Latest revision as of 11:41, 17 March 2019

Text

Relief Request SWOL-REP-1-U2: Submittal of Revised Areva Calculations. Part 1 of 15
	ML14259A226
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	09/15/2014
From:	Allen B S, Riordan T; AREVA, Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14259A323	List: DCL-14-084, Relief Request SWOL-REP-1-U2: Submittal of Revised Areva Calculations. Part 7 of 15; ML14259A226; ML14259A298; ML14259A302; ML14259A307; ML14259A312; ML14259A314;
References
	DCL-14-084 32-9221080-003
	Download: ML14259A226 (59)
	v • d • e

Attachment 1 to the Enclosure contains Proprietary Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 Pacific Gas and Electric Company September 15, 2014 PG&E Letter DCL-14-084 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Docket No. 50-323, OL-DPR-82 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Barry S. Allen Site Vice President 10 CFR 50.55a Relief Request SWOL-REP-1 U2: Submittal of Revised AREVA Calculations

References:

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Mail Code 104/6 P. 0. Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 805.545.4888 Internal:

691.4888 Fax: 805.545.6445

1. PG&E Letter DCL-14-028, "lnservice Inspection Program Relief Request SWOL-REP-1 U2 for Approval of an Alternative to the ASME Code,Section XI, for Preemptive Full Structural Weld Overlays," dated April?, 2014 (ML 14101A245)

2. PG&E Letter DCL-14-051, "Submittal of Supplemental Analysis for lnservice Inspection Program Relief Request SWOL-REP-1 U2," dated June 11, 2014 (ML 14171A237)

3. PG&E Letter DCL-14-068, "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request SWOL-REP-1 U2," dated August 5, 2014 (ML 14217A407)

4. NRC Letter, "Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit No. 2-Request for Additional Information RE: Relief Request SWOL-REP-1 U2, Alternative Acceptance Criteria for Flaws in Pressurizer Nozzle Welds" (TAC No. MF3891), dated July 21, 2014 Dear Commissioners and Staff: In Reference 1, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submitted Relief Request SWOL-REP-1 U2 for approval of an alternative to the ASME Code,Section XI, Repair/Replacement rules as applied to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 pressurizer structural weld overlays.

In Reference 2, PG&E submitted a supplemental analysis that evaluated the reported flaw sizes with additional margin to account for possible flaw sizing variations that are associated with the repeatability of manual ultrasonic examination results. In Reference 3, PG&E submitted responses to NRC Staff's request for additional information (RAI), via letter dated July 21, 2014 (Reference 4). Attachment 1 to the Enc losure contains Proprietary Informat ion When separated from Attachment 1 , th is document is decontro lled. A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance (;illi'lwi'lv

Cnmi'lnr.hP PPi'lk

Dii'lhln Ci'lnvnn

Pi'lln VPrrlP

Wolf CrPPk Attachment 1 to the Enclosure contains Proprietary Information-Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 Document Control Desk PG&E Letter DCL-14-084 September 15, 2014 Page 2 In Reference 3, PG&E committed to submit the revised proprietary and nonproprietary versions of AREVA Calculations that are updated to show data associated with flaw length and certain other parameters as non-proprietary information.

Attachment 1 to the Enclosure contains the revised AREVA calculations which are proprietary to AREVA. Attachment 1 also includes a copy of L TR-RC-14-41, Revision 1, "Identification of Westinghouse Proprietary Information in Selected Pages of AREVA Calculation Summary Sheets" (Proprietary).

These proprietary reports are copied on to a Compact Disk (CD) that is supplied along with this letter. Attachment 2 to the Enclosure contains AREVA calculations that are nonproprietary versions of AREVA calculations from Attachment

1. These nonproprietary reports are copied on to a separate CD that is also supplied along with this letter. Attachment 3 to the Enclosure includes AREVA's affidavit for the calculations included in Attachment

1. The affidavit is signed by AREVA, the owner of the information.

The affidavit sets forth the basis on which the AREVA proprietary information contained in Attachment 1 may be withheld from public disclosure by the Commission, and it addresses with specificity the considerations listed in paragraph (b)(4) of 10 CFR 2.390 of the Commission's regulations.

PG&E requests that the AREVA proprietary information be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. Correspondence with respect to the AREVA affidavit or the AREVA proprietary information provided in Attachment 1 should reference the AREVA Affidavit and be addressed to Gayle F. Elliott, Product Licensing Manager, AREVA NP, 3315 Old Forest Road, Lynchburg, VA 24501. Attachment 4 to the Enclosure includes a copy of CAW-14-4031, the Westinghouse Application for Withholding Proprietary Information from Public Disclosure, CAW-14-4031, accompanying Affidavit, Proprietary Information Notice, and Copyright Notice. The document, L TR-RC-14-41, Revision 1, was prepared and classified as Westinghouse Proprietary Class 2. Westinghouse requests that the document be considered proprietary in its entirety.

As such, a nonproprietary version was not issued. The document, L TR-RC-14-41, contains information proprietary to Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, and it is supported by an affidavit signed by Westinghouse, the owner of the information.

The affidavit sets forth the basis on which the information may be withheld from public disclosure by the Commission and addresses with specificity the considerations listed in paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.390 of the Commission's Regulations.

Attachment 1 to the Enclosure contains Proprietary Information When separated from Attachment 1, this document is decontrolled. A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway

Comanche Peak

Diablo Canyon

Palo Verde

South Texas Project

Wolf Creek Attachment 1 to the Enclosure contains Proprietary Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 Document Control Desk September 15, 2014 Page 3 PG&E Letter DCL-14-084 Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the information which is proprietary to Westinghouse be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR Section 2.390 of the Commission's regulations.

Correspondence with respect to the copyright or proprietary aspects of the items listed above or the supporting Westinghouse affidavit should reference CAW-14-4031 and should be addressed to James A. Gresham, Manager, Regulatory Compliance, Westinghouse Electric Company, 1000 Westinghouse Drive, Building 3, Suite 310, Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania 16066. Attachment 5 to the Enclosure contains data from field measurements associated with Safety Nozzles A, B, and C, and the Spray Nozzle. This letter satisfies the commitment listed in Attachment 1 to the Enclosure of Reference

3. This communication does not contain new or revised regulatory commitments (as defined by NEI 99-04). If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Mr. Tom Baldwin at (805) 545-4720.

Sincerely, /W_ Site Vice President mjrm/4557/50033145 Enclosure cc: Diablo Distribution cc/enc: Marc L. Dapas, NRC Region IV Administrator Thomas R. Hipschman, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Gonzalo L. Perez, Branch Chief, California Department of Public Health Balwant Singal, NRC Senior Project Manager State of California, Pressure Vessel Unit Attachment 1 to the Enclosure contains Proprietary Information When separated from Attachment 1, this document is decontrol led. A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway

Comanche Peak

Diablo Canyon

Palo Verde

Wolf Creek Attachment 1 to the Enc l osure conta i ns Propr i etary Informat iWi thho l d Under 10 CFR 2.390 Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-14-084 Relief Request SWOL-REP-1 U2: Submittal of Revised AREVA Calculations In Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Letter DCL-14-028, "lnservice Inspection Program Relief Request SWOL-REP-1 U2 for Approval of an Alternative to the ASME Code,Section XI, for Preemptive Full Structural Weld Overlays," dated April?, 2014, PG&E submitted a Relief Request SWOL-REP-1 U2 for NRC approval.

In PG&E Letter DCL-14-068, "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Relief Request SWOL-REP-1 U2," dated August 5, 2014, PG&E submitted responses to NRC Staff's request for additional information (RAI), via letter dated July 21, 2014. This letter submits the revised proprietary and nonproprietary versions of AREVA Calculations that are updated to show data associated with flaw length and certain other parameters as nonproprietary information.

Attachment 1 to the Enclosure contains the revised AREVA calculations, which are proprietary to AREVA. Attachment 1 also includes a copy of L TR-RC-14-41, Revision 1, "Identification of Westinghouse Proprietary Information in Selected Pages of AREVA Calculation Summary Sheets" (Proprietary).

These proprietary reports are copied on to a Compact Disk (CD) that is supplied along with this letter. Attachment 2 to the Enclosure contains AREVA calculations that are nonproprietary versions of AREVA calculations from Attachment

1. These nonproprietary reports are copied on to a separate CD that is also supplied along with this letter. The following data associated with flaw length and certain other parameters is shown as nonproprietary information in these calculations:

Size of the laminar flaws and other associated information

Material specification Attachments 3 and 4 to the Enclosure contain affidavits from AREVA and Westinghouse respectively.

Attachment 5 to the Enclosure contains data from field measurements associated with Safety Nozzles A, B, and C and Spray Nozzle, and is nonproprietary.

1 Attachment 1 to the Enclosure contains Proprietary Informat i o n When separated from Attachment 1, this document is decontro ll ed.

Attachment 1 to the Enclosure contains Proprietary Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 ATTACHMENTS Enclosure PG'&E Letter DCL-14-084 Attachment 1: AREVA Calculations (Proprietary) and Westinghouse document (Proprietary)

Attachment 2: AREVA Calculations (Nonproprietary)

Attachment 3: AREVA Affidavit for AREVA Calculations Attachment 4: Westinghouse Letter No. CAW-14-4031:

Application for Withholding Proprietary Information from Public Disclosure Attachment 5: Safety Nozzles A, B, and C and Spray Nozzle: Data from Field Measurements (Nonproprietary) 2 Attachment 1 to the Enclosure contains Proprietary Information When separated from Attachment 1 , this document is decontrolled.

Attachment 1 to the Enclosure contains Proprietary I

Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 Attachment 2 PG&E Letter DCL-14-084 AREV A Calculations

-(Non-Proprietary) (Reports on Compact Disk (CD)) The attached CD contains the following nonproprietary reports: 1. AREVA Calculation No. 32-9221080-003:

Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis -Nonproprietary

2. AREVA Calculation No. 32-9221082-003:

Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Spray Nozzle Laminar Flaw Analysis-Nonproprietary

3. AREVA Calculation No. 32-9219780-002:

Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzle Weld Overlay Structural Analysis -Nonproprietary

4. AREVA Calculation No. 32-9219813-002:

Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzle Weld Overlay Residual Stress Nonproprietary

5. AREVA Calculation No. 32-9219781-002:

Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Spray Nozzle Weld Overlay Structural Nonproprietary

6. AREVA Calculation No. 32-9219792-002:

Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Spray Nozzle Weld Overlay Residual Stress Nonproprietary Attachment 1 to the Enclosure contains Proprietary Information When from Attachment 1, this document is decontrolled.

Contra led Document 402-01-F01 (Rev. 018, 01/31/2014)

A AREVA CALCULATION

SUMMARY

SHEET (CSS) Document No. 32 -9221080 -003 Safety Related:

D No ----------------------------------------

Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Title NonProprietary PURPOSE AND

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS: Purpose: An inservice inspection of Diablo Canyori Power Plant (DCPP) Unit 2 overlaid Pressurizer (PZR) Safety nozzles revealed the existence of indications.

The indications are described in the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Design Input Transmittal (DIT) summarized in Reference

[1]. Previous disposit i on of all reported laminar and planar indications per the rules of the acceptance standards Table IWB-3514-3 of ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2] and Section Ill [3] are documented in References

[4] and [5]. The purpose of this document is to validate that the acceptance standards under IWB-3500 remain valid after any potential crack growth. This document analyzes the indications for the remaining 38 years of plant operation. The indications are all embedded within the body of the weld overlay and nozzle. Therefore, no primary water stress corrosion crack growth would occur. The only mechanism by which indications could grow is fatigue crack growth. In this document crack growth of postulated flaws and evaluation of the final flaw sizes in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2] and Section Ill [3] are performed.

Reference

[6] Section 4.6 , item 3 states that the applicable ASME Code year is 2004 with addenda through 2005. The purpose of Revision 001 is to address NDE flaw size measurement uncertainty.

The purpose of Revision 002 is to remove proprietary markings on material names and size of detected indications.

The purpose of Revision 003 is to update proprietary markings.

Westinghouse proprietary information is contained within blue boxes. Non-Proprietary document for 32-9215965-004 Summary of Results: The final crack sizes for all laminar flaw cases are summarized in Table 7-5. The flaw area evaluation and overlay length evaluation are performed in Table 7-6 and Table 7-7, respectively.

The final flaw size of the planar flaw is shown in Table 7-8 and the flaw evaluation is summarized in Table 7-10. It is concluded that all laminar and planar flaws meet the acceptance criteria of Section XI the ASME Code [2] for the 38 years of plant operation.

Measurements uncertainty is addressed in Appendix C. Tables C-1 through C-3 show the results of evaluation.

Thus, it is concluded that even with uncertainty considerations the laminar indications in all three nozzles will not impact the integrity of the SWOL for 38 years of plant operation.

THE FOLLOWING COMPUTER CODES HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS DOCUMENT:

CODENERSION/REV CODENERSION/REV AREVACGC 5.0 ANSYS 14.0 THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS ASSUMPTIONS THAT SHALL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO USE D YES Page 1 of 60 AREVA Controlled Document 402-01-F01 (Rev. 018, 01/31/2014)

Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Review Method: Design Review (Detailed Check) D Alternate Calculation Signature Block P/R/A Name and Title and (printed or typed) Signature LP/LR Date Tom Riordan Engineer Ill p I JSfi'ZIJio/

Samer H. Mahmoud Principal Engineer R q-i :2 ... \Y Tim M. Wiger A cr/1-0; Engineering Manager Note: PIR/ A designates Pre parer (P), Reviewer (R), Approver (A); LPILR designates Lead Preparer (LP), Lead Reviewer (LR) Pages/Sections Prep a red/Reviewed/

Approved All All All Project Manager Approval of Customer References (N/A if not applicable)

Name Title (printed or typed) (printed or typed) Signature Date N/A N/A N/A N/A Mentoring Information (not required per 0402-01) Name Title Mentor to: (printed or typed) (printed or typed) (P/R) Signature Date N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 2 A AREVA Controlled Document 402-01-F01 (Rev. 018, 01/31/2014)

Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Record of Revision Revision Pages/Sections/Paragrap No. hs Changed Brief Description I Change Authorization 000 All Original Release 001 Page 1 Added purpose and Summary for Rev 002. Appendix A Added Appendix A AppendixB Added Appendix B Appendix C Added Appendix C 002 css Purpose updated Section 4.1 Proprietary marking of figures 4-2 through 4-7 removed Proprietary markings of initial flaw sizes from table 4-1 removed Section 4.2 Proprietary markings of materials name removed from Table 4-2 Throughout Removed proprietary markings of materials name and detected indications size Added Westinghouse proprietary indicators.

Section 9.0, B.5 References Updated 003 Throughout Proprietary markings updated Section 9.0, B.5 References Updated Non-Proprietary document for 32-9215965-004 Page 3 ControUed Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Table of Contents Page SIGNATURE BLOCK ................................................................................................................................

2 RECORD OF REVISION ..........................................................................................................................

3 LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................

...............

....................................

6 LIST OF FIGURES ...............................

...........

.............

............................................................................

7

1.0 INTRODUCTION

...........................................................................................................................

8 2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY

...................................................................................................

8 2.1 Laminar Flaw Analysis ......................................................................

...............................................

9 2.1.1 Laminar Flaw Stress Intensity Factor Solutions

.............

...................................

................ 9 2.1.2 Laminar Flaw Fatigue Crack Growth Calculation

............................................................

10 2.1.3 Laminar Flaw Evaluation

...............

......................

............................

................................

11 2.1.4 Minimum Required Overlay Length Calculations

...................................

............

.............

11 2.2 Planar Flaw Analysis ...........................

..................................................

.........................................

12 2.2.1 Planar Circumferential Flaw ........................

..................................

...................................

12 2.2.2 Flaw Growth Analysis-Planar Flaw .............................................

..........................

......... 14 2.2.3 Planar Flaw Evaluation

.............

.............................

..........................................................

14 2.3 List of Abbreviation and Parameters

...............................

.....................

..........................................

15 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS

..........................................................................................................................

17 3.1 Unverified Assumptions

........................................

..........................................

................................

17 3.2 Justified Assumptions

.....................................................................................................

...............

17 3.3 Modeling Simplifications

..............................................................................................

..............

.... 17 3.4 Engineering Judgment ....................

..................................

..............

...............................................

17 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS ********************************************************************************************

- - - - 18

4.1 Geometry

.............................

........................

...........................

...........

.....................

............

18 4.2 Material .........................

.......................

.................................

...............................

.... 24 4.3 External Loads ........................

........................

............................................................

...............

.... 24 4.4 Operating Stresses ..................

........................

...........

....................................

.............

...................

24 4.5 Operating Temperatures

..............

................................................................

.................................. 29 4.6 Residual Stresses ..........

....................................................

...........................................................

29 4.7 Fatigue Crack Growth Laws .............

..............

...............

...............................................

................

.. 30 4.7.1 Alloy 52 and 52M -FSWOL ................................................

....................

.......................

31 4.7.2 Low-Alloy Steel-Nozzle ..................................................................................................

32 5.0 COMPUTER USAGE ..................

................................................................................................

33 5.1 Software and Hardware .......................................

..........................

.................................................

33 Page4 Controlled Document A AREVA. Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Table of Contents (continued)

Page 5.2 Computer Files ...............................................................................

................

................................

33 6.0 CALCULATIONS

.......................

..................................................................................................

34 6.1 Alloy 52M -FSWOL ............................................................................

........................

..................

34 6.2 Low-Alloy Steel -Nozzle .......................................................

............................................

...........

.. 35 7.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................

...................

...........................

36 7.1 Laminar Flaws ...................

................

.......................

..................

....................................

36 7.1.1 Laminar Flaw Fatigue Crack Growth Analysis ..............

..................

.......................

.......... 36 7.1.2 Laminar Flaw Evaluation

.................

..................................................

..............................

42 7.2 Planar Indications

.............................................................................................

..............

................

44 7.2.1 Nozzle A Circumferential Flaw Fatigue Crack Growth Analysis ......................................

44 7.2.2 Nozzle A Circumferential Final Flaw Evaluation

..............................................................

45 8.0

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS ..........................................................................................................

47

9.0 REFERENCES

.......................................................

.....................................................................

48 APPENDIX A : STRESSES FOR SAFETY NOZZLE WOL FRACTURE MECHANICS ANALYSIS FOR OUTAGE 2R17 .....................................

...............................................................

60 APPENDIX B : WELD RESIDUAL STRESSES FOR SAFETY NOZZLE WOL FRACTURE MECHANICS ANALYSIS FOR OUTAGE 2R17 ...........................................................

56 APPENDIX C: FLAW SIZE UNCERTAINTY CONSIDERATION

.........................................................

68 Page 5 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary List of Tables Page Table 4-1: Dimensions of laminar flaws for SIF Calculation

..................................................................

23 Table 4-2: Table of Materials

.................................................................................................................

24 Table 4-3: PZR Safety Nozzle Sustained Loading Conditions at Safe End [5] ......................................

24 Table 4-4: Operating Transients for PZR Safety/Relief Nozzle [7] ........................................................

25 Table 4-5: Maximum and Minimum Radial and Shear Stresses on Path Cases FLA_wol and FLA_noz ................

......................................................................

...................................................................

26 Table 4-6: Maximum and Minimum Radial and Shear Stresses on Path Cases FLB_wol and FLB_noz .....................

......................................

..............................................................................................

27 Table 4-7: Maximum and Minimum Radial and Shear Stresses on Path Cases FLC2_wol .............

.... 28 Table 4-8: Maximum Temperatures for Path Line Cases ......................................................................

29 Table 4-9: Bounding Radial and Shear Weld Residual Stresses for Laminar Flaws .............................

30 Table 4-10: Through-Wall Axial Residual Stresses along Path Line "A" for Planar Flaw Evaluation

..... 30 Table 5-1: Computer Files .* ....................................................................................................................

33 Table 7-1: Fatigue Crack Growth on Path Case FLA_wol .....................................................................

37 Table 7-2: Fatigue Crack Growth on Path Case FLA_noz .....................................................................

38 Table 7-3: Fatigue Crack Growth on Path Case FLB_wol .....................................................................

39 Table 7-4: Fatigue Crack Growth on Path Case FLC2_wol.

.................................................................

.40 Table 7-5: Summary of Fatigue Crack Growth Laminar Indications ..................................................... .42 Table 7-6: Flaw Area Evaluation

...........

.......................................

.........................................................

.42 Table 7-7: Overlay Length Evaluation

....................................................................................................

43 Table 7-8: Nozzle A Circumferential Flaw Growth-Summary ..............................................................

.44 Table 7-9: Nozzle A Circumferential Flaw Growth-Detailed Analysis ..................................................

44 Table 7-10: Nozzle A Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation

........................................................

.45 Table 7-11: Nozzle A Circumferential Final Flaw Margin Evaluation in Ferritic Nozzle .... ....................

46 Page 6 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary List of Figures Page Figure 2-1: A Through-Wall Crack in the Center of a Plate ..................................................................... 9 Figure 2-2: Planar Projection of PZR Safety Nozzle A Indication

..........................................................

13 Figure 2-3: PZR Safety Nozzle A Idealized Indication

................................

...........................................

13 Figure 4-1: Schematic of Safety/Relief Nozzle with FSWOL Figure 4-2: WIB-369 Overlay Rollout "A" Safety Nozzle (Ref. [1]) ... : .....................................................

19 Figure 4-3: Safety Nozzle "A" WIB-369 Overlay Indication Plot (Ref. [1]) ..............................................

19 Figure 4-4: WIB-423 Overlay Rollout "8" Safety Nozzle (Ref. [1]) .........................................................

20 Figure 4-5: Safety Nozzle "B" WIB-423 Overlay Indication Plot (Ref. [1]) ..............................................

20 Figure 4-6: WIB-359 Overlay Rollout "C" Safety Nozzle (Ref. [1]) .........................................................

21 Figure 4-7: Safety Nozzle "C" WIB-359 Overlay Indication Plot (Ref. [1]) .......................

......................

21 Figure 4-8: PZR Safety Nozzle with Path Lines Superposed

...............................

...........

......................

22 Figure 4-9: Idealization of the Safety Nozzle Laminar Indications

.........................................................

23 Page 7 Contra led Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

1.0 INTRODUCTION

An inservice inspection of Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Unit 2 overlaid Pressurizer (PZR) Safety nozzles revealed the existence of indications.

The indications are described in the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Design Input Transmittal (DIT) documented in Reference

[1]. Previous dispositions of all reported indications per the rules of the acceptance standards Table. IWB-3514-3 and Article NB-3227.2 of ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2] and Section Ill [3] respectively are documented in References

[4] and [5].The purpose of this document is to validate that the acceptance standards under IWB-3500 remain valid after any potential crack growth. Indications observed in the PZR Safety nozzles are primarily laminar, with the exception of an indication located near the shoulder of Nozzle Safety A. This document analyzes the indications for 38 years of remaining plant life. The indications are all embedded within the body of the nozzle and overlay. Therefore, no primary water stress corrosion crack growth mechanism would occur. The only mechanism by which indications could grow is fatigue crack growth. This document provides a description of the indications, postulated flaws, applicable fatigue crack growth laws, fatigue crack growth analysis, and finally the predicted final flaw sizes are evaluated in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2] and Section Ill [3]. The applicable ASME code year for this analysis is 2004 with addenda through 2005 [6]. 2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY This document performs flaw evaluation for dispositioning the non-destructive examination (NDE) found indication in the DCPP PZR Safety nozzles. As described in Reference

[1], all indications were laminar in nature with the exception of the indication found near the shoulder of PZR Safety nozzle A, which had small planar dimension.

This document postulates cylindrical flaws to analyze the laminar *indication.

For the planar extent of the indication located near the PZR Safety nozzle A shoulder, a subsurface circumferential planar flaw was postulated.

For each postulated flaw, the flaw evaluation methodology consists of performing fatigue flaw growth for the specified service life. At the end of life, a flaw evaluation is performed to evaluate the end of life flaw acceptability.

This analysis postulated laminar cylindrical and planar circumferential sub-surface flaws which could propagate by fatigue crack growth through the full structural weld overlay (FSWOL) and/or the Safety nozzle. A linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) analysis was performed to determine the applied stress intensity factors (SIFs) for the laminar and planar flaw indications.

The center-cracked panel (CCP) model was used with the radial and shear stresses to compute stress intensity factors for the laminar flaw indications.

Flaw growth in the axial direction to estimate final flaw width was calculated using the SIF from the CCP model. Circumferential crack growth for estimating the final flaw length was evaluated by extending the flaw length in proportion to the ratio of final flaw width to the initial flaw width. Planar flaws were modelled as 360° circumferential flaws. It should be noted that the prior planar flaw analysis for DCPP Unit 2 PZR nozzles [5] used 38 years of remaining service life. The current analysis was performed using the 38 years of remaining service life as well. The crack growth analysis considered the growth of embedded flaws due to cyclic loadings under the presence of residual stress from the welding processes.

The final flaw sizes were calculated using the same operating transients considered in the original 2007 flaw growth analysis [7]. The predicted final flaw sizes were evaluated in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI Table IWB-3514-3

[2] for laminar flaws. For planar flaws, the predicted final flaw sizes were evaluated Page 8 Contra led Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI IWB-3612 and IWB-3640 [2]. Section Ill article NB-3227.2

[3], was used to verify that the weld overlay length excluding the indications is sufficient to transfer the load through shear back to the base metal considering a 100% through wall crack in the PWSCC susceptible material.

The initial structural overlay analysis was performed in 2007 per ASME Section Ill Subsection NB Code with 2001 through 2003 Addenda. During relief request of 2013, the shear stress check for the laminar flaw analysis was performed per ASME Section Ill Subsection NB Code with 2004 and 2005 Addenda. The review was performed for both Code years and it was determined the criteria for pure shear stress evaluation per NB-3227.2 are the same. Hence, it is concluded that both the Codes are applicable to the current analyses and no additional reconciliation is required.

The following subsections describe the analytical methodology used in analyzing both the laminar and the planar indications.

Also, a list of the abbreviations and parameters used thought the document is provided.

2.1 Laminar

Flaw Analysis This section outlines the analytical methodology used to analyze the laminar indications.

The laminar flaw analytical procedure include, the models used to calculate the stress intensity factors (SIF) for laminar flaws, laminar flaw crack growth calculation procedure, laminar flaw evaluation, and FSWOL minimum length requirement evaluation.

2.1.1 Laminar

Flaw Stress Intensity Factor Solutions To calculate the stress intensity factor for the laminar flaw, the closed-form SIF solutions from page 40 of Reference

[8] for CCP model were used. The Mode I and Mode II configurations are illustrated in Figure 2-1. t t t t t ---t---1 I h (Mode I) (Mode II) Figure 2-1: A Through-Wall Crack in the Center of a Plate Page 9 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary For Mode I configuration, the K 1 solution is listed below: K 1 = aJ!m

F{rz;) F{rz;)= [1-0.02s{rz;J

+ Where, a = uniform tensile stress 2a = crack width 2b = plate width For Mode II configuration, the K 11 solution is identical to that in Mode I except using T (uniform shear stress) instead of a (uniform tensile stress). It should be noted that some geometry idealization was made to use the CCP model SIF solution to analyze the Safety Nozzle laminar indications.

The functions F(a/b) is a geometry correction factor in which the b parameter accounts for the free surface effects. For an a/b value of 0, F(0)=1 and for an a/b value of 1, the geometry correction factor F(a/b) asymptotically approaches a very large value. For an a/b value of 99.9%, F(0.999) = 26.1. The selection of the b parameter should be based on the location of the closest free boundary to the analyzed flaw. Considering the. Safety nozzle geometry, the b parameter can be quite large. 2.1.2 Laminar Flaw Fatigue Crack Growth Calculation The steps to perform fatigue crack growth calculation for laminar flaws are presented below. Note that the analysis assumed 360° laminar flaw, which is very conservative.

Since the full circumference was assumed cracked; this section evaluated fatigue crack growth in the axial direction only. 1. For the first transient, Calculate the mode I maximum and minimum stress intensity factors (KJmax and Klmin) based on the maximum radial stress ax_max and minimum radial stress ax_min in the first transient, respectively.

Crack length 2a (crack width) and 2b (plate width) are also required to calculate the SIF. 2. Calculate the stress intensity factor range due the radial stress (L1K1 = K1max-K1min ). 3. Calculate the mode II maximum and minimum stress intensity factors (K 11 max and Kllmin) based on the maximum shear stress 'Lmax and minimum shear stress 'Lmin in the first transient, respectively.

Crack width (2a) and plate width (2b) are also required to calculate the SIF. 4. Calculate the stress intensity factor range due the shear stress (L1K 11 = K 11 max-K 11 min). 5. Combine the stress intensity factor ranges from steps 2 and 4 to calculate the effective stress intensity factor range (i1K) to be used in the crack growth analysis as L1K = [(i1K 1)2 +(i1K 11)2 f 5. 6. To account for mean stress effect, calculate an effective R ratio as R = 1 -L1K I Kmax using Kmax = [(K 1 max)2 + (KJJmax)2 f 5* and L1K = [(L1K1)2 +(L1K11)2 f 5. The R ratio is used in the crack growth equations to account for mean stress effect as described in Section 4.7. Page 10

\ Contro ll ed Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

7. Calculate crack growth increment (2L1a) based on L1K, R, and number of cycles per year for the specific transient.

Metal temperature is also required to determine the parameters in the crack growth rate equation.

8. Update crack length to find the crack length at the end of the transient (2af = 2ai + 2L1a), where 2af is the crack length at the end of the transient, 2ai is the crack length at the beginning of the transient, and 2L1a is the crack growth increment during the transient as calculated in Step 7. 9. Repeat steps 1 through 8 for transients 2 through 10 with the crack length at the end of transient 1 is used as the starting crack length for transient 2, the crack length at the end of transient 2 is used as the starting crack length for transient 3 and so on. The crack length at the end of the last transient is also the crack length at the end of one year. 10. Repeat steps 1 through 9 to find crack length at the end of subsequent years with the crack length at the end of the first year is used as the starting crack length for the second year, the crack length at the end of the second year is used as the starting crack length for the third year and so on. The process is repeated for the subsequent years for the 38 year design life. 2.1.3 Laminar Flaw Evaluation Disposition of all reported laminar indications per the rules of the acceptance standards in Table IWB-3514-3 of ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2] are reported in Reference

[4]. The same evaluation procedure was used in this document with final crack lerigth now updated with calculated crack growth for 38 years of plant operation.

For indication area evaluation, the acceptance criterion is in Table IWB-3514-3 [2], which requires that A= 0.75(wxl)::;;

7.5 in 2 where A is the flaw area, wand I are flaw width and length. 2.1.4 Minimum Required Overlay Length Calculations For overlay length evaluation, the length of the weld overlay is acceptable provided that the effective overlay length Uett) is greater than the required overlay length Ureq). The required overlay length (lreq) is the length of the weld overlay that is sufficient to transfer the load through shear back to the base metal. Conservatively a 100% through wall crack is considered in the PWSCC (primary water stress corrosion cracking) susceptible material.

The formulation in this section provides the procedure used for evaluating the minimum overlay length requirement.

The cross-sectional area (Anet) and section modulus (Znet) of the net section are calculated considering a 100% through wall crack in the PWSCC susceptible material as -D 4) z = 2 X ]net = _ ___;6:..._4:....__

____ _ net (D + 2f) (D + 2t) where D is the 00 of the nozzle base metal, and tis the minimum weld overlay thickness.

Page 11 ControUed Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary The extreme fiber tensile stress is calculated based on the net section properties with faulted moment (M) and axial load (F). M F (5n e t =--+-Zn e t An e t Conservatively consider the maximum allowable shear stress for the faulted case to be 0.6Sm (see NB-3227.2, Reference

[5]) although the faulted allowable shear stress is higher. A force balance on the FSWOL with the maximum shear stress at the interface gives Solving for the required minimum overlay length, lreq, gives / = (5n e t Xf re q 0.6Sm The effective length, lett, of the weld overlay is / e.ff = /wo l -/fla w where fwol is the length of the weld overlay based on the design drawings for minimum thickness conditions and !flaw is the axial dimension of the laminar flaw. Thus the length of the weld overlay is acceptable provided that lett is greater than lreq* It is noted that the initial structural overlay analysis was performed in 2007 per ASME Section Ill Subsection NB Code with 2001 and 2003 Addenda. During relief request of 2013, the shear stress check for the laminar flaw analysis was performed per ASME Section Ill Subsection NB Code with 2004 and 2005 Addenda. Both Code years were reviewed and it was determined that the criteria for pure shear stress evaluation per NB-3227.2 are the same. Hence, it is concluded that both Codes are applicable to the current analyses and no additional reconciliation is required.

2.2 Planar

Flaw Analysis This section outlines the analytical methodology used to analyze the planar indications.

The planar flaw analytical procedure include, the models used to calculate the stress intensity factors (SIF) for planar flaws, planar flaw crack growth calculation procedure, and planar flaw evaluation.

2.2.1 Planar

Circumferential Flaw The planar projection of the PZR safety nozzle A indications is shown in Figure 2-2. The corresponding idealized flaw shape for fracture mechanics evaluation is shown in Figure 2-3. The flaw was assumed to be full 360° circumferential flaw that is embedded entirely in the FSWOL with one flaw tip located at the interface of the nozzle and the FSWOL and the other flaw tip extending 0.08 inch into the FSWOL. Page 12 Contro i!ed Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Indication Nozzle Figure 2-2: Planar Projection of PZR Safety Nozzle A Indication Subsurface 360° 2a FSWOL Nozzle Figure 2-3: PZR Safety Nozzle A Idealized Indication Page 13 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary 2.2.2 Flaw Growth Analysis -Planar Flaw AREVACGC [9] was used to perform fatigue crack growth for the postulated planar flaw near the shoulder of PZR Safety Nozzle A. AREVACGC [9] uses the weight function method for calculating the stress intensity factor (SIF), which is documented in Reference

[1 0]. AREVACGC computes the SIF internally and perform the fatigue crack growth calculations to estimate the final flaw size at the end of the service life. Necessary inputs to AREVACGC include nozzle geometry, flaw shape, size, orientation, applied stress, transient cycles, and temperature.

The fatigue crack growth rates for the materials of interest (Low Alloy Steel nozzle and Alloy 52 FSWOL), implemented in AREVACGC, can be activated by choosing appropriate input flags. The Low Alloy Steel fatigue crack growth rates are obtained from A-4300 of Reference

[2] and the Alloy 52/52M fatigue crack growth rates are obtained from Reference

[15]. For the postulated subsurface circumferential planar flaw, the applied stress intensity factor is driven by the axial stresses.

The relevant sources of axial stress for fatigue crack growth analyses of the postulated circumferential (planar) flaw are attributed to the occasional stresses from the operating transients, and sustained stresses due to weld residuals and pipe loads (Deadweight and Thermal Expansion).

The operating transient stresses are due to through-wall thermal gradients and pressure fluctuations during the transients.

For startup/shutdown (HUCD), the thermal expansion pipe loads are applied cyclically to account for the change in thermal expansion load between cold shutdown and operating conditions.

Flaw growth is calculated in one-year increments.

As stated earlier a service life of 38 years was used in the current analysis.

The highest metal temperature during a transient was used to determine the fatigue crack growth rates. 2.2.3 Planar Flaw Evaluation Because the planar flaw is located on the interface of the weld overlay and the nozzle with one crack tip located in the overlay and the other crack tip is near the overlay/nozzle interface, the predicted final flaw size was evaluated in accordance with the rules of ASME B&PV Code Section XI IWB-3612 and IWB-3640 [2]. Per the ASME B&PV Code Section XI IWB-3612 evaluation procedure, a flaw is acceptable if the applied stress intensity factor and the flaw size satisfy the following conditions (a) For Normal and Upset conditions (Service Levels A and B) (b) For Emergency and Faulted conditions (Service Levels C and D) Where Page 14 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary K 1 =the maximum applied stress intensity factor K 1 a = the available fracture toughness based on crack arrest for the corresponding crack tip temperature K 1 c = the available fracture toughness based on crack initiation for the corresponding crack tip temperature The analytical procedure for evaluating the rules of IWB-3640 is outlined in Appendix C of ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2]. The appropriate evaluation procedure for the postulated subsurface circumferential planar flaw is given in article C-5000 [2], which deals with ductile materials where the failure mode is that of plastic collapse at limit load. Per Reference

[2] the limiting load combinations for primary bending stress (crb) for the ASME B&PV Code Section XI Service Level conditions are as follows: ow OW+ OBE Service Level A (Normal) -Service Level 8 Service Level C (Emergency)

-Service Level D (Faulted)-

No Transient or Load specified for this condition OW+ DOE + HOSGRI (conservatively summed) 2.3 List of Abbreviation and Parameters This section defines the various abbreviations and parameters used throughout the document.

Abbreviations DCPP Diablo Canyon Power Plant PZR Pressurizer OfT Design Input Transmittal PWSCC Primary Water Stress Corrosion Crack NDE Non-Destructive Examination FSWOL Full Structural Weld Overlay LEFM Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics CCP Center-Cracked Panel Model SIF Stress intensity factor DE Design Earthquake DOE Double Design Earthquake OBE Operation Basis Earthquake Parameters for crack growth analysis 2a Flaw width (in the axial direction) used in the CCP model SIF calculations 2b Plate width parameter used in the CCP model SIF calculations K 1 Mode I stress intensity factor K 11 Mode II stress intensity factor L1K 1 = K 1 max -Ktmin Mode I stress intensity factor range L1K 11 = Kumax -Kumin Mode II stress intensity factor range L1K = [(L1Kt/ +(L1K 11/f'5 Mixed mode stress intensity factor range Kmax=f(K 1 max/ +(K 11 max/f'5 Mixed mode maximum stress intensity factor R = 1-L1K I Kmax Mixed mode R ratio Oop max Maximum operating radial stress Oop min Minimum operating radial stress rop max Maximum operating shear stress Top min Minimum operating shear stress (in) (in) (ksi"in I MPa"m) (ksi"in I MPa"m) (ksi"in I MPa"m) (ksi"in I MPa"m) (ksi"in I MPa"m) (ksi"in I MPa"m) (psi) (psi)

(psi) (psi) Page 15 ControUed Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary ax max Maximum radial stress ax min Minimum radial stress ars Residual radial stress Trs Residual shear stress amax Maximum radial stress amin Minimum radial stress Tmax Maximum shear stress Tmin Minimum shear stress 2ai Initial flaw width 2at Final flaw width 2Lla Flaw growth increment LlN Number of cycles per year for a given transient in one direction Parameters used in indication area evaluation A Laminar indication area w Flaw width used in the indication area evaluation I Flaw length used in the indication area evaluation Parameters for crack growth rate equations daldN Crack growth rate n Crack growth equation exponent T Temperature CA6oo, C, Co, S, SR Coefficients in the crack growth equations R R ratio Parameters for required overlay length evaluation A net Cross-sectional area of the weld overlay Znet Section modulus of the weld overlay 0' Tensile stress is calculated based on the net section properties net with faulted moment lreq Required overlay length to transfer the load through shear back to the base metal lett Effective length of the weld overlay lwol Length of the weld overlay based on the design drawing !flaw Axial dimension of the laminar flaw used in required overlay length assessment 00 Outer diameter 0 Diameter (same as outer diameter) t Thickness (weld overlay) F Axialload M Bending Moment (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (in) (in) (in) (cycle/year) (in 2) (in) (in) (in/cycle) (in 2) (in 3) (psi) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (lbf) (in-lbf) Page 16 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS

This section discusses the assumptions and modeling simplifications used in this evaluation of Diablo Canyon Unit 2 PZR Safety Nozzles indications.

3.1

Unverified Assumptions There are no assumptions that must be verified before the present analysis can be used to support the disposition of the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 PZR Safety Nozzles indications.

3.2 Justified

Assumptions

1. For the case where the R ratio < 0 (or similarly Kmin < 0), the R ratio is set equal to zero and the full range of is used in the crack growth calculations.

This is a conservative assumption since crack closure due to compressive stress field is ignored. 2. The analysis assumed 360° laminar and planar flaws for fatigue crack growth calculations, which are conservative assumptions.

3. For laminar flaws, fatigue crack growth was performed in the axial (width) direction.

Final circumferential flaw length was estimated by extending the initial flaw length proportional to the ratio of the final flaw width to initial flaw width. This is a conservative assumption since flaw growth in the circumferential (length) direction is expected to be less than the flaw growth in the axial (width) direction.

3.3 Modeling

Simplifications

1. Multiple laminar flaws in Reference

[1] are combined into larger, bounding flaws and extended to include a complete 360° arc length for crack growth calculations.

Conservatively, CCP model is used to represent the 360° laminar flaws. 2. For laminar flaw evaluation, the mode I and mode II were combined using the Square Root of Sum of Squares (SRSS) of the respective stress intensity factors. This results in a more conservative crack growth estimation than that obtained by the linear summation of the individual crack growth increments due to mode I and mode II when the crack growth law exponent is equal to or greater than 2 (i.e. for crack growth law proportional to when n is equal to or greater than 2, combining mode I and Mode II using the SRSS method results in a conservative estimation of the crack growth increment).

3. The 2b parameter for analyzing the laminar indications was defined as either the distance between the point where the overlay meets the nozzle and the butter or distance to the nearest free surface. 3.4 Engineering Judgment Contribution of the external loads to the fatigue crack growth of the laminar flaws analyzed in the current document was assumed to be negligible.

This is an engineering judgment since the sustained external loads will have minimal contributions to the cyclical radial and shear stress components.

Page 17 Contro!led Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221 080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

4.0 DESIGN

INPUTS 4.1 Geometry Figure 4-1 shows a schematic view of the PZR Safety nozzle with FSWOL (taken from Reference

[12]). The different parts/subcomponents of the PZR Safety nozzle are labeled in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1: Schematic of Safety/Relief Nozzle with FSWOL Page 18 Contro ii ed Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary The indications detected in the PZR Safety nozzle A are shown on Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 with additional information provided in the Indication Data Sheets "Safety Nozzle WIB-369 OL" in Reference

[1]. Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5 show indications detected in Nozzle B with further information in "Safety Nozzle "B" WIB-423 OL. The indications detected in Nozzle C are shown in Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7, the corresponding additional are given in "Safety Nozzle "C" WIB-359 OL" (Reference

[1]). Detailed dimensions of the safety nozzles are in Reference

[11]. SA-508 S a fety No zz le" A" 316 SS Safe-en d Alloy 52 Weld Ov er lay l SI E x am Volume Cod e C o verage B o x 1 6.3" (18.75"),. Alloy 82/182 Weld I *--*---------*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*r I I I I ( 308SS We ld 3 16 SS Pip i ng Figure 4-2: WIB-369 Overlay Rollout "A" Safety Nozzle (Ref. [1]) Pressurizer 1.61" Indicat i on 34° beam angles I nd. 1a Ind. 1 SA-5 08 Safety Nozzle "A" Alloy 82/182 ;* Buttering Alloy 82/182 Weld 316 SS Piping 308 SSWeld 316 SS Safe-end Figure 4-3: Safety Nozzle "A" WIB-369 Overlay Indication Plot (Ref. [1]) Page 19 Cant oiled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary SA-508 Safety Nozzle B" Alloy 82/182 Butt eri ng I n dication #3 . __ 5.5 __ * (4.7" co rr ected)

1.625'1 -*1".: :-1.7 5"-. Figure 4-4: WIB-423 Overlay Rollout "B" Safety Nozzle (Ref. [1]) 1-------2"----1 I " A" Datum SA-508 Safety Nozzle "B" Indication 15° beam angle 1.64" Alloy 82/182 } Butter i ng Alloy 82/182 Weld 316 SS P i ping 308 ss Weld 316 SS Safe-end lSI Examination Volume Code Coverage Box Flow-> Figure 4-5: Safety Nozzle "B" WIB-423 Overlay Indication Plot (Ref. [1]) Page 20 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary SA-508 S a f e ty N o zz l e" C" Ind i ca t io n #3 6.5"--l?b' 4.5" "A" D atum ',,, 0.25" __ -----------

--\--.--.--.--. --. --.--. --. --. --I--. --. --, -* -. --. --.--.--.-71_-Al l oy 82/182

'/fffff/ff/:

(./_.{//;:/# .f/f/Jf?f/./#/f!'/#; Bu tteri ng 3 16SSS af e E nd -. \-----. --. --. --. -. --. --. -l -. --. --. --. --' --. --. --. -/* ' -308 ss Vl!eld \ I I I I Alloy 52 VIJe ld Ov er lay ' / l S I Exam Vol u me Code Coverage Box I nd ica tio n #4 316 SS Pip i ng Figure 4-6: WIB-359 Overlay Rollout "C" Safety Nozzle (Ref. [1]) >--------5.50" <---Pressurizer SA-508 Safety Nozzle "C" Distance along weld from ID to intersection with lSI volume 316 SS Safe-end 316 SS P i ping Postulated axial flaw occluded area Flow-Figure 4-7: Safety Nozzle "C" WIB-359 Overlay Indication Plot (Ref. [1]) Page 21 ControUed Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary To enable conservative 20 axisymmetric analysis of laminar flaws, the circumferential content of the laminar flaws are combined and extended to include a complete 360° arc length. The longitudinal (axial) content of the laminar flaws are combined according to the ASME Code Section XI proximity rules. Therefore, it is determined in Reference

[12] that the indications in Safety Nozzle B are combined as one bounding flaw along FLB, as shown in Figure 4-8. Indication

3 in Nozzle C is covered by the bounding flaw analysis along FLA of indications

1/1A of Nozzle A. Since the indications in Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-5 are located at the interfaces of two different materials, two cases for each indication were analyzed.

In one case, flaw growth rates of the Alloy 52/52M (WOL) were used and in the other case flaw growth rates of Low Alloy Steel (Nozzle) were used. Reference

[12] defines path line cases, FLA_wol and FLA_noz, whose locations are identical to FLA, the stresses for FLA_wol were extracted by selecting WOL material only and the stresses for FLA_noz were extracted by selecting nozzle material only. All path lines are shown in Figure 4-8. For path line FLB the path line cases FLB_wol and FLB_noz are defined by selecting WOL material and nozzle material, respectively as shown in Figure 4-8. Since the laminar indication

4 in Nozzle C is entirely within the WOL, only FLC2_wol is required for the analysis.

Thus fatigue crack growths for these five laminar flaw cases were analyzed.

Planar indications were only detected in Nozzle A and hence only path line FLA_pln is used in the analysis.

The path lines shown in parentheses in Figure 4-8 are for information only and are not considered in the analysis.

Figure 4-8: PZR Safety Nozzle with Path Lines Superposed For the 'five laminar path line cases analyzed in this document, the crack dimensions required for calculating the SIF are listed in Table 4-1. Page 22 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Table 4-1: Dimensions of laminar flaws for SIF Calculation Path Line Case 2a <1) (inch) 2b (inch) FLA_wol 0.40 [ ] FLA_noz 0.40 [ ] FLB_wol 0.25 [ ] FLB_noz 0.25 [ ] FLC2_wol 0.25 [ ] .tiJ. Note . Flaw md1cat1on lengths are obtamed from Reference

[1]. (Z>: From Reference

[4] * (3>: From Reference

[1] and [11] O'radlal 't.JJJJJ Notes: 1) For laminar indications represented by Flaw FLA (indications

-#1 , #1A in Nozzle A, Indication

3 in Nozzle C) and FLB (Indication

1, #2 and #3 in Nozzle B) the 2b parameter was defined as the distance between the point where the overlay meets the nozzle on one end and the butter on the other end. This distance is estimated as 1.31". 2) For laminar indication represented by Flaw FLC2 (indication

4 in Nozzle C) the 2b parameter was derived from design drawing minimum overlay conditions Reference

[11] [ ] Figure 4-9: Idealization of the Safety Nozzle Laminar Indications Figure 4-9 shows idealization of the CCP Model to be used for the Safety nozzle laminar indications.

The parameter 2b for FLA is shown for demonstration.

The flaw dimensions and the 2b dimensions used for the laminar flaw SIF calculations are listed in Table 4-1. Page 23

-ControUed Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

4.2 Material

Reference

[12] provides the material designations of various safety nozzle components.

The materials related to the laminar flaw path line cases investigated in this document are listed in Table 4-2 . . Table 4-2: Table of Materials Location Material Path Line Case Safety Nozzle SA-508, Class 2 FLA_noz, FLB_noz Weld Overlay Alloy 52M FLA_wol, FLB_wol & FLC2_wol 4.3 External Loads For the PZR Safety Nozzle, the external piping loads applied at the safe end (Table 4-3) can be . transferred to the nozzle by the moment arm of 4.09" [11 ]. Table 4-3: PZR Safety Nozzle Sustained Loading Conditions at Safe End [5] 4.4 Operating Stresses The final flaw sizes are calculated using the same operating transients considered in the original 2007 flaw growth analysis [7]. Per Reference

[13], the number of RCS design transients is established for 60 years of design life. The operating transients applicable to laminar flaw growth are listed in Table 4-4. Page 24 --

Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Table 4-4: Operating Transients for PZR Safety/Relief Nozzle [7] Transient Designation Transient Name Design Number Cycles 1 HUCD(1) Heatup and Cool down at 1 00°F I hr 250 2 LOLl 1 0% Step Load Decrease 2,500 10% Step Load Increase 3 LLD Large Step Load Decrease 250 4 LOL Loss of Load . 100 5 LOP Loss of Power 50 6 LOF Loss of Flow 100 7 RT Reactor Trip 500 8 TRT Turbine Roll Test 10 9 lAS A Inadvertent Auxiliary Spray Actuation 12 10 svo(2) Safety Valve Opening 50 11 SEISMIC(3) Seismic Loading (DE-also known as OBE) 400 <1> Leak Test is included in HUGO Transient.

<2> The Safety Valve Opening transient is conservatively used to also cover the Relief Valve Opening Transient.

<3> An additional transient event due to seismic (OBE) loads is also included for the circumferential flaw analysis. (Note that seismic loading is not expected to contribute to the radial and shear stress components, which constitute the crack driving force for laminar flaw. Thus seismic loading is not considered for fatigue crack growth of laminar flaws) The seismic stress conditions are taken to be the stresses of the steady state condition plus I minus the stresses due to OBE loads shown in Table 4-3. The cyclic operating stresses that are needed to calculate fatigue crack growth were obtained from a thermo elastic three-dimensional finite element analysis [12]. These fatigue stresses were developed for each of the transients at a number of time points to capture the maximum and minimum stresses due to fluctuations in pressure and temperature.

The stresses that are required for crack growth analysis for the flaws are documented in Appendix C of Reference

[12]. Radial stresses contributing to Mode I crack growth are from files "SX". Shear stresses contributing to Mode II crack growth are from files "Sh". Since the SIF solutions in Section 2.1.1 are based on uniform stress, the stress data from Appendix C of Reference

[12] were sorted to obtain maximum and minimum stresses along the path. These maximum and minimum stresses are conservatively used as the stress values for SIF calculation.

In addition, the stress data were further sorted based on time points in each transient.

The maximum and minimum radial and shear stresses for all time points in each transient for the path line cases investigated are tabulated in Table 4-5 through Table 4-6. Page 25 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Table 4-5: Maximum and Minimum Radial and Shear Stresses on Path Cases FLA_wol and FLA_noz Path Case FLA_ wol Path Case FLA_noz Transient Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Radial Stress Radial Stress Shear Stress Shear Stress Radial Stress Radial Stress Shear Stress Shear Stress Omin (ksi) Omax (ksi) tmin (ksi) (ksi) Omin (ksi) Omax (ksi) tmin (ksi) (ksi) Stresses are due to transient thermal and pressure loads. No residual stress is present in these stresses.

These stresses are the minimum and maximum stresses along each pathline for all time points within each transient Page 26 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Table 4-6: Maximum and Minimum Radial and Shear Stresses on Path Cases FLB_wol and FLB_noz Path Case FLB_wol Path Case FLB_noz Transient Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum. Maximum Radial Stress Radial Stress Shear Stress Shear Stress Radial Stress Radial Stress Shear Stress Shear Stress O"min {ksi) O"max {ksi) Tmin {ksi) Tmax {ksi) O"min {ksi) O"max {ksi) "tmin {ksi) Tmax {ksi) ----Stresses are due to transient thermal and pressure loads. No residual stress is present in these stresses.

These stresses are the minimum and maximum stresses along each pathline for all time points within each transient

Page 27 A AREVA ControUed Document Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Table 4-7: Maximum and Minimum Radial and Shear Stresses on Path Cases FLC2_wol Path Case FLC2_wol Transient Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum I Radial Stress Radial Stress Shear Stress Shear Stress . Gmin (ksi) Gmax (ksi) Tmin (ksi) Tmax (ksi) I Stresses are due to transient thermal and pressure loads. No residual stress is present in these stresses.

These stresses are the minimum and maximum stresses along each pathline for all time points within each transient Page 28 Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

4.5 Operating

Temperatures Metal temperature data are required for crack growth calculations.

Metal temperatures along path lines were extracted in Appendix C of Reference

[12] with file names "TH". The path line temperature data are sorted in the current calculation to determine the maximum temperature along the path from all time points in each transient.

The maximum temperatures are used in the fatigue crack growth calculations, which results in a conservative estimate of fatigue crack growth. The maximum temperatures at all path cases during transients are tabulated in Table 4-8. Table 4-8: Maximum Temperatures for Path Line Cases Temperatures for Path Line Cases (°F) Transient FLA_wol/ FLB_wol/ . FLC2_wol FLA_noz FLB_noz These temperatures are the maximum temperature along each pathline for a given transient duration.

4.6 Residual

Stresses Residual stresses are analyzed in Reference

[14]. The residual stresses at the flaws analyzed in this document are documented in Appendix C of Reference

[14]. The maximum values from the bounding cases of radial and shear stresses are tabulated in Table 4-9 and are used for laminar flaw analysis.

The axial stresses are tabulated in Table 4-10 and are used for planar circumferential flaw analysis Residual stresses were combined with operating stresses for SIF calculations

.. Page 29

Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Table 4-9: Bounding Radial and Shear Weld Residual Stresses for Laminar Flaws f Location I Radial Stress (ksi) Shear Stress (ksi) Table 4-10: Through-Wall Axial Residual Stresses along Path Line "A" for Planar Flaw Evaluation Along Path line FLA_pln Distance Along AxiaiWRS Path Line from (psi) the ID (in.) 4.7 Fatigue Crack Growth Laws Fatigue crack growth models for materials in Table 4-2 are described in the subsections below. Since the flaws in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 do not come in contact with the reactor coolant, crack growth formulae that are applicable in the presence of air environment are used. Page 30 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

4.7.1 Alloy

52 and 52M -FSWOL The fatigue crack growth model for Alloy 52 and 52M is obtained from Reference

[9], which uses a multiplier of 2 upon those of Alloy 600. The crack growth rate (CGR) equation for Alloy 600 is given in NUREG/CR-6721

[15]. The CGR equation for Alloy 52 and 52M is expressed as, dN A52/52M dN A600 Substituting the Alloy 600 crack growth equation, ( da J = 2. C A600S R (My dN A52/52M Where LlK is the stress intensity factor range in terms of MPa"m and da/dN is the crack growth rate in the units of meter/cycle.

The other parameters are defined as, c A 6 oo = 4.835xl0-14 +1.622xl0-16 T -1.490xl0-18 T 2 +4.355xl0-21 T 3 M = Kmax -Kmm R = Kmin Kmax SR =(l-0.82Rt 2" 2 n=4.1 T =metal temperature in oc For the combined mode loading due to the opening mode (mode I) and sliding mode (mode II) the parameter L1K was estimated as with L1K 1 and L1K 11 defined as. L1K, = Klmax -Klmin L1K11 = Kllmax -Kllmin Where K1max and K,min are the maximum and minimum mode I stress intensity factors, and K11max and K 11 min are the maximum and minimum mode II stress intensity factors. a conservative estimation of the R ratio is given by R = 1 -L1K /Kmax where Kmax is estimated as Kmax = (Kima/ + Kllma/)0*5 For the case where the R < 0 (or similarly Kmin < 0), R is set equal to zero and the full range ofl1K is used in the crack growth calculations.

This is a conservative assumption since* crack closure due to compressive stress field is ignored. Page 31 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

4. 7.2 Low-Alloy Steel -Nozzle The fatigue crack growth model for low-alloy steel is obtained from Reference

[2] Article A-4300. The CGR equation for low-alloy steel is expressed as, (da) =C 0 (MY dN LAS Where ilK is the stress intensity factor range in terms of ksi"in and da/dN is the crack growth rate in the units of inch/cycle.

The other parameters are defined as, R = K mm K m a x { 5.0 for R < 0 M 111 = 5.0(1-0.8R ) for 0:::; R < 1.0 For 0:::; R :::; 1 ,{s = Rt M -K max Kmm { S=1 For R ratio < 0' --M-K max K mm {0 forM < AKth Co = 1.99 X 1 o-lD s for 11K 2 11Kth n = 3.07 For the combined mode loading due to the opening mode (mode I) and sliding mode (mode II) the parameter AK was estimated as with AK1 and AK11 defined as. AK1 = Klmax-Klm i n AK11 = K11max-Kllm i n Where K 1 max and K 1 m i n are the maximum and minimum mode I stress intensity factors, and K11ma x and K 11 min are the maximum and minimum mode II stress intensity factors. a conservative estimation of the R ratio is given by R = 1 -AK /Kmax where Kmax is estimated as Page 32 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Note that for the case where the R < 0 (or similarly Kmin < 0), it is assumed that S = 1 and = Kmin* This is a conservative assumption since crack closure due to compressive stress field is ignored. 5.0 COMPUTER USAGE 5.1 Software and Hardware Mathcad [16] and Excel spreadsheets are used in this calculation.

The hardware platform (Service Tag# 5VKW5S1) is Intel CoreŽ i7-2640M CPU 2.80 GHz, 8.00 GB RAM. The operating system is Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise, Copyright© 2009, Service Pack 1. 5.2 Computer Files All computer files are listed in this section. All files are available in AREVA NP Inc. ColdStor storage \ \cold\Generai-Access\32\32-9000000\32-9215965-00 1 \official.

Table 5-1: Computer Files Name Size Date/Time Modified CRC CircFlaw NozzleA.xlsm 2234552 Mar 09 2014 00:55:21 28298 CircFlaw NozzleA K.xlsm 2494168 Mar 09 2014 01:05:53 48888 --CircFlaw NozzleA K faulted.xlsm 2494106 Mar 09 2014 01:32:43 26776 LaminarFlaws.xlsx 293044 Mar 06 2014 09:53:04 29698 LaminarFlawsA.xlsx 293140 Mar 06 2014 09:52:09 51342 Laminar Flaws.xmcd 861321 Mar 06 2014 10:44:32 39188 Laminar Flaws A.xmcd 920752 Mar 07 2014 14:09:08 55788 TestCase1.xlsm 200609 Jan 12 2014 23:30:43 01918 TestCase2.xlsm 206399 Jan 12 2014 23:31:07 64988 Page 33 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

6.0 CALCULATIONS

The fatigue crack growth analysis methods outlined in Section 2.1.2 were used to calculate the final crack sizes for all cracks at the end of 38 years. A total of four cases (along two path lines) were analyzed in this document.

All calculations are performed using Mathcad and Excel spreadsheet, as listed in Table 5-1. This section contains sample calculations illustrating the fatigue crack growth analysis for each of the two materials considered in the current document (Alloy 52M and Low Alloy Steel). In each sample calculation, detailed calculations are shown to illustrate fatigue crack growth increment for one transient.

The manual calculations were repeated for all transients (not shown in the document) to assure that the manual calculations confirms the results for the first year as reported in Section 7.0 6.1 Alloy 52M -FSWOL Path line cases FLA_wol, FLB_wol and FLC2_wol are located at Alloy 52M material.

Using FLA_wol as an example, for transient

1 at the beginning of the first year, Given Gop min = [ l ksi (Table 4-5) Gop max = [ l ksi (Table 4-5) . t Top_mln = [ l ksi (Table 4-5) Top_max t = [ l ksi (Table 4-5) Grs = [ l ksi (Table 4-9) Trs = [ l ksi (Table 4-9) Notet: conservatively using the largest magnitude of shear stress, which is from the maximum negative stress. 2a = 0.4000 inch (Table 4-1) 2b = [ l inch (Table 4-1) T = [ l OF (Table 4-8) [ l oc Number of Cycles 60 years = [ l cycles (Table 4-4) b.N = [ l cycles/year Gmin = Gop_min + Grs = [ l ksi [ l MPa Omax = Oop_max + Grs = [ l ksi [ l MPa 'Lmin = 'Lop_min + 'trs = [ l ksi [ l MPa 'Lmax = 'Lop_max + 'trs = [ l ksi [ l MPa alb = [ l f(a/b) = (1-0.025(a/b) 2+ [ l 0. 06*(a/b )4).Ysec(na/2b)

= Klmin = O'maxv(na) f(a/b) = [ l ksi.Yin K1max = O'minv(na) f(a/b) = [ l ksi.Yin Kumin = 'Lmaxv(na) f(a/b) = [ l ksi.Yin K11max = 'tminv(na) f(a/b) = [ l ksi.Yin L1K1 = Klmax -Klmin = [ l ksi.Yin Page 34 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

= Kumax -Kumin = [ ] = (

+ = [ ] ksi.Yin ksi.Yin ksi.Yin = [ ] MPavm Kmax = ( Klma/ + Kllma/)0'5 = [ ] R = 1 -I Kmax = [ ] sR = (1 -o.82 Rrz.z = [ ] cA6oo = 4.835 x 1 o-14 + 1.622 x 1 o-16 T [ ] -1.490 x 1 o-18*T 2 + 4.355 x 1 o-21*T 3 = f:.a = f:.N(2 CA6oo SR = [ ] m = [ ] in 2a = 2a + 2 f:.a = 0.40000018 The calculated 2a = 0.40000018 inch is the initial 2a for the next transient crack growth calculation.

After going through all 10 transients in the first year, the crack grows from 0.4" to 0.40000093", which confirms the results reported in Table 7-1 for the first year. Then, 0.40000093" is used as the initial crack length for the second year calculation and so on. Thus by repeating the process the final flaw size at the end of 38 years is obtained.

6.2 Low-Alloy Steel -Nozzle Path line case FLA_noz and FLB_noz are located at low-alloy steel material.

Using FLA_noz as an example, for transient

1 at the beginning of the first year, Oop min = [ ] ksi (Table 4-5} Oop max = [ ] ksi (Table 4-5} Top_min t = [ ] ksi (Table 4-5} Top_maxt = [ ] ksi (Table 4-5} Ors = [ ] ksi (Table 4-1 0} Trs = [ ] ksi (Table4-10}

Notet: conseNatively using the largest magnitude of shear stress, which is from the maximum negative stress. 2a = 0.4000 inch . (Table 4-1} 2b = [ ] inch (Table 4-1} T = [ ] OF (Table 4-8} Number of Cycles 60 years = [ (Table 4-4} f:.N = [ ] cycles/year Omin = Oop_min + Ors = [ ] ksi Omax = Oop_max + Ors = [ ] ksi 'tmin t = 'top_min + 'trs = [ ] ksi 'tmax t = 'top_max + 'trs = [ ] ksi a/b = [ ] f(a/b) = (1-0.025(a/b)2+0.06*(a/b) 4).Ysec(na/2b)

= [ ] Klmin = 0max'-'(na) f(a/b) = [ ] ksi.Yin Klmax = 0minV(1ta) f(a/b) = [ ] ksi.Yin Page 35 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Knmin = 'tmaxv(na) f(a/b) = Knmax = 'tminv(na) f(a/b) = .L1K1 = Klmax -Klmin = L1Kn = Knmax -Knmin = .L1K = ( .L1KI2 + L1Kn2)o.s

= Kmax = ( Klma/ + Knma/)0" 5 = R = 1 -.L1K I Kmax = L1Kth = = S (Section 4.7.2) = Co (Section 4.7.2) = !::.a = b.N(C 0.6.K 3.07) = 2a = 2a + 2 !::.a = [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ [ 0.40000055

] ] ksi"in ksi"in ksi"in ksi"in ksi"in ksi"in inch inch The calculated 2a = 0.40000055" inch is the initial 2a for the next transient crack growth calculation.

After going through all 10 transients in the first year, the crack grows from 0.4" to 0.40000438", which confirms the results obtained in Table 7-2 for the first year. Then, is used as the initial crack length for the second year calculation and so on. Thus by repeating the process the final flaw size at the end of 38 years is obtained.

7.0 RESULTS

7.1 Laminar Flaws 7.1.1 Laminar Flaw Fatigue Crack Growth Analysis The crack sizes during 38 years of plant operations due to fatigue crack growths are presented in Table 7-1 through Table 7-4. The final crack sizes for all cases are summarized in Table 7-5. For the two FLA path cases, the larger crack growth is observed on path case FLA_noz, which grew to 0.400167 inch. The cracks cases along the FLB_wol grew to 0.25000685 inch, whereas FLB_noz did not grow at all. The zero crack growth in FLB_noz is found to be the result of calculated being smaller than threshold for fatigue crack growth in Low Alloy Steel. The flaw considered along FLC2_wol grew to 0.25000165 inch. These bounding final crack sizes for each case are used for laminar flaw evaluations in Section 7.1.2. Page 36 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Table 7-1: Fatigue Crack Growth on Path Case FLA_wol Year Year Start Crack Size Crack Growth (in.) Year End Crack Size (in.) (in.) 1 0.4 0.00000093 0.40000093 Page 37 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Year Year Start Crack Size Crack Growth (in.) Year End Crack Size (in.) (in.) 38 0.40003446 0.00000093 0.40003539 Table 7-2: Fatigue Crack Growth on Path Case FLA_noz Year Year Start Crack Size Crack Growth (in.) Year End Crack Size (in.) (in.) 1 0.4 0.00000438 0.40000438 Page 38 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Year Year Start Crack Size Crack Growth (in.) Year End Crack Size (in.) (in.) 38 0.40016209 0.00000438 0.40016647 Table 7-3: Fatigue Crack Growth on Path Case FLB_wol Year Year Start Crack Size Crack Growth (in.) Year End Crack Size (in.) (in.) 1 0.25 0.00000018 0.25000018 Page 39 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Year Year Start Crack Size Crack Growth (in.) Year End Crack Size (in.) (in.) 38 0.25000667 0.00000018 0.25000685 Table 7-4: Fatigue Crack Growth on Path Case FLC2_wol Yec;1r Year Start Crack Size Crack Growth Year End Crack Size (in.) (in.) (in.) 1 0.25 0.00000004 0.25000004 Page 40 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221 080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Year Year Start Crack Size Crack Growth Year End Crack Size (in.) (in.) (in.) 38 0.2500016 0.00000004 0.25000165 Page 41 Contro ll ed Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Table 7-5: Summary of Fatigue Crack Growth Laminar Indications Indication Path Case Initial Crack Size Final Crack Size Crack Increase (in.) (in.) (%) FLA_wol 0.40 0.40003539 0.009°/o A -#1 , #1 A, C -#3 FLA_noz 0.40 0.40016647 0.042o/o FLB_wol 0.25 0.25000685 0.003°/o B-#1, #2 & #3 FLB_noz 0.25 0.25 0.000°/o c-#4 FLC2_wol 0.25 0.25000165 0.001 °/o 7 .1.2 Laminar Flaw Evaluation The flaw area calculations are performed in Table 7-6. Based on the areas calculated in Table 7-6, it is concluded that the laminar flaws meet the laminar flaw acceptance criterion in article IWB-3514-3 of ASME Code Section XI [2] after 38 years of plant operation.

The minimum required overlay length evaluation is performed in Table 7-7. It is seen from Table 7-7 that the effective overlay length Uett), evaluated as the actual overlay length Uwo 1) minus the flaw length Utlaw), is greater than the minimum required overlay length Ureq), which is estimated based on Section Ill of the ASME Code [3]. Thus, it is concluded that the laminar flaws will not impact the overlay integrity after 38 years of plant operation.

Table 7-6: Flaw Area Evaluation FLA FLB FLC2 Reference

/Comments Initial flaw width, Winitial (in.) 0.4 0.25 0.25 Table 7-5 Final flaw width, Wtinal (in.) 0.40016647 0.25000685 0.25000165 Table 7-5 Initial flaw length, /initial (in.) 16.3 4.7 2.0 References

[4] and [1] Final flaw length, 16.306785 4.700129 2.000013 See Note (1) ltinal = (Wfinalf Winitial ) !initial (in.) below Acal = 0. 75(Wfinal X lfinaJ (in 2) 4.8941 0.8813 0.3750 Section 2.1.3 Alimit (in 2) 7.5 7.5 7.5 Table IWB-3514-3 of [2] Check Acal ::;; Alimit OK OK OK Note (1 ): Geometric similar flaw growth is assumed in the growth analysis.

This assumption maintains a constant aspect ratio as defined by the initial flaw, winitiallinitial

The final flaw length, !final was computed based on Wfinal determined in the growth analysis.

The assumption of geometric flaw shape in the growth analysis is conservative since the cyclic stresses acting at the flaw plane are taken as uniform stress over the flaw area. Under uniform stress conditions, the flaw aspect ratio will decrease during growth making the !final smaller than that computed by the constant aspect ratio assumption.

Page 42 Controned Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Table 7-7: Overlay Length Evaluation Parameter FLA FLB FLC2 Reference/Comments t (in) [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Reference

[11] . OD (in) [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Reference

[11] Znet (in 3) [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Equation (2) of Reference

[4] Anet (in 2) [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Equation (1) of Reference

[4] M (in-lbf) [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Faulted, Reference

[17] M/Znet (psi) [ 1 [ . 1 [ 1 . F (lbf) [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Faulted, Reference

[17] F/Anet (psi) [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 M/Znet + F I A net [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Equation (3) of (ksi) Reference

[4] Sm (ksi) [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Table 4-2 of Reference

[4] lreq (in) [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Equation (5) of *Reference

[4] fwot (in) [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 fttaw (in) 0.40016647 0.25000685 0.25000165 Table 7-5 lett (in) [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Equation (6) of Reference

[4] Check leff > lreq OK OK OK Note <1): From Reference

[11] [ 1 Page 43 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

7.2 Planar

Indications

7.2.1 Nozzle

A Circumferential Flaw Fatigue Crack Growth Analysis The calculated flaw growth for PZR Safety Nozzle A indications was negligible.

Table 7-8 shows a summary of the predicted crack growth as calculated by AREVACGC.

Table 7-9 shows the contribution of each analyzed transient to the calculated fatigue crack growth. Table 7-8: Nozzle A Circumferential Flaw Growth -Summary Initial Flaw Width, 2ai (in) = Initial Flaw Center (in) = Final Flaw Width, 2at (in) = Final Flaw Center (in)= Growth towards Center (in)= Growth away from Center (in) = Total Amount of Fatigue Crack Growth (in) = 0.0800000 [ ] 0.0800017 [ ] [ ] [ ] 0.0000017 Table 7-9: Nozzle A Circumferential Flaw Growth -Detailed Analysis Trans. Growth (in) Percent HUGO [ ] [ ] LOLl [ ] [ ] LLO [ ] [ ] LOL [ ] [ ] LOP [ ] [ ] LOF [ ] [ ] RT [ ] [ ] TRT [ ] [ ] lAS A [ ] [ ] svo [ ] [ ] SEISMIC [ ] [ ] Page 44 Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

7.2.2 Nozzle

A Circumferential Final Flaw Evaluation As seen in Section 7.2.1, flaw growth is negligible.

Table 7-10 shows evaluation of the final flaw depth with flaw acceptance standard from Appendix C of the ASME B&PV Code Section XI [2]. It is seen from Table 7-10 that the final flaw size is much smaller than the allowable flaw size. Therefore, the indications found in PZR Safety Nozzle A are acceptable for the remainder of the plants service life. Table 7-10: Nozzle A Circumferential Final Flaw Size Evaluation . Allowable Flaw Depths Normal Upset Faulted Reference Service level maximum pressure, p, (psi) [ ] [ ] [ ]

[7] Service level maximum temperature, T, (F) [ ] [ ] [ ] [7] Service level flow stress, Ot = (Sy+Su)/2, (psi) [ ] [ ] [ ] [5] total thickness, t , (inch) [ ] [ ] [ ]

[7] overlay outside diameter, D 0 , (inch) [ ] [ ] [ ]

[7] sectional area, A, (inch 2) [ ] [ ] [ ] moment of inertia, I, (inch 4) [ ] [ ] [ ]

section modulus, S (inch3) [ ] [* ] [ ] Primary Bending Moment, Mb sRss (in-lbf) [ ] [ ] [ ]

See Note 1 below Thermal Expansion Bending Moment, Me sRss [ ] [ ] [ ]

See Note 1 (in-lbf) below Safety factor, SFm, [ ] [ ] [ ]

Ref. [2], C-2621 Safety factor, SFb, [ ] [ ] [ ] Ref. [2], C-2621 Calculated primary membrane stress, Om= [ ] [ ] [ ]

Ref. [2], pDJ4t , (psi) C-2500 Calculated primary bending stress, ob = [ ] [ ] [

] Ref. [2], Moment SRSS/S , (psi) C-2500 Calculated secondary bending stress, Oe = [ ] [ ] [

] Ref. [2], Moment SRSS/S, (psi) C-2500 Final Flaw Depth, at, (in) 0.080 0.080 0.080 / Final Flaw length, It, (in) 25.133 25.133 25.133 Calculated final flaw depth to thickness ratio, [ ] [ ] [ ]

at It, Ref. [2], Stress ratio, [om+ ob ] I Ot [ ] [ ] [ ]

Table C-5310-1,2,4 Ratio of flaw length to pipe circumference, [ ] [ ] [ ]

ltfTT D 0 , Ratio of allowable flaw depth to thickness, Ref. [2], aanow It, 0.750 0.750 0.750 Table C-5310-1,2,4 Note: 1) Calculated by transferring the forces and moments in Table 4-3 to the nozzle as indicated in Sec 4.3 and then using the relation described in Section 2.2.3. Page 45 Controlled Document.

A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary The final flaw is also evaluated as if one of its tips is in the ferritic nozzle. The acceptance of the final flaw size was evaluated per the acceptance criteria of IWB-3612.

The evaluation is shown in Table 7-11. The controlling normal/upset condition is found to be Loss of Load (LOL) with a maximum applied stress intensity factor of [ 1 at a temperature not less than [ 1 . The faulted condition stress intensity factor is calculated by adding the stresses due to the faulted condition load as described in Section 2.2.3 to the steady state operating condition stresses. The stress distribution through the thickness is used in calculating the stress intensity factor. For faulted conditions, the maximum stress intensity factor was calculated to be [ 1 ksi.Yin. Per Article A-4200 of Reference

[2], the initiation fracture toughness (K 1 c) and the arrest fracture toughness (K 1 a) are defined as K1c = 33.2 + 20.734 exp[0.02(T-RT NoT)] K1a = 26.8 + 12.445 exp[0.0145(T-RTNoT)]

Where T is the crack tip temperature and RT NOT is the nil-ductility transition temperature.

A cut off value of 200 ksi.Yin upper shelf fracture toughness is imposed on both of the above equations.

For the Safety nozzle material an RT NOT value of 60 °F was used. This is a reasonable value for non-irradiated locations such as the location of the Safety nozzle. The value of K 1 c > 200 ksi.Yin forT-RT NOT> 105 oF and the value of K1a > 200 ksi.Yin forT-RT NOT> 182 °F. Table 7-11: Nozzle A Circumferential Final Flaw Margin Evaluation in Ferritic Nozzle Normal/ Limiting Transient Conditions Upset Faulted Reference (LOL) Limiting Temperature

(°F) [ 1 [ 1 Section 5.2: Obtained Maximum Stress Intensity Factor (ksi.Yin)

[ 1 [ 1 from AREVACGC output documented in file CircFiaw NozzleA K.xlsm Allowed Fracture toughness, K 1 a /K1c (ksi.Yin)

[ 1 [ 1 Obtained Margin _l1 [ 1 Required Margin .Y10 .Y2 Ref. [2], IWB-3612 (1)Since the temperature is above 600°F, using an upper shelf fracture toughness value of 200 ksi"'in The lowest margin obtained for normal/upset conditions is [ 1 which is much higher than the required margin of ..J1 0. The margin [ 1 obtained for faulted condition is also much higher than the required margin of ..J2. Thus, in both cases the calculated margins are higher than the allowable margins. Therefore, the planar indication found in Safety Nozzle A is acceptable for the remainder of the plants service life. Page 46 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary 8.0

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS The final crack sizes for all laminar flaw cases are summarized in Table 7-5. The flaw area evaluation and overlay length evaluation are performed in Table 7-6 and Table 7-7 , respectively.

The final flaw size of the planar flaw is shown in Table 7-8 and the final flaw size evaluation in FSWOL is summarized in Table 7-10. The final flaw size of planar flaw is also evaluated in ferrtic nozzle; the results are shown in Table 7-11. It is concluded that all the laminar and planar indications found during the inspection of PZR Safety/ Relief Nozzles [1] meet the acceptance criteria of the Section XI of the ASME Code [2] for 38 years of plant operation.

Page 47 Control ed Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

9.0 REFERENCES

1. AREVA Document 38-9200149-001, "DCPP Unit 2 Pressurizer Nozzle NDE Data" 2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 2004 Edition with Addenda through 2005 3.

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section Ill, 2004 Edition with Addenda through 2005 4. AREVA Document 32-9199937-001, "DCPP Unit 2-Evaluation of Laminar Indications on Pressurizer Nozzles" 5. AREVA Document 32-9199805-001, "Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 PZR Safety and Spray Nozzles Planar Flaw Analysis" 6. "Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

-Request for Relief from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, lnservice Inspection Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit No.2 Docket No. 50-323" Dated February 6, 2008 (ADAMS No. ML080110001)

7. AREVA Document 32-9049065-001, "Diablo Canyon Unit 2 PZR Safety/Relief Nozzle Weld Overlay Crack Growth Evaluation" 8. Hiroshi Tada, Paul C. Paris, George R. Irwin, "The stress analysis of cracks handbook", 3rd edition, ASME, 2000 9. AREVA Document 32-9055891-006, "Fatigue and PWSCC Crack Growth Evaluation Tool AREVACGC." 10. AREVA Document 32-9052958-004, "Evaluation of stress intensity factors using the weight function method." 11. AREVA Drawing 02-8019311 D-001, "Diablo Canyon Pressurizer Safety/ Relief Nozzle Weld Overlay Design Input" 12. AREVA Document 32-9049114-005, "Diablo Canyon Unit 2-Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzle Weld Overlay Analysis" 13. AREVA Document 38-9046469-002, "DCPP 2 Pressurizer Nozzle Weld Overlay Design Non-proprietary" Page 48 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary

14. AREVA Document 32-9049062-006, "Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzle Weld Overlay Residual Stress Analysis" 15. NUREG/CR-6721, "Effects of Alloy Chemistry, Cold Work, and Water Chemistry on Corrosion Fatigue and Stress Corrosion Cracking of Nickel Alloys and Welds," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Argonne National Laboratory), April 2001 16. Mathcad 15.0 Software, Parametric Technology Corporation, 140 Kendrick Street, Needham, MA 02494 USA 17. AREVA Document 32-9043545-001, "Diablo Canyon Unit 2, Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzle Weld Overlay Sizing Calculation" 18. "ANSYS" Finite Element Computer Code, Version 14.0, ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA Page 49 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary APPENDIX A: STRESSES FOR SAFETY NOZZLE WOL FRACTURE MECHANICS ANALYSIS FOR OUTAGE 2R17 A.1 Purpose During the 2013 outage (2R17) inservice inspection indications were detected in the weld overlaid Pressurizer Safety/ReliefNozzles.

The indications are described in the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Design Input Transmittal (DIT) summarized in Reference

[1]. The purpose of this appendix is to provide stress and thermal results of the transient analyses for fracture mechanics evaluation along pathlines matching the detected indications in the Safety/Relief Nozzles. A.2 Path Line Determination Per Reference

[1 ], rejectable indications were found in safety nozzles A, B, and C as described in Section 4.1. The pathlines are determined similarly to the process described in Appendix C of Reference

[12]. The new WOL and NOZ paths are extended to account for up to 1/8" of uncertainty on either side of the flaw. The pathlines are described in Table A-1 and Figure A-1. Table A-1: Path Lines Description Node Intermediate Node Path Line Number Node Number Location Material Start Numbers End Awol 1429 1461, 1465, 1472* Indications A and C 1 Alloy 690 A noz 1464, 1466 SA-508, Cl. 2 B wol 1361 N/A 3331 Indication B Alloy 690 B noz SA-508, Cl. 2 C2 wol 274 N/A 283 Indication C2 Alloy 690 *This node is retained from path selected in Appendix C of [12], since it represents the geometry of the indication even with uncertainty consideration.

Page 50 Controlled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Figure A-1: Path Lines Defined for Fracture Mechanics Evaluation A.3 Stress and Temperature Evaluation The post processing calculations for fracture analysis are contained in computer file: DC2_fr_new_path.out Stresses along the path lines in the global coordinate system with "y" axis along the nozzle axis are summarized at thirteen points separated by an equal distance from the inside node to the outside node. At each point the radial (Sx) stress, axial (Sy) stress, hoop (Sz) stress, shear (Sh) stress on XY surface, and the temperature (Th) in the weld or weld overlay are given. ANSYS post processing output files are listed in Section A.4.2 and the stress and temperature output result files are listed below: DC2 HUCD fr NewPath SX.out DC2 LOP fr NewPath SX.out --------DC2 LDLI fr NewPath SX.out DC2 RT fr NewPath SX.out --------DC2 LLD fr NewPath SX.out DC2 TRT fr NewPath SX.out --------DC2 LOL fr NewPath SX.out DC2 IASA fr NewPath SX.out ----. ----DC2 LOP fr NewPath SX.out DC2 SVO fr NewPath SX.out --------DC2 HUCD fr NewPath SY.out DC2 LOP fr NewPath SY.out --------DC2 LDLI fr NewPath SY.out DC2 RT fr NewPath SY.out --------DC2 LLD fr NewPath SY.out DC2 TRT fr NewPath SY.out --------DC2 LOL fr NewPath SY.out DC2 IASA fr NewPath SY.out --------DC2 LOP fr NewPath SY.out DC2 SVO fr NewPath SY.out --------DC2 HUCD fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 LOP fr NewPath SZ.out ------DC2 LDLI fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 RT fr NewPath SZ.out --------DC2 LLD fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 TRT fr NewPath SZ.out --------DC2 LOL fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 IASA fr NewPath SZ.out --------DC2 LOP fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 SVO fr NewPath SZ.out --------Page 51 Co trolled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary DC2 HUCD fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 LOF fr NewPath Sh.out --------DC2 LDLI fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 RT fr NewPath Sh.out --------DC2 LLD fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 TRT fr NewPath Sh.out --------DC2 LOL fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 IASA fr NewPath Sh.out --------DC2 LOP fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 SVO fr NewPath Sh.out --------DC2 HUCD fr NewPath TH.out DC2 LOF fr NewPath TH.out --------DC2 LDLI fr NewPath TH.out DC2 RT fr NewPath TH.out --------DC2 LLD fr NewPath TH.out DC2 TRT fr NewPath TH.out --------DC2 LOL fr NewPath TH.out DC2 IASA fr NewPath TH.out --------DC2 LOP fr NewPath TH.out DC2 SVO fr NewPath TH.out ----The original analysis included an investigation the magnitude and distribution of stresses at the existing indications, contour plots at the critical transients and time points were extracted and documented in Reference

[12]. A.4 Computer Runs for Appendix A A.4.1 Software and Hardware ANSYS version 14.5.7 (Reference

[18]), was used for Appendix A. An earlier version of ANSYS was used for the original analysis (Reference

[12]) and this analysis only post-processes the existing results, the use of a recent version of ANSYS here is acceptable.

The hardware platform (Service Tag #5VKW5S1) is an Intel Core TM i7-2640M CPU@ 2.8GHZ, 8.00 GB Ram and Operating System (64-bit) is Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise, Copyright© 2009, Service Pack 1. Verification tests are listed in Table A-2 and are satisfactory.

A.4.2 Computer Files All computer files, including the computer input/output files for the analysis in this document, and the computer program test cases are listed in this section. All files are available in AREV A Inc. ColdS tor storage \\cold\General-Access\32\32-9000000\32-9215965-002\official\TRS.

Test case vm56 from Reference

[18] was run to verify that the answers are correct. The file vm56.vrt contains output from the test case. Review of the output files shows that the answers are identical to those contained in Reference

[18]. 1. Computer program tested: ANSYS Version 14.5.7 2. Computer hardware used: Same as listed in Section A.4.1 3. Name of person running test: Silvester Noronha 4. Date of test: 5/7/2014 5. Results and acceptability:

The results in vm56.vrt, listed in Table A-2, agree exactly with the values in the ANSYS manual (Reference

[18]). Page 52 Cont rolled Document A AREVA Document No. 32-9221080-003 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Pressurizer Safety/Relief Nozzles Laminar/Planar Flaw Analysis-NonProprietary Table A-2: Computer File List for Appendix A Name DC2 HUCD fr NewPath SX.out ---DC2 HUCD fr NewPath SY.out ----DC2 HUCD fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 HUCD fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 HUCD fr NewPath TH.out DC2 IASA fr NewPath SX.out ----DC2 IASA fr NewPath SY.out DC2 IASA fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 IASA fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 IASA fr NewPath TH.out DC2 LDLI fr NewPath SX.out DC2 LDLI fr NewPath SY.out ---DC2 LDLI fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 LDLI fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 LDLI fr NewPath TH.out DC2 LLD fr NewPath SX.out DC2 LLD fr NewPath SY.out DC2 LLD fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 LLD fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 LLD fr NewPath TH.out DC2 LOF fr NewPath SX.out DC2 LOF fr NewPath SY.out DC2 LOF fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 LOF fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 LOF fr NewPath TH.out DC2 LOL fr NewPath SX.out ----:--DC2 LOL fr NewPath SY.out DC2 LOL fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 LOL fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 LOL fr NewPath TH.out DC2 LOP fr NewPath SX.out DC2 LOP fr NewPath SY.out ----DC2 LOP fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 LOP fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 LOP fr NewPath TH.out DC2 RT fr NewPath SX.out DC2 RT fr NewPath SY.out DC2 RT fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 RT fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 RT fr NewPath TH.out DC2 SVO fr NewPath SX.out DC2 SVO fr NewPath SY.out DC2 SVO fr NewPath SZ.out DC2 SVO fr NewPath Sh.out DC2 SVO fr NewPath TH.out DC2 TRT fr NewPath SX.out Size 28880 28880 28880 28880 28880 16720 16720 16720 16720 16720 36480 36480 36480 36480 36480 34960 34960 34960 34960 34960 22800 22800 22800 22800 22800 19760 19760 19760 19760 19760 24320 24320 24320 24320 24320 6080 6080 6080 6080 6080 21280 21280 21280 21280 21280 7600 Date/Time Modified CRC May 0 7 2 014 13 : 3 0 : 59 3 3 4 81 May 0 7 2 0 14 13 : 3 0 : 59 0 9 7 7 6 May 07 2014 13:30:5926410 May 0 7 2 0 14 13 : 3 0 : 59 518 2 9 !"lay 07 2014 13:30:59 28715 May 07 2014 13:31:22 46097 May 07 2014 13:31:22 16465 May 07 2014 13:31:22 06771 May 07 2014 13:31:22 19962 May 07 2014 13:31:22 46110 May 07 2014 13:31: 04 17692 May 07 2014 13:31: 04 34853 May 07 2014 13:31: 04 07864 May 0 7 2 0 14 13 : 31 : o 4 54 816 May 07 2014 13:31: 04 63954 May 07 2014 13:31:0937591 May 07 2014 13:31:0914778 May 07 2014 13:31:09 17206 May 07 2014 13:31:0932581 May 07 2014 13:31:09 09762 May 07 2014 13:31:17 37264 May 0 7 2 0 14 13 : 31 : 1 7 19 4 3 1 May 07 2014 13:31:1712652 May 07 2014 13:31:17 57111 May 07 2014 13:31:1729946 May 0 7 2 0 14 13 : 31 : 11 2 3 0 2 0 May 07 2014 13:31:11 60891 May 0 7 2 0 14 13 : 31 : 11 3 216 9 May 07 2014 13:31:11 64122 May 07 2014 13:31:11 04066 May 07 2014 13:31:15 44748 May 07 2014 13:31:1550421 May 07 2014 13:31:1547822 May 07 2014 13:31:15 31543 May 07 2014 13:31:15 52091 May 07 2014 13:31:1829944 May 07 2014 13:31:1826135 May 07 2014 13:31:18 02789 May 07 2014 13:31:18 10215 May 07 2014 13:31:18 23963 May o 7 2 0 14 13 : 31 : 2 4 2 9 o 9 8 May 0 7 2 0 14 13 : 3 1 : 2 4 4 2 615 May 07 2014 13:31:24 31572 May 07 2014 13:31:24 48595 May 07 2014 13:31:24 24488 May 07 2014 13:31:1918822 Page 53

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 | number = ML14259A226
 | issue date = 09/15/2014
-| title = Diablo Canyon, Unit 2 - Relief Request SWOL-REP-1-U2: Submittal of Revised Areva Calculations. Part 1 of 15
+| title = Relief Request SWOL-REP-1-U2: Submittal of Revised Areva Calculations. Part 1 of 15
 | author name = Allen B S, Riordan T
 | author affiliation = AREVA, Pacific Gas &amp; Electric Co

ML14259A226: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 11:41, 17 March 2019

Contents

Text

References:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

4.1 Geometry

SUMMARY

9.0 REFERENCES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Laminar

2.1.1 Laminar

2.2 Planar

2.2.1 Planar

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS

3.2 Justified

3.3 Modeling

4.0 DESIGN

4.2 Material

4.5 Operating

4.6 Residual

4.7.1 Alloy

6.0 CALCULATIONS

7.0 RESULTS

7.2 Planar

7.2.1 Nozzle

7.2.2 Nozzle

SUMMARY

9.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

ML14259A226: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 11:41, 17 March 2019

Text

References:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

4.1 Geometry

SUMMARY

9.0 REFERENCES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Laminar

2.1.1 Laminar

2.2 Planar

2.2.1 Planar

3.0 ASSUMPTIONS

3.2 Justified

3.3 Modeling

4.0 DESIGN

4.2 Material

4.5 Operating

4.6 Residual

4.7.1 Alloy

6.0 CALCULATIONS

7.0 RESULTS

7.2 Planar

7.2.1 Nozzle

7.2.2 Nozzle

SUMMARY

9.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

Search