ML12312A256

Calculation 32-9157438-000, NMP-1 LAS Scc/Sicc Evaluation.

ML12312A256
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	10/31/2012
From:	Mahmoud S H, Noronha S J, Wiger T M AREVA NP
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC ME5789 32-9157438-000
Download: ML12312A256 (56)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:ATTACHMENT 2AREVA DOCUMENT NO. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EVALUATION(NON-PROPRIETARY)Certain information, considered proprietary by AREVA NP Inc., has been deleted from the document inthis Attachment. The deletions are identified by braces ({ }).Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLCOctober 31, 2012 0402-01-FOI (20697) (Rev. 015, 10/18/2010)A CALCULATION SUMMARY SHEET (CSS)AREVADocument No. 32 -9157438 -000 Safety Related: E Yes [ NoTitle NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC EvaluationPURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS:This document is a non-proprietary version of AREVA NP Document number 32.9146818-000. AREVA NP proprietaryInfomatlon 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 locationwhere the low alloy steel and the new weld meet. The flaw is postulated to propagate due to constant and cyclic loadsdownward along the interface between the weld and the head until it reaches the maximum acceptable flaw size. Flawacceptance 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 temperbead weld repair is acceptaftble for 12 years of operation. At the final flaw size of { } inch, the limiting Mode I fracturetoughness margin is { ), which exceeds the required margin of 410.THE DOCUMENT CONTAINSASSUMPTIONS THAT SHALL BETHE FOLLOVWNG COMPUTER CODES HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS DOCUMENT: VERIFIED PRIOR TO USECOENERSIONfREV COOENERSIOWREV 1SYESNINOPage I of 51 AAREVA0402-01-FOI (20697) (Rev. 015,10/18/2010)Document No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationReview Method:Z Design Review (Detailed Check)[I Alternate CalculationSignature BlockPIRIAName and TRW and Pages/Sections(printed or typed) Signature LPILR Date Prepared/Revlewed/ApprovedS J Noronha P AllEngineer IV ." V/"0..- 3IV7I lS H Mahmoud R All (Detailed Check)Engineer IV 3 ~T M Wiger A zyf/ AllUnit ManagerNote: 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 DateN/AMentoring Information (not required per 0402-01)Name Title Mentor to:(printed or typed) (printed or typed) (PIR) Signatre DateN/AN/APage 2 AAft EVA0402-01-FOl (20697) (Rev. 015, 10/18/2010)Document No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationRecord of RevisionRevision Pages/SectionslNo. Date Paragraphs Changed Brief Description I Change Authorization000 03/2011 All Original Release__ I __ I _____ 1: _________I ~I JPage 3 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AR EVANMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable of ContentsPageSIG NATURE BLOCK ................................................................................................................................ 2RECORD OF REVISION .......................................................................................................................... 3LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 6LIST OF FIG URES ................................................................................................................................... 71.0 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................... 82.0 ANALYTICAL METHO DO LOGY ........................................................................................... 112.1 Stress Intensity Factor Solution (SIF) for a Cylindrical Interfacial Flaw ..................................... 112.2 Acceptance Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 123.0 DESIGN INPUTS ........................................................................................................................ 133.1 Geometry ........................................................................................................................................ 133.2 Material Strength ............................................................................................................................ 133.3 Fracture Toughness ....................................................................................................................... 133.4 Crack Growth Rates (CGR) ..................................................................................................... 133.4.1 SCCISICC Crack Growth Rates as per BWRVIP-60-A ............................................. 133.4.2 Fatigue Crack Growth Rates ...................................................................................... 143.5 Operating Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 153.6 Transient Stresses ......................................................................................................................... 153.7 Residual Stresses .......................................................................................................................... 164.0 ASSUM PTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 164.1 Modeling Simplfications ................................................................................................................. 165.0 CALCULATIO NS ......................................................................................................................... 175.1 Qualification of Design for Minimum Required Ligament .......................................................... 175.2 Flaw Growth Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 175.3 Flaw Acceptance Analysis ....................................................................................................... 185.4 Evaluation using BWRVIP-233 Crack Growth Rates (For informnation only (FIO)) .................... 196.0 SUM MARY .................................................................................................................................. 226.1 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 226.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 227.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 23APPENDIX A : VERIFICATION OF SIF FOR CYLINDRICAL FLAW ............................................................. 24APPENDIX B: DETAILED CRACK GROWTH CALCULATIONS USING BWRVIP-60-A DATA .................. 26Page 4 AARE VADVA W Ik.e.m AWA id I *ompnyDocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable of Contents(continued)PageAPPENDIX C: DETAILED CRACK GROWTH CALCULATIONS USING BWRVIP-233 DATA (FORINFO RM ATIO N O N LY) ........................................................................................................... 39Page 5 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationList of TablesPageTable 2-1: Influence C oefficients ........................................................................................................... 12Table 3-1: M aterial S trength .................................................................................................................. 13Table 3-2: Load Combinations and Cycles ....................................................................................... 16Table 5-1: C rack G row th Results ..................................................................................................... 18Table 5-2: Flaw Acceptance Results ................................................................................................ 19Table 5-3: Crack Growth Results based on BWRVIP-233 CGR [2,11] (FIO) ................................... 20Table 5-4: Flaw Acceptance Results based on BWRVIP-233 (FIO) ................................................ 21Table B-1: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Startup .................................................................. 26Table B-2: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Shutdown ................................................................ 27Table B-3: Crack Growth Calculations- Blowdown ........................................................................... 28Table B-4: Crack Growth Calculations- Design Pressure Test ......................................................... 29Table B-5: Crack Growth Calculations- SCRAM .............................................................................. 30Table B-8: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of CRD Cooling Water ................................................... 31Table B-7: Crack Growth Calculations- Attempt Road Withdrawal ........................................................ 32Table B-8: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of Feed water Pump .................................................. 33Table B-9: Crack Growth Calculations- Emergency Cooldown ........................................................ 34Table B-10: Crack Growth Calculations- Shut Down Cooling ........................................................... 35Table B-11: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop -Definition I ....... 36Table B-1 2: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop -Definition 2 ....... 37Table B-13: Crack Growth Calculations- SS CONDITIONS ............................................................. 38Table C-1: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Startup (FIO) ......................................................... 39Table C-2: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Shutdown (FIO) .................................................... 40Table C-3: Crack Growth Calculations- Blowdown (FIO) .................................................................. 41Table C-4: Crack Growth Calculations- Design Pressure Test (FIO) ............................................... 42Table C-5: Crack Growth Calculations- SCRAM (FIO) .................................................................... 43Table C-6: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of CRD Cooling Water (FIO) ...................................... 44Table C-7: Crack Growth Calculations- Attempt Road Withdrawal (FIO) ........................................ 45Table C-8: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of Feed water Pump (FIO) ......................................... 46Table C-9: Crack Growth Calculations- Emergency Cooldown (FIO) ............................................. 47Table C-10: Crack Growth Calculations- Shut Down Cooling (FIO) ............................................... 48Table C-11: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop -Definition I (FIO) ... 49Table C-12: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop -Definition 2 (FIO) ... 50Table C-13: Crack Growth Calculations- SS CONDITIONS (FIO) .................................................... 51page a A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationList of FiguresPageFigure 1-1: Postulated Flaw Location ............... ............................................................................. 9Figure 1-2: Postulated Flaw O rientation ........................................................................................... 10Figure 2-1: Possible Flaw Propagation Paths along Repair Weld .................................................... 11Page7 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation1.0 PURPOSEAREVA is developing a contingency weld repair approach for the control rod drive (CRD) penetrations at thelower head of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) at the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP-1) nuclear power station. TheCRD housing modification shall consist of a new pressure boundary weld being established on the Inside surfaceof the groove machined through the existing CRD housing wall thickness. A new weld shall be applied, attachingonly the top of the lower portion of the severed CRD housing and the bottom head penetration bore. The newweld shall be dissociated from the existing upper portion of the CRD housing, The upper portion of the CRDhousing shall remain in place. The design specification document [1] provides additional details of the ID temperbead (TB) weld repair procedure. This repair design leaves a portion of the ferritic low alloy steel (LAS) headexposed to reactor coolMa water, as depicted in Figure 1-1. The exposed surface between the lower and upperCRD housings includes the heat-affected zone (HAZ) from the temper bead repair weld performed by AREVA NPand some unaffected base metal.The water near the exposed LAS of the RPV will be conservatively assumed to be stagnant. Furthermore, theexposed 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 corrosioncracking (SCC) and strain-induced corrosion cracking (SICC) [2). For the conditions at NMP-1, Reference [21concluded that SCCISICC initiation and propagation are very unlikely. However, as it is impossible to completelyrule out the possibility of these degradation mechanisms, a flaw evaluation will be performed using conservativecrack growth rates (CGR).This analysis postulates that a flaw is present in the HAZ of the low alloy steel (LAS) head material, along theinterface between the LAS head and the lower CRD housing attachment weld. The postulated interfacial flawwould lie in a cylindrically curved "plane" coincident with the outer diameter of the weld, and would extendvertically downward along this plane, as shown in Figure 1-1. To account for the possibility that there could bemultiple SCCISICC initiation sites around the cylindrical surface of the exposed LAS material, it is furtherpostulated that individual sites link together such that the cylindrically shaped flaw extends 360M in thecircumferential direction, as sketched in Figure 1-2. The purpose of the present fracture mechanics analysis is todetermine, in accordance with Section Xl of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code [31, the timeinterval for a postulated 0.100" deep by 3600 circumferential flaw to grow to an unacceptable flaw size.Page 8 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationExposed LAjTemperBeadWeldIDTB Weldkd flawDownwardpenetration(depth) of flawLow AlloySteel HeadCRDHousingPage 9 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationFigure 1-2: Postulated Flaw OrientationNote: The region in white is usedbelow to describe the componentparts of the flaw model.Postulated flawWeldLow AlloySteel HeadLower CRDHousingPage 10 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGYAlthough Reference (21 concluded that SCC/SICC initiation and propagation are very unlikely for the conditions atNMP-1, a flaw will be postulated to Initiate In the LAS near the upper root of the new TB weld. The postulated flawis assumed to be cylindrically oriented with an initial depth of 0.100 inch. It is further assumed that the flawextends 3600 around the nozzle. The postulated flaw would propagate along a path between the repair weld andthe head, as Indicated by the flaw propagation directions shown In Figure 2-1. The flaw would be subjected toradial stresses in the low alloy steel head. Flaw propagation in the heat affected zone (HAZ) of the head would begoverned by SCC/SICC and fatigue crack growth under the influence of steady state and cyclic pressure andtemperature loads, as applicable. Incremental crack growth is calculated on a yearly basis from crack tip stressintensity factors (SIFs) that are updated for each increment of crack growth. Governing crack growth rates andstress 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 LEFMacceptance criterion addresses fracture toughness margin, defined as the ratio of the Section XI fracturetoughness to the applied SIF at the final flaw size. For Mode I radial loadings, the required fracture toughnessmargin is 410 for normal and upset conditions and 42 for emergency and faulted conditions per IWB-3612 ofSection XI (3]. Additionally, consistent with Appendix C of Section XI of the B&PV code the maximum crack depthis limited to 75% of the wall thickness (height of IDTB weld/LAS head Interface).Figure 2-1: Possible Flaw Propagation Paths along Repair WeldDownhillArea2.1 Stress Intensity Factor Solution (SIW) for a Cylindrical Interfacial FlawThe stress intensity factors (SIF) for the postulated defect along the interface between the LAS head and the newCRD housing attachment weld follows the format of the Section Xl [31 solution for flat plate surface flaws, wherecrack face stresses ae described by the third-order polynomial,a(x/a) =A + A,(J+ A{(-J +AX'Wherea = flaw depthPage 11 A Document No. 32-9157438-000ARIEVANMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluationx = distance from crack mouth < aA= stress coefficients, i = 0, 1, 2, 3The Mode I stress intensity factor is then described byK,(a) = k(Ao + Ap)Go + A,G, + A2G2 + A1G 1JaQwhere Ap = crack face pressureG= influence coefficients, i = 0, 1, 2, 30 = 1 + 4.593(a/I)165 -qy (a/I = 0 for a 3600 flaw)I = flaw lengthqy = [(Ao Go + AI G1 + A2 G2 + A3 G3) / y]2 /6oy = yield strengthThe influence coefficients, Gi, for the cylindrical flaw were generated in Reference [41 and tabulated In Table 2-1.Table 2-1: Influence Coefficientsa/t Go Gi G2 G30.1 1.1071 0.7172 0.5573 0.46370.2 1.2557 0.741 0.5758 0.48510.3 1.3678 0.7832 0.6005 0.50340.4 1.5223 0.8319 0.289 0.52330.5 1.6341 0.8801 0.6572 0.5430.6 1.7567 0.923 0.6825 0.56060.7 1.8539 0.9591 0.7042 0.5760.8 1.9371 0.9958 0.7284 0.594The plastic zone correction term, qy, is used for calculating the SIF under constant loading conditions and forcomparing the applied SIF to the required fracture toughness. The plastic zone correction term is not used tocalculate flaw growth.2.2 Acceptance CriteriaThe IWB-3612 acceptance criteria of Section Xl [3] is used to evaluate the final flaw depth. According to IWB-3612 a flaw is acceptable if the applied stress intensity factor for the final flaw dimensions af satisfy the followingcriteria(a) For normal and upset conditions:K < K, whereK, = 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 temperatureaf = end-of-evaluation-period flaw depth(b) For emergency and faulted conditions:K, < Ke/042K0 ý fracture toughness based on crack Initiation for the corresponding crack-tip temperatureAnother restriction on the acceptability of the final flaw size is the determined by the ligament of the TB weld. AsTable 2-1 shows, the SIF solution is valid only for a flaw depth that extends up to 80% of the ligament. Consistentwith the practice in Appendix C of Section XI of the B&PV code the maximum crack depth is limited to 75% of thewall thickness.Page 12 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCCISICC Evaluation3.0 DESIGN INPUTS3.1 GeometryFor the postulated cylindrical flaw only the length of the interface between the repair weld and the RV head is ofimportance. This is nominally estimated from the finite element model in Reference [10] to be ( } inch. Sincethere 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 depthis postulated to be 0.1 inch [1].3.2 Material StrengthThe NMP-1 RPV bottom head is made from SA-302 Grade B material [1]. The yield strength (a,) of this material is50 ksi at 70°F and 42.2 ksi at 600°F [5]. Reference [5] provides the material strength pertinent for the flawevaluation 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 StrengthTemperature Yield Ultimate FlowMaterial Component (OF) Strength, ay Strength, auh Strength, Gf(°F) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)SA 302 Grade B RV Lower 70 50.00 80.00 65.00Low Alloy Steel Head500 43.20 80.00 61.60600 42.20 80.00 61.103.3 Fracture ToughnessThe lower bound K1, curve of Section XI, Appendix A, Figure A-4200-1 [3], which can be expressed asK1, = 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-ductilitytemperature of the material. Kw is In ksiVin, and T and RTNDT are in OF. In the present flaw evaluations, K1, islimited to a maximum value of 200 (upper-shelf fracture toughness). An RTNOT value of { }RF is used forthe 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 inASME B&PV Code) and fatigue crack growth (per ASME B&PV Code).3.4.1 SCCISICC Crack Growth Rates as per BWRVIP-60-AFlaw growth is calculated using conservative CGR as detailed in Sec. 3.5.6 of Reference [2]. These CGR are afunction of the applied stress intensity (K,) as follows:1. Under Constant Load ConditionTime interval -for steady state operation time excluding periods of load cycling or water chemistry transients.(1a) 0 < Ks 55 MPa4rmda/dt = 2 x 10"11 (mis)Page 13 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation(1b) K > 55 MPa4mda/dt = 3.29 x 10-17 K (mis)K in MPa4m2. 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 willbe the time of the transient plus 100 hours.(2a) 0 < Ks 27.94 MPa'imda/dt = 2 x 1011 (mis) (BVVRVIP-60 K-independent line)(2b) 27.94 < Ki < 60 MPairmda/dt = 3.29 x 10.17 K4 (m/s) (BWRVIP-60 K-dependent line)K in MPa4m(2c) K > 60 MPa4mda/dt = 7 x 10.9 (m/s) (due to DSA concern)3. Ripple Load ConditionTime interval -for transient time meeting all of the following three conditions. Since, the recommended CGR ismore conservative under the ripple load than either under the constant load condition or under the transientcondition, the ripple load time interval shall be removed from the constant load or the transient time intervals forcalculating 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 da/dt = 2 x 'o-" (m/s)(3b) K > 27.94 da/dt = 1 x 10"8 (m/s)3.4.2 Fatigue Crack Growth RatesFlaw growth due to cycling loading Is given In Appendix A of the ASME B&PV Code [3] which characterized bydawhere C, and n are constants that depend on the material and environmental conditions, AN is the range ofapplied SIF in terms of and da/dN is the incremental flaw growth in terms of inches/cycle. Fatigue crackgrowth is also dependent on the ratio of the minimum to the maximum SIF; I.e.,R = / (K,)..From Article A-4300 of Section XI [3), the fatigue crack growth constants for surface flaws in a water environmentare as shown below (AKN in 0Rs R0.25: AKI < 17.74,n = 5.95Co = 1.02 x 10-12 x SS = 1.0Page 14 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationAKI > 17.74,n = 1.95Co = 1.01 x 10-7 x SS =1.00.25 < R < 0.65: AKI < 17.74 [ (3.75R + 0.06) (26.9R -5.725)10.25,n = 5.95Co = 1.02 x 10-12 x SS = 26.9R -5.725AK, k 17.74 [ (3.75R + 0.06) (26.9R -5.725) ]0.25,n = 1.95Co = 1.01 x 10-7 x SS = 3.75R + 0.060.65:< R < 1.0: < 12.04,n = 5.95Co = 1.02 x 10-12 x SS = 11.76AKI a 12.04,n = 1.95Co = 1.01 x 10-7 x SS = 2.53.5 Operating ConditionsAccording to Reference [1], the CRD housing operating pressure is { } psig and the operating temperature isr }°F.3.6 Transient StressesThe cyclic operating stresses that are needed to calculate crack growth are obtained from a thermo-elastic finiteelement analysis [7]. These cyclic stresses are developed for all the transients at a number of time points tocapture 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 stresseswere generated in Reference [71 for the transients listed in References [8,9]. The transients that have trivialcontribution to fatigue are not considered per Reference [7]. The transient cycle counts used in this calculation areobtained from References (8,91. The operating transients and cycle counts are listed in Table 3-2. The transienttime required to evaluate SICC were obtained from the thermo-elastic analysis performed in Reference [71. Thesetimes are listed in Table 3-2. For the remainder of the time during a one year crack growth interval, SCC/SICCcrack growth is evaluated at steady state condition which is taken as the end of Normal Startup Transient.Page 15 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable 3-2: Load Combinations and CyclesTransientLevel Transient/Condition Loading Cies meLevel Cycles (Seconds)Level A Normal Startup P +T +DWLevel A Normal Shutdown P + T + DWLevel A Blowdown P + T + DWLevel A Design Pressure Test P + T + DW.Level A Shut Down Cooling Initiation p+ T + DWIsolated Recirculation LoopP + T + DW + Normal Start up SCRAM Reaction +Level B SCRAM SeismicP + T + DW + Stuck Road Load + SeismicP + T + DW + SESNB' + SeismicP + T + DW + Stuck Rod + SeismicLevel B Loss of CRD Cooling Water P + T + DW + End-of-Stroke Load + SeismicP + T + DW + SESNB' + SeismicLevel B Attempt Drive Withdrawal P+ T + DWLevel B Loss of Feed water Pump, P+ T + DWIsolation Valve ClosedLevel B Emergency Cooldown from P T+DWFull Power Steady State P+_T_+_DWLevel C Inadvertent Start of a Cold P+ T + DWRC Loop -Definition 1Inadvertent Start of a ColdRC Loop -Definition 11 SESNB is SCRAM End of Stroke, No Buffer see next section for numerical value2 Not provided in the output received from Reference [7]. This is conservatively set to 36000 seconds. This estimation doesnot affect the results because most SICC estimation is in the range where the crack growth rate is independent of SIF.3 { ) cycles were used in this analysis. This will result in a conservative crack growth estimation.3.7 Residual StressesA three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite element analysis [10] was performed to simulate the sequence of stepsinvolved in arriving at the configuration of the weld repair of CRD housing at the lower head of reactor vessel ofNine 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 wasalso simulated after the completion of the weld simulation. The radial component of stresses is used in theanalysis.4.0 ASSUMPTIONSThis section discusses assumptions and modeling simplifications applicable to the present evaluation of NMP-1strain induced corrosion crack growth.4.1 Modeling Simplifications* The postulated flaw is assumed to include a "crack-like" defect extending 360° around the outercircumference of the weld. For analytical purposes, a continuous flaw is located in the cylindrical planebetween the weld and head.* The length of the interface between the repair weld and the RV head is estimated from the finite elementmodel as { ) inch. The size of a possible triple point weld anomaly is taken as 0.1".Thus, the totalPage 16 AREVA Document No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluationthickness 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 ofdefect 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 stateanalysis that simulates shakedown due to the initial start-up and shut-down following completion of theweld repair." The time during the Design Pressure Test transient is set to 3600 seconds. This estimation does notaffect the results because most SICC estimation Is in the range where the crack growth rate isindependent of SIF.5.0 CALCULATIONS5.1 Qualification of Design for Minimum Required LigamentThe qualification of pure shear stress in the IDTB weld due to the primary load is done by considering thebounding load for the Design and Levels A, B, C and D conditions. It Is performed using the vertical forces due todead 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 cappressure) + { } 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]) = { } psiThe 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) = { y5.2 Flaw Growth AnalysisFlaw growth is calculated in one-year Increments for both constant and transient loading conditions. For eachtransient, the applied cycles are distributed uniformly over the service life. For every transient fatigue crack growthis calculated first. The fatigue crack growth increment is used to update SIF solution then the SICC crack iscalculated for that transient. SICC at constant steady state condition is calculated for the remainder of the year (1year -transient times). Realistic crack growth is achieved by linking the incremental crack growth for the constantload with each transient event on a yearly basis. The stresses used in the flaw growth calculations andsubsequent flaw evaluations at the final flaw depth are based on the sum of cyclic or steady state operationalstresses, as appropriate, from Reference [7] and residual stresses from Reference [101. This is a conservativeapproximation of the actual state of stress since elastic operational stresses are added directly to elastic-plasticresidual 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. Theflaw growth results for the downhill sides are bounding. Thus, the results for the downhill side are only reported inthis document. Table 5-1 shows the results of the crack growth calculations. The crack growth iterations wereterminated when the crack depth reached 75% of the IDTB weld/LAS interface ligament length. The final crackdepth after 12 years of plant operation is found to be ( ) inch which corresponds to crack depth to weldwidth ratio (aft) of { }. Crack depths beyond 12 years will not satisfy the LEFM acceptance criterion. TheLEFM acceptance criteria are evaluated in 5.3. The detailed crack growth analysis for each transient and steadystate condition is shown in Appendix B.Page 17 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC EvaluationTable 5-1: Crack Growth ResultsNMP-1 I.AS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable 5-1: Crack Growth ResultsOperating Flaw Depth toTime Final Flaw Size Thickness ratio(yr.) (in)12345678910111213141516171819205.3 Flaw Acceptance AnalysisAs mentioned in Section 2.2, the IWB-3612 acceptance criteria of Section XI [3] is used. According to IWB-3612 aflaw 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,. I/410(b) For emergency and faulted conditions:K, < K1c /42Table 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) areshown. As seen in Table 5-2, the minimum LEFM safety margin Is { ) which Is higher than the required safetymargin of 410 for normal/upset conditions. Also, Table 5-2 shows that the LEFM margin is acceptable for level Cloading condition where the minimum LEFM safety margin is { ) which greater than the required safety marginof 412.Page 18 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCCISICC EvaluationTable 5-2: Flaw Acceptance ResultsKIef T IK. KaTransient Tksiin F (ksi 'in) K,/I> 4a10Kft(ksi'in) Ki d25.4 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 analysisbased 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 afunction of the applied stress intensity (KI) as follows:0 < K, < 20 MPadmdaldt = 0 (m/s)20 < K, < 80 MPa'mda/dt = 1 x 10"11 (mds)80:s K, < 106 MPa4mda/dt = 1 x 10(O1008K- 19.07) (m/s)106 < K, MPaqmda/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 usingBWRVIP-233 CGR at the end of forty years is only ( ) inch. The detailed crack growth analysis for eachtransient and the steady state is shown in Appendix C.Page 19 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable 5-3: Crack Growth Results based on BWRVIP-233 CGR [2,11] (FIO)13WRVIP-233Operating Flaw Depth toTime Final Flaw Size Thickness ratio(yr.) (in)12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353837383940Page 20 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable 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 temperatureis used to calculate KIa. The minimum LEFM safety margins for every transient at the end of the evaluation periodare 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 KJKTransient (ksiin) (F) (ksi'in) Kid/> q10Kic(ksi'4in K a /K iPage 21 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation6.0 SUMMARY6.1 ResultsFlaw SizeInitial 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 TransientFracture toughness, K.= { } ksi'IinStress intensity factor at final flaw size, Kff = ( } ksi'IinSafety margin (must be a: 410): K18 / KI0f = { }6.2 ConclusionThe results of this analysis demonstrate that a 0.100 inch postulated flaw in the exposed LAS is acceptable for 12years of operation following a CRD housing temper bead weld repair. At the final flaw size of { } inch, thelimiting 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) thepostulated flaw in LAS is acceptable for more than 40 years. Also we noted that if the acceptance criterion fornormall/upset condition is based on KFc (as in the ASME Code 2005 Addenda onwards) the flaw is acceptable for20 years.Page 22 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCCISICC Evaluation7.0 REFERENCES1. AREVA NP Document 08-9132350-002, "Design Specification for Nine Mile Point 1 Control Rod DriveHousing Modification."2 AREVA NP Document 51-9133971-002, "Corrosion Evaluation for Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Control RodDrive Housing Modification."3 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear PowerPlant Components, 2004 Edition with no Addenda4. 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."6. AREAV NP Document 32-9138065-001,"NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Anomaly Analysis."7 AREVA NP Document 32-9141306-002, "Nine Mile Point Unit 1 CRDH Weld Repair- Finite ElementAnalysis."8. AREVA NP Document 51-9134937-003, "Transients for Nine Mile Point Unit I Weld Repair of CRDNozzles."9. AREVA NP Document 32-9133260-005, "Design Input Document to Support Structural Analysis of NMP-1 CRDH Repair."10. AREVA NP Document 32-9138064-003, "NMP-1 CRD Housing IDTB Weld Residual Stress Analysis."11. BWRVIP-233: BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Evaluation of Stress Corrosion Crack Growth in LowAlloy Steel Vessel Materials in the BWR Environment: Technical Basis for Revisions to BWRVIP-60-A2009 Revision, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 1019061 (For Information Only).Page 23 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationAPPENDIX A: VERIFICATION OF SIF FOR CYLINDRICAL FLAWThis Appendix provides verification of the Excel macro KI-edge used to calculate the SIF intensity factor for thecylindrical flaw (single edge notch). Also, the Excel macro Kleff.edge which considers plasticity correction isverified. The test case considered in this appendix used a=0.05 inch, t=0.5 inch, a/t0, and av,=40.0 ksi.Basis: Analysis of Flaws, 2004 ASME Code, Section Xl, Appendix A, Reference (3]V4= [AoGo+A1G1+A2G2+A3G3]4(ira/Q)where0 = 1 + 4.593 (a/1)'-6 -q,and qy= [(AoGo+AiGi+A2G2+A3G3) / C,]2 /6For ail = 0.0aft<= 0.1(continuous flaw)Go =Gi =G2 =G3=1.1950.7730.6000.501Stresses are described by a third order polynomial fit over the flaw depth,S(x) = Ao + At(x/a) + A2(x/a)2 + A3(x/a)3For given residual and transient stressesWall Residual Transient StressPosition, x Stress Transient 1(in.) (ksi) (ksi)0.000 12.73 1.00.042 14.69 2.00.083 16.66 3.00.125 16.48 5.00.167 16.29 4.00.208 16.13 6.00.250 15.97 8.00.292 17.28 9.00.333 18.59 8.00.375 17.08 7.00.417 15.57 6.00.458 28.48 4.00.500 41.39 3.0Total Stresses(ksi)13.72716.69519.66321.47620.28922.13023.97026.27826.58624.07921.57232.48244.394Page 24 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationStress over crack face for Transient 1Interpolatedx/a x Stress0.00 0.000 13.727 A3= 1.02E-150.10 0.005 14.083 A2= 0.00000.20 0.010 14.439 AI= 3.561360.30 0.015 14.796 AO= 13.72710.40 0.020 15.1520.50 0.025 15.5080.60 0.030 15.8640.70 0.035 16.2200.80 0.040 16.5760.90 0.045 16.9321.00 0.050 17.288K =Ao Go + AI G + A2 G2 + A3 G3 ]4(Ita/Q)= 7.590K1 edge= 7.590Difference= 0.0%qy=[ (Ao Go+ A, G, +A2G2+A3G3) /Ioy. ]2 16= 0.038Plasticity Q=1 + 4.593 (a/I)'5 -q, 0.962Correction K= A0 Go + A1 G1 + A2 G2 + A3 G3 ] 4(7ta/Q)= 7.739Kleffedge= 7.739Difference= 0.0%Page 25 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC EvaluationAPPENDIX B:DETAILED CRACK GROWTH CALCULATIONS USING BWRVIP-60-ADATATable B-I: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal StartupAN = { I cycles/year Transient Time { } SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122Page 26 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC EvaluationTable B-2: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal ShutdownAN = I I cycles/year Transient Time { I SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122Page 27 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable B-3: Crack Growth Calculations- BlowdownAN= { 1 ccles/year Transient Time ( I SecondsOperatingTime Cycle a Kj(a)max K,(a)min Aa&,tipe Kj(a)max Aasicc(yr.) (in.) (ksiqin) (in.) (in.) (ksi-4in) (in.) (in.)012345678910111213141516171819202122Page 28 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable B-4: Crack Growth Calculations- Design Pressure TestN= } cycleslyear Transient Time { I SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122Page 29 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable B-5: Crack Growth Calculations- SCRAMAN= { ) cles/year Transient Time ( I SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122Page 30 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMVP-11 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable B-6: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of CRD Cooling WaterAN = { } cydes/year Transient Time { I SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122Page 31 ADocument No. 32-9157438-000AR EVANMP-1 LAS SCClSICC EvaluationTable B-7: Crack Growth Calculations- Attempt Road WithdrawalAN = { ) cyceslyear Transient Time f I SecondsOperatingTime Cycle a K1(a)max Ki(a)min Aawige Ki(a)max Ki(a)min Aasacc(vr.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (ksihin) (in.) in.)012345678910111213141516171819202122Page 32 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable B-8: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of Feed water PumpAN = { ) cycles/year Transient Time { ) SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122Page 33 A Document No. 32-9157438-000AREVANMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable B-9: Crack Growth Calculations- Emergency CooldownAN= { } cycles/year Transient Time { 1 SecondsOperatingTime Cycle a K(a)max KI(a)min K(a)max Ki(a)min Aasicc(yr.) (in.) (ksiin) (in.) (in.) (ksiin) (in.) (in.)012345678910111213141516171819202122Page 34 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable B-10: Crack Growth Calculations- Shut Down Cooling= { A cycles/year Transient Time { I SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122Page 35 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable B-11: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop -Definition IAN = } cycleslyear Transient Time I SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122Page 36 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable B-12: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop -Definition 2AN = { cycles/year Transient Time ) SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122IPage 37 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable B-13: Crack Growth Calculations- SS CONDITIONSTransient Time (OperatingTime a KI(a)max Aacc(yr.) (in.) (in.) (in.)012345678910111213141516171819202122Page 38 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationAPPENDIX 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 SecondsOperatingTime Cycle a K1(a)max KI(a)min Aa"jq K1(a)max Kg(a)min Aasicc(yr.) (in.) (ksihin) (ksiV/in) (in.) (ksihin) (in.)012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940(KJPage 39 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable C-2: Crack Growth Calculations- Normal Shutdown (FIO)AN = { cycles/year Transient Time ( 1 SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940('1~Pag 4Page 40 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCClSICC EvaluationTable C-3: Crack Growth Calculations- Blowdown (FIO)OperatingTime(yr.)012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940AN= f I cycles/year Transient Time { ) SecondsCycle a K(a)max KI(a)min Aart~,e K(a)max K1(a)min Aasicc(in.) (ksi4/in) (in.) (in.) (ksi'/in) (in.) (in.)IPage 41 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable C-4: Crack Growth Calculations- Design Pressure Test (FIO)AN = y) ycles/year Transient Time { I SecondsOperatingTime 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.)0123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839Page 42 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMVP-1 LAS SOC/SIOC EvaluationTable C-5: Crack Growth Calculations- SCRAM (FIO)OperatingTime(yr.)012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940AN = { ) cycles/year Transient Time { ) SecondsCycle a K(a)max Kj(a)min K,(a)max K(a)min Aasrcc(in.) (ksirin) (in.) (in.) (ksi'Jin) (in.) (in.)JPage 43 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable C-6: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of CRD Cooling Water (FIO)AN = cycdes/year Transient Time 4 1 SecondsOperatingTime Cycle a K1(a)max K1(a)min Aaatvg= K1(a)max KI(a)min Aasicc(yr.) (in.) (ksiAIin) (in.) (in.) (ksibin) (in.) (in.)0123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839406KJPage44 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable C-7: Crack Growth Calculations- Attempt Road Withdrawal (FIO)AN = { } cycleslyear Transient Time { I SecondsOperatingTime Cycle a K1(a)max KI(a)min Aar= I K1(a)max Kt(a)min Aasicc(yr.) (in.) (ksiV/in) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.)012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940I\I'JPage 45 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC EvaluationTable C-8: Crack Growth Calculations- Loss of Feed water Pump (FIO)AN= { cycleslyear Transient Time { I SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940KJPage 46 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCClSICC EvaluationTable C-9: Crack Growth Calculations- Emergency Cooldown (FIO)AN = ( I cyclestyear Transient Time { I SecondsOperatingTime 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.)0123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839406KJPage 47 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable C-10: Crack Growth Calculations- Shut Down Cooling (FIO)A1N = { } cycles/year Transient Time { ) SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940JPage 48 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC EvaluationTable C-11: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop -Definition 1 (FIO)AN= { cles/year Transient Time I SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940IfPPage 49 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCCISICC EvaluationTable C-12: Crack Growth Calculations- Inadvertent Start of a Cold RC Loop -Definition 2 (FIO)AN = I cycles/year Transient Time I SecondsOperatingTime 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.)012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940(.VjPage 50 AAREVADocument No. 32-9157438-000NMP-1 LAS SCCSICC EvaluationTable C-13: Crack Growth Calculations- SS CONDITIONS (FIO)Transient TimeOperatingTime012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940a Kq(a)max Aasicc(in.) (in.) (in.)(kPage 51 ATTACHMENT 3AFFIDAVIT FROM AREVA NP INC. JUSTIFYING WITHHOLDINGPROPRIETARY INFORMATION(DOCUMENT NO. 32-9146818-000)Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLCOctober 31, 2012 AFFIDAVITCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )) ss.CITY OF LYNCHBURG )1. My name is Gayle F. Elliott. I am Manager, Product Licensing, for AREVANP 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 whethercertain AREVA NP information is proprietary. I am familiar with the policies established byAREVA NP to ensure the proper application of these criteria.3. I am familiar with the AREVA NP information contained in CalculationSummary Sheet (CSS) 32-9146818-000 entitled "NMP-1 LAS SCC/SICC Evaluation," datedMarch 2011 and referred to herein as "Document." Information contained in this Document hasbeen classified by AREVA NP as proprietary in accordance with the policies established byAREVA NP for the control and protection of proprietary and confidential information.4. This Document contains information of a proprietary and confidential natureand is of the type customarily held in confidence by AREVA NP and not made available to thepublic. Based on my experience, I am aware that other companies regard information of thekind contained in this Document as proprietary and confidential.5. This Document has been made available to the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission in confidence with the request that the information contained in this Document bewithheld from public disclosure. The request for withholding of proprietary information is made inaccordance 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 financialinformation."6. The following criteria are customarily applied by AREVA NP to determinewhether information should be classified as proprietary:(a) The information reveals details of AREVA NP's research and developmentplans and programs or their results.(b) Use of the information by a competitor would permit the competitor tosignificantly 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 aprocess, methodology, or component, the application of which results in acompetitive advantage for AREVA NP.(d) The information reveals certain distinguishing aspects of a process,methodology, or component, the exclusive use of which provides acompetitive advantage for AREVA NP in product optimization or marketability.(e) The information is vital to a competitive advantage held by AREVA NP, wouldbe helpful to competitors to AREVA NP, and would likely cause substantialharm to the competitive position of AREVA NP.The information in the Document is considered proprietary for the reasons set forth inparagraphs 6(b) and 6(c) above.7. In accordance with AREVA NP's policies governing the protection and controlof 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 agreementproviding for nondisclosure and limited use of the information.8. AREVA NP policy requires that proprietary information be kept in a securedfile 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 / 2012.Danita R. KiddNOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF VIRGINIAMY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 12/31/12Reg. # 205569

}}