ML12312A256
| ML12312A256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/2012 |
| From: | Mahmoud S, Noronha S, Wiger T AREVA NP |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC ME5789 32-9157438-000 | |
| Download: ML12312A256 (56) | |
Text
ATTACHMENT 2 AREVA DOCUMENT NO. 32-9157438-000 NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EVALUATION (NON-PROPRIETARY)
Certain information, considered proprietary by AREVA NP Inc., has been deleted from the document in this Attachment. The deletions are identified by braces ({ }).
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC October 31, 2012
0402-01-FOI (20697) (Rev. 015, 10/18/2010)
A CALCULATION
SUMMARY
SHEET (CSS)
AREVA Document No. 32 - 9157438 - 000 Safety Related: E Yes [ No Title NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC Evaluation PURPOSE AND
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS:
This document is a non-proprietary version of AREVA NP Document number 32.9146818-000. AREVA NP proprietary Infomatlon removed from 32-9146818000 are indicated by pairs of braces {}.
Purpose:
The purpose of this analysis is to perform fracture mechanilcs evaluation of a postulated flaw in the exposed low a"oy steel (LAS) bottom head of the reactor pressure vessel at NMP-1 following a temper bead weld repair to the control rod drive (CRD) housing. The postulated flaw is a 0.100 inch semi-circular flaw extending 380 degrees around the circumferec at the location where the low alloy steel and the new weld meet. The flaw is postulated to propagate due to constant and cyclic loads downward along the interface between the weld and the head until it reaches the maximum acceptable flaw size. Flaw acceptance Is based on the crteia in the ASME Code Section Xl 2004 with no Addenda for applied stress intensity factor (lWM-3612).
Results:
The results of this analysis demonstrate that a 0.100 inch postulated flaw In the exposed LAS following a CRD housing temper bead weld repair is acceptaftble for 12 years of operation. At the final flaw size of { } inch, the limiting Mode I fracture toughness margin is { ), which exceeds the required margin of 410.
THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS ASSUMPTIONS THAT SHALL BE THE FOLLOVWNG COMPUTER CODES HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS DOCUMENT: VERIFIED PRIOR TO USE COENERSIONfREV COOENERSIOWREV 1 NINOSYES Page I of 51
A 0402-01-FOI (20697) (Rev. 015,10/18/2010)
AREVA Document No. 32-9157438-000 NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Review Method:Z Design Review (Detailed Check)
[I Alternate Calculation Signature Block PIRIA Name and TRW and Pages/Sections (printed or typed) Signature LPILR Date Prepared/Revlewed/Approved S J Noronha P All Engineer IV . V/"0..-
" 3IV7I l S H Mahmoud R All (Detailed Check)
Engineer IV 3 ~
T M Wiger A zyf/ All Unit Manager Note: P/R/A designates Preparer (P), Reviewer (R), Approver (A);
LPILR designates Lead Preparer (LP), Lead Reviewer (LR)
Project Manager Approval of Customer References (N/A If not applicable)
Name Title (printed or typed) (printed or typed) Signature Date N/A Mentoring Information (not required per 0402-01)
Name Title Mentor to:
(printed or typed) (printed or typed) (PIR) Signatre Date N/A N/A Page 2
A Aft EVA 0402-01-FOl (20697) (Rev. 015, 10/18/2010)
Document No. 32-9157438-000 NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Record of Revision Revision Pages/Sectionsl No. Date Paragraphs Changed Brief Description I Change Authorization 000 03/2011 All Original Release
__ I I
I_____
~I 1:
J Page 3
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AR EVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table of Contents Page SIG NATURE BLOCK ................................................................................................................................ 2 RECORD OF REVISION .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF FIG URES ................................................................................................................................... 7 1.0 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................... 8 2.0 ANALYTICAL METHO DO LOGY ........................................................................................... 11 2.1 Stress Intensity Factor Solution (SIF) for a Cylindrical Interfacial Flaw ..................................... 11 2.2 Acceptance Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 12 3.0 DESIGN INPUTS ........................................................................................................................ 13 3.1 Geometry ........................................................................................................................................ 13 3.2 Material Strength ............................................................................................................................ 13 3.3 Fracture Toughness ....................................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Crack Growth Rates (CGR) ..................................................................................................... 13 3.4.1 SCCISICC Crack Growth Rates as per BWRVIP-60-A ............................................. 13 3.4.2 Fatigue Crack Growth Rates ...................................................................................... 14 3.5 Operating Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 15 3.6 Transient Stresses ......................................................................................................................... 15 3.7 Residual Stresses .......................................................................................................................... 16 4.0 ASSUM PTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 16 4.1 Modeling Simplfications ................................................................................................................. 16 5.0 CALCULATIO NS ......................................................................................................................... 17 5.1 Qualification of Design for Minimum Required Ligament .......................................................... 17 5.2 Flaw Growth Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 17 5.3 Flaw Acceptance Analysis ....................................................................................................... 18 5.4 Evaluation using BWRVIP-233 Crack Growth Rates (For informnation only (FIO)) .................... 19 6.0 SUM MARY .................................................................................................................................. 22 6.1 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 22 6.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 22
7.0 REFERENCES
............................................................................................................................ 23 APPENDIX A : VERIFICATION OF SIF FOR CYLINDRICAL FLAW ............................................................. 24 APPENDIX B: DETAILED CRACK GROWTH CALCULATIONS USING BWRVIP-60-A DATA .................. 26 Page 4
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 ARE VA DVA W Ik.e.
m AWA id I ompny NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table of Contents (continued)
Page APPENDIX C: DETAILED CRACK GROWTH CALCULATIONS USING BWRVIP-233 DATA (FOR INFO RMATIO N O N LY) ........................................................................................................... 39 Page 5
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation List of Tables Page Table 2-1: Influence C oefficients ........................................................................................................... 12 Table 3-1: M aterial S trength .................................................................................................................. 13 Table 3-2: Load Combinations and Cycles ....................................................................................... 16 Table 5-1: C rack G rowth Results ..................................................................................................... 18 Table 5-2: Flaw Acceptance Results ................................................................................................ 19 Table 5-3: Crack Growth Results based on BWRVIP-233 CGR [2,11] (FIO) ................................... 20 Table 5-4: Flaw Acceptance Results based on BWRVIP-233 (FIO) ................................................ 21 Table B-1: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Startup .................................................................. 26 Table B-2: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Shutdown ................................................................ 27 Table B-3: Crack Growth Calculations- Blowdown ........................................................................... 28 Table B-4: Crack Growth Calculations- Design Pressure Test ......................................................... 29 Table B-5: Crack Growth Calculations- SCRAM .............................................................................. 30 Table B-8: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of CRD Cooling Water ................................................... 31 Table B-7: Crack Growth Calculations- Attempt Road Withdrawal ........................................................ 32 Table B-8: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of Feed water Pump .................................................. 33 Table B-9: Crack Growth Calculations- Emergency Cooldown ........................................................ 34 Table B-10: Crack Growth Calculations- Shut Down Cooling ........................................................... 35 Table B-11: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop - Definition I ....... 36 Table B-1 2: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop - Definition 2 ....... 37 Table B-13: Crack Growth Calculations- SS CONDITIONS ............................................................. 38 Table C-1: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Startup (FIO) ......................................................... 39 Table C-2: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Shutdown (FIO) .................................................... 40 Table C-3: Crack Growth Calculations- Blowdown (FIO) .................................................................. 41 Table C-4: Crack Growth Calculations- Design Pressure Test (FIO) ............................................... 42 Table C-5: Crack Growth Calculations- SCRAM (FIO) .................................................................... 43 Table C-6: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of CRD Cooling Water (FIO) ...................................... 44 Table C-7: Crack Growth Calculations- Attempt Road Withdrawal (FIO) ........................................ 45 Table C-8: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of Feed water Pump (FIO) ......................................... 46 Table C-9: Crack Growth Calculations- Emergency Cooldown (FIO) ............................................. 47 Table C-10: Crack Growth Calculations- Shut Down Cooling (FIO) ............................................... 48 Table C-11: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop - Definition I (FIO) ... 49 Table C-12: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop - Definition 2 (FIO) ... 50 Table C-13: Crack Growth Calculations- SS CONDITIONS (FIO) .................................................... 51 page a
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation List of Figures Page Figure 1-1: Postulated Flaw Location ............... ............................................................................. 9 Figure 1-2: Postulated Flaw O rientation ........................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-1: Possible Flaw Propagation Paths along Repair Weld .................................................... 11 Page7
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation 1.0 PURPOSE AREVA is developing a contingency weld repair approach for the control rod drive (CRD) penetrations at the lower head of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) at the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP-1) nuclear power station. The CRD housing modification shall consist of a new pressure boundary weld being established on the Inside surface of the groove machined through the existing CRD housing wall thickness. A new weld shall be applied, attaching only the top of the lower portion of the severed CRD housing and the bottom head penetration bore. The new weld shall be dissociated from the existing upper portion of the CRD housing, The upper portion of the CRD housing shall remain in place. The design specification document [1] provides additional details of the ID temper bead (TB) weld repair procedure. This repair design leaves a portion of the ferritic low alloy steel (LAS) head exposed to reactor coolMa water, as depicted in Figure 1-1. The exposed surface between the lower and upper CRD housings includes the heat-affected zone (HAZ) from the temper bead repair weld performed by AREVA NP and some unaffected base metal.
The water near the exposed LAS of the RPV will be conservatively assumed to be stagnant. Furthermore, the exposed LAS Is located in an area where residual stress may be elevated after the temper bead repair welding.
As such, the exposed LAS may be susceptible to environmentally-assisted cracking (EAC) via stress corrosion cracking (SCC) and strain-induced corrosion cracking (SICC) [2). For the conditions at NMP-1, Reference [21 concluded that SCCISICC initiation and propagation are very unlikely. However, as it is impossible to completely rule out the possibility of these degradation mechanisms, a flaw evaluation will be performed using conservative crack growth rates (CGR).
This analysis postulates that a flaw is present in the HAZ of the low alloy steel (LAS) head material, along the interface between the LAS head and the lower CRD housing attachment weld. The postulated interfacial flaw would lie in a cylindrically curved "plane" coincident with the outer diameter of the weld, and would extend vertically downward along this plane, as shown in Figure 1-1. To account for the possibility that there could be multiple SCCISICC initiation sites around the cylindrical surface of the exposed LAS material, it is further postulated that individual sites link together such that the cylindrically shaped flaw extends 360M in the circumferential direction, as sketched in Figure 1-2. The purpose of the present fracture mechanics analysis is to determine, in accordance with Section Xl of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code [31, the time interval for a postulated 0.100" deep by 3600 circumferential flaw to grow to an unacceptable flaw size.
Page 8
A AREVA Document No. 32-9157438-000 NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Exposed LAj kd flaw Downward penetration (depth) of flaw Low Alloy Steel Head Temper CRD Bead Housing Weld IDTB Weld Page 9
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Figure 1-2: Postulated Flaw Orientation Note: The region in white is used below to describe the component parts of the flaw model.
Postulated flaw Weld Low Alloy Steel Head Lower CRD Housing Page 10
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation 2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY Although Reference (21 concluded that SCC/SICC initiation and propagation are very unlikely for the conditions at NMP-1, a flaw will be postulated to Initiate Inthe LAS near the upper root of the new TB weld. The postulated flaw is assumed to be cylindrically oriented with an initial depth of 0.100 inch. It is further assumed that the flaw extends 3600 around the nozzle. The postulated flaw would propagate along a path between the repair weld and the head, as Indicated by the flaw propagation directions shown In Figure 2-1. The flaw would be subjected to radial stresses in the low alloy steel head. Flaw propagation in the heat affected zone (HAZ) of the head would be governed by SCC/SICC and fatigue crack growth under the influence of steady state and cyclic pressure and temperature loads, as applicable. Incremental crack growth is calculated on a yearly basis from crack tip stress intensity factors (SIFs) that are updated for each increment of crack growth. Governing crack growth rates and stress intensity factor solutions are provided in Sections 3.4 and 2.1, respectively.
An allowable design life will be determined considering LEFM acceptance criteria for the final flaw size. The LEFM acceptance criterion addresses fracture toughness margin, defined as the ratio of the Section XI fracture toughness to the applied SIF at the final flaw size. For Mode I radial loadings, the required fracture toughness margin is 410 for normal and upset conditions and 42 for emergency and faulted conditions per IWB-3612 of Section XI (3]. Additionally, consistent with Appendix C of Section XI of the B&PV code the maximum crack depth is limited to 75% of the wall thickness (height of IDTB weld/LAS head Interface).
Figure 2-1: Possible Flaw Propagation Paths along Repair Weld Downhill Area 2.1 Stress Intensity Factor Solution (SIW) for a Cylindrical Interfacial Flaw The stress intensity factors (SIF) for the postulated defect along the interface between the LAS head and the new CRD housing attachment weld follows the format of the Section Xl [31 solution for flat plate surface flaws, where crack face stresses ae described by the third-order polynomial, a(x/a) =A + A,(J+ A{(-J +AX' Where a = flaw depth Page 11
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 ARIEVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation x = distance from crack mouth < a A= stress coefficients, i = 0, 1, 2, 3 The Mode I stress intensity factor is then described by K,(a) =k(Ao + Ap)Go + A,G, + A 2G 2+ A G1 1 JaQ where Ap = crack face pressure G= influence coefficients, i = 0, 1, 2, 3 0 = 1 + 4.593(a/I) 1 65 - qy (a/I = 0 for a 3600 flaw)
I = flaw length qy = [(Ao Go + AI G1 + A2 G2 + A3 G3 ) / y]2 /6 oy = yield strength The influence coefficients, Gi, for the cylindrical flaw were generated in Reference [41 and tabulated In Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Influence Coefficients a/t Go Gi G2 G3 0.1 1.1071 0.7172 0.5573 0.4637 0.2 1.2557 0.741 0.5758 0.4851 0.3 1.3678 0.7832 0.6005 0.5034 0.4 1.5223 0.8319 0.289 0.5233 0.5 1.6341 0.8801 0.6572 0.543 0.6 1.7567 0.923 0.6825 0.5606 0.7 1.8539 0.9591 0.7042 0.576 0.8 1.9371 0.9958 0.7284 0.594 The plastic zone correction term, qy, is used for calculating the SIF under constant loading conditions and for comparing the applied SIF to the required fracture toughness. The plastic zone correction term is not used to calculate flaw growth.
2.2 Acceptance Criteria The IWB-3612 acceptance criteria of Section Xl [3] is used to evaluate the final flaw depth. According to IWB-3612 a flaw is acceptable ifthe applied stress intensity factor for the final flaw dimensions af satisfy the following criteria (a) For normal and upset conditions:
K < K, */410 where K, = applied stress intensity factor for normal, upset, and test conditions for the flaw dimensions at.
K1, = fracture toughness based on crack arrest for the corresponding crack-tip temperature af = end-of-evaluation-period flaw depth (b) For emergency and faulted conditions:
K, < Ke/0 42 K0 ý fracture toughness based on crack Initiation for the corresponding crack-tip temperature Another restriction on the acceptability of the final flaw size is the determined by the ligament of the TB weld. As Table 2-1 shows, the SIF solution is valid only for a flaw depth that extends up to 80% of the ligament. Consistent with the practice in Appendix C of Section XI of the B&PV code the maximum crack depth is limited to 75% of the wall thickness.
Page 12
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC Evaluation 3.0 DESIGN INPUTS 3.1 Geometry For the postulated cylindrical flaw only the length of the interface between the repair weld and the RV head is of importance. This is nominally estimated from the finite element model in Reference [10] to be ( } inch. Since there is possibility of a weld anomaly at the triple point, conservatively we subtracted 0.1 Inch from the IDTB weld
- LAS interface length. Thus the length of the interface used in the calculation is { } inch. The initial flaw depth is postulated to be 0.1 inch [1].
3.2 Material Strength The NMP-1 RPV bottom head is made from SA-302 Grade B material [1]. The yield strength (a,) of this material is 50 ksi at 70°F and 42.2 ksi at 600°F [5]. Reference [5] provides the material strength pertinent for the flaw evaluation assessment of the postulated flaw. Table 3-1 lists the values of yield strength (a,), ultimate strength (auf), and the flow strength (af), taken as the average of the ultimate and yield strengths.
Table 3-1: Material Strength Temperature Yield Ultimate Flow Material Component (OF) Strength, ay Strength, auh Strength, Gf
(°F) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
SA 302 Grade B RV Lower 70 50.00 80.00 65.00 Low Alloy Steel Head 500 43.20 80.00 61.60 600 42.20 80.00 61.10 3.3 Fracture Toughness The lower bound K1, curve of Section XI, Appendix A, Figure A-4200-1 [3], which can be expressed as K1, = 26.8 + 12.445 exp [0.0145 (T - RTNDT)],
represents the fracture toughness, where T is the crack tip temperature and RTNDT is the reference nil-ductility temperature of the material. Kw is In ksiVin, and T and RTNDT are in OF. In the present flaw evaluations, K1, is limited to a maximum value of 200 ksi*in (upper-shelf fracture toughness). An RTNOT value of { }RF is used for the NMP-1 RPV bottom head [6].
3.4 Crack Growth Rates (CGR)
Crack growth In the heat affected zone (HAZ) of the low alloy steel head Is be governed by SCC/SICC (not in ASME B&PV Code) and fatigue crack growth (per ASME B&PV Code).
3.4.1 SCCISICC Crack Growth Rates as per BWRVIP-60-A Flaw growth is calculated using conservative CGR as detailed in Sec. 3.5.6 of Reference [2]. These CGR are a function of the applied stress intensity (K,) as follows:
- 1. Under Constant Load Condition Time interval - for steady state operation time excluding periods of load cycling or water chemistry transients.
(1a) 0 < Ks 55 MPa4rm da/dt = 2 x 10"11 (mis)
Page 13
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation (1b) K > 55 MPa4m da/dt = 3.29 x 10-17 K (mis)
K in MPa4m
- 2. Under Transient Condition (including monotonic rising load)
Time interval - for time associated with any chemistry or loading transients other than the fatigue loading cycles, which are to be evaluated using ASME B&PV Code procedures for fatigue. The time assigned to each event will be the time of the transient plus 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />.
(2a) 0 < Ks 27.94 MPa'im da/dt = 2 x 1011 (mis) (BVVRVIP-60 K-independent line)
(2b) 27.94 < Ki < 60 MPairm da/dt = 3.29 x 10.17 K4 (m/s) (BWRVIP-60 K-dependent line)
K in MPa4m (2c) K > 60 MPa4m da/dt = 7 x 10.9 (m/s) (due to DSA concern)
- 3. Ripple Load Condition Time interval - for transient time meeting all of the following three conditions. Since, the recommended CGR is more conservative under the ripple load than either under the constant load condition or under the transient condition, the ripple load time interval shall be removed from the constant load or the transient time intervals for calculating crack propagation.
R > 0.95, AK: 1.5 to 4 MPa'm, Loading frequency: 10.2 to 104 Hz.
(3a) 0 < K N 27.94 MPa*/m da/dt = 2 x 'o-" (m/s)
(3b) K > 27.94 MPa*im da/dt = 1 x 10"8 (m/s) 3.4.2 Fatigue Crack Growth Rates Flaw growth due to cycling loading Is given In Appendix A of the ASME B&PV Code [3] which characterized by da where C, and n are constants that depend on the material and environmental conditions, AN is the range of applied SIF in terms of ksi*/in, and da/dN is the incremental flaw growth in terms of inches/cycle. Fatigue crack growth is also dependent on the ratio of the minimum to the maximum SIF; I.e.,
R = (l*)rj. / (K,)..
From Article A-4300 of Section XI [3), the fatigue crack growth constants for surface flaws in a water environment are as shown below (AKN in ksi*/in).
0RsR0.25: AKI < 17.74, n = 5.95 Co = 1.02 x 10-12 x S S = 1.0 Page 14
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation AKI > 17.74, n = 1.95 Co = 1.01 x 10-7 x S S =1.0 0.25 < R < 0.65: AKI < 17.74 [ (3.75R + 0.06) (26.9R - 5.725)10.25, n = 5.95 Co = 1.02 x 10-12 x S S = 26.9R - 5.725 AK, k 17.74 [ (3.75R + 0.06) (26.9R - 5.725) ]0.25, n = 1.95 Co = 1.01 x 10-7 x S S = 3.75R + 0.06 0.65:< R < 1.0: AK* < 12.04, n = 5.95 Co = 1.02 x 10-12 x S S = 11.76 AKI a 12.04, n = 1.95 Co = 1.01 x 10-7 x S S = 2.5 3.5 Operating Conditions According to Reference [1], the CRD housing operating pressure is { } psig and the operating temperature is r}°F.
3.6 Transient Stresses The cyclic operating stresses that are needed to calculate crack growth are obtained from a thermo-elastic finite element analysis [7]. These cyclic stresses are developed for all the transients at a number of time points to capture the maximum and minimum stresses due to fluctuations in pressure and temperature. Per References
[8.9], the number of RCS design transients is established for 40 years of design life. Cyclic operating stresses were generated in Reference [71 for the transients listed in References [8,9]. The transients that have trivial contribution to fatigue are not considered per Reference [7]. The transient cycle counts used in this calculation are obtained from References (8,91. The operating transients and cycle counts are listed in Table 3-2. The transient time required to evaluate SICC were obtained from the thermo-elastic analysis performed in Reference [71. These times are listed in Table 3-2. For the remainder of the time during a one year crack growth interval, SCC/SICC crack growth is evaluated at steady state condition which is taken as the end of Normal Startup Transient.
Page 15
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table 3-2: Load Combinations and Cycles Transient Level Level Transient/Condition Loading Cies me Cycles (Seconds)
Level A Normal Startup P +T +DW Level A Normal Shutdown P + T + DW Level A Blowdown P + T + DW Level A Design Pressure Test P + T + DW.
Level A Shut Down Cooling Initiation p+ T + DW Isolated Recirculation Loop P + T + DW + Normal Start up SCRAM Reaction +
Level B SCRAM Seismic P + T + DW + Stuck Road Load + Seismic P + T + DW + SESNB' + Seismic P + T + DW + Stuck Rod + Seismic Level B Loss of CRD Cooling Water P + T + DW + End-of-Stroke Load + Seismic P + T + DW + SESNB' + Seismic Level B Attempt Drive Withdrawal P+ T + DW Level B Loss of Feed water Pump, P+ T + DW Isolation Valve Closed Level B Emergency Cooldown from P T+DW Full Power Steady State P+_T_+_DW Level C Inadvertent Start of a Cold P+ T + DW RC Loop - Definition 1 Inadvertent Start of a 1Cold RC Loop - Definition 1 SESNB is SCRAM End of Stroke, No Buffer see next section for numerical value 2 Not provided inthe output received from Reference [7]. This is conservatively set to 36000 seconds. This estimation does not affect the results because most SICC estimation is inthe range where the crack growth rate is independent of SIF.
3{ ) cycles were used inthis analysis. This will result ina conservative crack growth estimation.
3.7 Residual Stresses A three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite element analysis [10] was performed to simulate the sequence of steps involved in arriving at the configuration of the weld repair of CRD housing at the lower head of reactor vessel of Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP-1). The residual stress analysis [10] simulated welding of the weld repair with
{ }. Operation at steady state temperature and pressure conditions and return to zero load conditions was also simulated after the completion of the weld simulation. The radial component of stresses is used in the analysis.
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS This section discusses assumptions and modeling simplifications applicable to the present evaluation of NMP-1 strain induced corrosion crack growth.
4.1 Modeling Simplifications
- The postulated flaw is assumed to include a "crack-like" defect extending 360° around the outer circumference of the weld. For analytical purposes, a continuous flaw is located in the cylindrical plane between the weld and head.
- The length of the interface between the repair weld and the RV head is estimated from the finite element model as { ) inch. The size of a possible triple point weld anomaly is taken as 0.1".Thus, the total Page 16
AREVA Document No. 32-9157438-000 NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation thickness of the structure through which the postulated cylindrical flaw can grow is estimated to be { }
inch ((
- An initial flaw depth of 0.100 inch Is considered to be a reasonable approximation of the maximum size of defect that would exist in the heat-affected zone of the exposed low alloy steel.
- Welding residual stresses may be taken from the shutdown condition following a simplified steady state analysis that simulates shakedown due to the initial start-up and shut-down following completion of the weld repair.
" The time during the Design Pressure Test transient is set to 3600 seconds. This estimation does not affect the results because most SICC estimation Is in the range where the crack growth rate is independent of SIF.
5.0 CALCULATIONS 5.1 Qualification of Design for Minimum Required Ligament The qualification of pure shear stress in the IDTB weld due to the primary load is done by considering the bounding load for the Design and Levels A, B, C and D conditions. It Is performed using the vertical forces due to dead weight, vertical seismic, Stuck Rod Load or SESNB load and the end pressure in the design conditions.
The design load case consisting of (Stuck Rod Load + end pressure load + DW) bounds for this calculation.
Thus, Vertical Load = { } lbs (Stuck Rod Load acting downwards) + ( ) psi [1]
- r* ({ })2/4 (end cap pressure) + { } lbs (dead weight + seismic) = I} lbs (Section 8.1.3 Reference [7])
Allowable Shear Stress = 0.6 *S, = 0.6 * } psi (interpolated from values in Table 3-7 of [5]) = { } psi The required minimum ligament length = (11 (rT Do))*(Load / Allowable Shear Stress)
= (1l(Tr *{ )y))*({ } psi) ={
Thus, the maximum allowable flaw size for the SCC crack that may originate at the LAS I IDTB Interface
={ }"(length of the interface) - { r"(required minimum length) = { y 5.2 Flaw Growth Analysis Flaw growth is calculated in one-year Increments for both constant and transient loading conditions. For each transient, the applied cycles are distributed uniformly over the service life. For every transient fatigue crack growth is calculated first. The fatigue crack growth increment is used to update SIF solution then the SICC crack is calculated for that transient. SICC at constant steady state condition is calculated for the remainder of the year (1 year - transient times). Realistic crack growth is achieved by linking the incremental crack growth for the constant load with each transient event on a yearly basis. The stresses used in the flaw growth calculations and subsequent flaw evaluations at the final flaw depth are based on the sum of cyclic or steady state operational stresses, as appropriate, from Reference [7] and residual stresses from Reference [101. This is a conservative approximation of the actual state of stress since elastic operational stresses are added directly to elastic-plastic residual stresses, without credit for attenuation of residual stress during crack growth.
Flaw growth evaluations were done for both the uphill and downhill sides of the CRD housing penetration. The flaw growth results for the downhill sides are bounding. Thus, the results for the downhill side are only reported in this document. Table 5-1 shows the results of the crack growth calculations. The crack growth iterations were terminated when the crack depth reached 75% of the IDTB weld/LAS interface ligament length. The final crack depth after 12 years of plant operation is found to be ( ) inch which corresponds to crack depth to weld width ratio (aft) of { }. Crack depths beyond 12 years will not satisfy the LEFM acceptance criterion. The LEFM acceptance criteria are evaluated in 5.3. The detailed crack growth analysis for each transient and steady state condition is shown in Appendix B.
Page 17
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC Evaluation Table 5-1: Crack Growth Results Table 5-1:I.AS NMP-1 Crack Growth SCC/SICC Evaluation Results Operating Flaw Depth to Time Final Flaw Size Thickness ratio (yr.) (in) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 5.3 Flaw Acceptance Analysis As mentioned in Section 2.2, the IWB-3612 acceptance criteria of Section XI [3] is used. According to IWB-3612 a flaw is acceptable if the applied stress intensity factor for the final flaw dimension af satisfy the following criteria.
(a) For normal and upset conditions:
K* < K,. I/410 (b) For emergency and faulted conditions:
K, < K1c /42 Table 5-2 provides the minimum LEFM safety margins obtained using crack growth rates from BWRVIP-60-A.
The minimum LEFM safety margins for every transient at the end of the evaluation period (limited to 12 years) are shown. As seen in Table 5-2, the minimum LEFM safety margin Is { ) which Is higher than the required safety margin of 410 for normal/upset conditions. Also, Table 5-2 shows that the LEFM margin is acceptable for level C loading condition where the minimum LEFM safety margin is { ) which greater than the required safety margin of 412.
Page 18
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC Evaluation Table 5-2: Flaw Acceptance Results KIef T IK. Ka Transient Tksiin (ksi F 'in) K,/I
> 4a10 Kft (ksi'in) Ki d2 5.4 Evaluation using BWRVIP-233 Crack Growth Rates (For Information only (FIO))
The analysis is also done using crack growth rates from BWRVIP-233 (Section 3.5.7, [2], [111]). The analysis based an BWRVIP-233 is reported for information purposes only.
The disposition line developed by BWRVIP-233 is described in Section 3.5.7 of Reference [2]. These CGR are a function of the applied stress intensity (KI) as follows:
0 < K,< 20 MPadm daldt = 0 (m/s) 20 < K,< 80 MPa'm da/dt = 1 x 10"11 (mds) 80:s K,< 106 MPa4m da/dt = 1 x 1 0 (O1008K- 19.07) (m/s) 106 < K,MPaqm da/dt = 3.28 x 10"14 K4 (mis)
The crack growths were done for the 40 years. As can be seen in Table 5-3 the flaw depth obtained using BWRVIP-233 CGR at the end of forty years is only ( ) inch. The detailed crack growth analysis for each transient and the steady state is shown inAppendix C.
Page 19
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table 5-3: Crack Growth Results based on BWRVIP-233 CGR [2,11] (FIO) 13WRVIP-233 Operating Flaw Depth to Time Final Flaw Size Thickness ratio (yr.) (in) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37 38 39 40 Page 20
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table 5-4 provides the minimum LEFM safety margins obtained for cases where crack growth rate from BWRVIP-233 data is used. The temperature (T) is the minimum (limiting) temperature of each transient. This temperature is used to calculate KIa. The minimum LEFM safety margins for every transient at the end of the evaluation period are shown. As seen in Table 5-4, the minimum LEFM safety margin is 8.1.
Table 5-4: Flaw Acceptance Results based on BWRVIP-233 (FIO)
Kzl.ff T KJK Kid/
Transient (ksiin) (F) (ksi'in)
> q10 Kic (ksi'4in K/K a i Page 21
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation 6.0
SUMMARY
6.1 Results Flaw Size Initial flaw size, ai = 0.1000 in.
Final flaw size after 12 years, af { }in.
Flaw growth, Aa = ( ) in.
Mode I Fracture Toughness Evaluation for Bounding Transient Fracture toughness, K.= { } ksi'Iin Stress intensity factor at final flaw size, Kff = ( } ksi'Iin Safety margin (must be a: 410): K18 / KI0f = { }
6.2 Conclusion The results of this analysis demonstrate that a 0.100 inch postulated flaw inthe exposed LAS is acceptable for 12 years of operation following a CRD housing temper bead weld repair. At the final flaw size of { } inch, the limiting Mode I fracture toughness margin is { ), which exceeds the required margin of 410.
For Information only, the crack growth was performed using CGR from BWRVIP-233) (see section 5.4.1) the postulated flaw in LAS is acceptable for more than 40 years. Also we noted that if the acceptance criterion for normall/upset condition is based on KFc (as in the ASME Code 2005 Addenda onwards) the flaw is acceptable for 20 years.
Page 22
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC Evaluation
7.0 REFERENCES
- 1. AREVA NP Document 08-9132350-002, "Design Specification for Nine Mile Point 1 Control Rod Drive Housing Modification."
2 AREVA NP Document 51-9133971-002, "Corrosion Evaluation for Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Control Rod Drive Housing Modification."
3 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, 2004 Edition with no Addenda
- 4. AREVA NP Document 32-9042967-002, "SMG Low Alloy Steel Crack Growth Evaluation."
- 5. AREVA NP Document 32-9133260-005, "Design Input Document to Support Structural Analysis of NMP-1 CRDH Repair."
7 AREVA NP Document 32-9141306-002, "Nine Mile Point Unit 1 CRDH Weld Repair- Finite Element Analysis."
- 8. AREVA NP Document 51-9134937-003, "Transients for Nine Mile Point Unit I Weld Repair of CRD Nozzles."
- 9. AREVA NP Document 32-9133260-005, "Design Input Document to Support Structural Analysis of NMP-1 CRDH Repair."
- 11. BWRVIP-233: BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Evaluation of Stress Corrosion Crack Growth in Low Alloy Steel Vessel Materials in the BWR Environment: Technical Basis for Revisions to BWRVIP-60-A 2009 Revision, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 1019061 (For Information Only).
Page 23
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation APPENDIX A: VERIFICATION OF SIF FOR CYLINDRICAL FLAW This Appendix provides verification of the Excel macro KI-edge used to calculate the SIF intensity factor for the cylindrical flaw (single edge notch). Also, the Excel macro Kleff.edge which considers plasticity correction is verified. The test case considered in this appendix used a=0.05 inch, t=0.5 inch, a/t0, and av,= 4 0.0 ksi.
Basis: Analysis of Flaws, 2004 ASME Code, Section Xl, Appendix A, Reference (3]
V4= [AoGo+A 1 G1 +A 2 G2 +A 3 G3 ]4(ira/Q) where 0= 1 + 4.593 (a/1)'-6 -q, and qy= [(AoGo+AiGi+A 2 G2 +A3 G3) / C,]2 /6 For ail = 0.0 (continuous flaw) aft<= 0.1 Go = 1.195 Gi = 0.773 G2 = 0.600 G3 = 0.501 Stresses are described by a third order polynomial fit over the flaw depth, 2 3 S(x) = Ao + At(x/a) + A2(x/a) + A3(x/a)
For given residual and transient stresses Wall Residual Transient Stress Total Stresses Position, x Stress Transient 1 (in.) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) 0.000 12.73 1.0 13.727 0.042 14.69 2.0 16.695 0.083 16.66 3.0 19.663 0.125 16.48 5.0 21.476 0.167 16.29 4.0 20.289 0.208 16.13 6.0 22.130 0.250 15.97 8.0 23.970 0.292 17.28 9.0 26.278 0.333 18.59 8.0 26.586 0.375 17.08 7.0 24.079 0.417 15.57 6.0 21.572 0.458 28.48 4.0 32.482 0.500 41.39 3.0 44.394 Page 24
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Stress over crack face for Transient 1 Interpolated x/a x Stress 0.00 0.000 13.727 A3= 1.02E-15 0.10 0.005 14.083 A2= 0.0000 0.20 0.010 14.439 AI= 3.56136 0.30 0.015 14.796 AO= 13.7271 0.40 0.020 15.152 0.50 0.025 15.508 0.60 0.030 15.864 0.70 0.035 16.220 0.80 0.040 16.576 0.90 0.045 16.932 1.00 0.050 17.288 K =Ao Go + AI G + A2 G2 + A3 G3 ]4(Ita/Q)= 7.590 K1 edge= 7.590 Difference= 0.0%
2 qy=[ (Ao Go+ A, G, +A 2 G2 +A 3 G3) /Ioy. ] 16= 0.038 Plasticity Q=1 + 4.593 (a/I)'5 - q, 0.962 Correction K= A0 Go + A1 G1 + A2 G2 + A3 G3 ]4(7ta/Q)= 7.739 Kleffedge= 7.739 Difference= 0.0%
Page 25
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC Evaluation APPENDIX B: DETAILED CRACK GROWTH CALCULATIONS USING BWRVIP-60-A DATA Table B-I: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Startup AN = { I cycles/year Transient Time { } Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K1(a)max KI(a)min Aafatg K1(a)max K,(a)min Aasrc (yr.) (in.) (ksihin) ksi'lin) (in.) (ksihin) (ksi'Iin) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 26
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC Evaluation Table B-2: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Shutdown AN = I cycles/year Transient Time { I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a I4(a)max Kj(a)min Aat. KI(a)min KI(a)max Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (ksilni (in.) (ksiiin) (ksi'n) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 27
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table B-3: Crack Growth Calculations- Blowdown AN= { 1 ccles/year Transient Time ( I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a Kj(a)max K,(a)min Aa&,tipe Kj(a)max K*(a)min Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksiqin) (in.) (in.) (ksi-4in) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 28
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table B-4: Crack Growth Calculations- Design Pressure Test N= } cycleslyear Transient Time { I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K(a)max K}(a)min Aaf=ffg KI(a)max KI(a)min Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksiVin) (in.) (in.) (ksi'/in) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 29
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table B-5: Crack Growth Calculations- SCRAM AN= { ) cles/year Transient Time ( I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K(a)max K,(a)min Aatwtj K,(a)max K(a)min Aasicc (yr.) in.) (ksi in) (in.) (in.) (ksi-An) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 30
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMVP-11 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table B-6: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of CRD Cooling Water AN = { } cydes/year Transient Time { I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a KV(a)max 1K(a)min Aami. K1(a)max KI(a)min Aasr-c (yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (in.) (in.) (ksi4n) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 31
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AR EVA NMP-1 LAS SCClSICC Evaluation Table B-7: Crack Growth Calculations- Attempt Road Withdrawal AN = { ) cyceslyear Transient Time f I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K1(a)max Ki(a)min Aawige Ki(a)max Ki(a)min Aasacc (vr.) (in.) (ksi*4in) (in.) (in.) (ksihin) (in.) in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 32
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table B-8: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of Feed water Pump AN = { ) cycles/year Transient Time { ) Seconds Operating Time Cycle a Kj(a)max K1(a)min Aafu.. K1(a)max KI(a)min Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksivin) (in.) (in.) (ksi'4in) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 33
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table B-9: Crack Growth Calculations- Emergency Cooldown AN= { } cycles/year Transient Time { 1 Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K(a)max KI(a)min Aa*t*,fi K(a)max Ki(a)min Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (in.) (in.) (ksiin) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 34
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table B-10: Crack Growth Calculations- Shut Down Cooling A = { cycles/year Transient Time { I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a KI(a)max KI(a)min Aaflu, K1(a)max K1(a)min Aasrcc (yr.) (in.) (ksi n) (in.) (in.) (ksihin) In.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 35
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table B-11: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop - Definition I AN = } cycleslyear Transient Time I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a KI(a)max Ki(a)min Aarftt. Kj(a)max K1(a)min Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksiNin) (in.) (in.) (ksi'Iin) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 36
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table B-12: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop - Definition 2 AN = { cycles/year Transient Time ) Seconds Operating Time Cycle a KI(a)max K,(a)min Mratiu Kj(a)max Ka(a)min Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksi4in) (in.) (in.) (ksi'Jin) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I Page 37
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table B-13: Crack Growth Calculations- SS CONDITIONS Transient Time (
Operating Time a KI(a)max Aacc (yr.) (in.) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 38
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation APPENDIX C: DETAILED CRACK GROWTH CALCULATIONS USING BWRVIP-233 DATA (FOR INFORMATION ONLY)
Table C-1: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Startup (FIO)
AN = ( cydes/,ear Transient Time { I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K1(a)max KI(a)min Aa"jq K1(a)max Kg(a)min Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksihin) (ksiV/in) (in.) (ksihin) (ksi*/in) (in.)
0 (
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 K J Page 39
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table C-2: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Shutdown (FIO)
AN = { cycles/year Transient Time ( 1 Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K(a)max KI(a)min Aawgue K1(a)min KI(a)max Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksi'/in) (ksi'/in) (in.) (ksi,4in) (ksihfin) (in.)
0 2
1 ( '1~
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4
Pag Page 40
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCClSICC Evaluation Table C-3: Crack Growth Calculations- Blowdown (FIO)
AN= f I cycles/year Transient Time { ) Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K(a)max KI(a)min Aart~,e K(a)max K1(a)min Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksi4/in) (in.) (in.) (ksi'/in) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 I Page 41
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table C-4: Crack Growth Calculations- Design Pressure Test (FIO)
AN = ycles/year y) Transient Time { I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a KI(a)max K1(a)min Aarw,, Kj(a)max K1(a)min Aasace (yr.) (in.) (ksiV/in) (in.) (in.) (ksi4/in) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Page 42
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMVP-1 LAS SOC/SIOC Evaluation Table C-5: Crack Growth Calculations- SCRAM (FIO)
AN = {) cycles/year Transient Time { ) Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K(a)max Kj(a)min Aa*ue K,(a)max K(a)min Aasrcc (yr.) (in.) (ksirin) (in.) (in.) (ksi'Jin) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 J Page 43
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table C-6: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of CRD Cooling Water (FIO)
AN = cycdes/year Transient Time 4 1 Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K1(a)max K1(a)min Aaatvg= K1(a)max KI(a)min Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksiAIin) (in.) (in.) (ksibin) (in.) (in.)
0 1 6 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 K J Page44
A AREVA Document No. 32-9157438-000 NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table C-7: Crack Growth Calculations- Attempt Road Withdrawal (FIO)
AN = { } cycleslyear Transient Time { I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K1(a)max KI(a)min Aar= IK1(a)max Kt(a)min Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksiV/in) (in.) (in.) (ksi*/in) (in.) (in.)
0 1 I 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 \I' J Page 45
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC Evaluation Table C-8: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of Feed water Pump (FIO)
AN= { cycleslyear Transient Time { I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K1(a)max K1(a)min Aaftiue KI(a)max K4(a)min Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (Iksi-in) (in.) (In.) (ksi/in) (in.) (in.)
0 2
3 1
K 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 J Page 46
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCClSICC Evaluation Table C-9: Crack Growth Calculations- Emergency Cooldown (FIO)
AN = ( I cyclestyear Transient Time { I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K1(a)max Ki(a)min Aamque. K(a)max KI(a)min Aas5c (yr.) (in.) (ksilin) (in.) (in.) (ksi~in) (in.) (in.)
0 1 6 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 K
36 37 38 39 40 J Page 47
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table C-10: Crack Growth Calculations- Shut Down Cooling (FIO)
A1N= {} cycles/year Transient Time { ) Seconds Operating Time Cycle a K,(a)max Ki(a)min Aafog K,(a)max K4(a)min Aasmc (yr.) (in.) (ksi4Jin) (in.) (in.) (ksi/in) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 J Page 48
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation Table C-11: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop - Definition 1 (FIO)
AN= { cles/year Transient Time I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a KI(a)max KI(a)min Aafetim K4(a)max K1(a)min Aasicc (yr.) (in.) (ksiAin) (in.) (in.) (ksi'/in) (in.) (in.)
0 1 If 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 P Page 49
A AREVA Document No. 32-9157438-000 NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC Evaluation Table C-12: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop - Definition 2 (FIO)
AN = I cycles/year Transient Time I Seconds Operating Time Cycle a KI(a)max K1(a)min AaUg~e KI(a)max K1(a)min Aas=c (yr.) (in.) (ksidin) (in.) (in.) (ksi4/in) (in.) (in.)
0 (.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 V j Page 50
A Document No. 32-9157438-000 AREVA NMP-1 LAS SCCSICC Evaluation Table C-13: Crack Growth Calculations- SS CONDITIONS (FIO)
Transient Time Operating Time a Kq(a)max Aasicc (in.) (in.) (in.)
0 1
2
(
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 k Page 51
ATTACHMENT 3 AFFIDAVIT FROM AREVA NP INC. JUSTIFYING WITHHOLDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION (DOCUMENT NO. 32-9146818-000)
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC October 31, 2012
AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) ss.
CITY OF LYNCHBURG )
- 1. My name is Gayle F. Elliott. I am Manager, Product Licensing, for AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA NP) and as such I am authorized to execute this Affidavit.
- 2. I am familiar with the criteria applied by AREVA NP to determine whether certain AREVA NP information is proprietary. I am familiar with the policies established by AREVA NP to ensure the proper application of these criteria.
- 3. I am familiar with the AREVA NP information contained in Calculation Summary Sheet (CSS) 32-9146818-000 entitled "NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation," dated March 2011 and referred to herein as "Document." Information contained in this Document has been classified by AREVA NP as proprietary in accordance with the policies established by AREVA NP for the control and protection of proprietary and confidential information.
- 4. This Document contains information of a proprietary and confidential nature and is of the type customarily held in confidence by AREVA NP and not made available to the public. Based on my experience, I am aware that other companies regard information of the kind contained in this Document as proprietary and confidential.
- 5. This Document has been made available to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in confidence with the request that the information contained in this Document be withheld from public disclosure. The request for withholding of proprietary information is made in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. The information for which withholding from disclosure is
requested qualifies under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(4) "Trade secrets and commercial or financial information."
- 6. The following criteria are customarily applied by AREVA NP to determine whether information should be classified as proprietary:
(a) The information reveals details of AREVA NP's research and development plans and programs or their results.
(b) Use of the information by a competitor would permit the competitor to significantly reduce its expenditures, in time or resources, to design, produce, or market a similar product or service.
(c) The information includes test data or analytical techniques concerning a process, methodology, or component, the application of which results in a competitive advantage for AREVA NP.
(d) The information reveals certain distinguishing aspects of a process, methodology, or component, the exclusive use of which provides a competitive advantage for AREVA NP in product optimization or marketability.
(e) The information is vital to a competitive advantage held by AREVA NP, would be helpful to competitors to AREVA NP, and would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of AREVA NP.
The information in the Document is considered proprietary for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 6(b) and 6(c) above.
- 7. In accordance with AREVA NP's policies governing the protection and control of information, proprietary information contained in this Document have been made available, on a limited basis, to others outside AREVA NP only as required and under suitable agreement providing for nondisclosure and limited use of the information.
- 8. AREVA NP policy requires that proprietary information be kept in a secured file or area and distributed on a need-to-know basis.
- 9. The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
SUBSCRIBED before me this ___ _
day of / da*"-ý- 2012.
Danita R. Kidd NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 12/31/12 Reg. # 205569