletin No. 79-13, "Cracking in Feedwater System Piping," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, June 25, 1979.52. NRC Information Notice 93-20, "Thermal Fatigue Cracking of Feedwater Piping to Steam Generators," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, March 24, 1993.53. Kussmaul, K., D. Blind, and J. Jansky, "Formation and Growth of Cracking in Feed Water Pipes and RPV Nozzles," Nucl. Eng. Des. 81, 105-119, 1984.54. Gordon, B. M., D. E. Delwiche, and G. M. Gordon, "Service Experience of BWR Pressure Vessels," Performance and Evaluation of Light Water Reactor Pressure Vessels, PVP Vol.-1 19, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 9-17, 1987.55. Lenz, E., B. Stellwag, and N. Wieling, "The Influence of Strain-Induced Corrosion Cracking on the Crack Initiation in Low-Alloy Steels in HT-Water -A Relation Between Monotonic and Cyclic Crack Initiation Behavior," in IAEA Specialists Meeting Corrosion and Stress Corrosion of Steel Pressure Boundary Components and Steam Turbines, VTT Symp. 43, Espoo, Finland, pp. 243-267, 1983.56. Hickling, J., and D. Blind, "Strain-Induced Corrosion Cracking of Low-Alloy Steels in LWR Systems -Case Histories and Identification of Conditions Leading to Susceptibility," Nucl. Eng.Des. 91, 305-330, 1986.57. Hirschberg, P., A. F.
 
==Deardorff,==
and J. Carey, "Operating Experience Regarding Thermal Fatigue of Unisolable Piping Connected to PWR Reactor Coolant Systems," Int. Conf. on Fatigue of Reactor Components, Napa, CA, July 31-August 2, 2000.58. NRC Information Notice 88-01, "Safety Injection Pipe Failure," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (Jan. 27, 1988).59. NRC Bulletin No. 88-08, "Thermal Stresses in Piping Connected to Reactor Coolant Systems," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, June 22; Suppl. 1, June 24; Suppl. 2, Aug. 4, 1988; Suppl. 3, April 1989.87 m 60. Sakai, T., "Leakage from CVCS Pipe of Regenerative Heat Exchanger Induced by High-Cycle Thermal Fatigue at Tsuruga Nuclear Power Station Unit 2," Int. Conf. on Fatigue of Reactor Components, Napa, CA, July 3 1-August 2, 2000.61. Hoshino, T., T. Ueno, T. Aoki, and Y. Kutomi, "Leakage from CVCS Pipe of Regenerative Heat Exchanger Induced by High-Cycle Thermal Fatigue at Tsuruga Nuclear Power Station Unit 2," I Proc. 8th Intl. Conf. on Nuclear Engineering, 1.01 Operational Experience/Root Cause Failure Analysis, Paper 8615, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 2000.62. Stephan, J.-M., and J. C. Masson, "Auxiliary+
Feedwater Line Stratification and Coufast I Simulation," Int. Conf. on Fatigue of Reactor Components, Napa, CA, July 31-August 2, 2000.63. Kilian, R., J. Hickling, and R. Nickell, "Environmental Fatigue Testing of Stainless Steel Pipe i Bends in Flowing, Simulated PWR Primary Water at 240'C," Third Intl. Conf. Fatigue of Reactor Components, MRP- 151, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Aug. 2005.64. NRC Bulletin No. 88-11, "Pressurizer Surge Line Thermal Stratification," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Dec. 20, 1988.65. Majumdar, S., 0. K. Chopra, and W. J. Shack, "Interim Fatigue Design Curves for Carbon, Low- -Alloy, and Austenitic Stainless Steels in LWR Environments," NUREG/CR-5999, ANL-93/3, 1993.66. Keisler, J., 0. K. Chopra, and W. J. Shack, "Fatigue Strain-Life Behavior of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels, Austenitic Stainless Steels, and Alloy 600 in LWR Environments," NUREG/CR-6335, ANL-95/15, 1995.67. Park, H. B., and 0. K. Chopra, "A Fracture Mechanics Approach for Estimating Fatigue Crack Initiation in Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels in LWR Coolant Environment," Assessment Methodologies for Preventing Failure: Service Experience and Environmental Considerations, PVP I Vol. 410-2, R. Mohan, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 3-11,2000.
: 68. O'Donnell, T. P., and W. J. O'Donnell, "Stress Intensity Values in Conventional S-N Fatigue Specimens," Pressure Vessels and Piping Codes and Standard:
Volume I -Current Applications, PVP Vol. 313-1, K. R. Rao and Y. Asada, eds., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 191-192, 1995.69. Amzallag, C., P. Rabbe, G. Gallet, and H.-P. Lieurade, "Influence des Conditions de Sollicitation Sur le Comportement en Fatigue Oligocyclique D'aciers Inoxydables Aust6nitiques," Memoires Scientifiques Revue Metallurgie Mars, pp. 161-173, 1978.70. Solomon, H. D., C. Amzallag, A. J. Vallee, and R. E. De Lair, "Influence of Mean Stress on the Fatigue Behavior of 304L SS in Air and PWR Water," Proc. of the 2005 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., July 17-21, 2005, Denver, CO, paper # PVP2005-71064.
: 71. Solomon, H. D., C. Amzallag, R. E. De Lair, and A. J. Vallee, "Strain Controlled Fatigue of Type 304L SS in Air and PWR Water," Proc. Third Intl. Conf. on Fatigue of Reactor Components, Seville, Spain, Oct. 3-6, 2004.I 88 I
: 72. Jaske, C. E., and W. J. O'Donnell, "Fatigue Design Criteria for Pressure Vessel Alloys," Trans.ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 99, 584-592, 1977.73. Conway, J. B., R. H. Stentz, and J. T. Berling, "Fatigue, Tensile, and Relaxation Behavior of Stainless Steels," TID-26135, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC, 1975.74. Keller, D. L., "Progress on LMFBR Cladding, Structural, and Component Materials Studies During July, 1971 through June, 1972, Final Report," Task 32, Battelle-Columbus Laboratories, BMI-1928, 1977.75. Jacko, R. J., "Fatigue Performance of Ni-Cr-Fe Alloy 600 under Typical PWR Steam Generator Conditions," EPRI NP-2957, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, March 1983.76. Dinerman, A. E., "Cyclic Strain Fatigue of Inconel at 75 to 600'F," KAPL-2084, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Schenectady, NY, August 1960.77. Mowbray, D. F., G. J. Sokol, and R. E. Savidge, "Fatigue Characteristics of Ni-Cr-Fe Alloys with Emphasis on Pressure-Vessel Cladding," KAPL-3108, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Schenectady, NY, July 1965.78. Van Der Sluys, W. A., B. A. Young, and D. Doyle, "Corrosion Fatigue Properties on Alloy 690 and Some Nickel-Based Weld Metals," Assessment Methodologies for Preventing Failure: Service Experience and Environmental Considerations, PVP Vol. 410-2, R. Mohan, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 85-91, 2000.79. lida, K., T. Bannai, M. Higuchi, K. Tsutsumi, and K. Sakaguchi, "Comparison of Japanese MITI Guideline and Other Methods for Evaluation of Environmental Fatigue Life Reduction," Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and Standards, PVP Vol. 419, M. D. Rana, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 73-81, 2001.80. Chopra, 0. K., and W. J. Shack, "Overview of Fatigue Crack Initiation in Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels in Light Water Reactor Environments," J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 121, 49-60, 1999.81. Higuchi, M., "Revised Proposal of Fatigue Life Correction Factor Fe,, for Carbon and Low Alloy Steels in LWR Water Environments," Assessment Methodologies for Preventing Failure: Service Experience and Environmental Considerations, PVP Vol. 410-2, R. Mohan, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 35-44, 2000.82. Leax, T. R., "Statistical Models of Mean Stress and Water Environment Effects on the Fatigue Behavior of 304 Stainless Steel," Probabilistic and Environmental Aspects of Fracture and Fatigues, PVP Vol. 386, S. Rahman, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 229-239, 1999.83. Ford, F. P., S. Ranganath, and D. Weinstein, "Environmentally Assisted Fatigue Crack Initiation in Low-Alloy Steels -A Review of the Literature and the ASME Code Design Requirements," EPRI Report TR-102765, Electroic Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Aug. 1993.89 I 84. Ford, F. P., "Prediction of Corrosion Fatigue Initiation in Low-Alloy and Carbon Steel/Water Systems at 288&deg;C," Proc. 6th Intl. Symp. on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems -Water Reactors, R. E. Gold and E. P. Simonen, eds., The Metallurgical Society, I Warrendale, PA, pp. 9-17, 1993.85. Mehta, H. S., and S. R. Gosselin, "Environmental Factor Approach to Account for Water Effects in Pressure Vessel and Piping Fatigue Evaluations,".Nucl.
Eng. Des. 181, 175-197, 1998.86. Mehta, H. S., "An Update on the Consideration of Reactor Water Effects in Code Fatigue Initiation Evaluations for Pressure Vessels and Piping," Assessment Methodologies for Preventing Failure: I Service Experience and Environmental Considerations, PVP Vol. 410-2, R. Mohan, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 45-51, 2000.87. Van Der Sluys, W. A., and S. Yukawa, "Status of PVRC Evaluation of LWR Coolant Environmental Effects on the S-N Fatigue Properties of Pressure Boundary Materials," Fatigue and Crack Growth: Environmental Effects, Modeling Studies, and Design Considerations, PVP I Vol. 306, S. Yukawa, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 47-58, 1995.88. Van Der Sluys, W. A., "PVRC's Position on Environmental Effects on Fatigue Life in LWR Applications," Welding Research Council Bulletin 487, Welding Research Council, Inc., New York, Dec. 2003.89. O'Donnell, W. J., W. J. O'Donnell, and T. P. O'Donnell, "Proposed New Fatigue Design Curves for Austenitic Stainless Steels, Alloy 600, and Alloy 800," Proc. of the 2005 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., July 17-21, 2005, Denver, CO, paper # PVP2005-71409.
: 90. O'Donnell, W. J., W. J. O'Donnell, and T. P. O'Donnell, "Proposed New Fatigue Design Curves for Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels in High Temperature Water," Proc. of the 2005 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., July 17-21, 2005, Denver, CO, paper # PVP2005-71410.
: 91. Abdel-Raouf, H., A. Plumtree, and T. H. Topper, "Effects of Temperature and Deformation Rate on Cyclic Strength and Fracture of Low-Carbon Steel," Cyclic Stress-Strain Behavior -Analysis, Experimentation, and Failure Prediction, ASTM STP 519, American Society for Testing and I Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 28-57, 1973.92. Lee, B. H., and I. S. Kim, "Dynamic Strain Aging in the High-Temperature Low-Cycle Fatigue of SA 508 Cl. 3 Forging Steel," J. Nucl. Mater. 226, 216-225, 1995.93. Maiya, P. S., and D. E. Busch, "Effect of Surface Roughness on Low-Cycle Fatigue Behavior of Type 304 Stainless Steel," Met. Trans. 6A, 1761-1766, 1975. I 94. Maiya, P. S., "Effect of Surface Roughness and Strain Range on Low-Cycle Fatigue Behavior of Type 304 Stainless Steel," Scripta Metall. 9, 1277-1282, 1975. I 95. Stout, K. J., "Surface Roughness
-Measurement, Interpretation, and Significance of Data," Mater.Eng. 2,287-295, 1981.96. lida, K., "A Study of Surface Finish Effect Factor in ASME B & PV Code Section III," Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 2, L. Cengdian and R. W. Nichols, eds., Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 727-734, 1989. I 90 I
: 97. Manjoine, M. J., and R. L. Johnson, "Fatigue Design Curves for Carbon and Low Alloy Steels up to 700&deg;F (371 0 C)," Material Durability/Life Prediction Modeling:
Materials for the 21st Century, PVP-Vol. 290, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1994.98. Johnson, L. G., "The Median Ranks of Sample Values in Their Population with an Application to Certain Fatigue Studies," Ind. Math. 2, 1-9, 1951.99. Lipson, C., and N. J. Sheth, Statistical Design and Analysis of Engineering Experiments, McGraw Hill, New York, 1973.100. Beck, J., and K. Arnold, Parameter Estimation in Engineering and Science, J. Wiley, New York, 1977.101. Stambaugh, K. A., D. H. Leeson, F. V. Lawrence, C. Y. Hou, and G. Banas, "Reduction of S-N Curves for Ship Structural Details," Welding Research Council 398, January 1995.1.02. Ford, F. P., and P. L. Andresen, "Stress Corrosion Cracking of Low-Alloy Pressure Vessel Steel in 288&deg;C Water," Proc. 3rd Int. Atomic Energy Agency Specialists' Meeting on Subcritical Crack Growth, NUREG/CP-01 12, Vol. 1, pp. 37-56, Aug. 1990.103. Ford, F. P., "Overview of Collaborative Research into the Mechanisms of Environmentally Controlled Cracking in the Low Alloy Pressure Vessel Steel/Water System," Proc. 2nd Int. Atomic Energy Agency Specialists' Meeting on Subcritical Crack Growth, NUREG/CP-0067, MEA-2090, Vol. 2, pp. 3-71, April 1986.104. Wire, G. L., and Y. Y. Li, "Initiation of Environmentally-Assisted Cracking in Low-Alloy Steels," Fatigue and Fracture Vol. 1, PVP Vol. 323, H. S. Mehta, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 269-289, 1996.105. Pleune, T. T., and 0. K. Chopra, "Artificial Neural Networks and Effects of Loading Conditions on Fatigue Life of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels," Fatigue and Fracture Vol. 1, PVP Vol. 350, S. Rahman, K. K. Yoon, S. Bhandari, R. Warke, and J. M. Bloom, eds., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 413-423, 1997.106. Solomon, H. D., R. E. DeLair, and A. D. Unruh, "Crack Initiation in Low-Alloy Steel in High-Purity Water," Effects of the Environment on the Initiation of Crack Growth, ASTM STP 1298, W. A. Van Der Sluys, R. S. Piascik, and R. Zawierucha, eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 135-149, 1997.107. Solomon, H. D., R. E. DeLair, and E. Tolksdorf, "LCF Crack Initiation in WB36 in High-Temperature Water," Proc. 9th Intl. Symp. on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems -Water Reactors, F. P. Ford, S. M. Bruemmer, and G. S. Was, eds., The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, Warrendale, PA, pp. 865-872, 1999.108. Cullen, W. H., M. Kemppainen, H. H~nninen, and K. T6rr6nen, "The Effects of Sulfur Chemistry and Flow Rate on Fatigue Crack Growth Rates in LWR Environments," NUREG/CR-4121, 1985.91 i 109. Van Der Sluys, W. A., and R. H. Emanuelson, "Environmental Acceleration of Fatigue Crack Growth in Reactor Pressure Vessel Materials and Environments," Environmentally Assisted Cracking:
Science and Engineering, ASTM STP 1049, W. B. Lisagor, T. W. Crooker, and B. N. i Leis, eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 117-135, 1990.110. Atkinson, J. D., J. Yu, and Z.-Y. Chen, "An Analysis of the Effects of Sulfur Content and Potential I on Corrosion Fatigue Crack Growth in Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels," Corros. Sci. 38 (5), 755-765, 1996.111. Auten, T. A., S. Z. Hayden, and R. H. Emanuelson, "Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Studies of Medium Sulfur Low Alloy Steels Tested in High Temperature Water," Proc. 6th Int. Symp. on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems -Water Reactors, R. E. Gold and E. P. Simonen, eds., The Metallurgical Society, Warrendale, PA, pp. 35-40, 1993.112. Wire, G. L., T. R. Leax, and J. T.-Kandra, "Mean Stress and Environmental Effects on Fatigue in Type 304 Stainless Steel," in Probabilistic and Environmental Aspects of Fracture and Fatigues, I PVP Vol. 386, S. Rahman, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 213-228, 1999.113. Diercks, D. R., "Development of Fatigue Design Curves for Pressure Vessel Alloys Using a Modified Langer Equation," Trans. ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 101, 292-297, 1979.114. Solomon, H. D., and C. Amzallag, "Comparison of Models Predicting the Fatigue Behavior of I Austenitic Stainless Steels," Proc. of the 2005 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., July 17-21, 2005, Denver, CO, paper # PVP2005-71063.
115. Kim, Y. J., "Characterization of the Oxide Film Formed on Type 316 Stainless Steel in 288&deg;C Water in Cyclic Normal and Hydrogen Water Chemistries," Corrosion 51 (11), 849-860, 1995.116. Kim, Y. J., "Analysis of Oxide Film Formed on Type 304 Stainless Steel in 288&deg;C Water I Containing Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Hydrogen Peroxide," Corrosion 55 (1), 81-88, 1999.117. Chopra, 0. K., "Estimation of Fracture Toughness of Cast Stainless Steels During Thermal Aging in LWR Systems," NUREG/CR-4513, ANL-93/22, Aug. 1994.118. Chopra, 0. K., "Effect of Thermal Aging on Mechanical Properties of Cast Stainless Steels," in Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Heat-Resistant Materials, K. Natesan, P. Ganesan, and G. Lai, eds., I ASM International, Materials Park, OH, pp. 479-485, 1995.119. Higuchi, M., "Review and Consideration of Unsettled Problems on Evaluation of Fatigue Damage in LWR Water," Proc. of the 2005 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., July 17-21, 2005, Denver, CO, paper # PVP2005-71306.
120. Mayfield, M. E., E. C. Rodabaugh, and R. J. Eiber, "A Comparison of Fatigue Test Data on Piping with the ASME Code Fatigue Evaluation Procedure," ASME Paper 79-PVP-92, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1979.121. Heald, J. D., and E. Kiss, "Low Cycle Fatigue of Nuclear Pipe Components," J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 74, PVP-5, 1-6, 1974.92 122.
 
==Deardorff,==
A. F., and J. K. Smith, "Evaluation of Conservatisms and Environmental Effects in ASME Code, Section I11, Class 1 Fatigue Analysis," SAND94-0187, prepared by Structural Integrity Associates, San Jose, CA, under contract to Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 1994.123. Kooistra, L. F., E. A. Lange, and A. G. Pickett, "Full-Size Pressure Vessel Testing and Its Application to Design," J. Eng. Power 86, 419-428, 1964.124. Scott, P. M., and G. M. Wilkowski, "A Comparison of Recent Full-Scale Component Fatigue Data with the ASME Section III Fatigue Design Curves," in Fatigue and Crack Growth: Environmental Effects, Modeling Studies, and Design Considerations, PVP Vol. 306, S. Yukawa, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 129-138, 1995.125. Hechmer, J., "Evaluation Methods for Fatigue -A PVRC Project," in Fatigue, Environmental Factors, and New Materials, PVP Vol. 374, H. S. Mehta, R. W. Swindeman, J. A. Todd, S. Yukawa, M. Zako, W. H. Bamford, M. Higuchi, E. Jones, H. Nickel, and S. Rahman, eds., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 191-199, 1998.126. Manjoine, M. J., "Fatigue Damage Models for Annealed Type 304 Stainless Steel under Complex Strain Histories," Trans. 6th Intl. Conf. on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT), Vol. L, 8/1, North-Holland Publishing Co., pp. 1-13, 1981.127. Nian, L., and Du Bai-Ping, "The Effect of Low-Stress High-Cycle Fatigue on the Microstructure and Fatigue Threshold of a 40Cr Steel," Int. J. Fatigue 17 (1), 43-48, 1995.128. Solin, J. P., "Fatigue of Stabilized SS and 316NG Alloy in PWR Environment," Proc. of the 2006 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., July 23-27, 2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada, paper# PVP2006-ICPVT-93833.
93 This page is intentionally left blank.94 APPENDIX A Incorporating Environmental Effects into Fatigue Evaluations Al Scope This Appendix provides the environmental fatigue correction factor (Fen) methodology that is considered acceptable for incorporating the effects of reactor coolant environments on fatigue usage factor evaluations of metal components for new reactor construction.
The methodology for performing fatigue evaluations for the four major categories of structural materials, e.g., carbon steel, low-alloy steels, wrought and cast austenitic stainless steels, and Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, is described.
A2 Environmental Correction Factor (Fen)The effects of reactor coolant environments on the fatigue life of structural materials are expressed in terms of a nominal environmental fatigue correction factor, Fen,nor, which is defined as the ratio of fatigue life in air at room temperature (Nair,RT) to that in water at the service temperature (Nwater): Fen,nomn = Nair,RT/Nwater-(A.1)The nominal environmental fatigue correction factor, Fennoir, for carbon steels is expressed as Fennom = exp(0.632
-0.101 S* T* 0* t and for low-alloy steels, it is expressed as Fen,norn = exp(0.702
-0.101 S* T* 0* t )(A.2)(A.3)where S*, T*, 0*, and t *are transformed defined as: S*: S: S*:* 0.001.S.0.015 S content, temperature, DO level, and strain rate, respectively, (S < 0.00o1 wt.%)(S < 0.015 wt.%)(S > 0.015 wt.%) (A.4)(T < 150 0 C)(T = 150-350&deg;C) (A.5)T* 0 T*= T -150 O*0*0*=0 ln(DO/0.04) ln(12.5)=0=ln(t)ln(0.001)(DO < 0.04 ppm)(0.04 ppm < DO < 0.5 ppm)(DO > 0.5 ppm)(A.6)( > 1%/s)(0.001 < &#xfd; < l%/s)(t < 0.001%/s).(A.7)A. I For both carbon and low-alloy steels, a threshold value of 0.07% for strain amplitude (one-half the strain range for the cycle) is defined, below which environmental effects on the fatigue life of these steels do not occur. Thus, Fen,nom = 1 (Fa < 0.07%).(A.8)For wrought and cast austenitic stainless steels, Fen,nom = exp(0.734
-T'0' t').(A.9)where T', t', and 0' are transformed temperature, strain rate, and DO level, respectively, defined as: T'=0 T'= (T- 150)/175 T'= I t= 0 I= n( t/0.4)= ln(0.0004/0.4)
O' = 0.281 (T < 150&deg;C)(150 <T < 325-C)(T >_ 325-C)(t > 0.4%/s)(0.0004 < t < 0.4%/s)(a < 0.0004%/s)(A.10)(A. 11)(A.12)(all DO levels).I I I I I I I I I I I I I I For wrought and cast austenitic stainless steels, a threshold value of 0.10% for strain amplitude (one-half the strain range for the cycle) is defined, below which environmental effects on the fatigue life of these steels do not occur. Thus, Fen,nom = 1 (Sa < 0.10%).(A.13)For Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, Fen,nom = exp(- T' C0 '), (A.14)where T', E' ', and 0' are transformed temperature, strain rate, and DO, respectively, defined as: T' T/325 T'=I (T <325-C)(T >325-C)ln(E'/5.0)
In(0.0004/5.0)( t > 5.0%/s)(0.0004: t  5.0%/s)(t < 0.0004%/s)(A.15)(A. 16)(A. 17)O' 0.09 0' 0.16 (NWC BWR water)(PWR or HWC BWR water).For Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, a threshold value of 0.10% for strain amplitude (one-half the strain range for the cycle) is defined, below which environmental effects on the fatigue life of these alloys do not occur.Thus, A.2 I I Fen,nom = I (Ea < 0.10%).(A. 18)A3 Fatigue Evaluation Procedure The evaluation method uses as its input the partial fatigue usage factors U1, U 2 , U 3 , .. Un, determined in Class 1 fatigue evaluations.
To incorporate environmental effects into the Section III fatigue evaluation, the partial fatigue usage factors for a specific stress cycle or load set pair, based on the current Code fatigue design curves, is multiplied by the environmental fatigue correction factor: Uen.I U I *Fen, I.(A.19)In the Class 1 design-by-analysis procedure, the partial fatigue usage factors are calculated for each type of stress cycle in paragraph NB-3222.4(e)(5).
For Class I piping products designed using the NB-3600 procedure, Paragraph NB-3653 provides the procedure for the calculation of partial fatigue usage factors for each of the load set pairs. The partial usage factors are obtained from the Code fatigue design curves provided they are consistent, or conservative, with respect to the existing fatigue c-N data.For example, the Code fatigue design curve for austenitic SSs developed in the 1960s is not consistent with the existing fatigue database and, therefore, will yield nonconservative estimates of usage factors for most heats of austenitic SSs that are used in the construction of nuclear reactor components.
Examples of calculating partial usage factors are as follows: (1) For carbon and low-alloy steels with ultimate tensile strength <552 MPa (<80 ksi), the partial fatigue usage factors are obtained from the ASME Code fatigue design curve, i.e., Fig. 1-9.1 of the mandatory Appendix I to Section II1 of the ASME Code. As an alternative, to reduce conservatism in the current Code requirement of a factor of 20 on life, partial usage factors may be determined from the fatigue design curves that were developed from the ANL fatigue life model, i.e., Figs. A.1 and A.2 and Table A.1.U)E U)103 Carbon Steels= 551.6 MPa oy = 275.8 MPa.. ....... .I ...., ........l ....Carbon Steels UTS -552 MPa (-580 ksi)Air up to 371 -C(70F E = 206.8 GPa.ASME Code Curve ANL Model & Eq. 18 4 -'-.J Figure A.1.Fatigue design curve for carbon steels in air. The curve developed from the ANL model is based on factors of 12 on life and 2 on stress.101 102 103 104 10 5  106 107 108 109 1010 1011 Number of Cycles N A.3 103 7a E 102 Low-Alloy Steels SUTS <552 MPa (<80 ksi)Air up to 371TC (700TF)"E= 206.8GPa --"-..ASME Code Curve" I I- ANLModel&Eq.
18-Ix.--- " --, I-Low-Alloy Sel ay=482.6MPa
* IA o I .1 .. ... ... --.i __I Figure A.2.Fatigue design curve for low-alloy steels in air: The curve developed from the ANL model is based on factors of 12 on life and 2 on stress.101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 1011 Number of Cycles N Table A.1. Fatigue design curves for carbon and low-alloy steels and proposed extension to 1011 cycles.Stress Amplitude (MPa/ksi)
Stress Amplitude (MPa/ksi)ASME Code Eqs. 15 & 18 Eqs. 16 & 18 ASME Code Eqs. 15 & 18 Eqs. 16 & 18 Cycles Curve Carbon Steel Low-Alloy Steel Cycles Curve Carbon Steel Low-Alloy Steel I E+0l 3999 (580) 5355 (777) 5467 (793) 2 E+05 114(16.5) 176 (25.5) 141 (20.5)2 E+01 2827 (410) 3830 (556) 3880 (563) 5 E+05 93 (13.5) 154 (22.3) 116(16.8)5 E+O1 1896 (275) 2510 (364) 2438 (354) 1 E+06 86(12.5) 142 (20.6) 106 (15.4)1 E+02 1413 (205) 1820 (264) 1760 (255) 2 E+06 130 (18.9) 98 (14.2)2 E+02 1069(155) 1355 (197) 1300(189) 5 E+06 120(17.4) 94(13.6)5E+02 724(105) 935(136) 900(131) 1 E+07 76.5(11.1) 115(16.7) 91 (13.2)1 E+03 572 (83) 733(106) 720(104) 2 E+07 110(16.0) 90(13.1)2 E+03 441 (64) 584 (84.7) 576 (83.5) 5 E+07 107 (15.5) 88(12.8)5 E+03 331 (48) 451 (65.4) 432 (62.7) 1 E+08 68.3 (9.9) 105 (15.2) 87(12.6)1 E+04 262 (38) 373 (54.1) 342 (49.6) 1 E+09 60.7 (8.8) 102 (14.8) 83 (12.0)2 E+04 214 (31) 305 (44.2) 276 (40.0) 1 E+010 54.5 (7.9) 97(14.1) 80(11.6)5 E+04 159(23) 238(34.5) 210(30.5) 1 E+01 1 48.3(7.0) 94(13.6) 77(11.2)1 E+05 138 (20.0) 201 (29.2) 172 (24.9)(2) For wrought or cast austenitic SSs and Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, the partial fatigue usage factors are obtained from the new fatigue design curve proposed in the present report for austenitic SSs, i.e., Fig. A.3 and Table A.2.The cumulative fatigue usage factor, Uen, considering the effects of reactor coolant environments is then calculated as the following:
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Uen = Ul'Fen,1 + U2"Fen,2 + U3"Fen,3 + Ui'Fen,i ...+ Un'Fen,n, (A.20)where Fen,i is the nominal environmental fatigue correction factor for the "i"th stress cycle (NB-3200) or load set pair (NB-3600).
Because environmental effects on fatigue life occur primarily during the tensile-loading cycle (i.e., up-ramp with increasing strain or stress), this calculation is performed only for the tensile stress producing portion of the stress cycle constituting a load pair. Also, the values for key parameters such as strain rate, temperature, dissolved oxygen in water, and for carbon and low-alloy steels S content, are needed to calculate Fen for each stress cycle or load set pair. As discussed in Sections 4 and 5 of this report, the following guidance may be used to determine these parameters:
A.4 I I 0-E (A, 65 102 E = 195.1 GPa_ = 648.1 MPa y= 303.4 MPa.....I .......Austenitic Stainless Steel Air up to 371 'C (700TF).....ASME Code Curve i New Design Curve Based on the, ANI Mnoell_________-
L-~ __________.I.I Figure A.3.Fatigue. design curve for austenitic stainless steels in air.I --]101 102 103 104 105 106 10 7  108 10 9  1010 1011 Number of Cycles N Table A.2. The new and current Code fatigue design curves for austenitic stainless steels in air.Stress Amplitude (MPa/ksi)Cycles New Design Curve Current Design Curve Stress Amplitude (MPa/ksi)Cycles New Design Curve Current Design Curve I E+01 2 E+01 5 E+01 1 E+02 2 E+02 5 E+02 1 E+03 2 E+03 5 E+03 I E+04 2 E+04 5 E+04 I E+05 6000 (870)4300 (624)2748 (399)1978 (287)1440 (209)974 (141)745 (108)590 (85.6)450 (65.3)368 (53.4)300 (43.5)235 (34.1)196 (28.4)4881 (708)3530 (512)2379 (345)1800 (261)1386 (201)1020 (148)820 (119)669 (97.0)524 (76.0)441 (64.0)383 (55.5)319 (46.3)281 (40.8)2 E+05 5 E+05 I E+06 2 E+06 5 E+06 I E+07 2 E+07 5 E+07 I E+08 I E+09 I E+10 I E+1 1 2 E+10 168 (24.4)142 (20.6)126 (18.3)113(16.4)102 (14.8)99(14.4)97.1 (14.1)95.8 (13.9)94.4 (13.7)93.7 (13.6)248 (35.9)214 (31.0)195 (28.3)157 (22.8)127(18.4)113 (16.4)105 (15.2)98.6(14.3) 97.1 (14.1)95.8 (13.9)94.4 (13.7)93.7 (13.6)(1) An average strain rate for the transient always yields a conservative estimate of Fen. The lower bound or saturation strain rate of 0.001%/s for carbon and low-alloy steels or 0.0004%/s for austenitic SSs can be used to perform the most conservative evaluation.
(2) For the case of a constant strain rate and a linear temperature response, an average temperature (i.e., average of the maximum and minimum temperatures for the transients) may be used to calculate Fen. In general, the "average" temperature that should be used in the calculations should produce results that are consistent with the results that would be obtained using the modified rate approach described in Section 4.2.14 of this report. The maximum temperature can be used to perform the most conservative evaluation.
(3) The DO value is obtained from each transient constituting the stress cycle. For carbon and low-alloy steels, the dissolved oxygen content, DO, associated with a stress cycle is the highest oxygen level in the transient, and for austenitic stainless steels, it is the lowest oxygen level in the transient.
A value of 0.4 ppm for carbon and low-alloy steels and 0.05 ppm for austenitic stainless steels can be used for the DO content to perform a conservative evaluation.
A.5 I I (4) The sulfur content, S, in terms of weight percent might be obtained from the certified material test report or an equivalent source. If the sulfur content is unknown, then its value shall be assumed as the maximum value specified in the procurement specification or the applicable construction Code.The detailed procedures for incorporating environmental effects into the Code fatigue evaluations have been presented in several articles.
The following two may be used for guidance: (1) Mehta, H. S., "An Update on the Consideration of Reactor Water Effects in Code Fatigue Initiation Evaluations for Pressure Vessels and Piping," Assessment Methodologies for Preventing Failure: I Service Experience and Environmental Considerations, PVP Vol. 410-2, R. Mohan, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 45-51, 2000.(2) Nakamura, T., M. Higuchi, T. Kusunoki, and Y. Sugie, "JSME Codes on Environmental Fatigue I Evaluation," Proc. of the 2006 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., July 23-27, 2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada, paper # PVP2006-ICPVTI 1-93305. 3 I I I I I I I I I I A.6 I NRC FORM 335 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
: 1. REPORT NUMBER (2-89) (Assigned by NRC. Add Vol., Supp., Rev., NRCM 1102, and Addendum Numbers, if any.)3201,3202 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET (See instructions on the reverse) NUREG/CR-6909
: 2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE ANL-06/08 Effect of LWR Coolant Environments on the Fatigue Life of Reactor Materials
: 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED Final Report MONTH YEAR February 2007 4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER N6187 5. AUTHOR(S)
: 6. TYPE OF REPORT 0. K. Chopra and W. J. Shack Technical 7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
-NAME AND ADDRESS (if NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor, provide name and mailing address.)Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION
-NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above": if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address.)Division of Fuel, Engineering, and Radiological Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
: 10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES H. J. Gonzalez, NRC Project Manager 11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)The existing fatigue strain-vs.-life (c-N) data illustrate potentially significant effects of LWR coolant environments on the fatigue resistance of pressure vessel and piping steels. Under certain environmental and loading conditions, fatigue lives in water relative to those in air can be a factor ofl z2 lower for austenitic stainless steels, z3 lower for Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, and z17 lower for carbon and low-alloy steels. This report summarizes the work performed at Argonne National Laboratory on the fatigue of piping and pressure vessel steels in LWR environments.
The existing fatigue c-N data have been evaluated to identify the various material, environmental, and loading parameters that influence fatigue crack initiation, and to establish the effects of key parameters on the fatigue life of these steels. Statistical models are presented for estimating fatigue life as a function of material, loading, and environmental conditions.
The environmental fatigue correction factor for incorporating the effects of LWR environments into ASME Section III fatigue evaluations is described.
The report also presents a critical review of the ASME Code fatigue design margins of 2 on stress (or strain) and 20 on life and assesses the possible conservatism in the current choice of design margins.12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words orphrases that will assist researchers in locating this report.) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unlimited Fatigue crack initiation
: 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Fatigue life (This Page)Environmental effects Unclassified Carbon and low-alloy steels (This Report)Austenitic stainless steels Unclassified Ni-Cr-Fe alloys 15. NUMBER OF PAGES BWR environment PWR environment 16.ICE PR NRC FORM 335 (2-89)
Official Transcript of Proceedings NEC-JH-27 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Materials, Metallurgy and Reactor Fuels Title: Docket Number: Location: Date: (not applicable)
Rockville, Maryland Wednesday, December 6, 2006 Work Order No.: NRC-1 347 Pages 1-162 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 +++++4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5 SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS, METALLURGY, AND 6 REACTOR FUELS 7 .+.+++8 WEDNESDAY, 9 December 6, 2006 10 11 The meeting was convened in Room T-2B3 of 12 Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 13 Rockville, Maryland, at 1:30 p.m., Dr. J. Sam Armijo, 14 Chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
15 MEMBERS PRESENT: 16 J. SAM ARMIJO, CHAIRMAN 17 MARIO V. BONACA, ACRS MEMBER 18 SAID ABDET KHALIK, ACRS MEMBER 19 SANJOY BANERJEE, ACRS MEMBER 20 THOMAS S. KRESS, ACRS MEMBER 21 JOHN D. SIEBER, ACRS MEMBER 22 GRAHAM WALLIS, ACRS MEMBER 23 CHARLES G. HAMMER, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL 24 CAXETANO SANTOS, ACRS STAFF 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 2 1 INDEX 2 Opening Remarks, S. Armijo, ACRS 3 3 Overview of Regulatory Guide 1.207 (DG-1144)4 H. Gonzalez, RES 4 5 Discussion of Technical Basis for Regulatory 6 Guide 1.207 and NUREG/CF-6909, 0. Chopra, 7 Argonne National Laboratory 11 8 Discussion of Public Comments and Staff 9 Responses for Regulatory Guide 1.207 10 and NUREG/CR-6909, H. Gonzalez, RES and 11 0. Chopra, ANL 77 12 ASME Presentation, E. Ennis, ASME 85 13 AREVA Presentation, D. Cofflin, AREVA 142 14 Adjourn 161 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I 3 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 1:31 P.M.3 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: The meeting will now 4 come to order. This is a meeting of the Materials, 5 Metallurgy and Reactor Fuels Subcommittee.
My name is 6 Sam Armijo, Chairman of the Committee.
ACRS Members I 7 in attendance are Dr. Mario Bonaca, Mr. Jack Sieber, 8 Dr. Bill Shack is sitting as a member of the audience 9 or staff at this point, Dr. Thomas Kress and Dr.10 Graham Wallis are also present.11 Gary Hammer of the ACRS staff is the 12 Designated Federal Official for this meeting. 3 13 The purpose of this meeting is to discuss 14 Regulatory Guide 1.207, guidelines for evaluating I 15 fatigue analyses incorporating the life reduction of 3 16 metal components due to the effects of light-water 17 reactor environments for new reactors.
We will hear I 18 presentations from the NRC's Office of Nuclear 19 Regulatory Research and their contractor, Argonne 20 National Laboratory.
I 21 We will also hear presentations from 22 representatives of the American Society of Mechanical 23 Engineers and AREVA. 3 24 The Subcommittee will gather information, 25 analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 4 1 proposed positions and actions, as appropriate for 2 deliberation by the Full Committee.
3 The rules for participation in today's 4 meeting have been announced as part of the notice of 5 this meeting previously published in the Federal 6 Register.
We have received no written comments from 7 members of the public regarding today's meeting.8 A transcript of the meeting is being kept 9 and will be made available as stated in the Federal 10 Register notice. Therefore, we request that 11 participants in this meeting use the microphones 12 located throughout the meeting when addressing the 13 Subcommittee.
14 Participants should first identify 15 themselves and speak with sufficient clarity and 16 volume so that they may be readily heard.17 We will now proceed with the meeting and 18 I call on Mr. Hipolito Gonzales of the Office of 19 Nuclear Regulatory Research to begin.20 MR. GONZALEZ:
Thank you. I am Hipolito 21 Gonzalez.
I'm the Project Manager for Regulatory 22 Guide 1.207. I'm from the Corrosion and Metallurgy 23 Branch and with me, Omesh Chopra. He's from Argonne 24 National Lab. He's going to be presenting part of the 25 regulatory basis, technical regulatory basis.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 5 1 I would like to acknowledge William Cullen 2 from the Office of Research and John Ferrer, NRR, for 3 their helpful reviews and comments on this project.4 Next slide.5 The agenda today, we're going to be 6 discussing Regulatory Guide 1.207. I'm going to give 7 a quick historical perspective and then we're going to 8 go over an overview the reg. guide. And then Omesh 9 will present the technical basis which is the NUREG 10 report CR, NUREG CR 6909, Revision 1.11 I'm .going to give a summary of the 12 regulatory positions.
And the last presentation is 13 going to be the resolution of public comments.14 The ASME Section 3, fatigue design curves 15 were developed in the late 1960s and the early 1970s.16 The tests conducted were in laboratory environments at 17 ambient temperatures.
And the design curves included 18 adjusted factors of 2 constraint and 20 on cyclic life 19 to account for variations in materials, surface 20 finish, data scatter and size.21 Results from the studies in Japan and 22 others in ANL, Argonne National Lab, as illustrated.
23 Potential significant effects of the light-water 24 reactor coolant environment on the fatigue life of the 25 steel, steel components.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1 Next slide.2 Since the late 1980s, the NRC staff has 3 been involved in the discussion with ASME co-4 committees, the PVRC and Technical Community to 5 address the issues related to the environmental 6 effects on fatigue.7 In 1991, the ASME Board of Nuclear Code 8 and Standards requested the PVRC to examine worldwide 9 fatigue strain versus like data and develop 10 recommendations.
11 In 1995, it was resolution for GSI 166 12 which established that the risk to core damage from 13 fatigue failure of the reactor coolant system was 14 small. So no action was required for current plant 15 design life of 40 years. Also, the NRC staff 16 concluded that fatigue issues should be evaluated for 17 extended period of operation for license renewal and 18 this is under GSI-190.19 In 1999, we had GSI-190 and the fatigue 20 evaluation of metal components for 60-year life plant, 21 plant life. Staff concluded that consistent with 22 requirements of 10 CFR 54.21, that aging management 23 programs for license renewal should address components 24 of fatigue including the effects of the environment.
25 On December 1, 1999, by letter to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 7 1 Chairman of the ASME Board of Nuclear Code and 2 Standards, the NRC requested ASME to revise the code 3 to include the environmental effects on the fatigue 4 design components.
5 Next slide.6 ASME initiated the PVRC Steering Committee 7 on cyclic life and environmental effects and the PVRC 8 Committee recommended revising the code for design 9 fatigue curves. This was to WRC Bulletin 487.10 After more than 25 years of deliberation, 11 there hasn't been any consensus regarding 12 environmental effects on fatigue life on the light-13 water reactor environments.
14 The NRR requested research under user need 15 requests to 504 to develop guidance for determining 16 the acceptable fatigue life of ASME pressure boundary 17 components with consideration of the light water 18 reactor environment and this guidance will be used for 19 supporting reviews of application that the Agency 20 expects to receive for new reactors.
The industry was 21 immediately notified that the NRC staff initiated this 22 work, the development of the reg. guide. In addition, 23 this is one of the high priority reg. guides to be 24 completed by March 2007.25 In February and August this year, NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 8 1 staff and ANL, we had presented at the ASME Code 2 Meetings the technical basis draft, NUREG CR6909. On 3 July 24, 2006, both the draft reg. guide and the NUREG 4 technical basis report were published for public 5 comments and the public comment period ended September 6 25.7 In addition, on July 25, ANL presented a 8 paper on the technical basis again.9 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Just to clarify 10 something, new reactors, does that include -- do these 11 rules apply to already certified design, such as the 12 ABWR and the API000? Are they grandfathered by virtue 13 of their certification?
14 MR. FERRER: This is John Ferrer from NRR 15 staff. They're grandfathered by virtue of their 16 certification that's already been addressed in the 17 reviews there, so we're not backfitting this reg.18 guide to those certified designs.19 DR. SIEBER: For 40 years though.20 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Well, actually, if you 21 read the safety evaluation, the way it was written 22 said that. they were evaluated for 60 years.23 DR. SIEBER: Okay.24 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: That's kind of an 25 inconsistency in a way because they haven't been built NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 9 1 in the United States and if they were being certified 2 after this reg. guide is issued, that would be the 3 rule -- that would control the design, wouldn't it?4 MR. FERRER: I wish I -- I agree with you.5 Unfortunately, the way certified design works is once 6 we certify it, we'd have to go through a backfit 7 evaluation if we were going to apply this. And what 8 happened in the backfit evaluation, if you go back a 9 couple of slides on the GSI-166 and the GSI-190, we 10 did a backfit evaluation and showed the risk was not 11 high enough to justify a backfit, but the reason we 12 implemented it on license renewal was the fact that 13 the probability of leakage increased significantly 14 within 40 and 60 years.15 But again, the risk which is the 16 probability of getting a pipe rupture that would lead 17 to core damage was still low.18 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Thank you.19 MR. GONZALEZ:
Now I am going to go to an 20 overview of the reg. guide.21 Next slide.22 How the reg. guide 1.207 relates to the 23 regulatory requirements.
GDC criterion, general 24 design criterion 1, quality standards and waivers.25 And the part says 'that safety-related systems, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 10 1 structures and components must be designed, 2 fabricated, erected and tested to the quality standard 3 commensurate with the importance of the safety 4 function performed.
5 GDC-30 states, in part, that components 6 included in a reactor pressure boundary must be 7 designed, fabricated, erected and tested to the 8 highest practical quality standards.
9 In 10 CFR 50.55A endorses the ASME boiler 10 pressure vessel code for design of safety-related 11 systems and components.
These are Class 1 components.
12 ASME Code Section 3 includes the design 13 fatigue, includes the fatigue design curves. But 14 these fatigue design curves do not address the impact 15 of the reactor coolant system environment.
16 The objective of this regulatory guide is 17 to provide guidance for determining the acceptable 18 fatigue life of ASME pressure boundary components with 19 the consideration of the light water reactor 20 environment for major structural materials that will 21 be carbon steel, low-alloy steels, austenitic 22 stainless steel and nickel-based alloys. For example, 23 alloy-600, 690.24 So in this guide, describes an approach 25 that the NRC staff considers acceptable to support NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 11 1 reviews about the applications that the Agency expects 2 to receive for new reactors.3 Implementation, this will only apply to 4 new plants. And no backfitting is intended.
And this 5 is due to the conservatism in the current fleet of 6 reactors because of the design practices for fatigue 7 work conservatisms all plants were designed.8 Next slide, please.9 Now I'm going to -- how the technical 10 basis was developed.
Omesh is going to give the 11 presentation on the technical basis report.12 MR. CHOPRA: Thanks, Hipo.13 DR. BONACA: I have a question regarding 14 your last statement.
No backfitting is intended, 15 conservatism on coolant reactors.
If the approach was 16 conservative on coolant reactors, I mean could it be 17 used also for new reactors?18 MR. FERRER: Let me try to answer that.19 In reviewing GSI-166 which was backfit to current 20 operating plants, we evaluated the as-existing fatigue 21 analyses and there were a number of conservatisms in 22 the specification of transients and the methodology 23 and the analysis.24 We don't know whether or not that same 25 conservatism will be applied in the new reactors.
In NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 12 1 addition, there have been some changes in the ASME 2 code criteria since those original analyses were done 3 that removed some of the conservatisms in the 4 analysis.
So if somebody were to do code analysis to 5 the current code criteria may not have the same level 6 of conservatisms.
7 DR. BONACA: I understand.
Thank you.8 MR. CHOPRA: The issue we are discussing 9 here today is effect of light water reactor coolant 10 environments on the fatigue life of structural steels.11 Over the last 20 to 30 years, there's been sufficient 12 data accumulated, both in the U.S. and worldwide, 13 especially in Japan, which shows that coolant 14 environments can have a significant effect on the 15 fatigue life of these steels.16 And this data is very consistent.
It 17 doesn't matter where it has been rated, all show 18 similar trends without any exception.
And also, the 19 fatigue data is consistent with a much larger database 20 on fatigue crack growth rates affect on environment of 21 fatigue crack growth rates. There's no inconsistency.
22 The mechanisms are very similar and both show similar 23 trends, effects of radius parameters, material loading 24 and environmental parameters have similar inference on 25 fatigue crack initiation and fatigue crack growth.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, DC. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 13 1 And this fatigue data has been evaluated 2 to clearly define which are the important parameters.
3 They're well defined and also the range of these 4 parameters for which environmental effects are 5 significant, it's clearly defined.6 So we know the conditions under which 7 environment would have an effect on fatigue life. The 8 question.
is do these conditions exist in the fleet?9 If they exist, we will have an effect on the 10 environment and it should be considered.
We know from 11 subsection 31.32.21 that the current fatigue design 12 curves do not include the effect of aggi-essive 13 environment which can accelerate fatigue failures and 14 has to be considered.
15 So the burden is on the designer to better 16 define these transients, to know what conditions 17 occurred during these transients and whether 18 environment would be involved.19 Next, before getting into the 20 environmental.
effects, I just want to cover a few 21 background information.
We are talking about the 22 effect of environment on fatigue life. Let's 23 understand what do we mean by fatigue life? The 24 current code design curves were based on data which 25 was where the specimens were tested to failure. Quite NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 14 1 often, these design curves are termed as failure 2 codes, but I think the intent was to define fatigue 3 life as to prevent fatigue crack initiation, because 4 the data which has been obtained in the last 20 to 30 5 years in these results fatigue life is defined as the 6 number of sitings for the peak load to decrease by 25 7 percent.8 And for the type of specimen, size of 9 specimens used in these tests, mostly quarter inch or 10 three-eighth round cylindrical specimens, this would.11 correspond to creating a three millimeter crack. So 12 we can say the fatigue life is the number of cycles 13 for a given strain condition to initiate a three 14 millimeter crack and from several studies we know that 15 surface crack, about 10 micron deep form quite early 16 during fatigue cycling.17 So we can say that fatigue life is nothing 18 but it's associated with growth of these cracks from 19 a 10 micron size to 3 millimeter size and typically 20 this is the behavior of the growth of these cracks is 21 in this shape where crack length is a fraction of 22 fatigue life varies like this and it's divided into 23 two stages, initiation stage and a propagation stage.24 Initiation stage is characterized by decrease in crack 25 growth rates. It's very sensitive to micro structure.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 15 1 It involves sheer crack growth which is 45 degrees.to 2 the stress axis, whereas propagation stage is not very 3 sensitive to microstructure.
It was tensile crack 4 growth which is perpendicular to the stress axis and 5 this is the stage where you see on the fracture 6 surface well defined striations..
7 Various studies have shown that this 8 transition from an initiation stage to a propagation 9 stage occurs around -- depending on the material, 150 10 micron or 300 micron, that range.11 So initiation stage is growth of crack up 12 to 300 microns. Propagation stage is beyond that to 13 3000 or 3 millimeter size.14 Next slide.15 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Before you leave that 16 curve,, just for the benefit of people who don't 17 understand these curves, what is the time difference 18 between or the fatigue life difference from the three 19 millimeter crack initiated crack to through-wall 20 failure in the case of let's say a one-inch pipe, one-21 inch wall thickness?
22 MR. CHOPRA: We would use the crack growth 23 rate data.24 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Would that typically 25 increase the number of cycles by a factor of 2 or a C NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 16 1 factor of 10?2 MR. CHOPRA: It depends on the conditions, 3 loading conditions and environment and so on. So we 4 know what the crack growth rates are for various 5 conditions.
So we have to use that. But maybe I can 6 answer another way. In a test specimen, the 7 difference between 25 percent load drop and complete 8 failure of a specimen is very small. It's less than 9 one or two percent.10 So whether we call it failure of a 11 specimen or defining it 25 percent drop, would be very 12 small difference.
The idea of using 25 percent load 13 drop was to be consistent so that we define life as 14 some consistent
-- all the labs do the same thing. So 15 that was the idea.16 Otherwise, for a real component, if we 17 deal with three millimeter steel in a tube, it would 18 depend on crack growth rates.19 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Okay.20 MR. CHOPRA: Now the same curve I've 21 plotted a slightly different way where I plotted still 22 our cracked growth rates was the crack depths, 23 decreasing growth rates in the initiation stage and 24 increasing growth rates.25 Now of course, crack growth would depend NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 17 1 on applied stress ranges. The higher the stress 2 range, the higher the crack growth. The delta sigma 3 one at very low stresses, the cracks which form during 4 cyclic loading may not growth to large enough size 5 that they can -- the propagation stage takes over.6 DR. WALLIS: Crack velocity is really 7 growth rate and microns per cycle, not per unit of 8 time.9 MR. CHOPRA: Right, but depending on the 10 time period one could convert it to --11 DR. WALLIS: I know, but velocity is a 12 strange word.13 MR. CHOPRA.: Yes, maybe this should be 14 crack growth rate.15 DR. WALLIS: If there's no cycling, 16 there's no crack growth.17 MR. CHOPRA: Yes, yes. Beta sigma one, 18 when the stresses are very low, cracks may grow to 19 large enough size for the propagation to take over and 20 this is known as the fatigue limit of the material.21 This is true for constant loading.22 MR. BANERJEE:
What's the mechanism that 23 changes the velocity so much?24 MR. CHOPRA: Initial sheer crack growth.25 It will extent maximum couple of degrees. So it's a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 sheer crack growth, 45 degrees, whereas, once you go deep enough, large enough size, you get into a different process where actually fracture mechanics methodology can be used to express that. It's a tensile crack growth.MR. BANERJEE:
It's a multi-grain sort of size and then it starts -- a different mechanism.
MR. CHOPRA: Typically, a couple of grains. Fatigue limit is applicable only under constant stress conditions.
If we have random loading, as in the case of a real component, then we can have situations where we have higher stresses, few cycles of higher stresses, where cracks can grow beyond this depth that you can grow even at stresses which are much lower than fatigue limit.So the history of cycling is also important for evaluating fatigue damage.DR. WALLIS: Delta sigma is the magnitude of this?MR. CHOPRA: Of the stress range, applied extracted stress range. And environment also.DR. WALLIS: Does it matter if it's 10 silo or compressible?
MR. CHOPRA: On the tests which are used for obtaining fatigue data, the strain range ratio is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 19 1 -1, completely reversed.
So we go from tensile to 2 compressive.
3 Even in environment, corrosion processes 4 can cause the cracks to grow beyond this and then 5 .propagation can take over. So environment also could 6 accelerate.
So the question is which part -- which of 7 these stages is affected by environment?
Initiation 8 or propagation, or both?9 DR. WALLIS: Your scales are linear, are 10 they?11 MR. CHOPRA: This is a schematic.
12 DR. WALLIS: Schematic.
13 MR. CHOPRA: This portion is plotted here 14 where I have actual numbers. And I just wanted to 15 show you that we know from crack growth studies that 16 crack growth rates are affected by environment and 17 it's very well documented.
18 DR. WALLIS: These data look unreasonably 19 well behaved for materials data.20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. CHOPRA:. If we plotted a few tests, we 22 will see this happen.23 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Agreement is log, log.24 DR. WALLIS: Even so, I mean.25 MR. CHOPRA: Anyway, effect of environment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 20 1 is also, has been studied in fatigue crack initiation.
2 DR. WALLIS: These are real data?3 MR. CHOPRA: These are real data. But we 4 have calculated the crack growth rates in the fatigue 5 samples by benchmarking the fatigue crack front at 6 different stages during fatigue life. And so we can 7 see the three environments here: high oxygen -- high 8 dissolved oxygen water; low dissolved oxygen; PWR 9 water and air. And we see if you take 100 micron 10 crack length and air -- it took about 3,000 cycles to 11 reach that. In water, it took only 40 cycles, which 12 gives me an average growth rate of 2.5 micron per 13 cycle and this is this region here, average of this.14 In this case, it's .0033 microns per 15 cycle. So *we see two orders of magnitude effect of 16 environment which suggests that even the initiation 17 stage may be affected even more than what crack growth 18 rate is affected.19 I just wanted to show you that both stages 20 are affected by the environment, even the growth of 21 very small cracks.22 Now next, the design curves, what do the 23 design curves --24 DR. WALLIS: Presumably, this is not just 25 one batch of data like this.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 21 1 MR. CHOPRA: There's lots of data. I'm 2 just giving --3 DR. WALLIS: There's a whole lot of data.4 MR. CHOPRA: I'm just giving you one set, 5 yes. There's a lot of data.6 DR. WALLIS: Because if there were 7 uncertainty in these, these curves might switch 8 positions.
9 MR. CHOPRA: sure, but I'm just presenting 10 that data to show that environment has a large effect.11 It's the relative difference between air and water 12 which I was trying to show, not absolute crack growth 13 rates, just to show that it took only 40 cycles in 14 high oxygen water compared to 3,000 which suggests 15 that environment has a large effect on fatigue crack 16 initiation.
17 Now the design curves, we have -- the data 18 which we have obtained is on small specimens.
They 19 are absolutely smooth and they were tested in room 20 temperature air. This is what was used to generate 21 the design curves in the current, code. And all of 22 them were tested under strain control, fully reversed, 23 strain ratio of -1.24 Now this gives me the best behavior of a 25 specimen when a crack would be initiated in a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 22 1 specimen.
To apply those results to actual reactor 2 component we need to adjust these results to account 3 for parameters or variables which we know affect 4 fatigue life, but are not included in this data. And 5 these variables are mean stress, surface finish, size, 6 loading history.7 DR. WALLIS: Does the humidity of the air 8 make a difference?
9 MR. CHOPRA: Actually, if you look at the 10 basis document of the current code, they use a 11 subfactor which included surface roughness and 12 environment and by that environment they meant a lab, 13 well-controlled lab environment.
14 DR. WALLIS: Does the humidity of the air 15 make a difference?
16 MR. CHOPRA: In some cases it would, but 17 again, that is not studied as a -- it's not addressed 18 as an explicit parameter in defining fatigue life.19 All data which was used was room temperature air to 20 generate the design curves.21 DR. WALLIS: Room temperature means 20 22 degrees Centigrade or something?
23 MR. CHOPRA: Yes, 25, yes. To account for 24 these other variables like mean stress, surface 25 roughness and so on, what the current code --NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I 23 1 DR. WALLIS: I'm sorry, when you -- maybe 2 you just said it. When you say PWR water, you mean at 3 room temperature or -- I 4 MR. CHOPRA: No, no. The design curves do 3 5 not address environment at all.6 DR. WALLIS: But your data that you showed I 7 us, the well-behaved data.8 MR. CHOPRA: Those are higher 9 temperatures.
10 DR. WALLIS: Those are higher 11 temperatures.
12 MR. CHOPRA: They would be at reactive 13 temperatures.
14 DR. WALLIS: Okay. Could be a temperature U 15 effect as well as an environment effect? 3 16 MR. CHOPRA: There is and I'll come to 17 that actually.
In water, temperature is a very 18 important parameter.
And to convert this data on 19 specimens to a real component, what the current code 20 does now is take the best -- 1 21 DR. WALLIS: Is the PWR water that is 22 borated at initial strength or something?
23 MR. CHOPRA: PWR is. It both has boron 24 and lithium.25 DR. WALLIS: There's some sort of average I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 24 1 condition throughout the cycle?2 MR. CHOPRA: Right, right. Typically, 3 people test around 1,000 ppm boron and 2ppm lithium.4 TO adjust these curves to an actual 5 reactor component, what the code does is we take the 6 best of the specimen data and adjust it for mean 7 stress correction and then apply these adjustment 8 factors of two on stress. We decrease the specimen 9 curve by a factor of two on stress and 20 on life, 10 whichever is the lower gets the design curve. But as 11 1 mentioned, it does not include the effect of an 12 aggressive environment.
In this case, what we are 13 talking about is light-water reactor environments.
14 Now to summarize some of the effects of 15 environment on carbon and low-alloy steels, there are 16 several parameters which are important.
Steel type, 17 all of the data shows irrespective of steel type, it 18 doesn't matter which grade of carbon steel or low-19 alloy steel, effect of environment is about the same.20 There is a strain threshold below which environments 21 do not -- environmental effects do not occur. And 22 this threshold is very close to slightly above the 23 fatigue life of the steel. Strain rate is an 24 important parameter.
There is a threshold, 1 percent 25 per second above that. Environmental effects are more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 25 1 great and lower the strain rate, higher the effect.2 And it diffuses the saturation at around .001 percent 3 per second.4 Similarly, temperature is very important.
5 Once again, there is a threshold; 150 degree C.6 Higher temperatures, there's greater effect. Below 7 150 --8 DR. WALLIS: Strain rate's lowest point is 9 .001 percent a second makes a difference?
10 MR. CHOPRA: Yes. I'll show you some of 11 the results.12 DR. WALLIS: Really? That's awfully slow, 13 isn't it?14 MR. CHOPRA: Some of the transients are.15 DR. WALLIS: Abnormally slow.16 MR. CHOPRA: Temperature also, there is 17 only a moderate effect below 150. Typically, when I 18 mean moderate effect, up to a factor of 2. Any water 19 touched surface may have up to a factor of --20 DR. WALLIS: Linear decrease doesn't tell 21 me how fast it is. Linear decrease in life after 150 22 doesn't tell me how rapidly it decreases.
23 MR. CHOPRA: There are some slides, I'll 24 show you how much of a different it is.25 MR. SANTOS: Do you have an equation?NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 26 1 MR. CHOPRA: Yes.2 DR. WALLIS: Which goes right through the 3 data?4 MR. CHOPRA: Absolutely.
5 DR. WALLIS: Is this an Argonne equation 6 or a universal equation?7 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: You'll see.8 DR. WALLIS: We'll see, okay.9 MR. CHOPRA: Dissolved oxygen is also 10 similar. There's a threshold.
In this case, low 11 oxygen environmental effects on carbon low-allow 12 steels-are less. There's a threshold
.04 ppm. Higher 13 dissolved oxygen has an environmental effect, 14 saturates around .05 ppm.15 DR. WALLIS: How much sulfur is there in 16 the reactor?17 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: That's in the steel.18 DR. WALLIS: In the steel, I'm sorry. I 19 thought you were talking about the environment.
Now 20 you're talking about the steel?21 MR. CHOPRA: These are --22 DR. WALLIS: Dissolved oxygen in the 23 steel.24 MR. CHOPRA: These are loading parameters.
25 Some are environmental parameters.
Some are material NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 27 1 parameters.
2 DR. WALLIS: Okay.3 MR. CHOPRA: Sulfur also has a large 4 effect on fatigue crack initiation.
5 DR. WALLIS: There's no other effects, 6 copper and stuff like that? There's no other effects?7 MR. CHOPRA: In the steel? No. At least 8 the ones which we have looked at. Sulfur is the one 9 because it deals with the mechanism.
Actually, the 10 reason why these are higher for carbon and low-allow 11 steels which these are very well documented.
It's the 12 sulfite iron density of the cracking.
If we reach a 13 critical sulfite iron density crack enhancement 14 occurs. So these are very well documented in the 15 data. This is a mechanism.
That's why sulfur is 16 important.
17 Roughness effects, we know if we have a 18 rough specimen surface it provides sites for 19 initiation.
Life goes down. And in carbon low-alloy 20 steel, in air, there is an effect of surface 21 roughness, but some limited data suggests that in 22 water, rough and smooth specimens have about the same 23 life. So roughness effects may not be there for 24 carbon low-alloy steel.25 Flow rate also, most of the data has been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 28 1 obtained on very low flow rates or semi-stagnant 2 conditions.
If we do these tests in higher flow 3 rates, effect of the environment does go down. Means 4 fatigue life would increase in high flow rates by a 5 factor of about 2.6 Similarly, the effects on austenitic 7 stainless steels, same parameters, steel type, again 8 different grades of austenitic stainless steel, 9 similar effects and even cast austenitic stainless 10 steel have similar effects on the environment.
11 Once again we see a strain threshold below 12 which there is no effect and it's very close to the 13 fatigue limit. The dependence of strain rate and 14 temperature are very similar to what we see in carbon 15 and low-alloy steels.16 The next three, dissolved oxygen, surface 17 roughness and flow rate, the effects are very 18 different from carbon and low-alloy steels. In this 19 case, for austenitic stainless steel, it's the low 20 oxygen which gives you a larger effect. And 21 irrespective of what steel type we use or what heat 22 treatment, heat treatment that means sensitization.
23 Sensitized stainless steel or solution in the 24 stainless steel both show similar life in low oxygen.25 DR. WALLIS: That extends down to zero NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 29 1 oxygen?2 MR. CHOPRA: Pardon me?3 DR. WALLIS: That extends down --4 MR. CHOPRA: If we can achieve that, you 5 know, but typically in a PWR, we have around -- it's 6 a low -- less than 50 ppm.7 Yes, low oxygen, irrespective of the steel 8 type or heat treatment, there's a large effect on 9 environment, but in high oxygen, non-water chemistry, 10 PWR conditions, some steels show less effect and these 11 are solution annealed high-carbon steels which are not 12 sensitized.
All low carbon grades such as 316 nuclear 13 grade or 304 L may have less effect in high oxygen.14 Surface roughness and this is both in air 15 and water environments, there's a reduction in life.16 Even in water. In carbonate steel we did not see a 17 reduction in life for rough samples. In this case, 18 both in air and water there is an effect of roughness.
19 And flow rate, there is no effect of flow rate on 20 fatigue life for austenitic stainless steels in water.21 The differences between these three 22 suggests that the mechanism may be different for 23 austenitic stainless steels compared to carbon and 24 low-alloy steel. I mention the mechanism for carbon 25 and low-allow steels, the sulfite iron density of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 30 1 crack depth. In this case, it's not well known --2 there's no agreement on what is the mechanism.
One 3 possible mechanism would be that as we expose stress 4 surface, hydrogen is created which changes the 5 definition of behavior and of the crack depth. But 6 this is one possible mechanism.
7 The next slides are details of what I 8 summarized.
Unless there are specific questions, I'm 9 going to skip these next eight slides which basically 10 give the data which I summarized in the previous.11 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: I think it would be 12 better if you just highlight these things, just to 13 make the key points from these charts because I think 14 they're important.
15 MR. CHOPRA: This is the strain rate 16 effect. You were asking about the strain rate. I 17 plotted fatigue life for low-alloy steel, carbon steel 18 under certain conditions, strain amplitudes.
In air, 19 PWR water and BWR.20 DR. WALLIS: Are you claiming there's a 21 significant difference between air and PWR?22 MR. CHOPRA: It's up to about a factor of 23 2 and this could be a factor of 15 or 20 lower 24 DR. WALLIS: We're not going to put in 25 that much oxygen, are we?NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 31 1 MR. CHOPRA: BWR has 200 to 300 ppb oxygen 2 and in this case, there are correlations which will 3 tell you how much -- depending on the oxygen, what 4 would be the effect.5 This is the maximum effect because this is 6 I think .7. Saturation is at .5. So this is the 7 maximum effect under these conditions.
8 This is strain threshold which I 9 mentioned, the threshold about which effect of 10 environment is there. This gives you dissolved oxygen 11 at .04, this is carbon steel, higher oxygen levels, 12 things go down. And again, in PWR there's only a 13 modern effect.14 I mentioned that for stainless steel, the 15 effect of dissolved oxygen is different.
Here, this 16 is now three or four stainless at two different 17 strainless amplitude.
There are two different tests 18 at different conditions, .25 and .33 and high oxygen, 19 no effect upstream rate and low oxygen, it goes down.20 Whereas, a 316 NG or low carbon grade shows some 21 reduction in life in high oxygen, but not at the same 22 extent as you see in low oxygen.23 So these are just a few examples I'm 24 showing. There's a lot of data in Japan and Europe 25 which shows similar trends. This shows the effect of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 32 1 sensitization.
Sensitization is defined as a number, 2 EPI number. Degree of sensitization is increasing and 3 same conditions.
In air, low oxygen, high oxygen and 4 we see in high oxygen it decreases with degree of 5 sensitization.
6 Effect of -- this is temperature again at 7 150 and lower, depending on what are the strain rates 8 and what are the dissolved oxygen conditions.
If it's 9 very low, no effect. These are low oxygen conditions, 10 no effect. High oxygen, depending on the strain rate 11 and dissolved oxygen levels to the extent of the 12 effect in pieces.13 DR. WALLIS: You're just talking about a 14 hundred cycles there, failure.15 MR. CHOPRA: No, a thousand.
In some 16 cases in the environment, it is.17 DR. WALLIS: Right.18 MR. CHOPRA: There is up to a factor of 20 19 reduction in life.20 Surface roughness again, stainless steel, 21 open circles, smooth specimens; closed circles are 22 symbols are rough samples. A factor of 3 in air, 23 factor about the same in water.24 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: I don't want to belabor 25 this, but I looked at these data and the one that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 33 1 shows -- the curve on the left for the air data, the 2 right triangles.
They don't go through the best fed 3 curve at all.4 MR. CHOPRA: Actually, this is 316 NG.5 316 NG has a steeper slope, but for convenience we are 6 using a curve for all steels.7 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: So that's the best fit 8 curve there is for all --9 MR. CHOPRA: All stainless steels, all 10 grades, including high or low-carbon grades.11 DR. WALLIS: The purpose of the ASME curve 12 is to be below all the data, is that the idea?13 MR. CHOPRA: Once we take into account, 14 you know I mentioned those adjustment factors of 20 on 15 fatigue and 2 on stress. Once we take that into 16 account, once we do that adjustment, then we want to 17 make sure that we are above that.18 But these are best fit curves. So they 19 give you the average behavior for all --20 DR. WALLIS: The ASME code has a factor of 21 2 in it or something?
I don't see that.22 MR. CHOPRA: I'll come to that. Give me 23 a 24 25 DR. WALLIS: Okay. But the factor of 2 is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in this curve here?MR. CHOPRA: No, these are --CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: ASME codes.MR. CHOPRA: The code curve has the factor of 2.DR. WALLIS: No safety factor.MR. CHOPRA: This is the best fit. These are showing that even --DR. WALLIS: Oh, I see. So you've give u your margin of 2?MR. CHOPRA: Right.DR. WALLIS: Okay.MR. CHOPRA: What we are saying is only the margin or adjustment factors are gone for the --CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: That's it.MR. CHOPRA: Environment has taken care o: all that and still be within bound for a lot of other factors like surface roughness and so on.DR. WALLIS: You're going to tell us what you're going to do about that?MR. CHOPRA: Sure.DR. WALLIS: Okay.(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Absolutely.
MR. CHOPRA: This gives you the effect of p f NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 35 1 flow rate. I mentioned that for carbon and low-alloy 2 steels, effect of environment is less.3 Now a few slides for nickel alloy.4 There's much less data on nickel alloys. Here, I've 5 plotted the data which is available
--6 DR. WALLIS: Much less data. So you're 7 showing us more than you showed us for steel?8 MR. CHOPRA: What we do is rather than 9 coming with a new curve for nickel alloys, unless we 10 have enough data, what I'm trying to show is that we 11 can use the austenitic stainless steel to represent 12 the nickel alloys and even the few data we have for 13 alloy 690 suggests that we can use the austenitic 14 stainless steel code to determine usage factors, 15 fatigue usage factors for nickel alloys in air.16 MR. BANERJEE:
So temperature has almost 17 no effect here.18 MR. CHOPRA: For carbon and low-alloy 19 steels there is some effect. Going from room 20 temperature to 300 may reduce life by about 50 21 percent, but stainless up to 400. There's not much 22 effect.23 MR. BANERJEE:
Including nickel alloys?24 MR. CHOPRA: Nickel alloys, no. At 400, 25 in fact, they show longer life. But again, the data NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 36 1 is very limited. There's few data sets at 400 which 2 actually show longer life for alloy 600. But again, 3 at present, since all curves are based on room 4 temperature data, we are not taking any temperature 5 dependence for air. But for water effects, 6 temperature is important and explicitly defined in the 7 expressions to calculate fatigue life in water.8 DR. WALLIS: That means it is through the 9 median of the data in some way?10 MR. CHOPRA: I'll show you how we got the 11 best fit curves.12 DR. WALLIS: It's supposed to be an 13 average right through the middle of the data.14 MR. CHOPRA: Right.15 DR. WALLIS: It's not best fit to a 95 16 percentile or something like that? You'll get to that 17 too, but what you're showing here is --18 MR. CHOPRA: Average, right. These 19 results show nickel alloy data for alloy 600 and some 20 of the welds. In BWR, normal water chemistry, BWR 21 environment and PWR environment and again, what we see 22 is the effects are similar to what we get for 23 austenitic stainless steels. There's larger effect in 24 low oxygen than in high oxygen. PWR environment has 25 larger effect than BWR, but the focal effect is much NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 37 1 less than what you would see for austenitic stainless 2 steel.3 Typically, under certain conditions in 4 austenitic stainless steel we see a reduction of a 5 factor of 14 or 15. In this, the maximum is a factor 6 of 3. So the effect is much less, but we can use this 7 limited data to define the important parameters and 8 how to estimate environmental effects.9 Now we have all this data. How do we 10 generate the expressions?
All -- in air, all data, 11 fatigue data I expressed by this modified Langer 12 equation where fatigue life is expressed in terms of 13 strain amplitude and these constants A, B, C --14 DR. WALLIS: Is this an equation because 15 you plotted the data on log paper, is that why it is?16 MR. CHOPRA: This is the expression used 17 and it presents the data best.18 DR. WALLIS: It's because you plotted it 19 on log paper. It looks good on log paper and it's 20 linear.21 MR. CHOPRA: Well, the trend is also -- it 22 does represent the trend.23 DR. WALLIS: Okay.24 MR. CHOPRA: And C is the fatigue limit or 25 related with the fatigue limit of the material.
B is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 38 1 the slope of that curve. A is a constant which would 2 vary with heat to heat. Depending on a more resistant 3 material would give a higher A or lower means it's 4 less resistant to fatigue damage.5 We can do a best fit of the data and also 6 use this A to represent heat to heat variability and 7 come up with a median value, how median material would 8 behave. Best fit gives me the average behavior, 9 whereas a distribution would give me how various 10 materials behave and I get a median curve and then 11 come up with a number which would bound 95 percent of 12 the materials.
And that's what I'm going to show.13 One more thing, another term, D can be 14 added to impute in 1, which would include parameters 15 like temperature, strain rate and so on.16 DR. WALLIS: Does the ASME curve have a 17 similar equation?18 MR. CHOPRA: Yes. The Langer equation is 19 very -- yes.20 This shows for low-alloy steels in air and 21 water various heats. Now each did define even if I 22 have 10 data points, it's 1 point. Another may have 23 500 data points. But if it's the same material, it's 24 just one point on this plot. This way, I can give 25 you, we can determine the median value for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 39 1 materials and if I select a fifth percentile number, 2 in this case, 5.56, if I select the A or 5.56, that 3 curve would bound 95 percent of the --4 DR. WALLIS: It's the coefficient.
5 MR. CHOPRA: So this is how we obtain the 6 design curve by defining what subfactors I need to 7 adjust the best fit curve for average curve to come up 8 with a design curve which would bound 95 percent of 9 the materials.
10 I'll give the loca probability of track 11 initiation.
12 MR. BANERJEE:
There's B and C as well, 13 right?14 MR. CHOPRA: B and C, what I do is use it 15 for normalizing to get A for each heat which is the 16 average heat and I get a standard deviation.
That's 17 what I've plotted here.. For the particular heat, I've 18 given the average value and the standard deviation for 19 the data set.20 MR. BANERJEE:
You lost me.21 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: B and C are relatively 22 constant.23 MR. CHOPRA: A is the one that changes.24 MR. BANERJEE:
So you fix B and C to some 25 value?NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 MR. CHOPRA: Right, right. And we know even environment does not change. The strain threshold was close to fatigue limit so I don't have to change the fatigue limit. And there is no data which suggests that C changes, means that the fatigue limit changes for material.DR. WALLIS: The range of that is not very big, but if N is E to the A, so it's a factor of about 10 on the whole range.MR. CHOPRA: Right.MR. BANERJEE:
Do B and C govern the shape of the curve?MR. CHOPRA: Yes. Right. The slope is B.C is where at 106 or 107.DR. WALLIS: I see where it's flat.CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: So all the environmental effects are just put into the A constant?MR. CHOPRA: Right.CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Okay.MR. CHOPRA: Now we come up with these expressions which can be used for predicting fatigue life under various conditions.
Again, Langer equation A, constant A; slope B and C. And this is the environmental term B which would have these -- which would depend on these three parameters for carbon low-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 41 1 alloy steel, same for content, given by these 2 expressions, temperature, dissolved oxygen and strain 3 rate.4 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Now the A is the five 5 percent number?6 MR. CHOPRA: No. These are still the 7 average numbers.8 CHAIRMAN.
ARMIJO: These are average 9 numbers.10 MR. CHOPRA: Next, I'll get to where we 11 apply those adjustment factors to get the design 12 growth.13 DR. WALLIS: What does N mean here?14 MR. CHOPRA: Cycles --15 DR. WALLIS: Environment.
N for 16 environment, is that PWR?17 MR. CHOPRA: No, this is in error what the 18 expression is. This is in the light water reactor.19 DR. WALLIS: Okay.20 MR. CHOPRA: It doesn't matter whether 21 it's BWR or PWR because these are the parameters which 22 will change in various environments, reactor 23 environments.
24 MR. BANERJEE:
Is there no effective 25 hydrogen on it at all?NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 42 1 MR. CHOPRA: In BWR environment, there's 2 'about 2 ppm dissolved hydrogen, but I think it's the 3 hydrogen which is created by the austenitic reaction 4 which is more important than what is -- it does 5 control ECP, the electrical potential of the 6 environment.
So hydrogen would change the ECP, but 7 below -250 electrical potential, effects are not that 8 much different.
But you know, in crack growth rates 9 there is some effect, depending on -- well, in this 10 case all -- we use only 2 PPM hydrogen.11 MR. BANERJEE:
These are all done in 12 autoclaves or whatever?13 MR. CHOPRA: And we do simulate these 14 conditions.
BWR, it's high oxygen, high purity, very 15 high purity. And pressurized water reactor, again 16 high purity. Then we had boron or boric acid to get 17 boron, 1,000 PPM and 2 PPM lithium, by adding lithium 18 hydroxide.
And measure the pH. We measure the 19 conductivity and maintain all these water chemistry 20 parameters constant during the test.21 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: These are flowing a loop 22 type --23 MR. CHOPRA: Very small flow rates. I 24 think if you look at the -- my plot, they would amount 25 to 10-5 meter per second. Very low.2' NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
.43 1 CHAIRMAN~
ARMIJO: They're not static 2 autoclaves?
3 MR. CHOPRA: They're not static and they 4 are continuously reconditioned.
So if they are, it's 5 once through. They're not repeated.6 DR. WALLIS: How long are the tests done 7 typically?
8 MR. CHOPRA: Depends on the conditions.
9 At low strain amplitudes and low strain rates, it may 10 take up to 5 to 8 months. and those results are very 11 limited. In the range which people have -- we have 12 tested .25 to .4 strain amplifies, it can take 13 anywhere from a few days to a month or two, depending 14 on the environmental effects. In air, they're much 15 longer. So one has to consider all of these. We 16 can't just dedicate and that's why you see very low, 17 less data under conditions which have very long 18 durations.
19 Now I just want to mention that these 20 expressions are average behavior after median 21 material.
Same thing for rod and gas stainless steel.22 Now as you mentioned that the slop e of the 360 NG was 23 different, what we have done is we have used a single 24 expression to represent all grades of steel and this 25 number, the fatigue limit we chose what studies in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1 2 3 4 5 6 44 Japan have established.
And Jaske and O'Donnell in 1978 pointed this out that the current design curve for stainless steel was not consistent with the experimental data.DR. WALLIS: I want to check this about oxygen. You say it's worse to have less oxygen?7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CHOPRA: Pardon me?DR. WALLIS: N goes down when you have less oxygen?MR. CHOPRA: down dissolved oxygen is DR. WALLIS: In stainless steel, life goes low.But these it goes the other way?MR. CHOPRA: constant factor --DR. WALLIS: and low-alloy steels?MR. CHOPRA: alloy steel it's the damaging.No. The oxygen, there's a In the one before, the carbon Yes. Now in carbon and low-high oxygen which is more DR. WALLIS: Then it doesn't make -- okay, okay. That's right. Okay. Because I thought it was the other way around. That's a negative --MR. CHOPRA: The strain rate term is a negative.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701
.(202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 45 1 DR. WALLIS: That's right. I was crawling 2 through that and then I was trying to go back to 3 before.4 MR. CHOPRA: Actually, this whole term is 5 6 DR. WALLIS: I understand that. Just 7 before, but the other with the stainless steel, the 8 low oxygen is bad.9 MR. CHOPRA: Right.10 DR. WALLIS: Okay, that's what I'm trying 11 to --12 MR. CHOPRA: I just mentioned that we 13 established a single curve and this we selected from 14 what was proposed by these studies.15 Now we have the specimen data. We know 16 how to predict what will happen with specimens.
17 DR. WALLIS: What effect does this have on 18 welds of dissimilar metals?19 MR. CHOPRA: Welds have different
--20 DR. WALLIS: All together different?
21 MR. CHOPRA: Yes.22 DR. WALLIS: Is there some basis for that?23 MR. CHOPRA: It depends on the data.24 DR. WALLIS: You're not addressing that?25 MR. CHOPRA: No. This is the current code NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8"9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 design curves for these grades or types of structural steel.CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: For example, a welded stainless steel is like a cast stainless steel, a weld MR. CHOPRA: I think the behavior is very similar. But --CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: If it's similar, there's a difference.
MR. CHOPRA: Because in some cases there may be difference.
We are just looking at here the rod products.fluence on didn't get CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Stainless.
DR. WALLIS: Is there any effect of this?MR. CHOPRA: Irradiation?
I'm sorry that?DR. WALLIS: Is there any effect of I, I fluence?MR. CHOPRA: effect, but We're not studying that.that's not -- in the design There is an curve --DR. WALLIS: It's all synergistic.
MR. CHOPRA: No environment is considered and the designer has to account for other environments NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 47 1 which are not considered in their design.2 We have the data for specimens.
Now to 3 use it to come up with a design curve for components, 4 I mention that they apply this adjustment factor of 20 5 on life and this factor is made up of effects of 6 material availability, data scatter, size, surface 7 finish, loading history.8 In the current code, these are the 9 subfactors which are defined in the basis document.10 Loading history was not considered, a total of 20 11 adjustment factors. In our study, based on the 12 distribution I showed for individual materials, this 13 subfactor can vary anywhere from a minimum of 2.1 to 14 2.8. These numbers are taken from studies in the 15 literature.
Size can have an effect, minimum 1.2, 1.4 16 and so on. So we see a minimum of 6, maximum of 27.17 When we take a large number, for example, 20, what we 18 are basically saying is I have a very bad material 19 which is very poor in fatigue resistance.
I have 20 rough surfaces and I have the worse loading history.21 So we used a Monte Carlo simulation and 22 using these as a log normal distribution to simulate 23 what would be the best adjustment needed to define the 24 behavior of components.
25 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: So the present study, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 48 1 you've agglomerated the date for carbon steels and 2 austenitic stainless steels and all these factors are 3 all pushed together.4 MR. CHOPRA: Right.5 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: But you've separated 6 them. Are they different?
7 MR. CHOPRA: No, these are not the effects 8 of materialability is here and that depends on the 9 material.
But effects of surface finish of the 10 component, size of the component or loading history 11 means random loading, high stress cycle followed by 12 low stress cycles. These -- in the current data, 13 these effects are not included.
So somehow I need to 14 include these effects to come up with a design curve 15 which would be applicable to a real actual reactor 16 component.
17 Now the question is 20 was selected with 18 some basis. Is this reasonable because quite often, 19 this is. what is being questioned.
There may be 20 conservatism in this which we need to eliminate.
So 21 we are trying to see what possible conservatism might 22 be there in this margin or the adjustment factor of 23 20.24 DR. BONACA: Twenty was arbitrarily taken 25 as a bounding number, right?NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 49 1 Where did you get the 27?2 MR. CHOPRA: I just took from the 3 literature what people have observed, effect of 4 surface--
surface finish is very well documented.
5 Depending on the average surface finish, an autonomous 6 value of surface finish, they have a harmless 7 reduction in light. So I can use typical finish for 8 grinding or milling operation and so on. It's well 9 documented.
We can come up with what would be a 10 typical fabrication process, minimum and maximum. So 11 that's how we came up with this number.12 DR. WALLIS: What is the basis of the 13 numbers? Is it trying to bound the data or bound the 14 95th percentile?
15 MR. CHOPRA: To come up with a design 16 curve which will be applicable to components.
17 DR. WALLIS: What's the basis of this? Is 18 there a rationale?
19 MR. CHOPRA: Right, 95 percent.20 DR. WALLIS: Ninety-five, 99, 95?21 MR. CHOPRA: Ninety-five?
22 DR. WALLIS: Why is 95 good enough?23 MR. CHOPRA: Well --24 DR. WALLIS: Why not 99?25 MR. CHOPRA: We can do a statistical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 50 1 analysis to see what are the probabilities.
2 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: I think 95/5 basis is 3 sort of a typical basis we've used in a lot of other 4 studies on failure data. But the reason that 95/5 is 5 okay is we've already done risk studies with fatigue 6 cracks initiating and growing to failure and growing 7 to leakage and the fact of a 95/5 probability of 8 fatigue crack initiation still keeps you in acceptably 9 low probability of getting a failure.10 DR. WALLIS: Okay, so it's related to the 11 overall --12 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Overall margin, yes. If 13 it were just a 95/5 to failure it would be an 14 unacceptable criteria.15 DR. WALLIS: If the consequence were much 16 worse, you'd need to have a --17 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Yes.18 MR. BANERJEE:
Can you expand a bit more 19 by what you mean by this log normal distribution?
20 MR. CHOPRA: We assumed that the effects 21 of all of these parameters have a log normal.22 MR. BANERJEE:
Of some mean?23 MR. CHOPRA: Right. And I took these two 24 ranges as the 5th and 95th percentile of that 25 distribution.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 51 1 MR. BANERJEE:
So what happens if you 2 chose a different distribution?
Does it make any 3' difference to the results?4 MR. CHOPRA: We have tried three 5 different, I think Bill tried and this gets the best 6 --7 MR. BANERJEE:
Best in what sense?8 MR. CHOPRA: Very consistent result.9 There's not much difference between normal and log 10 normal was not much difference.
And log normal -- you 11 want to --12 DR. SHACK: It's basically sort of an 13 arbitrary engineering judgment question.
Experience 14 has indicated that when we have enough data, these 15 things do seem to be distributed log normally.16 We generally don't have enough data, 17 actually, to determine the distribution.
So we have 18 sort of just made the engineering judgment that the 19 log normal is close enough.20 As John was explaining
--21 MR. BANERJEE:
It doesn't affect the 22 results.23 DR. SHACK: It doesn't affect the results 24 very much. What we're trying to do is to bound the 25 data in some reasonable fashion because the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 52 1 consequence is not core damage when we're done. The 2 fact that we're not highly precise on this is not 3 something that concerns us, but we. think we've built 4 in sufficient conservatism to account for these 5 variables in a sensible way without going overboard.
6 And the fact that these affects can be 7 considered as independent is also something we don't 8 have data on. We have to sort of work on an 9 engineering judgment basis. So the Monte Carlo 10 simulation that we do assumes the log normal 11 distribution, assumes the independence.
12 MR. CHOPRA: I want to add one more, quite 13 6ften, actually in the welding research that WRC 14 Bulletin by industry, they are suggesting that in this 15 margin of 20, we can use a factor of 3 to offset 16 environment.
This kind of analysis can suggest or 17 show that 3 number is very high. We do not have that, 18 at least what is the possible --19 DR. KRESS: Is it a theoretical basis for 20 assuming the log normal? There may be, you know. You 21 can look at the physical phenomena and --22 DR. SHACK: Well, the loading, probably --23 DR. KRESS: Loading you would think would 24 be log normal. I'm not sure about the effects of the 25 other things.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 53 1 DR. SHACK: The log normal turns out to be 2 slightly more conservative than the normal and so 3 those were my -- if I don't have enough data to define 4 a distribution
-5 DR. KRESS: You might as well use --6 DR. SHACK: I pick one or the other, sort 7 of on some sort of engineering judgment.
The 8 differences are not very large between the two and we 9 just pick the log normal.10 DR. WALLIS: If you know the distribution, 11 why do you need -- if you know 'the equation for the 12 distribution, why do you have *to do a Monte Carlo 13 analysis?14 DR. SHACK: Because I'm taking a bunch of 15 random variables.
16 -DR. KRESS: That's the way you find the 17 mean, right?18 MR. CHOPPA: There are four or five of 19 these things.20 DR. SHACK: There are four or five 21 distributed variables.
22 DR. WALLIS: Easier to do it than to try 23 to go through the mathematics of predicting.
24 DR. SHACK: Yes, it's easier. Yes, I 25 could do it the other way, right.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 54 1 DR. KRESS: Is the 95 value four times the 2. mean?3 DR. SHACK: No.4 DR. KRESS: It has to be if it's log 5 normal.6 DR. WALLIS: Four times the mean on a 7 constant A would be horrendous.
8 DR. KRESS: You've got to find the mean 9 value.10 DR. WALLIS: Mean value is about five.11 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Let's move on.12 MR. CHOPRA: Doing this simulation, we get 13 these curves where this dash curve is now for the 14 specimen, the distribution of A for the specimen and 15 solid would be the distribution for the real 16 component.
And we see that the median value has 17 shifted by about 5.3.18 And 95 of 5th percentile is a factor of 19 12. So we can say that in this factor of 20, there is 20 some conservatism and we can use adjustment factor of 21 12 on life instead of 20.22 DR. WALLIS: Where did 20 come from?23 MR. CHOPRA: It's in the design basis 24 document of the current code.25 DR. WALLIS: It's the judgment of a few NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 55 1 wise men?2 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Many years ago.3 MR. CHOPRA: Basically, that's what it 4 was.5 MR. BANERJEE:
Not so bad.6 MR. CHOPRA: The design has several --7 yes.8 I've covered -- there is some conservatism in the 9 fatigue evaluations and often this conservatism is 10 used to offset environmental effects and there are two 11 sources of conservatism, in the procedures themselves, 12 the way we define design stresses and design cycles or 13 this adjustment factors of 2 and 20.14 I showed there's not much margin, only 1.7 15 in this factor of 20, but the current code procedures 16 --17 DR. WALLIS: Is there enough to account 18 for environmental effects?19 MR. CHOPRA: No, environmental effects can 20 be as high as a factor of 15.21 DR. WALLIS: Yes.22 MR. CHOPRA: Or carbon C would be even 23 higher.24 DR. WALLIS: These are all reactor data 25 you've got, right?NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 56 1 MR. CHOPRA: Those are -- unless you 2 define the operating transient conditions.
In certain 3 conditions those may be possible, but again, it's up 4 to the designer to define what are the conditions 5 during a transient, mean strain rates, temperatures 6 and so forth.7 MR. BANERJEE:
But I'm wondering whether 8 in your database you have anything which you've 9 evaluated from N reactor data or reactor data. Do you 10 have any information at all?11 MR. CHOPRA: There are some components and 12 so on and I list a few examples where there have been 13 some studies. And I'll show you near the end of this.14 DR. SHACK: The trouble with doing this 15 with field data is it's hard to control variables like 16 knowing that the strain range and because that has 17 such a strong effect on it. Unless you know that 18 accurate, it's hard to back out the result.19 MR. CULLEN: Bill Cullen, Office of 20 Research.
I'd like to explore Dr. Banerjee's question 21 a little more to find out what's behind it.22 Are you concerned about irradiation 23 effects which really do not come into play for 24 pressure boundary?
Or are you concerned about the 25 actual aqueous environment and its characteristics?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433* o 57 1 I'm not sure -- what is the basis?2 MR. BANERJEE:
Well, the basis is more --3 it would be nice to see some validation under field 4 conditions.
There are always sort of surprises 5 between the lab and what happens in the field and even 6 if this sort of validation is not all that thorough, 7 a couple of data points would set your mind at rest 8 that it's not some unexpected factor that comes in.9 It's more like -- I have a concern always 10 of going from the lab to a real field situation.
It's 11 not for any specific issue, not like radiation or 12 combination of factors or boron plus temperature in 13 fatigue cycles which are slow. All these things may 14 or may not be there but just a general question, more 15 a general question.16 MR. CULLEN: I understand the general 17 question.
I'm a little concerned about your word 18 about there always are surprises when you go from the 19 laboratory to the actuality.
20 MR. CHOPRA: Maybe that's too strong.21 MR. CULLEN: A little bit.22 (Laughter.)
23 DR. WALLIS: Oftentimes, surprises may be 24 small.25 MR. CULLEN: Thank you.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 58 1 MR. BANERJEE:
I don't mean to say that 2 this stuff should not be used or anything.
Right.3 MR. CHOPPA: I mentioned that in fatigue 4 evaluations the procedures are quite conservative, but 5 the code allows us to use improved approaches, for 6 example, finite element analysis, fatigue monitoring 7 to define the design stresses and cycles more 8 accurately.
So most of this conservatism can be 9 removed with better methods for defining these design 10 conditions.
11 So in that case, there is a need to 12 address the effect of environment explicitly in these 13 procedures.
14 Now the two approaches which we can use 15 either come up with new set of design curves or use 16 some kind of correction factor, Fen. Now since 17 environmental effects depend on a whole lot of 18 parameters, temperature, strain rate and so on, either 19 we come up with several sets of design curves to cover 20 the possible conditions which occur in the reactor or 21 field conditions or if you use a bounding curve, it 22 would be very conservative for most of the conditions.
23 Whereas this correction factor, F en 24 approach is relatively simple. You can -- it's very 25 flexible.
You can calculate the environmental effects NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 59 1 for a specific condition.
And this is what is being 2 proposed in this reg. guide.3 The correction factor is nothing, and this 4 was proposed in 1991 by the Japanese.
A correction 5 factor is nothing but a ratio of fatigue life and air 6 versus life and water. So we have these expressions 7 I showed you in the previous slides and we can then 8 calculate Fen for different steels, carbon steel, low-9 alloy steel, and below a strain threshold there's no 10 environmental effects, so the correction factor would 11 be one.12 Other than that, we use these expressions, 13 actual conditions, temperature, strain rates and so on 14 to calculate the correction factor. To incorporate 15 environmental effects, we take the usage, partial 16 usage factors obtain for specific transients in air, 17 U1, U2 and so on, multiplied by the corresponding 18 correction factor and we get usage factor in the 19 environment.
20 Now to calculate usage factors in air, we 21 should use design curves which are consistent with or 22 conservative with respect to the existing data. And 23 as has been pointed out.quite a few years back, the 24 current code curve. for stainless steel is not 25 consistent with the current existing data and should NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 60 1 not be used for obtaining usage. And I just want to 2 show before I get to that, these are the expressions 3 for nickel allows. Correction factor, again, as a 4 function of these three variables.
And usage and air 5 would be obtained from the curve for austenitic 6 stainless steels.7 Now I mentioned that the current design 8 curve for austenitic stainless steel is not consistent 9 with the data. I plotted the fatigue data for 316, 10 304 stainless in air, different temperatures and this 11 dashed curve is the curve, current code mean curve.12 This is the mean curve which was used to obtain the 13 design curve.14 DR. WALLIS: Where is your design curve?15 MR. CHOPRA: Design curve would be what 16 you adjust this curve for mean curve correction.
17 DR. WALLIS: Your recommended curve would 18 actually bound the data, wouldn't it?19 MR. CHOPRA: This is the best -- actually, 20 this data, the curve is based on austenitic stainless 21 steel.22 DR. WALLIS: I thought you were 23 recommending a bounding curve with this factor.24 MR. CHOPRA: I'm just trying to show that 25 the current --NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 61 1 DR. WALLIS: What's your design curve?2 You should show that, shouldn't you?3 MR. CHOPRA: These are mean curves.4 DR. SHACK: This is air data, mean curve.5 If we put a design curve on here, we could have a 6 design curve in air and a design curve in --7 DR. WALLIS: There's all this air data.8 Are you going to get to your -- it's so far down the 9 road, I can't -- okay.10 CHAIRMAN'ARMIJO:
I think he's just trying 11 to show the difference between the two sets of means.12 MR. CHOPRA: That the current means --13 DR. WALLIS: You do show the effect of the 14 F factors yet.15 MR. CHOPRA: No. I'm just trying to show 16 --17 DR. WALLIS: We've just been talking about 18 19 DR. SHACK: What he's trying to 20 demonstrate here is that the F factor requires him to 21 take the ratio in air. He's got to have the right air 22 curve.23 MR. CHOPRA: And the current mean curve 24 for air, for austenitic stainless steel, is not 25 consistent with the data.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 62 1 Now I'd like to mention one thing, it's 2 been suggested that this curve, the data may be 3 different from the mean curve because of the way 4 fatigue life has been defined or the way we conduct 5 experiments.
I can assure you that this difference in 6 the mean curve and the data is not due to any artifact 7 of test procedures or the way the fatigue life is 8 defined in terms of failure or 25 percent load drop.9 DR. WALLIS: What occurs to me is the ASME 10 code mean curve was a mean curve to something.
11 MR. CHOPRA: Right.12 DR. WALLIS: And it was presumably through 13 other data.14 MR. CHOPRA: This curve, the current code 15 curve was based on very limited data. Now we have 16 much more. So I'm just showing that the data which 17 has been obtained since then is not consistent with 18 what we have.19 DR. WALLIS: You have a much broader data 20 base.21 MR. CHOPRA: Right.22 DR. WALLIS: Okay, that's why yours is 23 better?24 (Laughter.)
25 MR. CHOPRA: We are saying we should NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 63 1 change the current code curve. The current code curve 2 is not consistent with --3 DR. WALLIS: It must have been based on 4 something.
5 MR. CHOPRA: And that data is somewhere in 6 here, up here. But since then we have much more data.7 DR. WALLIS: Either that or steels have 8 been getting weaker.9 MR. CHOPRA: Actually, that is the reason.10 Mostly like because of the strength of the steel, 11 probably these curves were obtained on steel which was 12 stronger.13 DR. WALLIS: Wait a minute --14 MR. CHOPRA: Possible difference.
15 MR. CULLEN: Bill Cullen, Office of 16 Research again. Omesh, if you could go back to that, 17 I'd like to also point out that the curves on which 18 the original ASME code were based I think the data 19 only went out- to a factor of about, fatigue life of 20 106 or something.
21 MR. CHOPRA: Not even 6.22 MR. CULLEN: So you've got two orders of 23 magnitude extrapolation there that we're doing now to 24 illustrate.
But the other thing again is those tests 25 were all done at room temperature and you're showing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 64 1 data from a wide variety of temperatures up to and 2 including operational.
3 MR. CHOPRA: Stainless does not --4 MR. CULLEN: Doesn't show much difference, 5 right. To me, that's kind of the point. It all hangs 6 together on the lower curve.7 MR. CHOPRA: This difference is genuine.8 We need to use a different curve. And we have now 9 proposed a design curve for air for austenitic 10 stainless steels, the solid line. The current dashed 11 line is the current code of 10 6 and the high cycle 12 extension in the code. And the solid line curve is 13 based on the Argonne model plus adjustment factors of 14 12 on life and 2 on stress. It's not 20 and 2. It's 15 12 and 2.16 DR. WALLIS: Now the kink that you have 17 here at 106 doesn't appear in the previous curve you 18 showed.19 MR. CHOPRA: The design curve extends only 20 up to 106.21 DR. WALLIS: So you've just extrapolated 22 it here in your figure?23 MR. CHOPRA: Yes, because now there is a 24 need to go all the way to 1011.25 DR. WALLIS: But you're saying mean curve, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 65 1 so where. do you stop at 106?2 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Two different things 3 here, hold on.4 MR. FERRER: This is John Ferrer. I think 5 originally the stainless steel curve went out to 106.6 Later, they got more data at high cycles and the data 7 was clearly showing that there was a drop off and so 8 they -- this is an artifact of fairing the two curves 9 together and the new correction we're doing really is 10 straightening out what they should have straightened 11 out to begin with.12 DR. WALLIS: Well, it's a curve, it can't 13 be straightened out.14 (Laughter.)
15 MR. FERRER: Fur the earlier slide was the 16 man curve through the data. Now we are talking about 17 the code curve which would include these factors.18 DR. WALLIS: Okay.19 MR. GURDAL: There is still a curve A, B 20 and C.21 My name is Robert Gurdal. I'm AREVA, 22 Lynchburg, Virginia.
Those curves is because before 23 just now there are three curves, there is A, B and C 24 and they are not indicated there. I just wanted to be 25 sure everybody knows.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 66 1 The reason you have the lower one which is 2 called a curve C --3 MR. CHOPRA: But the region which we are 4 talking about is this 106 to 10 --5 MR. GURDAL: You go above 16, you have a 6 curve A, curve B and curve C.7 MR. CHOPRA: I have plotted that.8 MR. GURDAL: The correct curve is curve A 9 which is the top one.10 DR. WALLIS: So it's C on this figure and 11 it's A on the previous figure.12 MR. GURDAL: Maybe, it could be.13 DR. WALLIS: Maybe. It probably doesn't 14 matter that much.15 MR. GURDAL: And the C is for the heat 16 affected zone compared to the A.17 DR. WALLIS: This is the A in this one.18 MR. GURDAL: That one could be the A, 19 because it does not have the kink.20 MR. CHOPRA: This is the mean curve.21 MR. GURDAL: Oh, that's the mean curve.22 Sorry about that. But the design curve, if you go to 23 the design, there is a curve continuing without any 24 disconnection.
25 DR. WALLIS: Without any king, yes. Okay.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 67 1 MR. GURDAL: And that's the A. This one 2 is a C.3 MR. CHOPRA: But the region we are talking 4 about is this.5 MR. GURDAL: Okay, but the question was 6 about 106.7 MR. CHOPRA: Which needs to be corrected.
8 DR. WALLIS: Okay, we've resolved that, I 9 think. Thank you. That's very good.10 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Which gets to the point, 11 your design curve treats the weld heat affected zones 12 or the base material, everything as the same as 13 opposed to the code.14 MR. CHOPRA: Yes, I think so.15 MR. FERRER: I think so. In the code, I 16 think the previous gentleman was talking about their 17 -- in the high cycle regime, there are three separate 18 curves proposed by ASME that extend past the 106 19 cycles.20 In our proposal we've just bounded that 21 with one curve.22 MR. CHOPRA: We also have generated design 23 curves for carbon and low-alloy steels based on the 24 same approach using the Argonne models and adjustment 25 factors of 12 and 2. This is for carbon steel and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 68 1 next is for low alloy.2 Now current code curve for these is only 3 10 6and now this is the -current code curve and an.4 extension has been proposed by a subgroup, fatigue 5 strength.
This was proposed a few years back and it's 6 still not approved by the ASME code committees.
We 7 are -- we have another approach to define extension of 8 this curve beyond 106 cycle. I just wanted to give a 9 couple of slides to show that.10 What the subgroup fatigue strength 11 proposed was extension of the curve which is based on 12 load control data and the data extends only up to 106 13 and they use maximum effect of mean stress and they 14 propose extension which is expressed by applied stress 15 amplitude given in terms of life with an exponent of 16 -.05 which means 5 percent decrease in life, in stress 17 every decade. And since the data only extends up to 18 5 times 10 6, extrapolation to 10 may give 19 conservative estimates.
20 Another way of extending this curve would 21 be to use the approach with Manjoine had proposed a 22 few years back where the high-cycle fatigue is 23 represented by elastic strain with life blots and if 24 we use existing data which we have extending up to 10ll 25 cycles for these various speeds, we get a slope of-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 69 1 007. Manjoine proposed -.01 and we can use this 2 expression where the exponent is smaller and which is 3 consistent with the data and this would be for the 4 mean curve.5 Now we take this adjusted for mean stress 6 correction using Goodman relation which is a 7 conservative approach and actually if we do that this 8 exponent would be .017. So it's slightly lower than 9 what is being proposed by the subgroup fatigue 10 strength, but we can use this expression and that's 11 *what we have used to define that extension to the 12 curve.13 DR. WALLIS: When you make these 14 proposals, did you negotiate something with ASME or 15 did you just say this is what we use --16 MR. CHOPRA: This has been presented to 17 them.18 DR. WALLIS: There wasn't any give and 19 take. It was just -- you deduced this from your data?20 MR. CHOPRA: I attended the subgroup 21 fatigue strength and all our work has been presented 22 there.23 DR. WALLIS: But the proposal is 24 essentially yours. It isn't some compromise proposal.25 It's your proposal.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 70 1 MR. CHOPRA: This was proposed by Manjoine 2 a few years back, so this is nothing new.3 DR. WALLIS: All these green curves are 4 Argonne curves, proposed by Argonne?5 MR. CHOPRA: No, the best fit curves are 6 what we have defined.7 DR. WALLIS: Right, so they're not 8 something which has been negotiated and agreed on or 9 anything like that?10 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: It's certainly been 11 discussed.
12 DR. WALLIS: It's been discussed.
IT's 13 been presented.
ASME hasn't come around and said yes, 14 you guys are right.15 DR. SHACK: One thing to think about for 16 the carbon and low-alloy steels, there's really in air 17 there's no disagreement over the mean curve. The 18 shape may shift just a smidgen, but the only real 19 difference between this design curve and the current 20 is they use a factor of 12 instead of 20. Then you do 21 have the discussion over how to extend it.22 The environmental effect is a --23 DR. WALLIS: It's the big one.24 DR. SHACK: That's the big one.25 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: In the reg. guide, does NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 this curve really extend out to 1011 or does it -- is it truncated at 10 7 , since there seem to be a big difference.
MR. CHOPRA: The proposal is up to 1011.CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Up to 16', but compared to the ASME code for this particular steel, your curve is nonconservative.
MR. CHOPRA: Well, this is --CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: You predict a much longer life.MR. CHOPRA: This is based on the data we have.data out to CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: 1011.MR. CHOPRA: No.I CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Right, but nobody has It's a less conservative DR. WALLIS: You have a C. You have a constant C or --CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Right.DR. WALLIS: I'm surprised it isn't completely flat to a green curve.MR. CHOPRA: Made up of two. I mentione that extension is a different slope.DR. WALLIS: Do they ever have ib cycles d NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 (202) 234-4433 72 1 in a nuclear environment?
2 MR. FERRER: Vibration
--3 DR. WALLIS: Shaking things that shake.4 MR. CHOPRA: So the method to apply the 5 correction would be to use for carbon low-alloy steel 6 you can use either the current code design curves or 7 the curves I've mentioned to reduce some conservatism.
8 As you see, it's -- they're based on 9 adjustment factors of 12, rather than 20.10 For austenitic stainless steels and nickel 11 alloys, we use a new design curve for austenitic 12 stainless steels. And in the appendix to NUREG, there 13 are certain examples given to determine some of the 14 parameters.
15 For example, lab data shows quite often 16 people don't know how to calculate, how to define the 17 strain rates. Lab data shows average strain rate 18 always is a conservative approach.19 And similarly, if we have a well-defined 20 linear transient temperature change, that can be 21 represented by average temperature and it could be 22 okay.23 Now this one shows two more slides and 24 I'll be done. There was a question that lab data does 25 not represent the feed. There are certain reports NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 73 1 where some operating reports where some operating 2 experience and component test results have been 3 published.
4 This is EPRI report, 1997, and gives a 5 complete chapter, a couple of them, giving examples of 6 corrosion fatigue effects on nuclear power plant 7 components.
8 Similarly, studies in Germany, MPA and 9 other places have shown the conditions which lead to 10 what they call strain-induced corrosion cracking.11 This was demonstrated for BWR environments.
And there 12 are examples, even these examples are component test 13 results. We support the lab data.14 I want to just show the results of one 15 particular test, component test, recent tests, again, 16 sponsored by EPRI where they used tube u-bend tests 17 tested in PWR water at 240. And I'm just plotting the 18 results for a given strain amplitude what was the 19 fatigue life they measured.20 In earth environment, these are the 21 triangles.
So that serves as a baseline you would 22 expect in air. Then they tested in PWR water in two 23 conditions:
a strain rate of .01 percent per second 24 and diamonds are .005 percent per second. And this 25 would give me for this strain amplitude a life in air NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 74 1 of 12,500. This is about 36,000. This is 1700. And 2 you can determine for a component test what is the 3 environmental factor.4 In this test, inert environment cracks 5 were on the OD. And they were biaxial conditions.
6 And the water, they were on the ID. And nearly 7 uniaxial.
So since there was a conversion, there's a 8 question whether this number is accurate.9 There's another way we can determine the 10 baseline life. They have a very well-defined strain 11 rate effect between these two. I applauded the 12 component test results with the lab data, exactly the 13 same slope and we know somewhere there's a threshold.
14 That would be the life in air. So I've got a number 15 8,000; 12,000. I use an average of 10. Gives me a 16 reduction of 5.8 for one strain rate; 2.8.17 And the Fen we have presented, give you 18 5.5 and 3.6. Ii think these are very reasonable 19 comparisons from a real component test.20 MR. BANERJEE:
So the test was done 21 outside the reactor, right?22 MR. CHOPRA: This is a component test, 23 where they took an actual u-bend tube and strained it.24 So it's not a small specimen.
They are testing a real 25 component
-- it demonstrates that lab data is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 75 1 applicable to actual component test conditions.
2 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Did you compare any of 3 the other component tests that you referenced in the 4 previous slide with your data to see how your data 5 predicts?6 MR. CHOPRA: Some of the earlier, no, we 7 have not.8 MR. BANERJEE:
Do you have any idea of the 9 -- is there anything which happened in a reactor where 10 you have the strain history or something for a period 11 of time?12 MR. FERRER: I think the answer to that is 13 it's very difficult to have the exact data on the 14 strain history in an actual operating event. We've 15 tried to estimate it and the best you can do is 16 estimate it. I think Omesh presented some references.
17 I think the EPRI one which attributed some of the 18 cracking to environment, but you couldn't prove it 19 absolutely because you just don't have the exact 20 temperature measurements and the strain measurements 21 at the location of your cracks.22 MR. BANERJEE:
But you can estimate them, 23 right? Based on those estimates, what does it look 24 like?25 MR. FERRER: If you go back to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 76 1 reference EPRI report, you know, I think based on 2 their estimates they attribute some of it to 3 environmental, but I say those estimates are very 4 crude. They're not nearly as controlled as the lab 5 data and if you look at fatigue, the -- at the low 6 cycle end, the small change in stress gives you a 7 fairly large change in the number of cycles if you 8 look at the shape of the curve.9 And so it's not that easy. There are some 10 estimates, but they're more judgmental than accurate 11 calculations.
12 MR. BANERJEE:
But the evidence or 13 supports -- what you're saying --14 MR. FERRER: Well, there's some evidence.15 What you'll hear from -- probably from ASME is the 16 overall operating experience doesn't show that there's 17 a big problem there.18, MR. BANERJEE:
Okay.19 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Okay. That's it?20 MR. CHOPRA: Yes.21 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Any other questions from 22 the Committee?
23 MR. GONZALEZ:
I would like to go back to 24 the reg. guide to present a summary of the three 25 regulatory positions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 77 1 Regulation position 1, we are endorsing 2 that we will calculate fatigue using air with ASME 3 code analysis procedures plus use the ASME code air 4 curves for new ANL modern air curves. This is for 5 carbon and alloy steels only.6 Then we will calculate the Fen using the 7 appendix A of the NUREG for carbon and alloy steels 8 and this will be applied to calculate the 9 environmental uses factor.10 But we're given the option of using the 11 ASME curve or the new air curve from the ANL model.12 Or austenitic stainless steel, we will calculate the 13 fatigue use factoring there with the ASME code 14 analysis procedure, plus the new ANL model air 15 stainless steel curve.16 We'll use the -- also the Fen equation for 17 stainless steel and then calculate the environmental 18 usage factor.19 For nickel chrome alloys, will be Alloy 20 600, 690. You will use again the ASME code analysis 21 procedure plus the new ANL model air stainless steel 22 curve. As the reason was it was explained before was 23 because of the new data.24 And if the Fen specifically for nickel 25 alloys and calculate the usage factor -- the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 78 1 environmental fatigue usage factor.2 In summary, Reg. Guide 1.207 will endorse 3 the use of a new air curve for austenitic stainless 4 steels and also will endorse the Fen methodology.
It 5 will give guidance on incorporating the environmental 6 correction factor, the fatigue design analysis and 7 this is described in Appendix A of the NUREG report 8 and also the NUREG report will describe in detail the 9 technical basis.10 That's it. Any more questions?
11 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Okay, questions?
12 We're scheduled for a break about now, but we're a 13 little bit ahead of schedule.
I don't know if we can 14 reconvene in 15 minutes or do we have to wait until 15 3:35?16 We'll just take a 15-minute break. Be 17 back at 3:25. Is that right? 3:25, thank you.18 (Off the record.)19 CHAIRMAN ARMIJO: Okay, we've got --20 incredibly we're about five minutes ahead of schedule, 21 so that's good.22 So Mr. Gonzalez, would you like to 23 continue?24 MR. GONZALEZ:
This is our second part, 25 second presentation.
It's in the resolution to public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 NEC-JH_28 Title: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 549th Meeting Docket Number: (n/a)Location: Rockville, Maryland Date: Thursday, February 7th, 2008 Work Order No.: NRC-2007 Pages 1-346 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 96 much done. The question I have: is there any question for the staff here? Any questions for Mr.Hopenfeld from members?MEMBER ARMIJO: I'd like to ask with respect to the last presenter's comments about new data. Is the staff familiar with .-- no, I'm asking the staff if they're aware of the new data that you referred to MR. FAIR: Hi. I'm John Fair with Division of Engineering who did a lot of the reviews on environmental fatigue.Yes, we are. The new data is the latest Argonne data that was being applied in new design certifications.
Basically the criteria they're using ins license renewal was criteria that was developed quite a while back, and we made a decision at that time that we would, as criteria, we would* maintain that criteria because there were a lot of applications in process. So we didn't want to keep changing the rules as these people were putting in new applications.
And a lot of the criteria had changed and was massaged over the years.Actually if you go back and look at the latest criteria we're applying to new reactors, it's not as conservative as the old criteria because we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 97 changed the basis for deriving the curves. So if you go and look at the Fen factors themselves using the new criteria, they'll generally be lower.MEMBER ARMIJO: Okay. Thank you.VICE CHAIRMAN BONACA: Any other questions?
If not, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn the meeting back to you.CHAIRMAN SHACK: Okay. Well, it's five minutes late. I'd like to take a break now. I thank the presenters, staff and the industry, for a good presentation, I think, very informative and Mr.Hopenfeld for his comments.We're slated for 15 minutes. So we'll be back at ten of.(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off the record at 10:35 a.m. and went back on the record at 10:55 a.m.)CHAIRMAN SHACK: The next topic is a draft final Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.45, "Guidance on Monitoring and Responding to Reactor Coolant System Leakage, and, Sam, I think you're going to take us through that.MEMBER ARMIJO: Right. Thank you, Mr.Chairman.NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
~ 'Het',and Mas's.T JI by E. R. G. ECKERT Professor of Mechanical Engineerinug::..,:and Director of the Heat Transfer Laor'tory u:, University of Minnesota:K: WITH PART A, HEAT CONDUCTION AND APPENDIXrTOF PROPERTY, VAUES.by ROBERT M., MRAKE,J.Professor and Chairman.Mechanical Engineering Department Princetoni&#xfd; 4 4 II.Second Edition.,IINTRODUCTIONTOHERAS 1 iI*~ .4 L chard C In sselae 4;II N J.McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC.New York Toronto London 1959 I' Ii Ip4 I 212 HEAT TRANSFER BY CONVECTION H. Hausen' gave the expression for the average Nusselt number: I Mud = 0.1 161(Red) -1251(Pr)&#xfd;
[I I +( d15] 4 where pB is the viscosity at bulk liquid temperature and 'U the viscosity at tube-wall temperature.
Apart from the latter, the property values are to be inserted at tB. This formula takes into account the conditions in the intake region. It also satisfactorily reproduces the values in the transition zone Red = 2,300 to 6,000. This relation is expected to be especially applicable to fluids for which the variation of viscosity is the 1N I I I I d FiG. 8-9. Local Nusselt numbers for flow through a tube near the entrance witib simultaneous development of the flow and temperature field. [From TV. Linke and*H. Kunze, Allgem. Wdnnetech., 4:73-79 (1953).]I I 1 H. Hausen, Z. Vet. dent. Ingr., Beih. Verfahrenstech., no. 4, 1943, pp. 91-98.I I I I Boundary Layer Theory It" BYE tt~.....................................................................................
Dr HERMANN SCHLICHTING Professor at the Engineering University of Braunschweig
-Director of the Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt Gdttingen Head of the Institute for Aerodynamics of the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt fuir Luft- und Raumfahrt, Braunschweig, Geinany-.Translated by I I....):.I~~2 I ii 14 Dr J. KESTIN F -.""Professor at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.: Fourth Edition McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC.NEW YORK TORONTO LONDON VERLAG G. BRAUN -KARLSRUHE* * "t!'.** " * ' ;,?!.I.S
:i'.!.or_143,5 x<_Ioo ft 3 or 4-5 x"20ft'enee betwee rase In .,drag;&#xb6;f,'A I first. termj is th~e r ring .stress on',- 1, f the heih 'I*r f&rthk "'I hi fue b theunnel.'
&#xfd;Frcra bc diemensinle,.
idhby (21.34)oughnessele~ment, d over the hih c. The rough plate ,a commmr6n'mximnum.
at hid ;z-- 0-5. Further small local maxima occur at,. .-h.d: i 1i-0,: The: .minimabetween them occur at --hAd ; 0-2_ 0"8, and 135. Deperiding qof th6 cavity it' may sometimes happen: that regular vortex patterns are fornmed &#xfd; inA it toI, the different -values of drag. As seen from the symmetry of the curves of up to.- d/h 0"1 give the same increase in drag as corresponding small protul Fig. 21.14. Resistance coefficient of c Circular cavities of.varying depth in a flat wll'ai asmeasiired by Wicghardt
[54]d lar ribs arraned-.aid circular croiss wall and others.,.ted in Fig. 21.3 rose in thi~scase de the boundace the kratio ofh t]allcurves hav ,e The flow pattern wlhich exists behind an obstacle placed in the boundary layer  liffers markedly from that behind an obstacle placed in the free stream. This circuimsl merges clearly from an experiment performed by. H. Schlichting
[38] and Rillustr F'i. 21.15. The experiment consisted in the measurement of the velocity:
field.behind
'pheres placed on a smooth flat surface. The pattern of curves of constant velocity' kind of negative wake effect. The smallest velocities have been measured in the freelgal which no-spheres are present over the whole length of the plate; on the other hand.,he 1 Il elocities have been measured behind the rows of spheres where precisely the snailler v.oi_31j ki1d.-7777r Fig. 21.15. Curves of constant velocity in the flow field behind a row of spheres (full: lines) 'as", measured by H. Schlichting
[38], and accompanying it the secondary flow (broken lines) ini:the boundary layer behind sphere (.1), as calculated by F. Schultz-Grunow
[46]. In.theneigh-bourhood of the wall, the velocity behind the spheres is larger than that in the gaps. Theeipheres produce a "negative wake effect" which is explained by the existence of secondafy i-flow.Diameter of spheres it 4 mm' .j%."
Heat -II NEC-JH_31 "q, Transfer Fifth Edition J. P. Holman Professor of Mechanical Engineering Southern Methodist University McGraw-Hil Book Company New York St. Louis San Francisco Auckland BogotA Hamburg Johannesburg London Madrid Mexico Montreal New Delhi Panama Paris Sao Paulo Singapore Sydney Tokyo Toronto QC 3,2 EA p, 2 MW L L -LQ 226 Empirical and practical relations for forced-convection heat transfer Fig. 6-1 Total heat transfer in terms of bulk-temperature
:r-difference.
i K..F low __dx L plicated problems may sometimes be solved analytically, but the solutione-U when possible, are very tedious. For design and engineering purposes_empirical correlations are usually of greatest practical utility. In thi,7 section we present some of the more important and useful empirica: relations and point out their limitations.
., First let us give some further consideration to the bulk-temperatui concept which is :important in all heat-transfer problems involvingflei inside closed channels.
In Chap. 5 we noted that the bulk temperat&#xfd;7i
.represents energy average or "mixing cup" conditions.
Thus, for the ti, flow depicted in Fig. 6-1 the total energy added can be expressed in terns a bulk-temperature difference by q = rhwP(Tb. -Tbi Y~'(~provided c, is reasonably constant over the length. In some differen&#xfd;:
I length dx the heat added dq can be expressed either in terms of a bu1-temperature difference or in terms of the heat-transfer coefficient dq = rhcdTb = h(2Tr) dx (T, -Tb)where T,, and Tb are the wall and bulk temperatures at the particuLii location.
The total heat transfer can also be expressed as q = hA(T,, -Td)a,-where A is the total surface area for heat transfer.
Because both T Tb can vary along the length of the tube, a suitable averaging p , must be adopted for use with Eq. (6-3). In this chapter most G.__-attention will be focused on methods for determining h, the conv heat-transfer coefficient.
Chapter 10 will discuss different methoid, taking proper account of temperature variations in heat exchangersr For fully developed turbulent flow in smooth tubes the following tion is recommended by Dittus and Boelter [11:i Nud =0.023 Red 8 Pr" The properties in this equation are evaluated at the fluid bulk temperat and the exponent n h'as the 'following'values:
.'7W 1,7 Film condensation inside horizontal tubes 413 may be restructured as C 3 4 = [p(p -pr)gk 3 MP 4 sin (b AP.jx2 4m L mk we may solve for h as S=,C 4 1 3 [(p- pcg 4 sin .. (9-23)fe now define a new dimensionless group, the condensation number Co, as 3Co p ) (9-24)l that Eq. (9-23) can be expressed in the form Co = C 4/3 (4* sin: 0 IP1r3 Ref71 t 3  (9-25)Tor a vertical plate A/PL = 1.0, and we obtain, using the constant from Eq. Co = 1.47 Rep7 3  for Rer < 1800 (9-26)44or a horizontal cylinder A/PL = Ir and Co = 1.514 Re-u 1 3  for Ref < 1800 (9-27)When turbulence is encountered in the film, an empirical correlation by TKirkbride (2] may be used: Co = 0.0077 Re.'f for Ref > 1800 (9-28)9-4 Film condensation inside horizontal tubes Our discussion of film condensation so far has been limited to exterior surfaces, where the vapor and liquid condensate flows are not restricted by some overall flow-channel dimensions.
Condensation inside tubes is of.considerable practical interest because of applications to condensers in refrigeration and air-conditioning systems, but unfortunately these phe-nomena are quite complicated and not amenable to a simple analytical treatment.
The overall flow rate of vapor strongly influences the heat-transfer rate in the forced convection-condensation system, and this in turn is influenced by the rate of liquid accumulation, on the walls. Because of the'complicated flow phenomena involved we shall present only two empirical relations for heat transfer and refer to reader to Rohsenow [371 for more: Xmplete i1normatioft.
Chato [381 obtained the following expression for condensation of refriger-ants at low vapor velocities inside horizontal tubes:r (, = bSV(P -
'0y15 VERMONT YANKEE NEC-JH_32 NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION 185 OLD FERRY ROAD, PO BOX 7002, BRATTLEBORO, VT 05302-7002 (802) 257-5271 August 20, 2001 BVY 01-66 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555
 
==Subject:==
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)Vermont Yankee 2001 Summary Reports for In-service Inspection and Repairs or Replacements In accordance with Article IWA-6000 of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Vermont Yankee (VY) hereby submits the Owner's Report for In-service Inspections (Form NIS-]) and the Owner's Report for Repairs and Replacements (Form NIS-2). These reports describe the in-service examinations, repairs and replacements performed during the period from December 4, 1999 to May 20, 2001 (including Refueling Outage 22). VY's third ten-year interval began September 1, 1993.We trust that the information provided is adequate; however, should you have questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Jim DeVincentis at (802) 258-4236.Sincerely, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION AGautam Sen Licensing Manager Attachments cc: USNRC Region 1 Administrator USNRC Resident Inspector
-VYNPS USNRC Project Manager -VYNPS Vermont Department of Public Service Inspection Agency -
AD~l
 
==SUMMARY==
OF VERMONT YANKEE COMMITMENTS BVY NO.: 01-66 The following table identifies commitments made in this document by Vermont Yankee.Any other actions discussed in the submittal represent intended or planned actions by Vermont Yankee. They are described to the NRC for the NRC's information and are not regulatory commitments.
Please notify the Licensing Manager of any questions regarding this document or any associated commitments.
COMMITMENT COMMITTED DATE OR "OUTAGE" None N/A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VYAPF 0058.04 AP 0058 Original Page 1 of 1 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation 2001 Form NIS-1 Owner's Summary Report for Inservice Inspections December 4, 1999 through May 20, 2001 PlntIsrvice f~cI o -,ordinafo~r20 Reviewed by: Approved by: System Enginekring Manager Page 1 of 20 FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code Rules.Owner Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, 185 Old Ferry Road, PO Box 7002, Brattleboro VT 05302-7002 (Name and Address ot Owner)2. Plant Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. P.O. Box 157, Governor Hunt Road, Vernon, VT 05354-0157 (Name and Address ot Plant)3. Plant Unit 1 4. Owner Certificate of Authorization (if required)
DPR-28 5. Commercial Service Date 11/30/1972
: 6. National Board Number for Unit NONE 7. Components Inspected
-SEE ATTACHED PAGES 2 THROUGH 13.8. Examination Dates 12/04/1999 to 05/20/2001
: 9. Inspection Interval from 09/1/1993 to 08/31/2003
: 10. Applicable Editions of Section XI 1986, no Addenda, 1992 w/1992 Addenda (IWE) and 1995 w/1996 Addenda (ASME Appendix VIII) 3 11. Abstract of Examinations Including a list of examinations and a statement concerning status of work required for current interval -SEE ATTACHED PAGES 2 THROUGH 21.12. Abstract of Conditions Noted -SEE ATTACHED PAGES 22 THROUGH 25.13. Abstract of Corrective Measures Recommended and Taken -SEE ATTACHED PAGES 22 THROUGH 25.I We certify that the statements made in this report are correct and the examinations and corrective measures taken conform to the rules of the ASME Code, Section XI.Certificate of Authorization No. (If applicable)
P 8 Ex ation Date 3/21/2012 I Date 20AA 2 Signed ReBy a yd A ,'i&  f w~ner f CERTIFICATE OF INSERVICE INSPECTION I, the undersigned, holding a valid commission issued by the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors and/or the State or Province of Vermont and employed by Factory Mutual Insurance Co. of Johnston RI have inspected the components described in this Owner's Report during the period December 4, 1999 to May 20, 2001 and state to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Owner has performed examinations and taken corrective measures described in this Owner's Report in accordance with the requirements of the ASME Code, Section XI.By signing this certificate neither the inspector nor his employer makes any warranty, expressed or implied, concerning the examinations and corrective measures described in this Owner's Report. Furthermore, neither the Inspector nor his employer shall be liable in any manner for any personal injury or property damage or a loss of any kind arising from or connected with this inspection.
Commissions VT-345 Inspector's Signature National Board, State, Province, and Endorsements Date J -/ " .,20ol_ I Page 2 of 20
---m --m- --m -m mm -m m m m m FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 11 ASME Category Component ID Exam Type System ID Drawing No. Examination Results B-D N2F UT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-D N2F-IR UT Inner Radius Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-D N2G UT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-D N2G-IR UT Inner Radius Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 103 Acceptable B-D N2H UT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 103 Acceptable B-D N2H-IR UT Inner Radius Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-D N2J UT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 103 Acceptable B-D N2J-IR UT Inner Radius Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-D N2K UT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-D N2K-IR UT Inner Radius Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 103 Acceptable Acceptable
-Automated Inner Radius examination in accordance with B-D N4A-IR UT Inner Radius Feedwater ISI-RPV- 103 General Electric Nuclear Energy document GE-NE-523-A71-0594-A, Revision 1 and VY Calculation VYC-1005 Acceptable
-Automated Inner Radius examination in accordance with B-D N4B-IR UT Inner Radius Feedwater ISI-RPV- 103 General Electric Nuclear Energy document GE-NE-523-A71-0594-A, Revision 1 and VY Calculation VYC-1005 Page 3 of 20 FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 11 ASME Category Component ID Exam Type System ID Drawing No. Examination Results Acceptable
-Automated Inner Radius examination in accordance with B-D N4C-IR UT Inner Radius Feedwater ISI-RPV- 103 General Electric Nuclear Energy document GE-NE-523-A71-0594-A, Revision I and VY Calculation VYC-1005 Acceptable
-Automated Inner Radius examination in accordance with B-D N4D-IR UT Inner Radius Feedwater ISI-RPV- 103 General Electric Nuclear Energy document GE-NE-523-A71-0594-A, Revision I and VY Calculation VYC-1005 B-F Ni 1A WELD PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-F NiBIWELD PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-F N12A-SE PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable Acceptable
-B-F N1B-SE PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Examination performed as follow up to indication removal during RFO-21 B-F N2F-SE UT, PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-F N2G-SE UT, PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 103 Acceptable B-F N2H-SE UT, PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-F N2J-SE UT, PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-F N2K-SE UT, PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable Page 4 of 20 M M m M M m M --- M -M M -M M M M m -m -m m- ----m--m -- -m-m FORM NIS-I OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 11 ASME Category Component ID Exam Type System ID Drawing No. Examination Results B-F N6B-SE UT, PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-F N8A-SE UT, PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-F N8B-SE UT, PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable O1A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G-1 Recirculation Pump P-18-IA VT-1 Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Bolting corrosion/plating concern -See Sections 12 and 13 02A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G-1 Recirculation Pump P-18-1A VT-I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Bolting corrosioniplating concern -See Sections 12 and 13 03A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G-1 Recirculation Pump P- 18-I A VT- 1 Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Bolting corrosion/plating concern -See Sections 12 and 13 04A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G- I Recirculation Pump P- 18-1A VT-I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Bolting corrosion/plating concern -See Sections 12 and 13 05A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G-1 Recirculation Pump P-18-IA VT- I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Bolting corrosion/plating concern -See Sections 12 and 13 06A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G-1 Recirculation Pump P-18-I A VT-I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-104 IDR # 01-09 generated for corrosion/plating concern -See Bolting Sections 12 and 13 07A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G-1 Recirculation Pump P-18-IA VT-I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 104 IDR # 01-09 generated for corrosion/plating concern -See Bolting Sections 12 and 13 Page 5 of 20 FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 11 ASME Category Component ID Exam Type System ID Drawing No. Examination Results 08A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G- 1 Recirculation Pump P-18-IA VT- I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Bolting corrosion/plating concern -See Sections 12 and 13 09A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G- I Recirculation Pump P- 18-IA VT- I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Bolting corrosion/plating concern -See Sections 12 and 13 1OA-NIW Acceptable
-B-G- 1 Recirculation Pump P-18-IA VT- I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Bolting corrosion/plating concern -See Sections 12 and 13 11 A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G-I Recirculation Pump P-1 8-1A VT-I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Boltingcorrosion/plating concern -See Bolting Sections 12 and 13 12A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G- 1 Recirculation Pump P-18-IA VT- I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Boltingcorrosion/plating concern -See Bolting Sections 12 and 13 13A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G- 1 Recirculation Pump P-18-IA VT- I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Bolting corrosion/plating concern -See Sections 12 and 13 14A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G- I Recirculation Pump P-18-IA VT- I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV- 104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Boltingcorrosion/plating concern- See Bolting Sections 12 and 13 15A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G- I Recirculation Pump P-18-IA VT- I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-104 IDR # 01-09 generated for corrosion/plating concern -See Bolting Sections 12 and 13 Page 6 of 20 M M---i -- M M M- M M M M M M M M
-m-- m -mrn-- --rnm n -rn m rn -FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 1 I ASME Category Component ID Exam Type System ID Drawing No. Examination Results 16A-N/W Acceptable
-B-G-1 Recirculation Pump P-18-IA VT- I Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-104 IDR # 01-09 generated for Bolting corrosion/plating concern -See Sections 12 and 13 B-J CS4B-F3ADW UT, PT Core Spray ISI-5920-9206 Acceptable B-J CS4B-MF5 UT, PT Core Spray ISI-5920-9206 Acceptable B-J CS4B-MF5B UT, PT Core Spray ISI-5920-9206 Acceptable B-i CS4B-MF6A UT, PT Core Spray ISI-5920-9206 Acceptable B-J FW20-Fl UT/FAC Feedwater ISI-FDW-PART 5A Acceptable
-Code Case N-560 examination B-i FW20-F1B UT/FAC Feedwater ISI-FDW-PART 5A Acceptable
-Code Case N-560 examination B-J FW20-F3B UT/FAC Feedwater ISI-FDW-PART 5A Acceptable
-Code Case N-560 examination B-J SL 11-F28 PT Standby Liquid Control ISI-SLC-PART 4 Acceptable B-J SLI 1-F29 PT Standby Liquid Control ISI-SLC-PART 4 Acceptable B-K 270 DEG RPV BRKT PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-K RPV SUPPORT SKIRT MT Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable B-K RR-34 PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-5920-6802 Sh.2 Acceptable B-K RR-35 PT Nuclear Boiler ISI-5920-6802 Sh.2 Acceptable B-O 26-03SH PT Control Rod Drive ISI-RPV-104 Acceptable B-O 34-39SH PT Control Rod Drive ISI-RPV-104 Acceptable Page 7 of 20 FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 11 ASME Category Component ID Exam Type System ID Drawing No. Examination Results C-C ACSP-H22 MT Standby Gas Treatment ISI-5920-9200 Acceptable C-C ACSP-H23 MT Standby Gas Treatment ISI-5920-9200 Acceptable C-C RHR-H192 MT Residual Heat Removal ISI-RHR-PART 11 Sh.4 Acceptable C-C RHR-H98 MT Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9208 Acceptable C-C RHR-HD25 PT Residual Heat Removal ISI-RHR-PART 16 Sh.1 Acceptable
-Successive examination C-F-2 CR4A-S5 UT, MT Control Rod Drive ISI-5920-9528 Acceptable C-F-2 CR6A-S57 UT, MT Control Rod Drive ISI-5920-9527 Acceptable C-F-2 CR6-S 10 UT, MT Control Rod Drive ISI-5920-9527 Acceptable C-F-2 CR6-$22 UT, MT Control Rod Drive ISI-5920-9527 Acceptable C-F-2 CR6-$26 UT, MT Control Rod Drive ISI-5920-9527 Acceptable C-F-2 CS1B-S30 UT, MT Core Spray ISI-5920-9210 Acceptable C-F-2 CT27-$30 UT, MT Core Spray ISI-5920-9210 Acceptable C-F-2 FW17-S5 UT, MT Feedwater ISI-FDW-PART 5A Acceptable High Pressure Coolant C-F-2 HP15A-S101 UT, MT Injection ISI-HPCI-PART 5 Acceptable C-F-2 RHl4-T373 UT, MT Core Spray ISI-5920-9208 Acceptable C-F-2 RH1B-S47 UT, MT Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9285 Acceptable C-F-2 RH2B-S1 13 UT, MT Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9285 Acceptable Page 8 of 20-Mm- M =- M M-- M --M -= MM
--m -m-n -m-m ----mn -mmm FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 11 ASME Category Component ID Exam Type System ID Drawing No. Examination Results C-F-2 RH2B-S 115 UT, MT Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9285 Acceptable C-F-2 RH3B-S170 UT, MT Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9288 Acceptable C-F-2 RH3D-S200 UT, MT Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9288 Acceptable C-F-2 RH3D-S206 UT, MT Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9288 Acceptable C-F-2 RH3D-T182 UT, MT Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9288 Acceptable C-F-2 RH7-S284 UT, MT Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9287 Acceptable C-F-2 RH9-S314 UT, MT Residual Heat Removal ISI-RHR-PART 11 Sh.4 Acceptable C-F-2 RH9-S320 UT, MT Residual Heat Removal ISI-RHR-PART I 1 Sh.4 Acceptable C-FAUG CS2A-S62 UT, MT Core Spray ISI-5920-9211 Acceptable C-FAUG CS2A-S64 UT, MT Core Spray ISI-5920-9211 Acceptable C-FAUG CS2A-S65 UT, MT Core Spray ISI-5920-9211 Acceptable C-FAUG CS2A-S67 UT, MT Core Spray ISI-5920-9211 Acceptable C-FAUG CT1-S54 UT, PT Core Spray ISI-CST-PART 4 Acceptable C-FAUG CTl-S56 UT, PT Core Spray ISI-CST-PART 4 Acceptable C-FAUG RC3-S13 UT, MT Reactor Core Isolation ISI-5920-9255 Acceptable
__ -____U_______
3-S______3
__ UT,________Cooling
__ SI-5920-9255
_ Acceptable____
RatrCoreolting C-FAUG RC3-S14 UT, MT Reactor Core Isolation ISI-5920-9255 Acceptable
__________
______ ___ _________
___ ______ _________Cooling_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Page 9 of 20 FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and I 1 ASME Category Component ID Exam Type System ID Drawing No. Examination Results C-NAUG MSlD-F9 UT, MT Main Steam 5920-FS-Il Acceptable C-NAUG MS2D-F1 UT, MT Main Steam 5920-FS-I1 Acceptable D-A RSW-H171 VT-1 Residual Heat Removal ISI-SW-PART 9 Acceptable Acceptable
-D-A RSW-H261 VT- I Residual Heat Removal ISI-SW-PART 9 IDR # 01-01 generated for arc strikes -See Sections 12 and 13 Acceptable
-D-A RSW-HD261B VT-1 Residual Heat Removal ISI-SW-PART 9 IDR# 01-01 generated for arc strikes -See Sections 12 and 13 Acceptable
-General Visual Examination as required by ASME Subsection IWE has been 100% completed for the first period of the first IWE Interval.5920-13, 5920-41, IDR # 01-07 generated for pitting E-A Class MC Containment General Visual Class MC Containment 6202-200 and general corrosion in the Vent Header. IDR # 01-07 generated for pitting and general corrosion in the Vent Header. Also, IDRf# 01-08 was generated for general corrosion and material loss in Penetrations X-207A through X-207H. See Sections 12 and 13 E-A Vent Line Areas (X-5B) VT-I Class MC Containment 5920-13 Acceptable E-A Vent Line Areas (X-5C) VT- 1 Class MC Containment 5920-13 Acceptable E-A Vent Line Areas (X-5D) VT-I Class MC Contaimnent 5920-13 Acceptable E-A Vent Line Areas (X-5E) VT- I Class MC Containment 5920-13 Acceptable Page 10 of 20= m= m -M M = =-- M = -= = M = m m ----m-m- n mm- m --m -m m m FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 11 ASME Category Component ID Exam Type System ID Drawing No. Examination Results E-C Drywell Seal Area VT-I Class MC Containment 6202-2 Acceptable E-C Drywell Seal Area VT-3 Class MC Containment 6202-2 Acceptable E-G Pen. X-200A VT-I Class MC Containment 6202-208 Acceptable E-G Pen. X-200B VT-I Class MC Containment 6202-208 Acceptable E-G V16-19-5A VT- I Class MC Containment 5920-675 Acceptable E-G V16-19-5B VT- I Class MC Containment 5920-675 Acceptable E-G V16-19-5C VT-i Class MC Containment 5920-675 Acceptable E-G V16-19-5D VT-I Class MC Containment 5920-675 Acceptable E-G V 16-19-5E VT-I Class MC Containment 5920-675 Acceptable E-G V16-19-5F VT- 1 Class MC Containment 5920-675 Acceptable E-G V16-19-5H VT- I Class MC Containment 5920-675 Acceptable F-A ACSP-H22 VT-3 Standby Gas Treatment ISI-5920-9200 Acceptable F-A ACSP-H23 VT-3 Standby Gas Treatment ISI-5920-9200 Acceptable F-A CS-HD60A VT-3 Core Spray ISI-5920-9210 Acceptable Acceptable
-F-A FDW-HD39 VT-3 Feedwater ISI-FDW-PART 5A IDR,# 01-12 generated for debris/corrosion
-See Sections 12 and 13 F-A H-P-44-1B VT-3 High Pressure Coolant ISI-HPCI-PART 13A Acceptable age1 0 Injection Page 11I of 20 FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 11 ASMIE Category Component ID Exam Type System ID Drawing No. Examination Results F-A HCI-1VT-3High Pressure Coolant F-A HPCI- I VT-3 Ig eecoon ISI-4PCI-PART 2 Acceptable F-A HPCI-2 VT-3 High Pressure Coolant ISI-HPCI-PART 2 Acceptable Injection F-A RHR-H129 VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9288 Acceptable F-A RHR-H191 VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-RHR-PART 11 Sh.4 Acceptable Acceptable
-F-A RHR-H192 VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-RHR-PART I 1 Sh.4 IDR # 01-02 generated for gouge -See Sections 12 and 13 F-A RHR-H83 VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-RHR-PART 11 Sh.4 Acceptable F-A RHR-H98 VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9208 Acceptable F-A RHR-HD127C VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9285 Acceptable F-A RHR-HD127E VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9285 Acceptable
-Successive Examination F-A RHR-HDI27G VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9285 Acceptable F-A RHR-HD188A VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-5920-9288 Acceptable F-A RPV SUPPORT SKIRT VT-3 Nuclear Boiler ISI-RPV-103 Acceptable F-A RR-15 VT-3 Nuclear Boiler ISI-5920-6802 Sh.2 Acceptable F-A RR- 16 VT-3 Nuclear Boiler ISI-5920-6802 Sh.2 Acceptable F-A RR-17 VT-3 Nuclear Boiler ISI-5920-6802 Sh.2 Acceptable F-A RR-2 VT-3 Nuclear Boiler ISI-5920-6802 Sh.2 Acceptable Page 12 of 20= m = M M M M m =- = M -= = M = = m FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 11 ASME Category Component ID Exam Type System ID Drawing No. Examination Results F-A RR-35 VT-3 Nuclear Boiler ISI-5920-6802 Sh.2 Acceptable Acceptable
-F-A RR-44 VT-3 Nuclear Boiler ISI-5920-6802 Sh.2 IDR # 01-04 generated for setting -See Sections 12 and 13 Acceptable
-F-A RR-52 VT-3 Nuclear Boiler ISI-5920-6802 Sh.2 IDR # 01-05 generated for setting -See Sections 12 and 13 Acceptable
-F-A RR-7,8 VT-3 Nuclear Boiler ISI-5920-6802 Sh.2 IDR # 01-06 generated for setting -See Sections 12 and 13 F-A RSW-H167 VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-SW-PART 1 Sh.2 Acceptable F-A RSW-H171 VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-SW-PART 9 Acceptable F-A RSW-H172 VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-SW-PART 6 Sh. I Acceptable F-A RSW-H241 VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-SW-PART I Sh.2 Acceptable F-A RSW-H261 VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-SW-PART 9 Acceptable F-A RSW-HD261B VT-3 Residual Heat Removal ISI-SW-PART 9 Acceptable F-A SDV-N-R02 VT-3 Control Rod Drive ISI-5920-9527 Acceptable F-A SDV-N-RO5 VT-3 Control Rod Drive ISI-5920-9527 Acceptable F-AUG ACSP-H203 VT-3 Standby Gas Treatment ISI-5920-9201 Acceptable F-AUG ACSP-HD203E VT-3 Standby Gas Treatment ISI-5920-9201 Acceptable F-AUG ACSP-HD203F VT-3 Standby Gas Treatment ISI-5920-9201 Acceptable Page 13 of 20 FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 11 ASME Category Component ID Exam Type System ID Drawing No. Examination Results F-AUG RHR-HD25 VT-3, PT Residual Heat Removal ISI-RHR-PART 16 Sh.1 Acceptable N/A ACSP-H201B VT-3 Standby Gas Treatment ISI-AC PART 5 Acceptable NNS HPCI-HD28 VT-3 High Pressure Coolant ISI-HPCI-PART 4 Sh. 1 Acceptable Injection+___ISI-HPCIPART_4 Sh.1_Acceptable NNS RHR-HD235 VT-3 Residual Heat Removal VYI-RHR-PART 7B Acceptable Page 14 of 20 M- M M M-- M- M M M -M- M M-
-n--mm --m m --m m m -m m m -FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 11 Quantity Inspected Quantity Previously Quantity Scheduled, Percent of Third Code Category Inspected, Third Third Interval Interval Complete 2001 Outage Interval B-A 0 15 16 94%B-D 10 38 58 83%B-F 12 19 35 89%B-G-1 16 152 288 58%B-G-2 0 77 109 71%0 60%B-J (Code Case N-560 was first used for 15 (Previously 64% of the standard (Code Case N-560 selection) selection during RFO-22) ASME Category B-J 25% selection had been completed)
B-J (These are ASME Category B-J, Item B9.40 socket welds which are 2 14 23 70%not included in the Code Case N-560 selection.
They are selected in accordance with Category B-J 25%criteria.)
B-K 4 3 10 70%B-L-2 0 0 Per approved Relief Request N/A No. B-i B-M-2 0 26 Per approved Relief Request N/A No. B-2 Page 15 of 20 FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 Components Inspected/Abstract of examinations Sections 7 and 11 yQuantity Inspected Quantity Previously Quantity Scheduled, Percent of Third 2001 Outage Interd Third Interval Interval Complete CodeCatgor 200 OuageInterval B-N-1 0. 2 .Each Period N/A B-N-2 0 Partial I N/A B-O 2 4 7 86%C-A 0 3 4 75%C-B 0 6 8 75%C-C 4 12 20 80%C-F-2, 20 43 72 88%D-A 3 6 11 82%E-A 20% 80% 100% 100%E-C 100% 100% 100% 100%E-D E-G F-A 33 59 119 77%Page 16 of 20-m m m m -u m-- -m m -m m-m -
FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 ABSTRACT OF CONDITIONS NOTED/CORRECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN Sections 12 and 13 Code Category Item Identification Conditions Noted and Corrective Measures Taken VT-I examination of Recirculation pump P-18-1A bolting identified possible missing protective thread coating (the bolting was examined in place, under tension).
The examination also revealed corrosion on 0 1 A-N/W through 16A- the exposed bolting. Inservice Discrepancy Report # 01-09 was generated to request Engineering B-G-1 N/W evaluation of these indications.
Technical Evaluation (TE) 2001-034 was generated and contains:
The pump casing cover/body bolting will perform its design function with the as-noted surface conditions.
Margin exists in the 2 1/2' diameter cap screws for future corrosion.
No additional and/or augmented inspections other than planned inservice inspection is required.VT-3 examination of rigid strut support RHR-H 192 revealed a gouge on the pipe clamp. Inservice Discrepancy Report # 01-02 was generated to request Mechanical Design Engineering evaluation of this C-C RHR-H 192 condition.
Technical Evaluation 2001-015 was issued containing:
a) The gouge does not extend behind the lugs therefore the lugs have full bearing surface on the clamp. b) The reduction of a maximum of 1/32" of depth on an 8" deep clamp is insignificant
(<1%). These indications were determined to be caused during initial installation/fabrication.
VT-3 examination of rigid frame support RSW-H 172 revealed a crack in the concrete wall adjacent to the base plate. Inservice Discrepancy Report # 01-03 was generated to request Mechanical Design Engineering evaluation of this condition.
Technical Evaluation 2001-017 was issued containing:
a) The D-A RSW-H172 support and the associated anchor bolts will perform their intended design functions in the as-found condition.
b) The cracking has been determined to be a surface hairline crack that is the result of normal aging and/or as-expected normal shrinkage cracking of the concrete.
This area is monitored in accordance with Vermont Yankee procedure PP 7030 "Structures Monitoring Program" which implements 10 CFR 50.65.Page 17 of 20 FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 ABSTRACT OF CONDITIONS NOTED/CORRECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN Sections 12 and 13 Code Category Item Identification Conditions Noted and Corrective Measures Taken VT-3 examination of spring hanger RSW-H261 revealed several arc strikes and a poor weld profile on integrally attached pipe lugs (these lugs are used in common with spring hanger RSW-HD261B
-see below). Inservice Discrepancy Report # 01-01 was generated to request Mechanical Design Engineering evaluation of these conditions.
Technical Evaluation 2001-014 was issued containing:
a)D-A RSW-H261 None of the arc strikes contained cracking b) The maximum recordable depth of any arc strike was .03" c) No overstress conditions exist, d) The weld in question is an "extra weld" not called for in the engineering qualification of the pipe lug (the lug is only required to be welded on 2 sides, this weld is on the third (not required) side. These indications were determined to be caused during initial installation or modification.
VT-3 examination of spring hanger RSW-HD261B revealed several arc strikes and a poor weld profile on integrally attached pipe lugs (these lugs are used in common with spring hanger RSW-H261 -see above). Inservice Discrepancy Report # 01-01 was generated to request Mechanical Design Engineering evaluation of these conditions.
Technical Evaluation 2001-014 was issued containing:
a) None of the arc D-A RSW-HD261B strikes contained cracking b) The maximum recordable depth of any arc strike was .03" c) No overstress conditions exist. d) The weld in question is an "extra weld" not called for in the engineering qualification of the pipe lug (the lug is only required to be welded on 2 sides, this weld is on the third (not required) side. These indications were determined to be caused during initial installation or modification.
During General Visual examination general corrosion and material loss was found. Inservice Penetrations X-207A Discrepancy Report # 01-08 was generated to request Mechanical Design Engineering evaluation of this E-A Pthratonsh X-20condition.
Technical Evaluation (TE) 2001-025 was generated and contains:
The condition is acceptable as found as there is significant margin remaining to code minimum wall thickness accompanied by a low expected rate of galvanic corrosion in the inerted containment.
Page 18 of 20 m-m M-m = M --m-m = = M = M M m
/-- I- --- -m ---I m m -FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR ENSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 ABSTRACT OF CONDITIONS NOTED/CORRECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN Sections 12 and 13 Code Category Item Identification Conditions Noted and Corrective Measures Taken During General Visual examination pitting and general corrosion in excess of the allowable values provided by Mechanical Design Engineering were found. The corrosion and pitting are accompanied by loss of coating. There was also significant standing water in Vent Header bowl H. Inservice Discrepancy E-A Vent Header Report # 01-07 was generated to request Mechanical Design Engineering evaluation of this condition.
Technical Evaluation (TE) 2001-025 was generated and contains:
a) The observed pitting in the Vent Header is acceptable.
b) The standing water was removed and the source was identified and corrected prior to drywell closeout.VT-3 examination of anchor FDW-HD39 revealed debris in the form of paint chips, insulation and minor corrosion in a required 1/16" gap between a trunion and the base plate. Inservice Discrepancy Report # 0 1-12 was generated to request Mechanical Design Engineering evaluation of this condition.
F-A FDW-HD39 Technical Evaluation (TE) 2001-038 was generated and contains:
The as found condition of the support/anchor is acceptable with the exception of the identified debris. The trunions are not "bound up" restricting thermal growth/movement of the pipe, and the debris does not adversely impact the overall function of the support/anchor.
The debris was subsequently cleaned from the anchor.VT-3 examination of spring hanger RR-44 revealed a spring can setting that was out of tolerance by greater than +/- 5% provided by Mechanical Design Engineering.
Inservice Discrepancy Report # 01-04 was generated to request Mechanical Design Engineering evaluation of this condition.
Technical Evaluation (TE) 2001-021 was generated and contains:
The setting was determined to have not affected the supports structural or functional capability.
It was noted that the support was "adjusted" as far as possible, i.e., there was no more thread remaining on the rod at the adjustment nut. This condition will be revisited during the next extended refueling outage (RFO-23) to determine if any further action would be warranted.
Page 19 of 20 FORM NIS-1 OWNER'S DATA REPORT FOR INSERVICE INSPECTIONS As Required by the Provisions of the ASME Code rules Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Owner Certification:
DPR-28 Commercial Service Date: 11/30/72 ABSTRACT OF CONDITIONS NOTED/CORRECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN Sections 12 and 13 Code Category Item Identification Conditions Noted and Corrective Measures Taken VT-3 examination of spring hanger RR-52 revealed a spring can setting that was out of tolerance by greater than +/- 5% provided by Mechanical Design Engineering.
Inservice Discrepancy Report # 01-05 was generated to request Mechanical Design Engineering evaluation of this condition.
Technical Evaluation (TE) 2001-022 was generated-and contains:The setting was determined to have not affected the supports structural or functional capability.
It was noted that the support was "adjusted" as far as possible, i.e., there was no more thread remaining on the rod at the adjustment nut. This condition will be revisited during the next extended refueling outage (RFO-23) to determine if any further action would be warranted.
F-A RR-7, 8 VT-3 examination of spring hanger RR-7, 8 revealed a spring can setting that was out of tolerance by greater than +/- 5% provided by Mechanical Design Engineering.
Inservice Discrepancy Report # 0 1-06 was generated to request Mechanical Design Engineering evaluation of this condition.
Technical Evaluation (TE) 2001-023 was generated and contains:
a) The setting was determined to have not affected the supports structural or functional capability.
b) The spring cans are capable of performing their intended design function in the as-found, as-leftcondition.
This condition will be revisited during the next extended refueling outage (RFO-23) to determine if any further action would be warranted.
Page 20 of 20 M M M M n M = = -= M = = = M = -
I_I I I I i Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation 2001 Form NIS-2 Owner's Summary Report for Repairs or Replacements December 4, 1999 through May 20, 2001 Plant Inservice lns6eqt&#xfd;on Qjordinator Reviewed by: Approved by: System Engi eering ManageY Page 1 of 14 FORM NIS-2 OWNER'S REPORT FOR REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS As required by the Provisions of the ASME Code Section XI I 1. Owner Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Name Date Sheet 2 of 14 185 Old Ferry Road, PO Box 7002, Brattleboro VT 05302-7002 Address 2. Plant Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Unit I Name P.O. Box 157, Governor Hunt Road, Vernon, VT 05354-0157 Address 3. Work Performed by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Name 185 Old Ferry Road, PO Box 7002, Brattleboro VT 05302-7002 Address N/A Repair Organization P.O. No., Job No., etc.Type Code Symbol Stamp N/A Authorization No. N/A Expiration Date N/A I 4. Identification of System See attached table, pages 4 through 14 5. (a) Applicable Construction Code B.3 1.1 1967 Edition, No " Addenda, No Code Case (b) Applicable Edition of Section XI Utilized for Repairs or Replacements 1986 Edition No Addenda 6. Identification of Components Repaired or Replaced and Replacement Components See attached table, pages 4 through 14 7. Description of Work See attached table, pages 4 through 14 I See attached table, pages 4 through 14 I 8. Tests Conducted 9. Remarks See attached table, pages 4 through 14 Page 2 of 14 I Form NIS-2 (cont.)Sheet 3 of 14 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE We certify that the statements made in the report are correct and these repairs/replacements conform to the rules of ASME Code, Section XI.Type Code Symbol Stamp N/A Certificate of Authorization mber Si-ned 7? DaeY26 N/A Expiration Date N/A Date J ,20 't,'Di 7&#xfd;, # ce Prnesilnt, -neering CERTIFICATE OF INSERVICE INSPECTION I, the undersigned, holding a valid commission issued by the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors and the State or Province of Vermont and employed by Factory Mutual Insurance Co. of Johnston RI have inspected the components described in this Owner's Report during the period December 4, 1999 to May 20, 2001 and state to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Owner has performed examinations and taken corrective measures described in this Owner's Report in accordance with the requirements of the ASME Code, Section XI.By signing this certificate neither the inspector nor his employer makes any warranty, expressed or implied, concerning the examinations and corrective measures described in this Owner's Report. Furthermore, neither the inspector nor his employer shall be liable in any manner for any personal injury or property damage or a loss of any kind arising from or connected with this inspection.
_--_ _ _ _ _ Commissions VT-345 Inspector's Signature National Board, State, Province, and Endorsements Date _ _ _ _ _20o, Page 3 of 14 FORM NIS-2 OWNER'S REPORT FOR REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS As required by the provisions of the ASME Code, Section XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 P.O. Box 157, Vernon, VT, 05354 Construction Code B31.1, 1967 Edition, No Addenda, No Code Case Cmponent SNational Other Identification Repaired Component System Name of Manufacturer Board (Wr Order No., Minor Year epaed, ASME Code Description of Test e Identiication Manufacturer SerialNumber Modification, Design Change, Built Stamped Work Conducted Number Number etr.) Replacement P-7-1B SW Byron Jackson 691-N-0362 N/A WO 99-009059-000 1972 Repaired N/A Repaired Pump System interSals Leakage RRU-8 HVAC H. K. Porter M-24442 N/A WO 00-001039-000 1972 Repaired N/A Repaired Leak .nSystem RRU-8HVACinservice N/A -repair Plant MM 99-05 Structural Hanger made to RCWHantBCWN/A N/A 1972 ReardNAstructural RCW-H88 RBCCW Fabricated WO 97-008451-020 Repaired N/A Modifications components components only N/A -repair made to Plant MM 99-05 Structural Hanger RCW-H89 RBCCW Fabricated N/A N/A WO 97-008451-020 1972 Repaired N/A Modifications structural components only Fairbanks 38D87001 1TDS N/A MM 2000-001 1972 Replaced Cooling System Morse M12 WO 99-004206-000 WatereBellows inservice Obstacle Removal N/A -repair Obstacl Re a I made to SFPC N/A N/A ~MM 99-064 17 Reard NA in Support of Spent structural SFP SFCPlant MM/99N0641972 FuelireRack (Spent Fuel Pool) Fabricated WO 00-000377-000 Fuel Rack cnSpotonpn installation NA/Aonrtrl
______________
only Replaced Stem and WO 00-002526-000 Bonnet, Moved System V 13-16 RCIC Walworth SMB-00 N/A WO 00-001746-002 1972 Repaired N/A Pakng ToRepair sLea WO 00-00 1746-002 Packing To Repair Leakage Leak SR-10-80B RHRSW Consolidated
-C31419 N/A WO 00-001935-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Relief System Dresser Valve Leakage SR-10-80A RHRSW Consolidated
-TK43762 N/A WO 00-001943-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Relief System Dresser Valve inservice Page 4 of 14-m ------- -- m ------ -
m m -m-m m m --m m m -m -FORM NIS-2 OWNER'S REPORT FOR REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS As required by the provisions of the ASME Code, Section XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 P.O. Box 157, Vernon, VT, 05354 Construction Code B31.1, 1967 Edition, No Addenda, No Code Case Component National Other Identification Repaired, Equipment Syidem Name of Manufacturer Board (Work Order No., Minor Year Replaced, or ASME Code Description of Test Number Identification Manufacturer Serial Number Modification, Design Change, Built Replaced, Stamped Work Conducted rNumber etc) Replacement Performed Weld System DG-1-1A DG Fairbanks 38D870012 ITDS N/A WO 99-004206-002 1972 Repaired N/A Repair To Eroded inservice Drset Mo02 ARebtave Snste VG-9B CAD Target Rock Model 9 75E002 N/A WO 00-002632-000 1972 Repaired N/A Rebuilt Valve System______________Leakage Plant Rpae eto f Sse 3"SW-5E SW Fab t N/A N/A WO 00-003663-000 1972 Replacement N/A Replaced Section of System Fabricated 3"SW-5E Piping Leakage Perform Weld Build V70-1A SW Walworth Model # N/A WO 96-012700-000 1972 Repaired N/A Up Valve Body in System 5341 WE Hinge Pin Area Leakage Replaced System TK-3-125-10-19 HCU Liquidonics 200L-8.2-5 N/A WO 00-005412-001 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced System Accumulator Tank Functional General Replaced System TK-3-125-06-35 HCU eleric P/N 921D59G2 N/A WO 00-005412-000 1972 Replaced N/A Acmlator Tk utin Electric Accumulator Tank Functional Fairbanks 38D70006TDS Machined Eroded System DG-1-1B DG Morse M12 N/A WO 00-005379-000 1972 Repaired N/A Area On Flange Functional Faces.System V70-7A SW Crane Cat. 487 1/2 N/A WO 00-003806-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Valve Leakage P-7-A N/ Rebilt ump System P-7-JA SW Byron Jackson 691-N-0361 N/A WO 00-004971-001 1972 Repaired N/A Rebuilt Pump Leakage V70-101 SW Walworth Mod. # 5202WE N/A WO 95-005089-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Valve System____________
________Leakage TK-3-125-14-35 HCU Liquidonics 200L-8.2-5 N/A WO 00-005489-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced System Accumulator Leakage MMv 2000-0'1 System V70-1 1 1A/B SW Walworth Mod. # 5275WE N/A MM 2000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Valves Leakage VI 1-12A SLC Powell N/A N/A WO 00-004934-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Valve System Page 5 of 14 FORM NIS-2 OWNER'S REPORT FOR REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS As required by the provisions of the ASME Code, Section XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 P.O. Box 157, Vernon, VT, 05354 Construction Code B31.1, 1967 Edition, No Addenda, No Code Case Component National Other Identification Repaired, Equipment System Name of Manufacturer Board (Work Order No., Minor Year Replaced, or ASME Code Description of Test Number Identification Manufacturer Serial Number Number Modification, Design Change, Built Replacement Stamped Work Conducted V13-15 RCIC Walworth SMB-00 N/A WO 96-011053-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Valve System Leakage LCV-3-33D CRD BW/IP N/A N/A WO 99-008912-000 1972 Repair N/A Replaced Valve System Seats Leakage LCV-3-33C CRD BW/IP N/A N/A WO 99-008911-000 1972 Repair N/A Replaced Valve System Seats Leakage Tested in accordance SB-16-19-7B PCAC Allis 00616-11 N/A WO 99-011315-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Flange with SB 6-97B CC Chalmers Bolts Operations Procedure OP 4202 P-7-1B SW Byron Jackson 691-N-0362 N/A WO 00-004971-001 1972 Repaired N/A Rebuilt Pump System Leakage Mod. # Weld Buildup of System V70-1A SW Walworth 5341 WE N/A WO 96-012700-000 1972 Repaired N/A Valve Body in Hinge Pin Area Leakage Fairbanks 38D87001 lTDS Sse DG-1-lA DG N/A WO 99-008333-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Bolting System Morse M12 .&#xfd; inservice DG-1-1A DG Fairbanksse 38D87001 2TDS N/A WO 99-009496-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Bolting inservicem N/A -repair Fairbanks 38D70006TDS elcd upr made to DG-l-lB DG Morse0M12 S N/A WO 99-011236-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Support ructural components only Page 6 of 14 M -M M M M- M M M- M M -M M M n
-m -m-m m-- m m m --m -FORM NIS-2 OWNER'S REPORT FOR REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS As required by the provisions of the ASME Code, Section XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 P.O. Box 157, Vernon, VT, 05354 Construction Code B31.1, 1967 Edition, No Addenda, No Code Case Component National Other Identification Repaired, ent ystem Name of Manufacturer ASME Code Description of Test EupetBoard (Work Order No., Minor Year Rpaeo Identification Manufacturer SerialNumber Modification, Design Change, Built R Stamped Work Conducted Number Number etc) Replacement N/A -repair made to Fairbans 38D7006TDSReplaced Support maet DG-1-1B DG Fairbanks 38D70006TDS N/A WO 99-010257-000 1972 Replaced N/A R lac p structural Morse M 12 Clamp components I only Fairbanks 38D70006TDS System DG-I-IB DG Mre12N/A WO 99-009229.000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Bolting inevc Morse M12 mnservice DG-1-1B DG Fairbanks 38D70006TDS N/A WO 99-009500-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Bolting n iSystem Morse M12 inservice TK-3-125-22-35 HCU Liquidonics 200L-8.2-5 N/A WO 00-006190-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced System 0 6dReplaced System TK-3-125-14-31 HCU Liquidonics 200L-8.2-5 N/A WO 00-006191-000 1972 Replaced N/A Accumulator Leakage Rebuilt Pump P-7-1A SW Byron Jackson 691-N-0361 N/A WO 00-006381-000 1972 Replaced/
N/A Assembly -System Repaired Replaced With Leakage Spare S-3-IB SW R. P. Adams 106047 N/A WO 00-006231-000 1972 Repaired N/A Opened and System Cleaned Strainer Leakage RBCCW thermal Small Bore Piping MM 2000-042 Stress at P-18-lA/B NB Byron Jackson 671-S-1108 N/A MM 000 -042 1972 Repaired N/A Modifications To System Recirc. Pumps WO 00-001839-000 Small Bore Piping Leakage I At P-18-1A/B Repaired Relief SR-16-19-77 N2 Kunkle Valve L-3072 N/A WO 00-000596-000 1972 Repaired!
N/A Valve -Replaced System Co. Replaced With Spare Leakage Mod. # elcdBont Sse V 11-41 SLC Powell 3003 9 N/A WO 00-006999-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Bonnet system 11 3003 WE IIIStuds and Nuts 1Leakage Page 7 of 14 FORM NIS-2 OWNER'S REPORT FOR REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS As required by the provisions of the ASME Code, Section XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 P.O. Box 157, Vernon, VT, 05354 Construction Code B31.1, 1967 Edition, No Addenda, No Code Case Component System Name of Manufacturer National Other Identification Repaired, Equimen Board (Work Order No., Minor Year Replaced, ASME Code Description o Test Equipment Identification Manufacturer Serial Number Board Modification, Design Change, Built Stamped Work Conducted Number Number eta) Replacement RV-10-21A/B RHR s e Mod. # 1685 N/A 00-04 1972 Repaired N/A Removed Valves System Dresser WO 000-0400 Rv- 10-210a/B Leakage Consolidated WO 00-001935-004 SR-10-80 A&B RHRSW TK43762 N/A WO 00-001943-005 1972 Repaired N/A Rebilt Vale Sem Dresser WO 00-007021-000 Relief Valve Leakage General Mod. #ReledCnrl Ssm CRD-06-31 CRD N/A WO 00-004225-002 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Control System Electric 7RDB 144BG I Rod Drive Leakage General Mod. #Reacdonr!
Ssm CRD-06-11 CRD N/A WO 00-004225-003 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Control System Electric 7RDB144BGI
_Rod Drive Leakage General Mod. # Replaced Control System CRD- 14-31 CRD Eeti 7RB4 GI N/A WO 00-004225-004 1972 Replaced N/A lo rv ekg CRD-142-27 CR General Mod. # N/A WO 00-004225-004 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Control System Electric 7RDBI44BGI Rod Drive Leakage General Mod. # Replaced Control System CRD-42-27 CRD Geetric MRdBI N/A WO 00-004225-005 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Control System Electric 7RDBI44BGI
_Rod Drive Leakage General Mod. #Reledonrl ysm CRD-18-39 CRD eleric 4 N/A WO 00-004225-006 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Control System Electric 7RDB144BG 1_ Rod Drive Leakage General Mod. # elce otol Sse CRD-26-15 CRD Eeti 7R l4Bl N/A WO 00-004225-007 1972 Replaced N/A RelcdCnol Ssm Electrc____144BG Rod Drive Leakage CRD-34-31 CRD General Mod. # N/A WO 00-004225-008 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Control System Electric 7RDB144BG1 Rod Drive Leakage General Mod. #ReledCnrl Ssm CRD-34-39 CRD Eeti 7R l4B N/A WO 00-004225-009 1972 Replaced N/A RelcdCnrl Ssm Elcri RD14B1Rod Drive Leakage P-45-IA SLC Union Pump P-C274713 N/A WO 99-009881-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Stuffing System Co. Box Studs and Nuts Functional Union Pump Replaced Cylinder System P-45-IA SLC Co. P-C274713 N/A WO 00-006269-000 1972 Replaced N/A Flange Tie Studs Functional CI land Nuts P-45-IB SLC Union Pump P-C274714 N/A WO 98-011881-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Stuffing System Co. Box Studs and Nuts Functional Page 8 of 14 M M M M M M M M--- M M -M = =
---m --m m --m-m ---m --FORM NIS-2 OWNER'S REPORT FOR REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS As required by the provisions of the ASME Code, Section XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 P.O. Box 157, Vernon, VT, 05354 Construction Code B31.1, 1967 Edition, No Addenda, No Code Case Component System Name of Manufacturer National Other Identification Repaired, Equipment S Board (Work Order No., Minor Year Replaced, or Number Identification Manufacturer Serial Number Number odfication, Design Change, Built Replacemend Stamped Work Conducted Number ~~etc.)Relcmn Union Pump Replaced Cylinder P-45-IB SLC P-C274714 N/A WO 00-006266-000 1972 Replaced N/A Flange Tie Studs System P-45-1 SLC Co. and Nuts Functional TK-3-125-18-43 HCU Eentric PIN N/A WO 00-005707-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced HCU System Electric 921D595G2 Piston Accumulator Leakage Liquidonics Mod. # N/A WO 00-005708-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced HCU System TK-3-125-02-27 HCU 200L-8.2-5 Piston Accumulator Leakage SR-10-86A RHR Dresser Mod. # N/A WO 97-002364-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Valve System SR 086 H Desr 9352774 Leakage HPCI-HD 103FN (Snubber S/N ADH- N/A -301-1597 removed for Repaired/
Replaced and replacement functional testing and HPCI Anchor Darling ADH-301-1598 N/A WO 00-001027-000 1972 Repaied N/A Repla and replacem returned to stock S/N Replaced Rebuilt Snubber of snubber ADH-301-1598 only installed)
RHR-H 185 (Snubber N/A -S/N 32198 removed for Fig 200 Repaired/
Replaced and replacement functional testing and RHR Grinnell Fi.N/A WO 00-000995-000 1972 Rpie! N/A Rpae n elcmn rurntional tstok n _S/N 32198 Replaced Rebuilt Snubber of snubber returned to stock S/N 26351 installed) only RR-3 (Snubber N/A -S/N 32197 removed for Repaired/
Replaced and replacement functional testing and NB Grinnell Miller Model N/A WO 00-000993-000 1972 Replaced N/A Rebuilt Snubber ofsnubber returned to stock SRN onu 26347 installed) only CS-HD54A (Snubber N/A -S/N 32195 removed for Repaired/
Replaced and replacement functional testing and CS Miller Fig. 201 N/A WO 00-000991-000 1972 Replaced N/A Rebuilt Snubber ofsnubber returned to stock S/N 26348 installed)
I only Page 9 of 14 FORM NIS-2 OWNER'S REPORT FOR REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS As required by the provisions of the ASME Code, Section XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Unit I P.O. Box 157, Vernon, VT, 05354 Construction Code B31.1, 1967 Edition, No Addenda, No Code Case Component N e MauctrrNational Other Identification Repaired, Equipment System Nameof Manufacturer Board (Work Order No., Minor Year Replaced,'or ASME Code Description of Test Identification Manufacturer Serial Number Modification, Design Change, Built Stamped Work Conducted Number Number etc) Replacement RHR-H197A N/A-(Snubber S/N 32196 Repaired removed for functional RHR Lynair Fig. 200 N/A WO 00-000989-000 1972 N/A Replaced and replacement testing and returned to Replaced Rebuilt Snubber of snubber stock S/N,26349 only installed)
RR-35 (Snubber N/A -S/N 322003 removed Repaired/
Replaced and replacement for functional testing NB Miller Fig. 200 N/A WO 00-000906-000 1972 Replaced N/A Rebuilt Snubber ofsnubber and returned to stock S/N 30034 installed) only MSSRV ~Replaced/Rebuilt Sse MSSRV NB Target Rock 249 N/A PO VY009397 1972 Repaired/
N/A Main Steam Safety System S/N 249 Replaced Relief Valve Leakage MSSRV Repaired/Replaced/Rebuilt Sse S/N 250 NB Target Rock 250 N/A PO VY009397 1972 Repaired!
N/A Main Steam Safety System SN50Replaced Ma inSeam Safet Leakage Relief Valve , Replaced/Rebuilt MSSRV S/N NB Target Rock 67-HH-I-14 N/A PO VY009397 1972 Repaired!
N/A Main Steam Safety System 67-HH- 14 Replaced Relief Valve Leakage MSSRV SIN RepairedReplaced/Rebuilt System BL 11 N NB Target Rock BL 1134 N/A PO VY009397 1972 Repaied N/A Main Steam Safety Leakage BL 1134 Replaced ReliekValv Relief Valve MSSRV S/N Repaired/
Replaced/Rebuilt System BL-1137 NB Target Rock BL- 1137 N/A PO VY009397 1972 Replaced N/A Main Steam Safety Leakage Relief Valve Installed Alternate Patent to CoClndb0 P0-04 192 Rea00e0N/A Cooling System To Hydrostatic Fuel Pool Cooling SFPC Fant N/A N/A WO1972 Repaired N/A Standby Fuel Pool and System System Cooling System leakage System Design Change Page 10 of 14 M M M-- M M M M M- M M M M M M i FORM NIS-2 OWNER'S REPORT FOR REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS As required by the provisions of the ASME Code, Section XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 P.O. Box 157, Vernon, VT, 05354 Construction Code B31.1, 1967 Edition, No Addenda, No Code Case Component System Name of Manufacturer National Other Identification Repaired, ASME Code Description of Test Equipment Board (Work Order No., Minor Year Replaced, or Identification Manufacturer Serial Number Modification, Design Change, Built Stamped Work Conducted Nme IenicainMnfcue SeilNumber Number etc-) Replacement Mod. # 75E001 Valve internals NG-13A CAD Target Rock SM N N/A WO 00-004690-000 1972 Repaired N/A inspection and Bonnet Tack Weld Mod. # 75E001 Valve internals System NG-13B CAD Target Rock SIN 3 N/A WO 00-004691-000 1972 Repaired N/A inspection and Sem Bonnet Tack Weld Leaage Valve internals NG- 11B CAD Target Rock Mod 3 N/A WO 00-004687-000 1972 Repaired N/A inspection and System S/N 3 Bonnet Tack Weld Leakage Mead. # 75E001 Valve internals System NG-12B CAD Target Rock SM N 4 N/A WO 00-004689-000 1972 Repaired N/A inspection and Sem Bonnet Tack Weld Leakage Mod. # 75 E001 Valve internals System NG- 12A CAD Target Rock S/N 2 N/A WO 00-004688-000 1972 Repaired N/A inspection and Sem Bonnet Tack Weld Leakage Valve internals NG-I 1A CAD Target Rock Mod. # 75E001 N/A WO 00-004393-000 1972 Repaired N/A inspection and Leakame Bonnet Tack Weld L a P-81D RHRSW Byron Jackson Mod. # VTP N/A WO 01-001098-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Pump System So N 691-N-0366 Rotating Assembly Leakage DG-l-lA DG Fairbanks 38D87001 ITDS N/A WO 01-000804-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced the Collar System Morse M12 Stud Assembly inservice Fairbanks 38D70006TDS Replaced Broken System DG-1-1B DG Morse M T2 N/A WOO1-001 101-000 1972 Replaced N/A OCS Scavenging inservice Air Piping Stud SR-72-3A SA Kunkle Valve N/A N/A WO 00-000597-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Relief System Co. Valve Leakage Mod. #RV-2-71A NB Target Rock 67F-000-15 N/A WO 00-004226-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Relief System 6X10 Valve Leakage Page 11 of 14 FORM NIS-2 OWNER'S REPORT FOR REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS As required by the provisions of the ASME Code, Section XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 P.O. Box 157, Vernon, VT, 05354 Construction Code B31.1, 1967 Edition, No Addenda, No Code Case Component National Other Identification Repaired, Equipment System Name of Manufacturer Board (Work Order No., Minor Year Replaced, o ASME Code Description of Test Identification Manufacturer SerialNumber Modification, Design Change, Built Stamped Work Conducted Number Number eta) Replacement Mod. Re RV-2-71B NB Target Rock 67F-000-15 N/A WO 00-004720-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Relief System 6X I0 Valve Leakage Mod. # R RV-2-71C NB Target Rock 67F-000-15 N/A WO 00-004721-000 1972 Replaced N/A eplaced Relief System 6X I0 Valve Leakage Mod. #RV-2-71D NB Target Rock 67F-000-15 N/A WO 00-004722-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Relief System 6X I0 Valve Leakage Mod. # 3707 R SV-2-70A NB Dresser RA-RT21 N/A WO 00-004230-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Safety System S/N BL 1137 Relief Valve Leakage Mod. # 3707 R SV-2-70B NB Dresser RA-RT21 N/A WO 00-004745-000 1972 Replaced N/A eplaced Safety System S/N BL 1134 Relief Valve Leakage V70-71C RBCCW Honeywell Mod. # 8105 N/A WO 00-007152-000 1972 Repaired N/A Repaired Plug and System Stem Leakage Mod. #V2-80D MS Rockwell 1612JMMY N/A WO 01-001729-000 1972 Repaired N/A Repaired Valve System S/N 123 Seat Leakage Mod. #ReardVle Ssm V14-13A CS Rockwell 770 # N/A WO 01-001806-000 1972 Repaired N/A Repaired Valve System 770 JMMY Internals Leakage Mod. #t DVSS Repaired/
Replaced P-18-IB RBCCW Byron Jackson S/N N/A WO 00-001839-000 1972 Repaired/
N/A Spool on Seal Heat System 671-S-1109 Replaced Exchanger Cooling Leakage III___ Unit Page 12 of 14--= = = M --- --= M = =
FORM NIS-2 OWNER'S REPORT FOR REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS As required by the provisions of the ASME Code, Section XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 P.O. Box 157, Vernon, VT, 05354 Construction Code B31.1, 1967 Edition, No Addenda, No Code Case Component National Other Identification Repaired, Equipment System Name of Manufacturer Board (Work Order No., Minor Year Replaced, ASME Code Description of Test Numben Identification Manufacturer Serial Number N rModification, Design Change, Built ReplaceStamped work Conducted NmeNubretc.)
Replacement Tested in accordance V16-19-5G PCAC Atwood and Mod. # 20751H N/A WO 00-004108-001 1972 Repaired N/A Installed Disc Nut with Morril Spacer Shim Operations Procedure OP 4202 V3-114-38-35 HCU N/A N/A WO 01-001886-000 1972 Repaired N/A Repaired Valve System Electric Internals Leakage Mod. #CV-3-127-38-35 HCU Hammel-Dahl 2500ASA- N/A WO 01-001886-001 1972 Repaired N/A Replaced Teflon System 999Z1204 Seat Ring Disc Leakage Mod. # C44099 V13-131 RCIC Walworth S/N N/A WO 00-006789-000 1972 Repaired N/A Repaired Valve System 530I BSB-WE Internals Leakage V70-319B SW Nibco Fig. T-134 N/A WO 01-001934-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Valve System_______Leakage_
V70-319D SW Nibco Fig. T-134 N/A WO 01-001935-000 1972 Replaced N/A Replaced Valve V13-6 RCIC Enertech Mod. # DRV-2 N/A WO 01-001732-000 1972 Repaired N/A Replaced Valve System V13-7 RCIC Enertech Mod. # DRV-2 N/A WO 01-001733-000 1972 Repaired N/A Replaced Valve System___________
________Spring Leakage V23-3 HPCI Enertech Mod. f DRV-B N/A WO 01-001740-000 1972 Repaired N/A Replaced Valve System Spring Leakage V23-4 HPCI Enertech Mod. f DRV-B N/A WO 01-001748-000 1972 Repaired N/A Replaced Valve System____ ________ ______ Spring Leakage_Mod. f Repaired Leak in System RRU-8 HVAC H. K. Porter 41-523-H N/A WO 00-001039-010 1972 Repaired N/A Service Water S/N M-24442 1 Supply Connection Leakage Page 13 of 14 FORM NIS-2 OWNER'S REPORT FOR REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS As required by the provisions of the ASME Code, Section XI, 1986 Edition, No Addenda Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 P.O. Box 157, Vernon, VT, 05354 Construction Code B31.1, 1967 Edition, No Addenda, No Code Case Component National Other Identfication Repaired, ASME Code Description of Test Equipment Manufacturer Board (Work Order No., Minor Year Replaced, or Id ~ ubrModification, Design Change, Replacede WrkCoorte Number Identification Manufacturer Serial Number e a Built Replacement Drywell Seat and Mod. # MM 2000-010 Repaired/
Replaced DW Seal gDrywell CB General Electric N/A 1972 N/A and Protective N/A r S Mark I WO 00-001840-000 Replaced Coatig Mak I _____ _______________
_________Coating Repairs _____Page 14 of 14= -- = =------ -M -M M M M m OR%2=%MFk7;&#xfd;--.Enteigy NEC-JH_33 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.Vermont Yankee P.O! Box 0250 320 Governor Hunt Road Vernon, VT 05354 Tel 802 257 7711 February 5, 2008 BVY 08-008 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
 
==References:==
 
1), Letter, Entergy to USNRC, "Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, License No. DPR-28, License Renewal Application," BVY 06-009, dated January 25, 2006 2) Letter, Entergy to USNRC, "Update of Aging Management Program Audit Q&A Database," BVY 07-079, dated November 14, 2007 3) Letter, USNRC to Entergy, "Update on Extension of Schedule for the Conduct of Review of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Stationi License Renewal Application," NVY 07-157, dated November 27, 2007 4) Letter, &#xfd;; Entergy to USNRC, "License Renewal Application, Amendment 33," BVY 07-082, dated December 11, 2007 5) Letter, , Entergy to USNRC, "License Renewal Application, Amendment 34," BVY 08-002, dated January 30, 2008
 
==Subject:==
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)License Renewal Application, Amendment 35 On January 25, 2006, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. and Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC (Entergy) submitted Reference (1), the License Renewal Application (LRA)for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power. Station (VYNPS). -VYNPS submitted Reference (2) following an NRC audit of the VYNPS Aging Management Program and subsequently received Reference (3), which included an NRC Request for Additional Information.
References (4) and (5), respectively, provided the initial response to Reference (3) and later clarifications to that response.
Additional clarification and details regarding recirculation nozzle Cumulative Usage Factor (CUF)and water chemistry effects are provided in Attachments 1 and 2 to this letter. VYNPS information meeting the NRC's position on Extended Power Uprate (EPU) operating experience evaluation for Aging Management Programs is also discussed below.VYNPS had not yet entered operation at EPU levels at the time Reference (1) was submitted.
EPU power ascension began in March of 2006. To ensure that operating experience at EPU levels is properly addressed by aging management programs, Entergy will perform an evaluation of operating experience at EPU levels prior to the period of extended operation.
In addition to VYNPS operating experience, the evaluation will include operating experience from other BWR plants operating at EPU levels.A117-7 I BVY 08-008.Docket No. 50-271 Page 2 of 3 This is a new commitment, and has been entered as Commitment
#51 on the VYNPS License Renewal Commitment List, Revision 9 (Attachment 3).Should you have any questions concerning -this submittal, please contact Mr. David Mannai at (802) 451-3304.I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I Executed on February 5, 2008.Sincerely, ."I Si ice President Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Attachment 1: Additional Information Regarding Recirculation Nozzle CUF Attachment 2: Additional Information Regarding Water Chemistry Effects Attachment 3: License Renewal Commitment List, Revision 9 cc: Mr. James Dyer, Director.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office O5E7 Washington, DC 20555-00001 Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale:
Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Mr. Jack Strosnider, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office T8A23 Washington, DC 20555-00001 Mr. Jonathan Rowley, Senior Project Manager U-S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I 11555 Rockville Pike MS-O-11F1 Rockville, MD 20853 BVY 08-008 Docket No. 50-271 Page 3 of 3 Mr. Mike Modes USNRC RI 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. James S. Kim, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-8-C2A Washington, DC 20555 USNRC Resident Inspector Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC P.O. Box 157 Vernon, Vermont 05354 Mr. David O'Brien, Commissioner VT Department of Public Service 112 State Street -Drawer 20 Montpelier, Vermont 05620-2601 Diane Curran, Esq.Harmon, Curran, Spielberg
& Eisenberg, LLP 1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 BVY 08-008 Attachment 1 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)License Renewal Application Amendment 35 Additional Information Regarding Recirculation Nozzle CUF VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR.POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION AMENDMENT 35 ATTACHMENT 1 Additional Information Regiarding Recirculation Nozzle CUF NRC Request: Demonstrate why the confirmatory analysis for the feedwater nozzle bounds the geometry of the recirculation outlet nozzle.Response: The feedwater nozzle was chosen for the confirmatory analysis since it has the largest number of, and most severe, transients and the highest calculated fatigue usage of the three nozzles which used the VY fatigue analysis approach.
The analysis of the feedwater nozzle is bounding for the recirculation outlet nozzle since the calculated usage factors. and thermal transient stresses are significantly less than those for the feedwater nozzle.As pointed but during the January 8, 2008 presentation to the NRC Staff, the recirculation outlet nozzle has a different geometry (i.e., "skewed")
as compared to the other nozzles.However, the feedwater nozzle configuration remains conservative and bounding when compared to the recirculation.
outlet nozzle configuration for the followihg reasons: The previous comparisons of nozzle corner stress factors from BWRVIP-108, which included evaluation of a recirculation outlet nozzle, demonstrate that the recirculation outlet nozzle configuration does not provide results that are significantly different from the other nozzle configurations.
* The transients experienced by the recirculation outlet nozzle are significantly less severe and less numerous than the transients that affect the feedwater nozzle.* The most significant thermal transient (improper start causing reverse flow) was modeled directly in the Finite Element Model due to its unique characteristics.
* In-the nozzle corner, the thermal stresses are small compared to the pressure stresses.* The previous analyses for all three nozzles for.VY yielded significantly lower fatigue usage for the recirculation outlet nozzle compared to the feedwater nozzle.* Industry experience for the BWR fleet has repeatedly demonstrated that the recirculation outlet nozzle fatigue usage is significantly lower than feedwater nozzle fatigue usage.BVY 08-008 Docket No. 50-271 Attachment I Page I ofI
-BVY 08-008 Attachment 2.Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)License Renewal Application Amendment 35 Additional Information Regarding Water Chemistry Effects VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION AMENDMENT 35 ATTACHMENT 2 Additional Information Regardinq Water Chemistry Effects NRC Request: Describe how water chemistry effects were accounted for in the evaluation of environmentally assisted fatigue.Response: Per Section X.M1 of NUREG 1801 (GALL Report) the environmentally assisted fatigue (EAF) evaluations used appropriate Fatigue Life Correction Factors (Fen) calculated using the methodology in NUREG/CR-6583 for carbon and low alloy steels and NUREG/CR-5704 for stainless steels.For carbon and low alloy steels the Fen factor relationships are shown on page 69 of NUREG/CR-6583.
As shown on page 60 of NUREG/CR-6583, the input values used to develop the Fen factors are sulfur content, strain rate, temperature, and dissolved oxygen content in the fluid. Input values for these parameters were chosen to maximize the Fen factors calculated for all components.
The Fen factor relationship for stainless steels is shown on page 31 of NUREG/CR-5704.
As shown on page 25 of. NUREG/CR-5704, the input values used to develop the Fen factors are strain rate, temperature, and dissolved oxygen content in the fluid. Similar to the carbon and low alloy steel calculations, the input values were chosen to maximize the Fen factors.The inputs were selected as follows: For the carbon and low alloy steel expressions, the transformed sulfur content parameter was set equal to the maximum value of 0.015 to maximize the effects of this parameter.
For all expressions, the transformed strain rate parameter was set equal to the minimum strain rate (i.e., lessthan 0.001%/sec) for all transients to maximize the effects of this parameter.
For all expressions, the transformed temperature parameter was computed using 550&deg;F for all locations.
This temperature envelopes normal operating temperatures to maximize the effects of this parameter, and is very conservative for feedwater temperature.
&deg; For the transformed dissolved oxygen parameter, dissolved oxygen (DO) data was taken from recorded plant data for the feedwater line. For all other locations evaluated in the reactor coolant system, the EPRI BWRVIA code was used to determine DO levels. The EPRI BWRVIAmodel was used to determine DO at component locations at original licensed power (OLP) for both BWR normal water chemistry (NWC) and noble metal water chemistry (NMCA+HWC).
Also, current licensed power with NMCA+HWC was evaluated.
BVY 08-008 Docket No. 50-271 Attachment 2 Page I of 2 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION AMENDMENT 35 ATTACHMENT 2 For the purposes of ensuring that the DO effects on Fe,, are conservative and bounding with respect to water chemistry, the F 6 n values used accounted for variations in plant recorded feedwater DO data. It is noted that excursions observed in the plant data used are small in number and are of short duration.
Approximately 13 years of recorded feedwater DO measurements, including excursions, were evaluated for input to the EAF analysis.
A DO value (50 ppb) was used to calculate bounding Fen value for the feedwater piping. This represents the mean of the measured data plus one standard deviation.
For locations in the reactor coolant system, the BWRVIA model was run varying the DO content for the power/water chemistry conditions discussed above. The results of these sensitivity studies showed that the resulting variations in DO at component locations are significantly less than the changes input to the feedwater DO. The variation of feedwater DO (mean plus one standard deviation) was evaluated.
This resulted in less than a 2%change in the bounding Fen used in the EAF analysis for the low alloy steel components in the beltline and lower sections of the reactor vessel. There is no effect on the.bounding Fen values from the input feedwater DO variations for the stainless steel components.
The Fen' factors are determined using several parameters and, collectively, these parameters were chosen to conservatively maximize their contribution.
The Fen factors are bounding for each location, based on all of the input values. The bounding Fen factors for each location and material were used for all stress range pairs in the cumulative usage factor calculations.
BVY 08-008 Docket No. 50-271 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
--- Entergy NEC-JH_34 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.Vermont Yankee P-0. Box 0250 320 Governor Hunt Road Vernon, VT 05354 Tel 802 257 7711 January 30, 2008 BVY 08-002 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
 
==References:==
: 1) Letter, Entergy to USNRC, "Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, License No. DPR-28, License Renewal Application," BVY 06-009, dated January 25, 2006.2) Letter, Entergy to USNRC, "Update of Aging Management Program Audit Q&A Database," BVY 07-079, dated November 14, 2007.3) Letter, USNRC to Entergy, "Update on Extension of Schedule for the Conduct of Review of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Renewal Application," NVY 07-157, dated November 27, 2007.4) Letter, Entergy. to USNRC, "License Renewal Application, Amendment 33," BVY 07-082, dated December 11, 2007.5) Letter, Entergy to USNRC, &#xfd;"License Renewal Application, Amendment 31," BVY 07-066, dated September 17, 2007.
 
==Subject:==
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)License Renewal Application.
Amendment 34 On January 25, 2006, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. and Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC (Entergy) submitted the License Renewal Application (LRA) for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Reference 1).In Reference (2), Entergy provided an update to the Aging Management Program (AMP)Audit Q&A Database.
In Reference (3), the NRC requested additional information relative to audit question number 387. This information was provided in Reference (4).Subsequent to that submittal and a follow-up meeting with the NRC staff on January 8, 2008, Entergy agreed to perform additional analyses to support the original response.Attachment 1 to this letter provides the results of those analyses.
Attachment 2 provides an update to the Cumulative Usage Factor for the Core Spray nozzle forging blend radius that was previously submitted with Reference (5).This letter contains no new regulatory commitments.
Should you have any questions concerning this submittal, please contact Mr. David Mannai at (802) 451-3304.
j~II BVY 08-002 Docket No. 50-271 Page 2 of 3 I declare under penalty of perjury that. the foregoing is true and correct.Executed on January 30, 2008. I Sincerely, kfd A/ l<u vI Site Vice President Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station I Attachments cc: Mr. James Dyer, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office 05E7 Washington, DC 20555-00001 Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Mr. Jack Strosnider, Director I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission"Office T8A23 Washington, DC 20555-00001 Mr. Jonathan Rowley, Senior Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike MS-O-1 1 F1 Rockville, MD 20853 /Mr. Mike Modes USNRC RI 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. James S. Kim, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-8-C2A Washington, DC 20555'~II I BVY 08-002 Docket No. 50-271 Page 3 of 3 USNRC Resident Inspector Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC P.O. Box 157 Vernon, Vermont 05354 Mr. David O'Brien, Commissioner VT Department of Public Service 112 State Street -Drawer 20 Montpelier, Vermont 05620-2601 Diane Curran, Esq.Harmon, Curran, Spielberg
& Eisenberg, LLP 172.6 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 BVY 08-002 Attachment 1 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)License Renewal Application Amendment 34 RAI 4.3.3-2 Additional Information I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VERMONT YANKEE .NUCLEAR POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION AMENDMENT 34 ATTACHMENT 1 Vermont Yankee Feedwater Nozzle Confirmatory Analysis Results On January 8, 2008, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) staff and Entergy Vermont Yankee (VY) met in a public meeting to discuss VY's response to RAI 4.3.3-2 on environmentally assisted fatigue (EAF). After a formal presentation and dialogue with NRC staff, VY agreed to-perform a confirmatory EAF analysis on the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) feedwater nozzle. This analysis would confirm the VY fatigue analysis approach by performing an alternate confirmatory analysis using ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NB-3200 [1] methodology to demonstrate available nozzle margins and acceptability of the VY approach.
Table 1 provides the results of the confirmatory analysis and demonstrates that the existing VY fatigue analysis approach is acceptable.
Discussion The following items summarize the methods used in the VY confirmatory analysis [2],[3],[4]:
: 1. The feedwater nozzle was chosen for confirmation since it has the largest number and most complicated and severe transients, and the highest calculated fatigue usage of the three nozzles which used the VY fatigue analysis approach.
The analysis of the feedwater nozzle is bounding for the core spray and recirculation outlet nozzles since the calculated usage factors are at least 70% less than those for the feedwater nozzle and the number and severity of thermal transients are less.2. The confirmatory analysis performed a detailed ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NB-3200[11 fatigue calculation.
The same ANSYS finite element model (FEM) was used as for the current licensing basis fatigue analysis, and was also used in the existing environmental fatigue analysis.
The same number and severity of design transients and the same water chemistry inputs were used as had been used in the existing environmental fatigue analysis.
Thermal transient stresses were calculated directly using the FEM for all transients.
: 3. The same transient definitions and cycle counts for 60 years of operation, as defined in Reference
[5] and used for the existing analysis [8], were used for computation of cumulative fatigue in the confirmatory analysis.4. The limiting cross-sections previously evaluated for the feedwater nozzle (nozzle corner and safe end) were evaluated.
: 5. Primary plus secondary and total stress ranges for all events were calculated and a correction for elastic-plastic analysis (i.e., K,) was applied, where appropriate.
Total stress intensity for each transient pair based on stress component differences was calculated per ASME Code, Section III, Paragraph NB- 3216.2 [1]. Stress ranges for primary plus secondary and primary plus secondary plus peak stress were calculated using all six components of stress (3 direct and 3 shear stresses).
When more than one load set was defined for either of the event pair loadings, the stress differences were determined for all of the possible loading combinations, and the pair producing the largest alternating total stress intensity (including the effects of Ke)was used.BVY 08-002 Docket 50-271 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION AMENDMENT 34 ATTACHMENT 1 6. For the fatigue usage calculation, stress intensities for the event pairs were re-ordered in order of decreasing primary plus secondary plus peak stress intensity, including a correction for the ratio of modulus of elasticity (E) from the fatigue curve divided by E from the analysis.
A fatigue table was created to determine the number of cycles available for each of the events of an event pair, and to determine fatigue usage per ASME Code, Section III, Paragraph NB-3222.4e
[1].For each load set pair in the fatigue 'table, the allowable number of cycles was determined from the alternating stress, which is half of the corrected total stress intensity range, using the appropriate ASME Code, Section II1I [1] fatigue curve.7. Per Section X.M1 of the GALL Report [61, environmental fatigue multipliers were calculated using the Fen relationships from NUREG/CR-6583
[71 for carbon and low alloy steels. The Fen factors are bounding for all transient pairs based on the highest temperature of each of the transient stress pairs.The results of the confirmatory analysis and a comparison of the final CUF results from the existing EAF analysis are shown in Table 1 below.Table 1 -VY Feedwater Nozzle 60 year EAF CUF Location Analysis EAF CUF / Allowable Safe End EAF Analysis 0.2560 /1.0000[8]Confirmatory 0.0994 /1.0000 Analysis [41 Nozzle Corner EAF Analysis 0.6392 /1.0000 (Blend Radius) [8]Confirmatory 0.3531 /1.0000 Analysis [4]Conclusions:
The existing EAF analysis for the VY feedwater, recirculation outlet, and core spray nozzles used a simplified fatigue analysis approach to calculate CUFs, including bounding Fen relationships.
The confirmatory analysis used ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NB [1] methods and included more refined but still conservative Fen relationships.
For the locations identified above, the EAF results, using either the existing or confirmatory analysis, show that the fatigue usage factors, including environmental effects, are well within allowable values for 60 years of operation.
The confirmatory analysis for the feedwater nozzle, which used ASME Section III [1) code methods, confirms the adequacy of the existing VY fatigue analysis approach for all three nozzles.BVY 08-002 Docket 50-271 I I I I I I I I I I I VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION AMENDMENT 34 ATTACHMENT 1
 
==References:==
: 1. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV)Code, Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Division 1-Subsection NB, Class 1 Components, 1998 Edition including 2000 Addenda.2. Structural Integrity Associates Calculation No. VY-19Q-301, Revision 0, "Design Inputs and Methodology for ASME Code Confirmatory Fatigue Usage Analysis of Reactor Feedwater Nozzle".3. Structural Integrity Associates Calculation No. VY-19Q-302, Revision 0, "ASME Code Confirmatory Fatigue Evaluation of Reactor Feedwater Nozzle".4. Structural Integrity Associates Calculation No. VY-19Q-303, Revision 0, "Feedwater Nozzle Environmental Fatigue Evaluation".
: 5. Entergy Design Input Record (DIR) Rev. 1, EC No. 1773, Rev. 0, "Environmental Fatigue Analysis for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station," 7/26/07.6. NUREG-1801, Revision 1, "Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 2005.7. NUREG/CR-6583 (ANL-97/18), "Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design Curves of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels," March 1998.8. Structural Integrity Associates Calculation No. VY-1 60-302, Revision 0, "Fatigue Analysis'of Feedwater Nozzle".BVY 08-002 Docket 50-271 BVY 08-002 Attachment 2 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)License Renewal Application Amendment 34 Update to Core Spray CUF
,If VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION AMENDMENT 34 ATTACHMENT 2 Update to Supplemental Information for Environmentally Assisted Fatigue Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) provided the following information with Amendment 31 in response to License Renewal Commitment
: 27. The commitment specified addressing environmentally assisted fatigue by refining fatigue analyses to include the effects of reactor water environment to verify that the cumulative usage factors (CUFs) are less than 1. Entergy completed refinement of the fatigue analyses as specified in Commitment 27 in accordance with the clarifying details provided in the letter of July 30, 2007. The results indicated that the CUFs of the most fatigue sensitive locations will be less than 1.0 through the period of extended operation, considering both mechanical and environmental effects. Subsequent to the Amendment 31 submittal, the environmentally-adjusted CUF value for the Core Spray nozzle forging blend radius was updated to reflect new information, as shown in the revised table below. This table supersedes and replaces in its entirety the table submitted as part of Attachment 1 to BVY 07-066, dated September 17, 2007.The following results of the refined fatigue analyses are the environmentally adjusted CUF values for 60 years of operation for the locations specified in NUREG/CR-6260.
VYNPS Cumulative Usage Factors for NUREG/CR-6260 Limiting Locations Material Overall*Environmental Environmentally NUREG-6260 Location Multiplier (Fen) Adjusted CUF 1 RPV vessel shell/ bottom head Low alloy steel 9.51 0.08*2 RPV shell at shroud support Low alloy steel 9.51 0.74 3 Feedwater nozzle forging blend radius Low alloy steel 10.05 0.64 4 RR Class 1 piping (return tee) Stainless steel 12.62 0.74 5 RR inlet nozzle forging. Low alloy steel 7.74 0.50 6 RR inlet nozzle safe end Stainless steel 11.64 0.02 7 RR outlet nozzle forging Low alloy steel 7.74 0.08 8 Core spray nozzle forging blend radius' Low alloy steel 10.05 0.0432 0.1668 9 Feedwater piping riser to RPV nozzle Carbon steel 1.74 0.29 Effective multiplier for past and projected operating history, power level, and water chemistry.
BVY 08-002 Docket 50-271 pR3d REG&CO0 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 NEC-JH_35 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 229 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-28 ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-271 Proprietary information pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.390 has been redacted from this document.Redacted information is identified by blank space enclosed within double brackets.
-190-implementation of the proposed EPU. Based on this, the NRC staff concludes that spent fuel storage at VYNPS will continue to meet the requirements of draft GDC-40, 42, and 66 following implementation of the proposed EPU. Therefore, the NRC staff finds the proposed EPU acceptable with respect to spent fuel storage. n 2.8.7 Additional Review Area -Methods Evaluation 2.8.7.1 Application of NRC-approved Analytical Methods and Codes The analyses supporting safe operation at EPU conditions are required to be performed using NRC-approved licensing methodology, analytical methods and codes. In general, the analytical methods and codes are assessed and benchmarked against measurement data, comparisons to actual nuclear plant test data and research reactor measurement data. The validation and benchmarking process provides the means to establish the associated biases and uncertainties.
The uncertainties associated with the predicted parameters and the correlations modeling the physical phenomena are accounted for in the analyses.
NRC-approved licensing methodology, topical reports and codes specify the applicability ranges. The generic licensing topical reports (LTR) covering specific analytical methods or code systems quantify the accuracy of the methods or the code used. The safety evaluation reports approving topical I reports include restrictions that delineate the conditions that warrant specific actions, such as obtaining measurement data or obtaining further NRC approval.
In general, the use of NRC-approved analytical methods is contingent upon application of these methods and codes withinI the ranges for which the data were provided and against which the methods were evaluated.
Thus, a plant-specific application does not entail review of the NRC-approved analytical methods and codes. 3 To implement the proposed EPU and maintain the current 18-month cycle, a higher number of maximum powered bundles are loaded into the core and the power of the average bundles is also increased, making the core radial power distribution flatter. Due to an increased two-phase pressure drop and higher coolant voiding, the flow in the maximum powered bundles decreases.
This effect leads to a higher bundle power-to-flow ratio and higher exit void fraction.Since the maximum powered bundles set the thermal limits, EPU operation reduces the margins to thermal limits.Table 2.8.7-1 below shows the predicted operating conditions for the maximum powered bundles for VYNPS as shown in Table 6-2 of Attachment 3 to Reference
: 25. Figures 2.8.7-1 through 2.8.7-4 show plots for some of these parameters for VYNPS throughout the core cycle.I I I I I
-191 -Table 2.8.7-1 Ranges of Operational Experience Metric VYNPS Prediction U]As shown, the VYNPS maximum exit void fraction is 87% and the core average bundle exit void fraction is 76%.2.8.7.2 Applicability of Neutronic Methods 2.8.7.2.1 Methods Review Topics In Enclosure 3 to a letter dated March 4, 2004, (Reference
: 69) GE provided its evaluation of the impact of operation at higher void conditions on all of GE's licensing methodologies.
The generic evaluation was also based on core thermal-hydraulic conditions that bound the EPU conditions (void fraction 90% or greater).
Specifically, operation with a large number of bundles operating at high in-channel void fractions could potentially affect the following topics: 1. Assumptions made in the generation of the lattice physics data that establish the neutronic feedback (see SE Section 2.8.7.2.2).
: 2. Accuracy of the fuel isotopics generated considering the method employed in the lattice physics (see SE Section 2.8.7.2.2).
: 3. Assumptions made in the generation of the neutronic parameters in assuming 0%bypass voiding, although voiding is present during some transients (see SE Section 2.8.7.2.2).
: 4. Applicability of the thermal-hydraulic correlations used to model physical phenomena (see SE Section 2.8.7.3).
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.NECJH_6-WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001oNoC 6 October 25, 2007 LICENSEE:
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.FACILITY:
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
 
==SUBJECT:==
 
==SUMMARY==
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON AUGUST 20, 2007, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., CONCERNING THE VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. held a telephone conference call on August 20, 2007, to discuss the regulatory requirements stated in 10 CFR Part 54.21 (c)(1) as it relates to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station license renewal application.
Enclosure 1 provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a summary of the issue discussed with the applicant.
The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.onathan G. Rowley, Project Manager License Renewal Branch B Division of. License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-271
 
==Enclosures:==
: 1. List of Participants
: 2. Summary of Discussion 2 cc w/encls: See next page Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc: Regional Administrator, Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 Mr. David R. Lewis Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20037-1128 Mr. David O'Brien, Commissioner Vermont Department of Public Service 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Mr. James Volz, Chairman Public Service Board State of Vermont 112 State Street Montpelier, VT 05620-2701 Chairman, Board of Selectmen Town. of Vernon.P.O. Box 116 Vernon, VT 05354-0116 Operating Experience Coordinator Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 320 Governor Hunt Road Vernon, VT 05354 G. Dana Bisbee, Esq.Deputy Attorney General 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301-6937 Chief, Safety Unit Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Ms. Carla A. White, RRPT, CHP Radiological Health Vermont Department of Health P.O. Box 70, Drawer #43 108 Cherry Street Burlington, VT 05402-0070 Mr. David Mannai Manager, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 500 185 Old Ferry Road Brattleboro, VT 05302-0500 Resident Inspector Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 176 Vernon, VT 05354 Director, Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency ATTN: James Muckerheide 400 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702-5399 Jonathan M. Block, Esq.Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT 05346-0566 Mr. John F. McCann Director, Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. John T. Herron Sr. Vice President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213 I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I U I Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station-2-cc: Mr. Christopher Schwartz Vice President, Operations Support Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Michael J. Colomb Director of Oversight Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. William C. Dennis Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Mr. Theodore Sullivan Site Vice President Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 500 185 Old Ferry Road Brattleboro, VT 05302-0500 Mr. James H. Sniezek 5486 Nithsdale Drive Salisbury, MD 21801 Mr. Garrett D. Edwards 814 Waverly Road Kennett Square, PA 19348 Ms. Stacey M. Lousteau Treasury Department Entergy Services, Inc.639 Loyola Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Mr. Norman L. Rademacher Director, NSA Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 0500 185 Old Ferry Road Brattleboro, VT 05302-0500 Mr. Raymond Shadis New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556 Mr. James P. Matteau Executive Director Windham Regional Commission 139 Main Street, Suite 505 Brattleboro, VT 05301 Mr. William K. Sherman Vermont Department of Public Service 112 State Street Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Mr. Michael D. Lyster 5931 Barclay Lane Naples, FL 34110-7306 Diane Curran, Esq.Harmon, Curran, Spielberg
&Eisenberg, L.L.P 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Ronald A. Shems, Esq.Shems, Dunkiel, Kassel & Saunders, PLLC 91 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 I I Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station cc: I Karen Tyler, Esq.Shems, Dunkiel, Kassel & Saunders, PLLC 91 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 Sarah Hofmann, Esq. I Director of Public Advocacy Department of Public Service 112 State Street -Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Jennifer J. Patterson, Esq. I Office of the New Hampshire Attorney General 33 Capitol Street 3 Concord, NH 03301 Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq.Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP i 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 Matthew Brock, Esq.Assistant Attorney General Office of the Massachusetts Attorney I General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, Room 1813 Boston, MA 02108-1598 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Road Lyme, NH 03768 Mr. Oscar Limpias Vice President, Engineering Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. I 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213 I 1 I TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AUGUST 20, 2007 PARTICIPANTS Jonathan Rowley Kenneth Chang Stephen Hoffman Michael Metell Gary Young Allen Cox David Lach David Mannai Michael Hamer Brian Ford AFFILIATIONS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)NRC NRC Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy)Entergy Entergy Entergy Entergy Entergy Entergy Enclosure 1
OPEN ITEMS VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT AUGUST 20, 2007 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. held a telephone conference call on August 20, 2007, to discuss the regulatory requirements stated in 10 CFR 54.21(c)(1) as it relates to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) license renewal application (LRA).Discussion summary: It is the NRC position that in order to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21 (c)(1), an applicant for license renewal must demonstrate in the LRA that the evaluation of the time-limited aging analyses (TLAA) has been completed.
The NRC does not accept a commitment to complete the evaluation of the TLAA prior to entering the period of extended operation.
Fatigue analyses based on a set of design transients and on the life of the plant are treated as TLAAs. The applicant made a commitment (license renewal. Commitment
#27) to address environmentally assisted fatigue by refining fatigue analyses to include the effects of reactor water environment to verify that the cumulative usage factors are less than 1.0. The NRC could not accept this commitment.
Based on the discussion, the applicant agreed to amend its LRA to demonstrate that the evaluation of the TLAA has beehi completed.
The NRC's review of this TLAA evaluation will be documented in the final VYNPS safety evaluation report.Enclosure 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I}}

Latest revision as of 16:28, 14 January 2025

New England Coalition, Inc., Contentions 4 Prefiled Exhibits NEC-UW_14 - NEC-UW_22, Volume 2
ML081570607
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 04/28/2008
From:
New England Coalition
To: Karlin A, Wendy Reed, Richard Wardwell
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-271-LR, ASLBP 06-849-03-LR, RAS M-39
Download: ML081570607 (378)
v • d • e


Text

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML081570607&oldid=5329948"