ML20206K302
| ML20206K302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1988 |
| From: | Caine T, Papandrea C, Ranganath S GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206K294 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.099, RTR-REGGD-1.099 SASR-88-84, SASR-88-84-R01, SASR-88-84-R1, NUDOCS 8811290355 | |
| Download: ML20206K302 (19) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
,s V.e . .o. ,
' ' f. ,. a SASR 88 84 DRF 137 0010 October 1988 Revision 1 ;
P N
I i
IMPACT OF REGUIATORY GUIDE 1.99, REVISION 2 ON l PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION t UNIT 3 ;
h 1
l Prepared by: Ib T. A. C,aine, Senior Engineer Materials Monitoring & ,
Structural Analysis Services i 4
l J
1 Verified by:
G
! .at M m I
' C. J. Papandrea, Engineer !
Materials Monitoring & {
Structural Analysis Services !
3L AA h Reviewed by: ~~l-'-
S.Ranganath,Nanager j Materials Monitoring &
Structural Analysis Services O -
GENuclearEnergy p?$f12l8OCFs355 esns:s 05000277 PDC .
I
_._ _._ _ . .. _____ o
G. .' ,
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT PLEASE READ CAREFULLY This report was prepared by General Electric Company solely for the u ;a of the Philadelphia Electric Company. The information contained in this report is believed by General Electric to be an accurate and true representation of the facts known, obtained or provided to General Electric at the time this report was prepared.
The only undertakin5s of the General Electric Company respecting information in this document are contained in the contract governing Philadelphia Electric Company Transaction Order No. 946016 and nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing said contract. The use of this information except as defined by said contract, or for any purpose other than that for which it is intended, is not authorized; and with respect to any such unauthorized use, neither General Electric Company nor any of the contributors t , this document makes any representation or warranty (express or implied) as to the completeness, accuracy or usefulness of the information contained in this document or that such use of such information may not infringe privately owned rights; nor do they assume any tesponsibility for liability or hmage of any kind which may result from such use of such information.
i
.i' i,
11 r 1 l
f' I $
1.0 BACKCROUND The pressure temperature (P T) curves in the Technical Specifications are established to the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix C [1] to assure that brittle fracture of the reactor vessel is prevented. Part of the analysis involved in developing the PT curves is to account for neutron irradiation embrittlement effects in the core region, or beltline. In the past, Regulatery Guide 1.99, Revision 1 [2] has been used to predict the shift in nil ductility reference temperature (RTNDT) as a function of neutron fluence in ene
' b'eltline region. Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 1 (Rev 1) was
, devsloped assuming that cepper (Cu) and phosphorus (P) were the key chemical elements influe.cing embrittlement.
Regulator / Cuide 1.99, Revision 2 [3] (Rev 2) was issued in May 1988. Rev 2 represents the results of statistical evaluation of commercial reactor surveillance test data accumulated through about 1984 There are two basic factors used in the <.alculations to predict the shift in RTNDT shown in the regulatory guide, a chemistry factor and a fluence factor. Both of these factors remained the same from Rn 1 to Rev 2 of the regulatory guide. However, the method of calculating each facto. has been significantly changed, ihe chemistry factor (CF) has been changed from an equation based on cu and P in Re r 1 to tables of CF values based on Cu and nickel (Ni), with separate tables for p1ates and for welds. The fluence factor has been modified in Fev 2 to a somewhat more complex form.
Generic Letter 8811 [4] requests an evaluation of the impact of Rev 2 on existing P T cu nes, and a schedule to implement Rev 2. This letter presents the results of the Rev 2 impact evaluation for Peach Bottom 3. Actions required for implementation of Rev 2 are presented, and recommendations are made conceming the timing of these actions in light of planned plant retivities and industry efforts underway.
1 I
Y ,
- f g 2.0 IMPACT EVALUATION Each beltline region consists of three lower shell plates, three lower intermediate shell plates and the connecting longitudinal welds and girth veld. Attachment A shows the details of the impact evaluation for each beltline material. The process followed is described below, chemistry The chemistry data shown in the attachments were taken from
., soveral sources. The beltline plate data vere retrieved from CE quality assurance records of the vessel fabrication. These records, which lack copper content data, were supplemer.ted with correspondence from Lukens Steel giving the copper content data maintained in their internal records system. The longitudinal electrosisg welds were made with the same veld heat in Units 2 and 3, so the chemistry reported in the Unit 2 surveillance test report (5) were assumed for Unit 3.
Chemistry data for the gi-th veld were taken from the vessel fabrication records.
Initial RT NDT The values of initial RTNDT shown in the attachments for the beltline plates and the girth veld were based on 30 ft-lb impact energy verification testing, with longitudinal Charpy specimens, done at the time of vessel fabrication. A CE procedure, described in the Unit 2 report ($), was used to establish conservat','e values of RTNDT '
from the vessel fabrication test data. The RTNDT value for the Unit 3 longitudinal electros.' q velds were taken from the Unit 2 report (5),
as the same weld heat was used in Unit 2. With the exception of the electrosla5 weld, where a og was calculated, the og term in the Rev 2 margin expression is assumed to be zero, because the initi'l RTNDT 1 values are already conservative.
2
r f.. .,,,
.k The values of neutron fluence for 32 effective full power years (EFPY) shown in ti.e attachments are based on dosimetry results for Unit 2. A recent computation of fluence has not been done for Unit 3, since the first surveillance capsule is due to be tested in the near future. However, the fuel loadings and geometries of Units 2 and 3 are essentially identical, so the fluence vr.lua and lead factors documented in the Unit 2 report [5] provide the best current esti= ate of Unit 3 fluence.
.,, The Rev 1 calculations of RTNDT shif t are based on the caletcared value of fluence 1/4 thickness into the- vessel vall from the inside surface (1/4 T). The Rev 2 method is to take the calculated fluente at the vessel inside surface, f surf. and attenuate that value to the depth x according to the relationship:
fx -fsurf ('
)*
As it turns out, both methods result in the same fluence at the 1/4 T location.
Surveillance Test Correction Factor Rev 1 allows for consideration of credible rurveillance data when it becomer available. H vever, surveillance testing has not yet been performed for Unit 3, so the Rev 1 correction factor does not apply, and is set to 1.0.
SHIFT and Adiusted Reference Tercerature (ARTT The RTNDT shif t calculations in the attach =ents are based on the procedures in Rev 1 and Rev 2. For Rev 1. the value of SHIFI is computed with the equation:
3
I 4
I. .,
I SHIFT. - (STF)*[40 + 1000(tcu - .08) + 5000(%P .008)]*(f)0.5 where STF - surveillance test correction factor l
f - fluence for the given EFPY / 10 19 For Rev 2, the value of SHIFT consists of two terms:
SHIFT - ARTNDT + Margin 0.10 log f) where ARTgg7 - [CF]*f(0.28 Margin - 2(ag 8 + a32 ) . 5
.i Chemistry factors (CF) are tabulated for welds and plates in Rev 2.
-* , The margin term og has set values in Rev 2 of 17'F for plate and 28'F for veld. However, og need not be greater than 0.5*aRTNDT*
The values of ART in Att ichment A are computed by adding the SHIFT terms to the values of initial RTNDT' ART - In*tial RTNDT + SNIII' l
I 1
l 4 l
3.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results and Conc 1"sig.ng The impact of implementing Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2 (Rev 2) in place of kegulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 1 (Rev 1) can best be determined by comparing the adjusted reference temperatures (ART) based on Rev 1 and Rev 2. Table 1 shows the ART values at S effective full power years (EFPY) and at 32 EFTY for each beltline material.
The following conclusions are drawn from the results in Table 1:
., 1. The Rev 2 ART values at 32 EFPY are below 200*F, which is the 10CTR50, Appendix G. Therefore, allowable limit in implementation of Rev 2 will not result in any additional analysis, testing or provisions for thermal annealing.
value for Unit 3 which applies to the
- 2. The ART pessure temperature (P T) curves in the current Technical Specifications is 60*F (40*F assumed initial RT NDT Pl us 20*F shift). As shown in Attachment A, this value corresponds to the Rev 2 ART at about 16 EFPY for limitins beltline mateital, place heat C2773 2. Since Unit 3 has accumulated only about 8 EFPY of operation, the PT curves currently used in the Technical Specifications are based r,n an ART that is conservative.
Recomendations Generic Letter 8811 requires that Rev 2 be implemented within two outages. Based on the conclusions above, the following recommendations are made concerning Rev 2 implementation:
- 1. The P-T curves currently used in the Technical Specifications are based on an ART that is now, and through 16 EFPY vill be,
't conservative compared to Rev 2 predicted ART values. The first surveillance capsule is scheduled for testing in early 1989, so i
5
~
s 4 9 3 it is recommended that revision of the P T curves be combined with that testing effort, as was done for Unit 2 in 1988. In that way, implementation of Rev 2 and any needed updating to current 10CFR50 Appendix C requirements can be accomplished -
throu8h one effort, within the required time period.
- 2. In addition to revising the P T curves, it is recommended that section 4.2 of the UFSAR and section 3/4.6. A of the Technical Specifications be revised to document completed surveillance testing, compliance with current 10Cf1t50 Appendix G requirements and use of Rev 2.
6-
- e .
Table 1 COMPARISON OF REV 1 AND REV 2 ART VALUES FOR PEACH BOTTOM 3 8 EFPY J2 EFPY Rev 1 Rev 2 Rev 1 Rev 2 Beltline Comeonent ART ('F) ART (*F) ART (*F) ART ('F)
., Unit 3 Plates:
C4689 2 2.5 15.8 15.0 47.1 C4684 2 4.9 8.4 10.2 42.8 c4627-1 4.9 5.9 10.2 37.2 C2773-2 27.1 42.7 44.1 80.1 C2775 1 23.1 37.3 36.3 70.3 C3103-1 25.1 41.4 40.2 78.7 Unit 3 Welds:
37C065 18.1 9.3 8.8 43.2 3P4000 40.1 41.5 -30.3 -31.2 7
l
( -)
4.0 REFERENCES
[1] "Fraccure Toughness Requirements," Appendix G to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, July 1983.
(2) "Effects of Residual Elements on Predicted Rad!ation Damage to Reactor Vessel Mate ~ials," USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 1. April 1977.
, (3) "Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials," USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, May 1988.
4
{4] "NRC Position on Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Material and Its Impact of Plant Operations," USNRC Ceneric Letter 88-11 July 1988.
[5] Caine, T. A., "Nach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 2 Vessel Surveillance Materiah Testing and Fracture Toughness Analysis,"
CE Report SASR 88 24, May 1988.
b
1 .
ATTACHMENT A
.. . COMPARISON OF IRRADIATION EMBRITTLEMENT PREDICTIONS ,
OF REGUIATORY CUIDE 1.99, REVISIONS 1 AND 2 FOR PEACH BOTTOM 3 I e e
-o COMPARISON OF REG. GUIDE 1.99 REVISIONS 1 AND d '~
FOR PEACH BOTTOM 3 BELTLINE MATERIALS ,"
/
Lower Sisell Plate: 6-146-1 Thickness 6.1'3 inches Material Heat? C4689-2 Chemistry: C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Mo 0.21 1.27 0.011 0.016 0.25 0.12 0.56 0.6 Initial RTndt: RTndt-I = -10 F, Sigma-I = 0F 32 EPPY Fluence (f) : Calculated Peak 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/ca^2 (used with Rev 1)
Calculated Peak I.D. f= 1.0E+18 n/ca^2 Rev 2 Attenuated 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/ca^2 (basis for Rev 2 delta RT)
Surveillance Testing Affecting Rev 1 Shift Calculation:
Surveillance testing not yet done.
Correction factor applied = 1 Chemistry Factor for Rev 2 Shift: CF= 82.2 Comparison of Rev 1 and Rev 2 SHIFT and ART (degrees F) versus EFPY:
Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 1 Rev 1 EFPY Delta RT Margin SHIFT ART SHIFT ART 4 8.2 8.2 16.3 6.3 8.8 -1.2 8 12.9 12.9 25.8 15.8 12.5 2.5 12 16.6 16.6 33.1 23.1 15.3 5.3 16 19.6 19.6 39.2 29.2 17.6 7.6 20 22.2 22.2 44.5 34.5 19.7 9.7 24 24.6 24.6 49.1 39.1 21.6 11.6 28 26.6 26.6 53.3 43.3 23.3 13.3 32 28.6 28.6 57.1 47.1 25.0 15.0
.w,-.
~ _ _ _ ____ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ .. ._ .. . . _.
. O COMPARICON OF REG. GUIDE 1.99 REVISIONS 1 AND d .'
FOR PEACH BOTTOM 3 BELTLINE MATERIALS ,'
Lower Shell Plate: 6-146-3 Thickness 6.13 inches Material Heat: C4684-2 Chemistry: C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Mo 0.22 1.41 0.013 0.016 0.24 0.13 0.58 0.55 Initial RTndt: RTndt-I = -20 F, Sigma-I = 0F 32 EFPY Fluence (f) : Calculated Peak 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/cm^2 (used with Rev 1)
Calculated Peak I.D. f= 1.0E+18 n/ca^2 Rev 2 Attenuated 1/4T f n 6.9E+17 n/cm^2 (basis for Rev 2 delta RT)
Surveillance Testing Affecting Rev 1 Shift Calculation:
Surveillance testing not yet done.
j Correction factor applied = 1 l Chemistry Factor for Rev 2 Shift: CF= 90.4 comparison of Rev 1 and Rev 2 SHIFT and ART (degrees F) versus EFPY:
Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 1 Rev 1 EPPY Delta RT Margin SHIFT ART SHIFT ART
! 4 9.0 9.0 18.0 -2.0 10.7 -9.3 8 14.2 14.2 28.4 8.4 15.1 -4.9 12 18.2 18.2 36.5 16.5 18.5 -1.5 16 21.6 21.6 43.1 23.1 21.4 1.4 20 24.5 24.5 48.9 28.9 23.9 3.9 24 27.0 27.0 54.0 34.0 26.2 6.2 l 28 29.3 29.3 58.6 38.6 28.3 8.3 32 31.4 31.4 62.8 42.8 30.2 10.2
) [
1 O
COMPARISON OF REG. GUIDE 1.99 REVISIONS 1 AND 2F -
FOR PEACH BOTTON 3 BELTLINE MATERIALS ,
Lower Shell Plate: 6-146-7 Thickness 6.13 inches Material Heat: C4627-1 Chemistry: C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Mo 0.22 1.32 0.015 0.016 0.25 0.12 0.57 0.56 Initial RTndt: RTndt-I = -20 F, Sigma-I = 0F 32 ETPY Fluence (f): Calculated Peak 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/cm*2 (used with Rev 1)
Calculated Peak I.D. f= 1.0E+18 1/cm^2 Rev 2 Attenuated 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/cm^2 (basis for Rev 2 delta RT)
Surveillance Testing Affecting Rev 1 Shift Calculation:
Surveillance testing not yet done.
Correction factor applied = 1 Chemistry Factor for Rev 2 Shift: CF= 82.4 conaparison of Rev 1 and Rev 2 SHIFT and ART (degrees F) versus EFPY:
Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 1 Rev 1 EFPY Delta RT Margin SHIFT ART SHIFT ART 4 8.2 8.2 16.4 -3.6 10.7 -9.3 8 12.9 12.9 25.9 5.9 15.1 -4.9 12 16.6 16.6 33.2 13.2 '18.5 -1.5-16 19.7 19.7 39.3 19.3 21.4 1.4 20 22.3 22.3 44.6 24.6 23.9 3.9 24 24.6 24.6 49.2 29.2 26.2 6.2 28 26.7 26.7 53.4 33.4 28.3 8.3 32 28.6 28.6 57.2 37.2 30.2 10.2 1
- 1. _,
_ , _ - _ . - . ~ . , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ _ , _ , _ _ - , _ _ , . , _ _ _ - - _ _ - . _ _ . - . _ . . - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ , -
O
~
~
COMPARISON OF REG. GUIDE 1.99 REVISIONS 1 AND 2' ~
FOR PEACH BOTTOM 3 BELTLINE MATERIALS _
Lower Intermediate Plate: 6-139-10 Thickness 6.13 inches i
Material Heat: C2773-2 Chemistry: C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Mo 0.22 1.3 0.012 0.018 0.24 0.15 0.49 0.48 Initial RTndt: RTndt-I = 10 F, Sigma-I = 0F l
32 EFPY Fluence (f): Cric Gated Peak 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/cmaa 2 (used with Rev 1) -
Calculated Peak I.D. f= 1.0E+18 n/cm 2 Rev 2 Attenuated 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/cm^2 (banis for Rev 2 delta RT)
Surveillance Testing Affecting Rev 1 Shift Calculation:
. Surveillance testing not yet done.
Correction factor applied = 1 Chemistry Factor for Rev 2 Shift: CF= 104 Comparison of Rev 1 and Rev 2 SHIFT and ART (degrees F) versus EFPY:
i Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 1 Rev 1 EPPY Delta RT Margin SHIFT ART SHIFT ART 4 10.3 10.3 20.7 30.7 12.1 22.1 8 16.3 16.3 32.7 42.7 17.1 27.1 12 21.0 21.0 41.9 51.9 20.9 30.9 16 24.8 24.8 49.6 59.6 24.1 34.1 20 28.1 28.1 56.3 66.3 27.0 37.0 24 31.1 31.1 62.1 72.1 29.6 39.6 28 33.7 33.7 67.4 77.4 31.9 41.9 32 36.1 34.0 70.1 80.1 34.1 44.1
.o COMPARISON OF REG. GUIDE 1.99 REVISIONS 1 AND d
- FOR PEACH BOTTOM 3 BELTLINE MATERIALS ,
Lower Intermediate Plate: 6-139-11 Thickness 6.13 inches Material Heat: C2775-1 Chemistry: C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Mo 0.21 1.34 0.01 0.018 0.19 0.13 0.46 0.46 Initial RTndt: RTndt-I = 10 F, Sigma-I = 0F 32 EFPY Flue. ace (f): Calculated Peak 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/ca^2 (used with Rev 1)
Calculated Peak I.D. f= 1.OE+18 n/cm*2 Rev 2 Attenuated 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/cm*2 (basis for Rev 2 delta RT)
Surveillance Testing Affecting Rev 1 Shift Calculation:
Surveillance testing not yet done.
Correction factor applied = 1 Chemistry Factor for Rev 2 Shift: CF= 86.8 Comparison of Rev 1 and Rev 2 SHIFT and ART (degrees F) versus EFPY:
Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 1 Rev 1 EFPY Delta RT Margin SHIFT ART SHIFT ART 4 E.6 8.6 17.2 27.2 9.3 19.3 8 13.6 13.6 27.3 37.3 13.1 23.1 12 17.5 17.5 35.0 45.0 16.1 26.1 16 20.7 20.7 41.4 51.4 18.6 28.6 20 23.5 23.5 47.0 57.0 20.8 30.8 24 25.9 25.9 51.9 61.9 22.7 32.7 28 28.1 28.1 56.3 66.3 24.6 34.6 32 30.2 30.2 60.3 70.3 26.3 36.3
COMPARISON OF REG. GUIDE 1.99 REVISIONS 1 AND I ,'
FOR PEACH BOTTOM 3 BELTLINE MATERIALS .
s
~
Lower Intermediate Plate: 6-139-12 Thickness 6.13 inches Material Heat: C3103-1 Chemistry: C Mn F S Si Cu Ni Mo 0.21 1.35 0.011 0.016 0.24 0.14 0.6 0.47 Initial RTndt: RTndt-I = 10 F, Sigma-I = 0F 32 EPPY Fluence (f) : Calculated Peak 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/cmaa 2 (used with Rev 1)
Calculated Peak I.D. f= 1.0E+1B n/cm 2 Rev 2 Attenuated 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/cm*2 (basis for Rev 2 delta RT)
Surveillance Testing Affecting Rev 1 Shift Calculation:
Surveillance testing not yet done.
Correction factor applied = 1 Chemistry Factor for Rev 2 Shift: CF= 100 Comparison of Rev 1 and Rev 2 SHIFT and ART (degrees F) versus EFPY:
Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 1 Rev 1 EFPY Delta RT Margin SHIFT ART SHIFT ART 4 9.9 9.9 19.9 29.9 10.7 20.7 8 15.7 15.7 31.4 41.4 15.1 25.1 12 20.2 20.2 40.3 50.3 18.5 28.5 16 23.9 23.9 47.7 57.7 21.4 31.4 20 27.0 27.0 54.1 64.1 23.9 33.9 24 29.9 29,9 59.7 69.7 26.2 36.2 28 32.4 32.4 64.8 74.8 28.3 38.3 32 34.7 34.0 68.7 78.7 30.2 40.2
e*
COMPARISON OF REG. GUIDE 1.99 REVISIONS 1 AND S ,
FOR PEACll BOTTOM 3 BELTLINE MATERIALS -
Beltline Longitudinal Welds E and F Thickness 6.13 inches Material Itcat: 37C065 Chemistry: C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Mo 0.17 1.41 0.015 0.013 0.09 0.21 0.21 0.53 Initial RTndt: RTndt-I = -45 F, Sigma-I = 16.44 F 32 EFPY Fluence (f): Calculated Peak 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/ca^2 (used with Rev 1)
Calculated Peak I.D. f= 1.0E+18 n/ca^2 Rev 2 Attenuated 1/4T f = ~6.9E+17 n/cm^2 (basis for Rev 2 delta RT)
Surveillanca Testf%g Affecting Rev 1 Shift Calculation:
Surveillam?e testing not yet done.
Correction factor applied = 1 Chemistry Factor for Rev 2 Shift: CF= 109.3 Comparison of Rev 1 and Rev 2 SIIIFT and ART (degrees F) versus EFPY:
Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 1 Rev 1 EFPY Delta RT Margin SHIFT ART SIII FT ART 4 10.9 34.6 45.5 0.5 19.0 -26.0 8 17.2 37.1 54.3 9.3 26.9 -18.1 12 22.0 39.6 61.6 16.6 33.0 -12.0 16 36.1 42.0 68.0 23.0 38.1 -6.9 20 29.6 44.2 73.8 28.8 42.6 -2.4 21 32.6 46.3 79.0 34.0 46.6 1.6 28 35.4 48.3 83.8 38.8 50.4 5.4 32 38.0 50.2 88.2 43.2 53.8 8.8
_w
. . f COMPARISON OF REG. GUIDE 1.99 REVISIONS 1 AND 2 .
FOR PEACH BOTTOM 3 BELTLINE MATERIALS ,"
Beltline Girth Weld DE Thickness 6.13 inches Material Heat: 3P4000, 124 Flux Lot 3932 Chemistry: C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Mo 0.066 1.37 0.015 0.014 0.36 0.02 0.96 0.46 Initial RTndt: RTndt-I = -50 F, Sigma-I = 0F 32 EFPY Fluence (f) : Calculated Peak 1/4T f = 6.9E+17 n/cma 2 (used with Rev 1)
Calculated Peak I.D. f= 1.0E+18 n/cm^2 Rev 2 Attenuated 1/4T f = '6.9E+17 n/ca^2 (basis for Rev 2 delta RT) '
Surveillance Testing Affecting Rev 1 Shift Calculation:
Surveillance testing not yet done.
Correction factor applied = 1 Chemistry Factor for Rev 2 Shift: CF= 27 Comparison of Rev 1 and Rev 2 SHIFT and ART (degrees F) versus EFPY:
Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 2 Rev 1 Rev 1 EFPY Delta RT Margin SHIFT . ART SHIFT ART 4 2.7 2.7 5.4 -44.6 7.0 -43.0 8 4.2 4.2 8.5 -41.5 9.9 -40.1 12 5.4 5.4 10.9 -39.1 12.1 -37.9 16 6.4 6.4 12.9 -37.1 13.9 -36.1 20 7.3 7.3 14.6 -35.4 15.6 -34.4 24 8.1 8.1 16.1 -33.9 17.1 -32.9 28 8.8 8.8 17.5 -32.5 18.4 -31.6.
32 9.4 9.4 18.8 -31.2 19.7 -30.3 s