Report No. 0800692.404, Rev. 1, 'Design Report for ...

Report No.: 0800692.404Revision No.: IProject No.: 0800692August 2009

Design Report for Preemptive Repairs of HotLeg Alloy 600 Components

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station(SONGS), Units 2 and 3

Prepared. for:

Welding Services Inc.Southern California Edison (SCE)

(Contract No. 47805)

Prepared by."

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.San Jose. CA

~\ A h01\JkA 24A0,NPrepared by:

Reviewed b•y:

Approved by:

A. J. Giannuzzi11ý- (-< tPDate: August 3. 2009

____t- Date: August 3. 2009

Date: August 3. 2009

R. A. Mattson. P. E.

U Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Approved by:

Report No.: 0800692.404 Revision No.: 1 Project No.: 0800692 August 2009

Design Report for Preemptive Repairs of Hot Leg Alloy 600 Components

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Unit~ 2 and 3

Preparedfor:

Welding Services Inc. Southern California Edison (SCE)

(Contract No.4 7805)

Prepared by:

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. San Jose, CA

AUf!ust 3. 2009

Date: August 3.2009

Date: AUf!ust 3. 2009

l) Struclurallntegrity Associates, Inc.

REVISION CONTROL SHEET

Document Number: 0800692.404

Title: Design Report for Preemptive Repairs of Hot Lei Alloy 600Components, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3

Client: Welding Services Inc. / Southern

SI Project Number: 0800692

California Edison (SCE)

Sections Pages Revision Date Comments1.0 1-1 - 1-2 0 6/9/09 Initial Issue2.0 2-1 - 2-73.0 3-1 -3-13

4.0 4-1 -4-65.0 5-1-5-66.0 6-1 -6-6

7.0 7-1-7-28.0 8-1-8-39.0 9-1-9-210.0 10-1-10-211.0 11-1-11-2

1.0 1-1 1 8/3/09 Added paragraph to Section 1 to remove"Priority Information" callouts on all

pages

W Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

REVISION CONTROL SHEET

Document Number:-----'0=8"-"0'-"0:..oe6.=....92""'.:...;4-"-04-'--_________________ _

Title: Design Report for Preemptive Repairs of Hot Leg Alloy 600 Components, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3

Client: Welding Services Inc. / Southern California Edison (SCE)

SI Project Number: 0800692

Sections Pages Revision Date Comments 1.0 1-1 - 1-2 ° 6/9/09 Initial Issue 2.0 2-1 - 2-7 3.0 3-1-3-13 4.0 4-1 - 4-6 5.0 5-1-5-6 6.0 6-1 - 6-6 7.0 7-1 -7-2 8.0 8-1-8-3 9.0 9-1 - 9-2 10.0 10-1 - 10-2 11.0 11-1-11-2

1.0 1-1 1 8/3/09 Added paragraph to Section 1 to remove "Priority Information" call outs on all

pages

l) Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Professional Enaineer Certification Statement

"Desiggn Report for Preemptive Repairs of Hot Leg Alloy 600 Components, San Onofre Nuclear

Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3"

1, Richard A. Mattson, being a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the State of

California, certif, that this document was reviewed by me, and that this document meets the

requirements of ASME Code, Section XI and Section III (Editions and Addenda as referenced in

the individual calculations), and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2

and 3 Relief Request, RR-ISI-3-27, Revision 1, which is based on the requirements of Code Case

N-504-2, and Relief Request RR-1SI-3-28, Revision 1, which is based on the requirements of Code

Case N-638-1, all as applicable to the specific scope of this report. This report is supplementary to

the governing Stress Reports for the systems and components described herein, and does not

invalidate those reports. I further certify that this document is correct and complete to the best of

my knowledge and belief, and that I am competent to review this document.

Richard A. Mattson, P.E.State of CaliforniaRegistration Number: C25664

~ESSIO Date: August 3, 2009

0800692.404, Rev,. 1 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Professional Engineer Certification Statement

"Design Report for Preemptive Repairs of Hot Leg Alloy 600 Components, San Onofre Nuclear

Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3"

1, Richard A. Mattson, being a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws ofthe State of

California, certify that this document was reviewed by me, and that this document meets the

requirements of ASME Code, Section XI and Section III (Editions and Addenda as referenced in

the individual calculations), and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2

and 3 Relief Request, RR-ISI-3-27, Revision 1, \vhjch is based on the requirements of Code Case

N-504-2, and Relief Request RR-1S1-3-28, Revision 1, which is based on the requirements of Code

Case N-63 8-1, all as applicable to the specific scope of this report. This report is supplementary to

the governing Stress Reports for the systems and components described herein, and does not

invalidate those reports. I further certify that this document is correct and complete to the best of

my knowledge and belief, and that I am competent to review this document.

0800692.404, Rev. 1

Richard A. Mattson; P .E. State of California Registration Number: C25664 Date: August 3, 2009

!(j Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Table of ContentsSection Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... .................................... 1-1

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 W eld Overlay Repairs................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Objectives and Report Organization ............................................................................ 1-2

2.0 W ELD OVERLAY DESIGN ........................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Weld Overlay Application ........................................ 2-1

2.2 Criteria for Design of Full Structural W eld Overlay Repairs ...................................... 2-2

2.3 W eld Overlay Structural Sizing ................................................................................... 2-3

2.3.1 Weld Overlay Thickness ........................................................................................... 2-3

2.3.2 Weld Overlay Length ............................................................................................... 2-4

2.4 Comparison with Field M easurements ........................................................................ 2-4

3.0 RESIDUAL STRESS ANALYSES ............................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Background .................... .............................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Technical Approach .................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Residual Stress Analysis Results ................................................................................. 3-3

4.0 EVALUATION OF WELD OVERLAY EFFECTS ON PIPING SYSTEMS ......... 4-1

4.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Evaluation of W eld Overlay Shrinkage Stresses ......................................................... 4-2

4.3 Evaluation of the Effect of W eld Overlay W eight ....................................................... 4-3

4 .3 .1 D ea d W eig h t ............................................................................................................. 4 -3

4.3.2 Dynamic Response ................................................................................ .................... 4-4

5.0 CRACK GROW TH EVALUATIONS ......................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Technical Approach .................................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Crack Growth Results .................................................................................................. 5-3

5.3.1 Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle .......................................................................... 5-3

5.3.2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle-Unit 2 ..................................... 5-4

5.3.3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle- Unit 3 ................................................................................... 5-4

5.3.4 Hot Leg Drain Nozzle .............................................................................................. 5-5

0800692.404, Rev. 1 iv Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... ; .................................... 1-1

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Weld Overlay Repairs .................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Objectives and Report Organization ............................................................................ 1-2

2.0 WELD OVERLAY DESIGN ........................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 ·Weld Overlay Application ......................... ~ ................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Criteria for Design of Full Structural Weld Overlay Repairs ...................................... 2-2

2.3 Weld Overlay Structural Sizing ................................................................................... 2-3

2.3.1 Weld Overlay Thickness .............................................. ............................................. 2-3

2.3.2 Weld Overlay Length ............................................................................................... 2-4

2.4 Comparison with Field Measurements ........................................................................ 2-4

3.0 RESIDUAL STRESS ANALySES ............................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Technical Approach ...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Residual Stress Analysis Results ................................................................................. 3-3

4.0 EVALUATION OF WELD OVERLAY EFFECTS ON PIPING SYSTEMS ......... 4-1

4.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Evaluation of Weld Overlay Shrinkage Stresses ......................................................... 4-2

4.3 Evaluation of the Effect of Weld Overlay Weight.. ..................................................... 4-3

4.3.1 Dead Weight ................................................ ............................................................. 4-3

4.3.2 Dynamic Response .............................................. ..................................................... 4-4

5.0

5.1

CRACK GROWTH EVALUATIONS ......................................................................... 5-1

Background .................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Technical Approach ..................................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Crack Growth Results .................................................................................................. 5-3

5.3.1 Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle .......................................................................... 5-3

5.3.2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle-Unit 2 .......................................................... : ........................ 5-4

5.3.3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle-Unit 3 ................................................................................... 5-4


0800692.404, Rev. 1 IV tJ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

6.0 ASME SECTION III STRESS ANALYSES ............................................................... 6-1

6.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 D esign Criteria ............................................................................................................ 6-1


6.4 Results of Analyses ...................................................................................................... 6-3

6.4.1 H ot Leg Shutdown Cooling N ozzle ......................................................................... 6-3

6.4.2 H ot Leg Surge Nozzle- Unit 2 ................................................................................... 6-3

6.4.3 H ot Leg Surge Nozzle-Unit 3 .................................................................................. 6-4

6.4.4 H ot Leg D rain Nozzle .............................................................................................. 6-4

6.5 Concluding Rem arks .................................................................................................... 6-4

7.0 RECONCILIATION OF CODE-OF-RECORD TO LATER CODE EDITION .... 7-1

7.1 D esign .......................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Fabrication ................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.3 Exam ination ................................................................................................................. 7-2

7.4 M aterials ...................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 7-2

8.0 EVALUATION OF AS-BUILT CONDITIONS ......................................................... 8-1

8.1 N CR N o. 08-223 .......................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 N CR N o. 09-281 .......................................................................................................... 8-2

8.3 N CR N o. 09-282 .......................................................................................................... 8-3

9.0 SUM M AR Y AND CO N CLU SIO N S ............................................................................ 9-1

10.0 REFEREN CES ............................................................................................................. 10-1

11.0 APPENDICES - STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES CALCULATIONPACKAGES AND DESIGN DRAWINGS ................................................................ 11-1

0800692.404, Rev. 1 V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

6.0 ASME SECTION III STRESS ANALYSES ............................................................... 6-1

6.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................. 6-1


6.4 Results of Analyses ...................................................................................................... 6-3

6.4.1 Hot Leg.Shutdown Cooling Nozzle .......................................................................... 6-3




6.5 Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................... 6-4

7.0 RECONCILIATION OF CODE-OF-RECORD TO LATER CODE EDITION .... 7-1

7.1 Design .......................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Fabrication ................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.3 Examination ................................................................................................................. 7-2

7.4 Materials ...................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 7-2

8.0 EVALUATION OF AS-BUILT CONDITIONS ......................................................... 8-1

8.1 NCR No. 08-223 .......................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 NCR No. 09-281 .......................................................................................................... 8-2

8.3 NCR No. 09-282 .......................................................................................................... 8-3

9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 9-1

10.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 10.;1

11.0 APPENDICES - STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES CALCULATION PACKAGES AND DESIGN·DRA WINGS ................................................................ 11-1

0800692.404, Rev. 1 v tJ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 2-1: Weld Overlay Minimum Structural Thickness and Length

R equirem ents-U nit 2 and U nit 3 ............................................................................. 2-5

Table 2-2: Post-Weld Overlay Minimum As-Built Dimensions-Unit 2 ..................................... 2-6


Table 4-1: Weld Overlay Shrinkage Measurements-Unit 2 ....................................................... 4-5


Table 4-3: Design Maximum Overlay Weight Summary-Unit 2 and Unit 3 ............................. 4-6

Table 5-1: Limiting Crack Growth Results - Hot Leg Nozzles .................................................. 5-6

Table 6-1: Limiting Stress Results for Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle .............................. 6-5

Table 6-2: Limiting Stress Results for Hot Leg Surge Nozzle-Unit 2 ........................................ 6-5


Table 6-4: Limiting Stress Results for Hot Leg Drain Nozzle ................................................... 6-6

0800692.404, Rev. 1 vi Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Weld Overlay Minimum Structural Thickness and Length

Requirements-Unit 2 and Unit 3 .............................................................................. 2-5





Table 4-3: Design Maximum Overlay Weight Summary-Unit 2 and Unit 3 ............................. 4-6

Table 5-1: Limiting Crack Growth Results - Hot Leg Nozzles .................................................. 5-6

Table 6-1: Limiting Stress Results for Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle .............................. 6-5



Table 6-4: Limiting Stress Results for Hot Leg Drain Nozzle ................................................... 6-6

0800692.404, Rev. 1 VI l) Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

List of Figures

Figure*Pg .Page

Figure 3-1:

Figure 3-2:

Figure 3-3:

Figure 3-4:

Figure 3-5:

Figure 3-6:

Figure 3-7:

Figure 3-8:

Figure 3-9:

Lumped Weld Nuggets for 16" Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle

R esidual Stress A nalysis ......................................................................................... 3-5

Lumped Weld Nuggets for 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Residual

Stress A nalysis, U nit 2 ............................................................................................ 3-6

Lumped Weld Nuggets for 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Residual

Stress A nalysis, U nit 3 ............................................................................................ 3-7

Lumped Weld Nuggets for 2" Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Residual Stress Analysis ..... 3-8

Post ID Weld Repair Residual Stress in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge

N ozzle at 70 'F ........................................................................................................ 3-9

Post-WOL Residual Stresses in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge

N ozzle at 70 'F ...................................................................................................... 3-10

Applied Post Weld Overlay Residual Stress in the Unit 2 12"

Hot Leg Surge Nozzle at 61 1F and 2235 psig .................................................... 3-11

ID Surface Axial Stresses in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle,

P re- and P ost-overlay ....................................................................... ; .................... 3-12

ID Surface Hoop Stresses in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle,

P re- and P ost-overlay ............................................................................................ 3-13

4, Rev. 1 vii Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.0800692.40'

List of Figures

Figure

Figure 3-1: Lumped Weld Nuggets for 16" Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle

Residual Stress Analysis ......................................................................................... 3-5

Figure 3-2: Lumped Weld Nuggets for 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Residual

Stress Analysis, Unit 2 ............................................................................................ 3-6

Figure 3-3: Lumped Weld Nuggets for 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Residual

Stress Analysis, Unit 3 ............................................................................................ 3-7

Figure 3-4: Lumped Weld Nuggets for 2" Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Residual Stress Analysis ..... 3-8

Figure 3-5: Post ID Weld Repair Residual Stress in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge

Nozzle at 70°F ........................................................................................................ 3-9

Figure 3-6: Post-WOL Residual Stresses in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge

Nozzle at 70°F ...................................................................................................... 3-10

Figure 3-7: Applied Post Weld Overlay Residual Stress in the Unit 2 12"

Hot Leg Surge Nozzle at 611°F and 2235 psig .................................................... 3-11

Figure 3-8: ID Surface Axial Stresses in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle,

Pre- and Post-overlay ....................................................................... ; .................... 3-12

Figure 3-9: ID Surface Hoop Stresses in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle,

Pre- and Post-overlay ............................................................................................ 3-13

0800692.404, Rev. 1 Vll !S) Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Southern California Edison (SCE) is applying full structural weld overlays (FSWOLs) on

dissimilar metal butt welds (DMWs) of the hot leg components listed below at the San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, to eliminate dependence upon the Alloy

82/182 welds as pressure boundary welds, and to mitigate any potential primary water stress

corrosion cracking (PWSCC) in these welds in the future.

This report summarizes the structural evaluations of preemptive, full structural weld overlay

designs for one Hot Leg Surge Nozzle, one Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle and one Hot Leg

Drain Nozzle for each unit.

Revision 1 of this Design Report removes all references to "Proprietary Information." No

content changes were made.

1.2 Weld Overlay Repairs

Weld overlays have been used routinely in U.S. BWRs and PWRs to repair flaws associated with

stress corrosion cracking. The process is an ASME Code approved repair method under the

Relief Requests [2], which are based on ASME Code Case N-504-2 and N-638-1 [1]. As an

alternative to post weld heat treatment (PWHT) of the nozzle material, the overlays are applied

with the ambient temperature temperbead welding technique, using Gas Tungsten Arc Welding

(GTAW) with selective and carefully controlled weld bead placement and heat input, in

accordance with the Relief Requests [2], which are based on ASME Code Case N-504-2 and

N-638-1 [1]. Nickel alloy weld filler metal is utilized for the weld overlays for material

compatibility with the underlying pipe, safe end, and nozzle materials. The specified welding

material for the weld overlays is Alloy 52M, which has been demonstrated to be resistant to

PWSCC [10].

0800692.404, Rev. 1 1-1 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Southern California Edison (SCE) is applying full structural weld overlays (FSWOLs) on

dissimilar metal butt welds (DMWs) of the hot leg components listed below at the San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, to eliminate dependence upon the Alloy

821182 welds as pressure boundary welds, and to mitigate any potential primary water stress

corrosion cracking (PWSCC) in these welds in the future.

This report summarizes the structural evaluations of preemptive, full structural weld overlay

designs for one Hot Leg Surge Nozzle, one Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle and one Hot Leg

Drain Nozzle for each unit.

Revision 1 of this Design Report removes all references to "Proprietary Information." No

content changes were made.

1.2 Weld Overlay Repairs

Weld overlays have been used routinely in U.S. BWRs and PWRs to repair flaws associated with

stress corrosion cracking. The process is an ASME Code approved repair method under the

Relief Requests [2], which are based on ASME Code Case N-504-2 and N-638-1 [1]. As an

alternative to post weld heat treatment (PWHT) of the nozzle material, the overlays are applied

with the ambient temperature temperbead welding technique, using Gas Tungsten Arc Welding

(GT A W) with selective and carefully controlled weld bead placement and heat input, in

accordance with the Relief Requests [2], which are based on ASME Code Case N-504-2 and

N-638-1 [1]. Nickel alloy weld filler metal is utilized for the weld overlays for material

compatibility with the underlying pipe, safe end, and nozzle materials. The specified welding

material for the weld overlays is Alloy 52M, which has been demonstrated to be resistant to

PWSCC [10].

0800692.404, Rev. 1 1-1 !i) Strueturallntegrity Associates, Inc.

1.3 Objectives and Report Organization

The objectives of this report are to provide the technical basis and a summary of the weld

overlay design and analysis results for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS),

Units 2 and 3 Hot Leg Surge, Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling and Hot Leg Drain Nozzle overlays

described in Section 1.1. Section 2.0 of this report discusses the repair and evaluation criteria for

weld overlay designs plus the basic structural sizing of the overlays. Section 3.0 summarizes the

residual stress analyses performed. Section 4.0 discusses the evaluation of weld overlay effects

on the piping systems. Consideration of flaw growth into the overlay repair is discussed in

Section 5.0. Analyses that supplement the existing piping, safe end, and nozzle Stress Reports

and demonstrate that the overlaid components meet ASME Code, Section III requirements are

described in Section 6.0. Section 7.0 contains a reconciliation of the original Code-of-Record

with a later edition of the ASME Code used in the evaluations herein. Section 8.0 contains an

evaluation of the as-built conditions. A summary and conclusions are provided in Section 9.0,

while Section 10.0 provides references used in this report. Detailed calculations and design

drawings supporting this report are listed in Section 11.0 and are contained in Appendices A

through JJ (provided in separate individual calculation packages and drawings and transmitted

separately from this report).


1.3 Objectives and Report Organization

The objectives of this report are to provide the technical basis and a summary of the weld

overlay design and analysis results for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS),

Units 2 and 3 Hot Leg Surge, Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling and Hot Leg Drain Nozzle overlays

described in Section 1.1. Section 2.0 of this report discusses the repair and evaluation criteria for

weld overlay designs plus the basic structural sizing of the overlays. Section 3.0 summarizes the

residual stress analyses performed. Section 4.0 discusses the evaluation of weld overlay effects

on the piping systems. Consideration of flaw growth into the overlay repair is discussed in

Section 5.0. Analyses that supplement the existing piping, safe end, and nozzle Stress Reports

and demonstrate that the overlaid components meet ASME Code, Section III requirements are

described in Section 6.0. Section 7.0 contains a reconciliation of the original Code-of-Record

with a later edition of the ASME Code used in the evaluations herein. Section 8.0 contains an

evaluation of the as-built conditions. A summary and conclusions are provided in Section 9.0,

while Section 10.0 provides references used in this report. Detailed calculations and design

drawings supporting this report are listed in Section 11.0 and are contained in Appendices A

through JJ (provided in separate individual calculation packages and drawings and transmitted

separately from this report).

0800692.404, Rev. 1 1-2 !l) Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

2.0 WELD OVERLAY DESIGN

2.1 Weld Overlay Application

The weld overlay repairs are carefully controlled using the following steps in order to assure the

integrity of the overlays and underlying weldments:

1. Surface preparation by grinding of the existing weld crown and any local protrusions to

blend smoothly into the base metal, plus the removal of oxides and other foreign materials

from the area to be overlaid.

2. Layout of the weld overlay per the design drawing by appropriately punch marking the

pipe and nozzle.

3. Liquid penetrant examination of the surface to be overlaid to assure the surface is found

acceptable. Special requirements apply to subsequent overlay layers if this requirement is

not met.

4. Measurement of the diameter on each side of the weld to be overlaid using physical

measurements.

5. Application of the ambient temperature temperbead weld overlay layers.

6. Application of the remainder of the weld overlay layers to achieve a full structural weld

overlay.

7. Surface preparation of the completed weld overlay to assure adequate surface contour and

smoothness for UT examination.

8. Measurement of the final overlay thicknesses and lengths by physical measurements.

9. Measurement of axial shrinkage between punch marks placed on the nozzle and pipe.

10. Liquid penetrant examination of the final overlay surface.

11. Volumetric examination of the completed weld overlay repair plus the outer portion of the

original wall thickness using UT procedures and personnel qualified in accordance with

ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix VIII, as implemented through the EPRI Performance

Demonstration Initiative (PDI).

0800692.404, Rev. 1 2-1 V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

2.0 WELD OVERLAY DESIGN

2.1 Weld Overlay Application

The weld overlay repairs are carefully controlled using the following steps in order to assure the

integrity of the overlays and underlying weldments:

1. Surface preparation by grinding of the existing weld crown and any local protrusions to

blend smoothly into the base metal, plus the removal of oxides and other foreign materials

from the area to be overlaid.

2. Layout of the weld overlay per the design drawing by appropriately punch marking the

pipe and nozzle.

3. Liquid penetrant examination of the surface to be overlaid to assure the surface is found

acceptable. Special requirements apply to subsequent overlay layers if this requirement is

not met.

4. Measurement of the diameter on each side of the weld to be overlaid using physical

measurements.

5. Application of the ambient temperature temperbead weld overlay layers.

6. Application of the remainder of the weld overlay layers to achieve a full structural weld

overlay.

7. Surface preparation of the completed weld overlay to assure adequate surface contour and

smoothness for UT examination.

8. Measurement of the final overlay thicknesses and lengths by physical measurements.

9. Measurement of axial shrinkage between punch marks placed on the nozzle and pipe.

10. Liquid penetrant examination of the final overlay surface.

11. Volumetric examination of the completed weld overlay repair plus the outer portion of the

original wall thickness using UT procedures and personnel qualified in accordance with

ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix VIII, as implemented through the EPRI Performance

Demonstration Initiative (PDI).

0800692.404, Rev. 1 2-1 l) Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

2.2 Criteria for Design of Full Structural Weld Overlay Repairs

The requirements for design of weld overlay repairs are defined in the Relief Requests [2], which

are based on ASME Code Case N-504-2 and N-638-1 [1]. The analytical bases for the design of

the repairs are in accordance with the requirements of ASME Code, Section XI, IWB-3641 [3].

Weld overlay repairs are considered to be acceptable long-term repairs for PWSCC-flawed

weldments if they meet a conservative set of design assumptions which qualify them as "full

structural" weld overlays. The three principal design requirements that qualify a weld overlay as

"full structural" are:

1. The design basis for the repair is a circumferentially oriented flaw that extends 3600 around

the component, and is through the original component wall. This conservative assumption

eliminates concerns about PWSCC susceptibility of the original Alloy 82/182 dissimilar

metal weld (DMW). In addition, potential concerns about the integrity of the original butt

weld material are not applicable, since no credit is taken in the design process for the load

carrying capability of this weld.

2. As required by ASME Code, Section XI, IWB-3641 [3], a combination of internal pressure,

deadweight, seismic, and other dynamic stresses is used in the design of weld overlay repairs.

Thermal and other secondary stresses are not required to be included for structural sizing

calculations (since the repairs are applied using a GTAW process that produces a high

toughness weld deposit), but they are addressed later in subsequent stress, fatigue, and stress

corrosion cracking evaluations.

3. Following the repair, the surface finish of the overlay must be sufficiently smooth to allow

preservice and future inservice ultrasonic examinations through the overlay material and into

a portion of the original base metal. The purpose of these examinations is to demonstrate

that the overlay design basis does not degrade with time due to flaw propagation.


2.2 Criteria for Design of Full Structural Weld Overlay Repairs

The requirements for design of weld overlay repairs are defined in the Relief Requests [2], which

are based on ASME Code Case N-504-2 and N-638-1 [1]. The analytical bases for the design of

the repairs are in accordance with the requirements of ASME Code, Section XI, IWB-3641 [3].

Weld overlay repairs are considered to be acceptable long-term repairs for PWSCC-flawed

weldments if they meet a conservative set of design assumptions which qualify them as "full

structural" weld overlays. The three principal design requirements that qualify a weld overlay as

"full structural" are:

1. The design basis for the repair is a circumferentially oriented flaw that extends 3600 around

the component, and is through the original component wall. This conservative assumption

eliminates concerns about PWSCC susceptibility of the original Alloy 82/182 dissimilar

metal weld (DMW). In addition, potential concerns about the integrity of the original butt

weld material are not applicable, since no credit is taken in the design process for the load

carrying capability of this weld.

2. As required by ASME Code, Section XI, IWB-3641 [3], a combination of internal pressure,

deadweight, seismic, and other dynamic stresses is used in the design of weld overlay repairs.

Thermal and other secondary stresses are not required to be included for structural sizing

calculations (since the repairs are applied using a GTA W process that produces a high

toughness weld deposit), but they are addressed later in subsequent stress, fatigue, and stress

corrosion cracking evaluations.

3. Following the repair, the surface finish of the overlay must be sufficiently smooth to allow

preservice and future inservice ultrasonic examinations through the overlay material and into

a portion of the original base metal. The purpose of these examinations is to demonstrate

that the overlay design basis does not degrade with time due to flaw propagation.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 2-2 t! Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

2.3 Weld Overlay Structural Sizing

2.3.1 Weld Overlay Thickness

Design drawings for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle and the

Hot Leg Drain Nozzle are provided by SI and are identified in Appendices HH, II and JJ,

respectively. It is noted that the Hot Leg Surge design drawing, Appendix II, contains two

different configurations, e.g. a Unit 2 and a Unit 3 configuration. The difference is that the

Unit 3 plant configuration required that a third weld, the pup piece to elbow weld, also be

overlaid. Final construction drawings of the overlays, provided by Welding Services Inc., are

contained in [15-20]. Sizing calculations for the weld overlays are discussed as follows.

Detailed sizing calculations for weld overlay thickness are documented in Appendix D (SI

Calculation 0800692.310) for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix L (SI

Calculation 0800692.320) for the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle and Appendix U (SI Calculation

0800692.330) for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle. For all the above nozzles, the "Codes and

Standards" module of the pc-CRACK computer program [4], which incorporates ASME Code,

Section XI, IWB-3640 evaluation methodology, was used to determine the thickness of the

overlays using loads and stress combinations provided by SCE. Normal operating/upset (Service

Level A/B) and emergency/faulted (Service Level C/D) load combinations were considered in

this evaluation, and the design was based on the more limiting results. The resulting minimum

required overlay thicknesses are summarized in Table 2-1.

As stated in Section 1.2, preemptive weld overlays will be installed using Alloy 52M filler metal.

However, Alloy 52M weld metal has demonstrated sensitivity to certain impurities, such as

sulfur, when deposited onto austenitic stainless steel base materials. Therefore, a butter

(transitional) layer of austenitic stainless steel filler metal will be applied across the austenitic

stainless steel base material. The austenitic stainless steel butter layer will not be included in the

structural weld overlay thicknesses defined above.


2.3 Weld Overlay Structural Sizing

2.3.1 Weld Overlay Thickness

Design drawings for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle and the

Hot Leg Drain Nozzle are provided by SI and are identified in Appendices HH, II and JJ,

respectively. It is noted that the Hot Leg Surge design drawing, Appendix II, contains two

different configurations, e.g. a Unit 2 and a Unit 3 configuration. The difference is that the

Unit 3 plant configuration required that a third weld, the pup piece to elbow weld, also be

overlaid. Final construction drawings of the overlays, provided by Welding Services Inc., are

contained in [15-20]. Sizing calculations for the weld overlays are discussed as follows.

Detailed sizing calculations for weld overlay thickness are documented in Appendix D (SI

Calculation 0800692.310) for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix L (SI

Calculation 0800692.320) for the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle and Appendix U (SI Calculation

0800692.330) for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle. For all the above nozzles, the "Codes and

Standards" module of the pc-CRACK computer program [4], which incorporates ASME Code,

Section XI, IWB-3640 evaluation methodology, was used to determine the thickness of the

overlays using loads and stress combinations provided by SCE. Normal operating/upset (Service

Level AlB) and emergency/faulted (Service Level C/D) load combinations were considered in

this evaluation, and the design was based on the more limiting results. The resulting minimum

required overlay thicknesses are summarized in Table 2-1.

As stated in Section 1.2, preemptive weld overlays will be installed using Alloy 52M filler metal.

However, Alloy 52M weld metal has demonstrated sensitivity to certain impurities, such as

sulfur, when deposited onto austenitic stainless steel base materials. Therefore, a butter

(transitional) layer of austenitic stainless steel filler metal will be applied across the austenitic

stainless steel base material. The austenitic stainless steel butter layer will not be included in the

structural weld overlay thicknesses defined above.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 2-3 ~ Structurallntegrily Associates, Inc.

2.3.2 Weld Overlay Length

Appendices D, L, and U, discussed in Section 2.3.1, also present detailed calculations for

minimum weld overlay (WOL) lengths. The minimum length requirements are summarized in

Table 2-1. Note that these length dimensions are measured from the intersection of the original

Alloy 82/182 construction welds (or stainless steel weld, if appropriate) with the safe end/piping

or nozzle material on the outside surface of the nozzle.

WOL access for preservice examination requires that the overlay length and profile be such that

the required post-WOL examination volume can be inspected using PDI qualified non-

destructive examination (NDE) techniques. This requirement could cause the overlay length to

be longer than required for structural reinforcement. The WOL designs have been reviewed by

qualified NDE personnel to ensure that they meet this requirement.

2.4 Comparison with Field Measurements

The minimum measured as-built thicknesses and lengths of the overlays, after final surface

contouring [15-20], are summarized in Tables 2-2 for Unit 2 and Table 2-3 for Unit 3. These

measurements exceed the minimum required structural design dimensions shown in Table 2-1,

thereby demonstrating the adequacy of the as-installed repairs. The as-built evaluation of these

overlay dimensions is addressed in Section 8.0 of this report.


2.3.2 Weld Overlay Length

Appendices D, L, and U, discussed in Section 2.3.1, also present detailed calculations for

minimum weld overlay (WOL) lengths. The minimum length requirements are summarized in

Table 2-1. Note that these length dimensions are measured from the intersection of the original

Alloy 821182 construction welds (or stainless steel weld, if appropriate) with the safe end/piping

or nozzle material on the outside surface of the nozzle.

WOL access for preservice examination requires that the overlay length and profile be such that

the required post-WOL examination volume can be inspected using PDr qualified non

destructive examination (NDE) techniques. This requirement could cause the overlay length to

be longer than required for structural reinforcement. The WOL designs have been reviewed by

qualified NDE personnel to ensure that they meet this requirement.

2.4 Comparison with Field Measurements

The minimum measured as-built thicknesses and lengths of the overlays, after final surface

contouring [15-20], are summarized in Tables 2-2 for Unit 2 and Table 2-3 for Unit 3. These

measurements exceed the minimum required structural design dimensions shown in Table 2-1,

thereby demonstrating the adequacy of the as-installed repairs. The as-built evaluation of these

overlay dimensions is addressed in Section 8.0 of this report.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 2-4 lJ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Table 2-1: Weld Overlay Minimum Structural Thickness and Length Requirements-

Unit 2 and Unit 3

16" Hot Leg 12" Hot Leg 12" Hot Leg 2" Hot LegShutdown

Item Location Cooling Surge Surge DrainNole Nozzle-Unit 2 Nozzle-Unit 3 NozzleNozzle

Nozzle 0.563 0.573 0.573 0.364Side

Minimum Safe End 0.531/0.472 0.5413/0.5287 0.541/0.514 0.248/0.196Side**

Thickness Pipe-Pup(in.) Piece NA NA 0.514***/0.538*** NA

Side***

Pipe Side 0.531 0.5287 0.538 0.231

Nozzle 1.420 1.594 1.596 0.639Side

Minimum* Safe

Length Side NA NA NA NA(in.) Pipe

Pipe 1.505 1.804 1.844 1.339Side

* Length shown is the minimum required for structural acceptance and does not include additional

length necessary to meet inspectability.** First number is for the safe end side of the nozzle-to-safe end weld, and the second number is for

the safe end side of the safe end-to-elbow/pup piece weld.***First number is for the pup piece side, the second number is for the elbow/pipe side of the weld.

Unit 3 contains a pup piece and an additional weld between the safe end and the pipe.


Table 2-1: Weld Overlay Minimum Structural Thickness and Length Requirements

Unit 2 and Unit 3

Item

Minimum Thickness

(in.)

Minimum* Length

(in.)

16" Hot Leg 12" Hot Leg 12" Hot Leg 2" Hot Leg

Shutdown Location

Cooling Surge Surge Drain

Nozzle Nozzle-Unit 2 Nozzle-Unit 3 Nozzle

Nozzle 0.563 0.573 0.573 0.364

Side Safe End

0.53110.472 0.5413/0.5287 0.54110.514 0.248/0.196 Side**

Pipe-Pup Piece NA NA 0.514***/0.538*** NA

Side***

Pipe Side 0.531 0.5287 0.538 0.231

Nozzle 1.420 1.594 1.596 0.639

Side Safe End

Side NA NA NA NA

Pipe Side

1.505 1.804 1.844 1.339

* Length shown is the minimum required for structural acceptance and does not include additional length necessary to meet inspectability.

** First number is for the safe end side of the nozzle-to-safe end weld, and the second number is for the safe end side of the safe end-to-elbow/pup piece weld.

***First number is for the pup piece side, the second number is for the elbow/pipe side of the weld. Unit 3 contains a pup piece and an additional weld between the safe end and the pipe.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 2-5 ~ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Table 2-2: Post-Weld Overlay Minimum As-Built Dimensions-Unit 2

16" Hot Leg 12" Hot Leg 2" Hot Leg

Item Location Shutdown Surge DrainCooling Nozzle NozzleNozzle

Nozzle Side 0.88 0.81 0.40Minimum Safe EndThickness Side* 0..88**/0.89** 0.81"*/0.62"* 0.40"*/0.43*

(in.) Pipe 0.89 0.62 0.43

Side

Nozzle Side 3.76 4.11 1.17Minimum*** Safe End

Length Side NA NA NA

(in.) Pipe 3.37 3.59 2.39

Side

* First number is for the safe end side of the nozzle-to-safe end weld, and the second number is forthe safe end side of the safe end-to-pipe weld

** Conservatively assumed equal to thickness on the nozzle or pipe side, respectively.***Length shown is the minimum of four azimuthal examinations.




Shutdown Item Location

Cooling Surge Drain

Nozzle Nozzle Nozzle

Nozzle Side 0.88 0.81 0.40 Minimum Safe End Thickness Side*

0 .. 88**/0.89** 0.81**10.62** 0.40**10.43**

(in.) Pipe Side

0.89 0.62 0.43

Nozzle Side 3.76 4.11 1.17 Minimum*** Safe End


(in.) Pipe Side

3.37 3.59 2.39

* First number is for the safe end side of the nozzle-to-safe end weld, and the second number is for the safe end side of the safe end-to-pipe weld

** Conservatively assumed equal to thickness on the nozzle or pipe side, respectively. ***Length shown is the minimum of four azimuthal examinations.




Item Location Shutdown Surge DrainCooling Nozzle NozzleNozzle

Nozzle Side 0.85 0.59 0.38

Safe End 0.85**/0.89** 0.48

Minimum Side*

Thickness Pipe-Pup

(in.) Piece NA **** NASidePipe 0.89 0.85 0.46Side

Nozzle Side 3.64 3.65 1.63Minimum*** Safe End


(in.) Pipe 3.48 2.81 2.40

_ _Side

* First number is for the safe end side of the nozzle-to-safe end weld, and the second number is for

the safe end side of the safe end-to-pipe weld** Conservatively assumed equal to thickness on the nozzle or pipe side, respectively.*** Length shown is the minimum of four azimuthal examinations.****Minimum thickness is met by inspection of the As-Built Drawing [ 16].




Shutdown Item Location

Cooling Surge Drain


Nozzle Side 0.85 0.59 0.38

Safe End 0.85**10.89** **** 0.48

Minimum Side*

Thickness Pipe-Pup

(in.) Piece NA **** NA Side Pipe

0.89 0.85 0.46 Side

Nozzle Side 3.64 3.65 1.63 Minimum*** Safe End


(in.) Pipe Side

3.48 2.81 2.40

* First number is for the safe end side of the nozzle-to-safe end weld, and the second number is for the safe end side of the safe end-to-pipe weld

** Conservatively assumed equal to thickness on the nozzle or pipe side, respectively. *** Length shown is the minimum of four azimuthal examinations. ****Minimum thickness is met by inspection of the As-Built Drawing [16].

0800692.404, Rev. 1 2-7 e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

3.0 RESIDUAL STRESS ANALYSES

3.1 Background

In addition to providing structural reinforcement to the flawed location to meet ASME Code

safety margins, the weld overlay produces beneficial residual stresses that support the mitigation

of PWSCC. The weld overlay approach has been used in the U.S. nuclear industry on hundreds

of welds. There have been no reports of crack extension after application of the weld overlay.

Thus, the compressive stresses caused by the weld overlay have been effective in mitigating

crack growth. In addition, the weld residual stresses act as compressive mean stresses in the

fatigue crack growth assessments.

The weld residual stresses for the weld overlays were determined by detailed elastic-plastic finite

element analyses as discussed in Section 3.2. The residual stress calculations were based on the

minimum drawing dimensions, which include inspectability considerations. The analysis

approach has been previously documented to provide predictions of weld residual stresses that

are in reasonable agreement with experimental measurements [5, 6, 7, and 8].

3.2 Technical Approach

The residual stresses due to welding are controlled by the welding parameters: thermal transients

due to application of the welding process, thermal boundary conditions, temperature-dependent

material properties, elastic-plastic stress reversals, and air or water backing during weld

deposition. The analytical technique uses finite element analysis to simulate the multi-pass weld

process. In order to reduce computational time, individual weld bead passes are lumped into

larger nuggets.

To obtain a bounding assessment of the impact of the weld overlay on the DMW, the residual

stress assessment must consider residual stresses that existed prior to application of the overlay.

Thus, the weld overlay analysis utilized a conservative bounding assumption regarding residual

stresses that may be present due to assumed weld repairs that may have occurred during plant

construction.

0800692,404, Rev. 1 3-1 V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

3.0 RESIDUAL STRESS ANALYSES

3.1 Background

In addition to providing structural reinforcement to the flawed location to meet ASME Code

safety margins, the weld overlay produces beneficial residual stresses that support the mitigation

ofPWSCC. The weld overlay approach has been used in the U.S. nuclear industry on hundreds

of welds. There have been no reports of crack extension after application of the weld overlay.

Thus, the compressive stresses caused by the weld overlay have been effective in mitigating

crack growth. In addition, the weld residual stresses act as compressive mean stresses in the

fatigue crack growth assessments.

The weld residual stresses for the weld overlays were determined by detailed elastic-plastic finite

element analyses as discussed in Section 3.2. The residual stress calculations were based on the

minimum drawing dimensions, which include inspectability considerations. The analysis

approach has been previously documented to provide predictions of weld residual stresses that

are in reasonable agreement with experimental measurements [5,6, 7, and 8].


The residual stresses due to welding are controlled by the welding parameters: thermal transients

due to application of the welding process, thermal boundary conditions, temperature-dependent

material properties, elastic-plastic stress reversals, and air or water backing during weld

deposition. The analytical technique uses finite element analysis to simulate the multi-pass weld

process. In order to reduce computational time, individual weld bead passes are lumped into

larger nuggets.

To obtain a bounding assessment of the impact of the weld overlay on the DMW, the residual

stress assessment must consider residual stresses that existed prior to application of the overlay.

Thus, the weld overlay analysis utilized a conservative bounding assumption regarding residual

stresses that may be present due to assumed weld repairs that may have occurred during plant

construction.


Two-dimensional, axisymmetric finite element models were developed for each of the nozzles

using the ANSYS software package [9]. Modeling of the weld nuggets in the overlay is

illustrated in Figure 3-1 for the 16" Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Figure 3-2 for the 12"

Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2, Figure 3-3 for the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 3 and

Figure 3-4 for the 2" Hot Leg Drain Nozzle. Note that the models include a simulated inside

surface (ID) repair at the DMW location with a depth of approximately 50% of the original wall

thickness for the full circumferential extent. This assumption is considered to conservatively

bound any weld repairs that may have been performed during plant construction, from the

standpoint of producing tensile residual stresses at the ID of the DMW.

An analysis is performed to simulate the welding process of the ID weld repair at the DMW

location, the Alloy 82/182 or stainless steel safe end-to-pipe weld, the overlay welding process,

and finally, a slow heatup to operating conditions of temperature and pressure. The analysis

consists of a thermal pass to determine the temperature response of the model to each individual

lumped weld nugget as it is added in sequence, followed by a non-linear elastic-plastic stress

pass to calculate the residual stress due to the temperature cycling from the application of each

lumped weld pass. Since residual stress is a function of the welding history, the stress pass for

each nugget is applied to the residual stress field induced from all previously applied weld

nuggets.

After completion of the weld overlay simulation, the model was allowed to cool to a uniform

steady state temperature of 70'F, and then brought up to normal operating conditions of

temperature and pressure to obtain the residual stresses.

Residual stress finite element model development is discussed in detail in Appendix F (SI

Calculation 0800692.312) for the 16" Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix N (SI

Calculation 0800692.322) for the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2, Appendix W (SI

Calculation 0800692.332) for the 2" Hot Leg Drain Nozzle, and Appendix CC (SI Calculation

0800692.342) for the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 3.

Details of the residual stress analyses are discussed in Appendix H (SI Calculation 0800692.314)

for the 16" Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix P (SI Calculation 0800692.324) for


Two-dimensional, axisymmetric finite element models were developed for each of the nozzles

using the ANSYS software package [9]. Modeling of the weld nuggets in the overlay is

illustrated in Figure 3-1 for the 16" Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Figure 3-2 for the 12"

Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2, Figure 3-3 for the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 3 and

Figure 3-4 for the 2" Hot Leg Drain Nozzle. Note that the models include a simulated inside

surface (ID) repair at the DMW location with a depth of approximately 50% of the original wall

thickness for the full circumferential extent. This assumption is considered to conservatively

bound any weld repairs that may have been perfonned during plant construction, from the

standpoint of producing tensile residual stresses at the ID of the DMW.

An analysis is perfonned to simulate the welding process of the ID weld repair at the DMW

location, the Alloy 82/182 or stainless steel safe end-to-pipe weld, the overlay welding process,

and finally, a slow heatup to operating conditions of temperature and pressure. The analysis

consists of a thennal pass to detennine the temperature response of the model to each individual

lumped weld nugget as it is added in sequence, followed by a non-linear elastic-plastic stress

pass to calculate the residual stress due to the temperature cycling from the application of each

lumped weld pass. Since residual stress is a function of the welding history, the stress pass for

each nugget is applied to the residual stress field induced from all previously applied weld

nuggets.

After completion of the weld overlay simulation, the model was allowed to cool to a unifonn

steady state temperature of 70°F, and then brought up to nonnal operating conditions of

temperature and pressure to obtain the residual stresses.

Residual stress finite element model development is discussed in detail in Appendix F (SI

Calculation 0800692.312) for the 16" Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix N (SI

Calculation 0800692.322) for the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2, Appendix W (SI

Calculation 0800692.332) for the 2" Hot Leg Drain Nozzle, and Appendix CC (SI Calculation

0800692.342) for the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 3.

Details of the residual stress analyses are discussed in Appendix H (SI Calculation 0800692 .314)

for the 16" Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix P (SI Calculation 0800692.324) for


the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2, Appendix EE (SI Calculation 0800692.344) for the 12"

Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 3 and Appendix Y (SI Calculation 0800692.334) for the 2" Hot

Leg Drain Nozzle. Material properties used in the analyses are reported in Appendix A (SI

Calculation 0800692.301)

3.3 Residual Stress Analysis Results

The pre-weld overlay residual stress distribution, including the effect of the assumed 360 degree

construction weld repair, is shown in Figure 3-5 for the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2.

Note the highly tensile stress state on the inside surface of the DMW. This result represents a

conservative starting point for the weld overlay residual stress analysis, and is consistent with

'field experience with PWSCC in PWR dissimilar metal welds (i.e., essentially all welds in which

PWSCC has occurred were found to have had significant weld repairs during plant construction).

The post-weld overlay residual stresses at room temperature as well as at operating temperature

and pressure, representing the final stage of the analysis, are presented in Figures 3-6 and 3-7,

respectively, for the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2. It is seen from these figures that, after

application of the WOL, the stresses on the inside surface of the original DMW are compressive.

The ID compression is balanced by tensile stresses in the WOL. Tensile residual stresses in the

WOL are not a PWSCC concern, because the overlays were installed with Alloy 52M weld

metal, a material that has been shown to offer significant improvement in PWSCC resistance

[10].

The favorable residual stress reversal on the susceptible ID surface is further illustrated in

Figures 3-8 and 3-9, which are plots of ID surface stresses, before and after application of the

WOL, for the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2. The compressive nature of the ID surface

stresses, as opposed to the high tensile pre-overlay values, is demonstration that the overlays will

serve their intended purpose of preventing any new PWSCC initiation in regions of the welds

that are not cracked, and inhibiting growth of any existing cracks that may have initiated.

Through-wall residual stress distributions from these analyses are used later as input to fatigue

crack growth calculations and PWSCC evaluations. Similar results are obtained for the other

nozzles evaluated herein.


the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2, Appendix EE (SI Calculation 0800692.344) for the 12"

Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 3 and Appendix Y (SI Calculation 0800692.334) for the 2" Hot

Leg Drain Nozzle. Material properties used in the analyses are reported in Appendix A (SI

Calculation 0800692.301)

3.3 Residual Stress Analysis Results

The pre-weld overlay residual stress distribution, including the effect of the assumed 360 degree

construction weld repair, is shown in Figure 3-5 for the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2.

Note the highly tensile stress state on the inside surface of the DMW. This result represents a

conservative starting point for the weld overlay residual stress analysis, and is consistent with

'field experience with PWSCC in PWR dissimilar metal welds (i.e., essentially all welds in which

PWSCC has occurred were found to have had significant weld repairs during plant construction).

The post-weld overlay residual stresses at room temperature as well as at operating temperature

and pressure, representing the final stage of the analysis, are presented in Figures 3-6 and 3-7,

respectively, for the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2. It is seen from these figures that, after

application of the WOL, the stresses on the inside surface of the original DMW are compressive.

The 1D compression is balanced by tensile stresses in the WOL. Tensile residual stresses in the

WOL are not a PWSCC concern, because the overlays were installed with Alloy 52M weld

metal, a material that has been shown to offer significant improvement in PWSCC resistance

[10].

The favorable residual stress reversal on the susceptible 1D surface is further illustrated in

Figures 3-8 and 3-9, which are plots ofID surface stresses, before and after application of the

WOL, for the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2. The compressive nature of the 1D surface

stresses, as opposed to the high tensile pre-overlay values, is demonstration that the overlays will

serve their intended purpose of preventing any new PWSCC initiation in regions of the welds

that are not cracked, and inhibiting growth of any existing cracks that may have initiated.

Through-wall residual stress distributions from these analyses are used later as input to fatigue

crack growth calculations and PWSCC evaluations. Similar results are obtained for the other

nozzles evaluated herein.


Detailed descriptions of the residual stress analyses, including complete presentation of the input,

assumptions and results, are contained in Appendix H (SI Calculation 0800692.314) for the 16"

Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix P (SI Calculation 0800692.324) for the 12" Hot

Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2, Appendix Y (SI Calculation 0800692.334) for the 2" Hot Leg

Drain Nozzle and Appendix EE (SI Calculation 0800692.344) for the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle

for Unit 3.

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Detailed descriptions of the residual stress analyses, including complete presentation of the input,

assumptions and results, are contained in Appendix H (SI Calculation 0800692.314) for the 16"

Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix P (SI Calculation 0800692.324) for the 12" Hot

Leg Surge Nozzle for Unit 2, Appendix Y (SI Calculation 0800692.334) for the 2" Hot Leg

Drain Nozzle and Appendix EE (SI Calculation 0800692.344) for the 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle

for Unit 3.


FT_ 2-=r


Residual Stress Analysis



Residual Stress Analysis


1 ANELEMENTS

MAT NUM

x

SONGS SURGE Nozzle MIN Overlay - Residual Stresses

Figure 3-2: Lumped Weld Nuggets for 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Residual Stress Analysis,

Unit 2


1 ELEMENTS

MAT NUM

x

L

SONGS SURGE Nozz l e MIN Overlay - Residua l St r esses


Unit 2



Unit 3

V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.0800692.404, Rev. 1 3-7

Layer I: (Alloy

Layer 8: (A lloy 52M) Layer 7: (A lloy 52M)

Layer 6: (A lloy 52M) 5: (A lloy 52M)

4: (A lloy 52 M) Layer 3: (A lloy 52 M)

Layer 2: (A ll oy 52M)

10 8 6

."'--Lu.)cr4

I : (ERJ08L)


Unit 3


IEEANELEMENTS

xIZ

SONGS Drain Nozzle Overlay

SONGS

Drain

Nozzle Overlay

Figure 3-4: Lumped Weld Nuggets for 2" Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Residual Stress Analysis

)0692.404, Rev. 1 3-8 V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.08(

ELEMENTS

x

L

SONGS Drain Nozzle Overlay

Figure 3-4: Lumped Weld Nuggets for 2" Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Residual Stress Analysis


ANNODAL SOLUTION

STEP=79SUB =1TIME=69SY (AVG)RSYS=0DMX =.043355SMN -- 47894SMX =63278

X11

-4789 -23189-35542

Residual stress analysis

i15110837

2622138573

nu o Z -63278

Axial Stress

ANNODAL SOLUTION

STEP=79SUB =1TIME=69SZ (AVG)RSYS=0DMX =.043355

SMN =-48605SMX =67655

MN

- 4 60 5 -226-35687


289U2 54137-9852 15984 41819 67655

Hoop Stress

Figure 3-5: Post ID Weld Repair Residual Stress in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle

at 70'F.

(The units of the color bar across the bottom of the figures are psi.)

I Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.0800692.404, Rev. 1 3-9

NODAL SOLUTION

STEP= 79 SUB -1 TIME-69 SY (AVG) RSYS- O DMX = . 0433 55 SMN =-47 894 SMX =632 78

x

b.. -47894 -23189 1516 26221 50925

- 35542 -1 0837 13868 38573 63278 Rezidua l ~tre 33 analY3 i 3

NODAL SOLUTION

STEP=79 SUB =1 TIME=69 SZ (AVG) RSYS=O DMX =.043355 SMN =-4860 5 SMX =67655

Axial Stress

x

L 48605 22769 3066 289 02 54737

- 35687 - 9852 15984 41 8 19 67655 Re3idual 3tre~~ analy3i~

Hoop Stress

Figure 3-5: Post ID Weld Repair Residual Stress in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle

at 70°F.

(The units of the color bar across the bottom of the figures are psi .)


ANNODAL SOLUTION

STEP=2535SUB =2TIME=1016SY (AVG)RSYS-0DMX -. 059158SMN -- 38576SMX -52119

x

-38576 -18422-28499

Residual atres3 analysis

1733 2188731964

4204252119-8344 11810

Axial Stress

X

-72262 -44129-58196


-15997 1213626202

4026954335-30063 -1930

Hoop Stress

Figure 3-6: Post-WOL Residual Stresses in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle at 70'F



NODAL SOLUTION

STEP~2535

SUB =2 TIME=1016 SY (.ZWG) RSYS- O DMX -. 059158 SMN - -38576 SMX -52119

x

L 3857 6 -18 4 22 1733 2188 7 420 4 2

- 28499 - 8344 11810 31964 52119 Re~idua l ~tre33 ana l y3 i ~

NODAL SOLUT I ON

STEP=2535 SUB -2 TIME=1016 S2 (AVG) RSYS=O DMX = . 059158 SMN =-72262 SMX ~54335

Axial Stress

x

L 7 2262 44129 15997 1 2136 40269

-58196 -30063 -1930 26202 54335 Residual stress analysis

Hoop Stress

Figure 3-6: Post-WOL Residual Stresses in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle at 70°F

(The units of the color bar across the bottom of the figures are psi .)


rANtLNODAL SOLUTION

STEP-2537SUB =2TIME 1036SY (AVG)RSYS-0DMX -. 275753SMN -- 27300SMX =43389

-27300 -11591 4117 19826 3553-19446 -3737 11972 27680

Residual streas analysis43389

Axial Stress

ANNODAL SOLUTION

STEP=2537SUB -2

TIME-l036SZ (AVG)RSYS=0DMX =.275753SMN =-46076SMX =50156

X

-46076 -z4b,3l-35384

Residual atreza analysis

180719-13999 7386 28771

3946450156

Hoop Stress

Figure 3-7: Applied Post Weld Overlay Residual Stress in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle

at 611°F and 2235 psig


V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.0800692.404, Rev. I 3-11

NODAL SOLUTION

STEP-2537 SUB -2 TIME-1036 SY (AVG) RSYS-O DMX - . 2 7575 3 SMN --273 0 0 SMX -43389

x

L 27300 11591 4117 19826 35535

-19446 -3737 11972 27680 43389 Re~idual ~tre~s analy~is

NODAL SOLUTION

STEP-2537 SUB -2 TIME-1036 SZ (AVG) RSYS=O DMX = . 275753 SMN =-46076 SMX =50156

Axial Stress

x

1---46076 -2 4 69 1 -3306 18079 39464

- 35384 -1 3999 73 8 6 28771 50156 Re~idu6 1 ~Cre~~ ~no l y~i~

Hoop Stress

Figure 3-7: Applied Post Weld Overlay Residual Stress in the Unit 2 12" Hot Leg Surge Nozzle

at 611 of and 2235 psig



ID Surface Axial Residual Stress

-- Post ID weld repair 70TF B Post butt weld 70TF

* Postweld overlay 70°F - Postweld overlay 611°F+2235psig

70 DMweld PipeWeld

60Nozzle side Safe End Pipe side50

40

-:30

-_=20M

10 A

-40

Distance from ID Weld Repair Centerline (in)


Pre- and Post-overlay


70

60

50

40

_30 'c;; ~20 If)

~ 10 ... as 0

10 Surface Axial Residual Stress

-+- Post 10 weld repair 70°F -S- Post butt weld 70°F

-.\- Post weld overlay 70°F ~ Post weld overlay611 °F+2235psig

Nozzle side Pipe side

-10 t:-:;;#~#T~~~~-W~~!;;~~~-1 -20

-30

-40

Distance from 10 Weld Repair Centerline (in)



0800692.404, Rev. 1 3-12 e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

ID Surface Hoop Residual Stress

s Post ID weld repair 70TF E Postbuttweld 70TF

A Postweld overlay 70TF Postweld overlay61 1'F+2235psig

80

60

40

-20

0

0-20

-40

-60

-80

Distance from ID Weld Repair Centerline (in)




80

60

10 Surface Hoop Residual Stress

•

-+- Post 10 weld repair 70°F

Post weld overlay 70°F

-+ OMWeld

Nonie side safe End

-e- Postbuttweld 70°F

-e-Post weld overlay 611 ° F + 2235psig

Pipe Weld

Pipe side

" 40 +-----------~~~--~~--------~--------------------------~

40 +-----------~~~~-T~~~--~~r_------------------------~

-60

-80

Distance from 10 Weld Repair Centerline (in)




4.0 EVALUATION OF WELD OVERLAY EFFECTS ON PIPING SYSTEMS

4.1 Background

Stresses may develop in remote locations of a piping system after application of one or more

weld overlays in the system, due to the weld shrinkage of the overlays. These stresses are

system-wide, and are similar in nature to restrained free end thermal expansion or contraction

stresses. The level of stresses resulting from weld overlay shrinkage depends upon the amount

of shrinkage that occurs and the piping system geometry (i.e., its stiffness).

In ASME Code terminology, weld overlay shrinkage stresses are secondary or peak stresses, and

have no primary component. They are constant with time, so there are no ASME Code limits

that apply to them, since Code limits on secondary and peak stresses apply to their range under

cyclic loading conditions. They could, however, potentially increase the susceptibility of other

susceptible welds in the system to future PWSCC. Therefore, it has become common practice

with weld overlays to measure the shrinkage between punch marks that are placed on the piping

and nozzles beyond the ends of the overlays as part of the implementation process. The stresses

due to the measured shrinkage are then evaluated via a piping model. However, this was

primarily a requirement for BWR weld overlays, in which the stainless steel systems contained

multiple welds that were susceptible to intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC), and

often contained more than one overlay. It is less of a concern in PWR overlay applications,

because the PWSCC susceptibility in the systems is typically limited to the DMW that is being

overlaid.

Due to displacements introduced by weld overlay shrinkage in the piping system, it is also

required that, after application of the overlay, a walkdown be performed to check all hanger set

points. In addition, clearances at all pipe whip restraints should be checked to ensure that they

are within tolerance.

0800692.404, Rev. 1, 4-1 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

4.0 EVALUATION OF WELD OVERLAY EFFECTS ON PIPING SYSTEMS

4.1 Background

Stresses may develop in remote locations ofa piping system after application of one or more

weld overlays in the system, due to the weld shrinkage of the overlays. These stresses are

system-wide, and are similar in nature to restrained free end thermal expansion or contraction

stresses. The level of stresses resulting from weld overlay shrinkage depends upon the amount

of shrinkage that occurs and the piping system geometry (i.e., its stiffness).

In ASME Code terminology, weld overlay shrinkage stresses are secondary or peak stresses, and

have no primary component. They are constant with time, so there are no ASME Code limits

that apply to them, since Code limits on secondary and peak stresses apply to their range under

cyclic loading conditions. They could, however, potentially increase the susceptibility of other

susceptible welds in the system to future PWSCc. Therefore, it has become common practice

with weld overlays to measure the shrinkage between punch marks that are placed on the piping

and nozzles beyond the ends of the overlays as part of the implementation process. The stresses

due to the measured shrinkage are then evaluated via a piping model. However, this was

primarily a requirement for BWR weld overlays, in which the stainless steel systems contained

multiple welds that were susceptible to intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC), and

often contained more than one overlay. It is less of a concern in PWR overlay applications,

because the PWSCC susceptibility in the systems is typically limited to the DMW that is being

overlaid.

Due to displacements introduced by weld overlay shrinkage in the piping system, it is also

required that, after application ofthe overlay, a walkdown be performed to check all hanger set

points. In addition, clearances at all pipe whip restraints should be checked to ensure that they

are within tolerance.

0800692.404, Rev. 1· 4-1 lJ Slruelurallnlegrity Associates, Inc.

4.2 Evaluation of Weld Overlay Shrinkage Stresses

The weld overlay shrinkages, measured at four azimuthal locations around the nozzles during the

repairs [15-20], are summarized in Table 4-1 for Unit 2 and in Table 4-2 for Unit 3. The average

measured axial shrinkages were less than 0.4 inches for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzles for the two

units, less than or equal to 0.15 inches for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzles, and less than

0.13 inches for the Hot Leg Surge Nozzles The hot leg drain line and shutdown cooling line are

long flexible systems with relatively few supports. The axial shrinkage stresses are thus

expected to be small, because of the relatively small shrinkage values and the very flexible

systems. For the Hot Leg Surge Nozzles, the maximum measured axial shrinkage was 0.22

inches (one azimuthal location for Unit 3). The average shrinkage was less than 0.13 inches.

This shrinkage is relatively small, and hence shrinkage stresses in the surge line are expected to

be small and judged to have no significant impact on stresses in the piping system.

Two models were constructed of the surge line piping and weld shrinkage was simulated to

determine the resulting maximum stresses developed in the system, Appendix C (SI Calculation

0800692.303). The stresses determined by those models were for the surge piping. However,

the surge piping is of equal or greater stiffness than the shutdown cooling and drain lines and has

much more deflection due to shrinkage at both the pressurizer and hot leg nozzles. Thus, it is

anticipated that the surge line shrinkage stresses bound those of the shutdown cooling and drain

lines.

The highest stress caused by the overlay shrinkage is found to be 393 psi for Unit 2, and 730 psi

for Unit 3. Stress at the weld to the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle is 214 psi for Unit 2 and 532 psi for

Unit 3. Since the expected weld shrinkage stress at this location is roughly 0.532 ksi or less, it is

judged to be acceptable.

All hangers, supports, and restraints that may be potentially affected were checked by SCE

personnel after the application of the overlay repairs, and they were all found to be acceptable

with the exception of a surge line jet impingement guide in Unit 3, which experienced


4.2 Evaluation of Weld Overlay Shrinkage Stresses

The weld overlay shrinkages, measured at four azimuthal locations around the nozzles during the

repairs [15-20], are summarized in Table 4-1 for Unit 2 and in Table 4-2 for Unit 3. The average

measured axial shrinkages were less than 0.4 inches for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzles for the two

units, less than or equal to 0.15 inches for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzles, and less than

0.13 inches for the Hot Leg Surge Nozzles The hot leg drain line and shutdown cooling line are

long flexible systems with relatively few supports. The axial shrinkage stresses are thus

expected to be small, because of the relatively small shrinkage values and the very flexible

systems. For the Hot Leg Surge Nozzles, the maximum measured axial shrinkage was 0.22

inches (one azimuthal location for Unit 3). The average shrinkage was less than 0.13 inches.

This shrinkage is relatively small, and hence shrinkage stresses in the surge line are expected to

be small and judged to have no significant impact on stresses in the piping system.

Two models were constructed of the surge line piping and weld shrinkage was simulated to

determine the resulting maximum stresses developed in the system, Appendix C (SI Calculation

0800692.303). The stresses determined by those models were for the surge piping. However,

the surge piping is of equal or greater stiffness than the shutdown cooling and drain lines and has

much more deflection due to shrinkage at both the pressurizer and hot leg nozzles. Thus, it is

anticipated that the surge line shrinkage stresses bound those of the shutdown cooling and drain

lines.

The highest stress caused by the overlay shrinkage is found to be 393 psi for Unit 2, and 730 psi

for Unit 3. Stress at the weld to the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle is 214 psi for Unit 2 and 532 psi for

Unit 3. Since the expected weld shrinkage stress at this location is roughly 0.532 ksi or less, it is

judged to be acceptable.

All hangers, supports, and restraints that may be potentially affected were checked by SCE

personnel after the application of the overlay repairs, and they were all found to be acceptable

with the exception of a surge line jet impingement guide in Unit 3, which experienced

0800692.404, Rev. 1 4-2 tr Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

unacceptable displacement and will be repaired during the next outage [21]. The present

condition of this support was evaluated and found acceptable for continued service until it can be

repaired [21 ].

Thus, the observed shrinkage levels are deemed to be acceptable.

4.3 Evaluation of the Effect of Weld Overlay Weight

The weight added to the piping systems by the weld overlays has been calculated based on

maximum design dimensions, and is summarized in Table 4-3. Using the maximum design

dimensions is conservative since the as-built overlay dimensions documented in References 15

through 20 fall within the minimum and maximum design dimensions. The calculated weight

includes the total weight of the overlay as well as the effective weight of the overlay on the

piping. The table also lists conservative estimates of the weight of the piping systems (from

standard piping schedules). Reconciliation of as-built WOL weights for impact on loads and

dynamic response is presented in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.

4.3.1 Dead Weight

A summary of the dead weight of the WOL compared to the weight of the piping is presented in

Appendix B (SI Calculation 0800692.302). This calculation addresses the different

configurations for the Unit 2 and Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle weld overlays. The Unit 2

geometry was modified to shorten the minimum overlay, however the maximum overlay was not

changed. Therefore, the maximum model from SI Calculation 0800692.312 remains bounding

for Unit 2. The Unit 3 geometry was modified to cover the pup piece to elbow weld and SI

Calculation 800692.342 reflects this geometry in the finite element model. The weight

calculation, SI Calculation 0800692.302, includes Unit 3 as well. The total weight of the WOL

ranges from about 13 lbs to 260 lbs for the different nozzles (Table 4-3). However, a significant

portion of the WOL is on the nozzle side. The boundary between the nozzle and the piping

system is assumed to be the midpoint of the safe end-to-pipe weld, and is the typical anchor point

for piping system analyses. Therefore, the effective WOL weight on the piping system is much


unacceptable displacement and will be repaired during the next outage [21]. The present

condition of this support was evaluated and found acceptable for continued service until it can be

repaired [21].

Thus, the observed shrinkage levels are deemed to be acceptable.

4.3 Evaluation of the Effect of Weld Overlay Weight

The weight added to the piping systems by the weld overlays has been calculated based on

maximum design dimensions, and is summarized in Table 4-3. Using the maximum design

dimensions is conservative since the as-built overlay dimensions documented in References 15

through 20 fall within the minimum and maximum design dimensions. The calculated weight

includes the total weight of the overlay as well as the effective weight of the overlay on the

piping. The table also lists conservative estimates of the weight of the piping systems (from

standard piping schedules). Reconciliation of as-built WOL weights for impact on loads and

dynamic response is presented in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.

4.3.1 Dead Weight

A summary of the dead weight of the WOL compared to the weight of the piping is presented in

Appendix B (SI Calculation 0800692.302). This calculation addresses the different

configurations for the Unit 2 and Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle weld overlays. The Unit 2

geometry was modified to shorten the minimum overlay, however the maximum overlay was not

changed. Therefore, the maximum model from SI Calculation 0800692.312 remains bounding

for Unit 2. The Unit 3 geometry was modified to cover the pup piece to elbow weld and SI

Calculation 800692.342 reflects this geometry in the finite element model. The weight

calculation, SI Calculation 0800692.302, includes Unit 3 as well. The total weight of the WOL

ranges from about 13 lbs to 260 lbs for the different nozzles (Table 4-3). However, a significant

portion of the WOL is on the nozzle side. The boundary between the nozzle and the piping

system is assumed to be the midpoint of the safe end-to-pipe weld, and is the typical anchor point

for piping system analyses. Therefore, the effective WOL weight on the piping system is much

0800692.404, Rev. 1 4-3 f! Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

smaller, ranging from about 2 lbs to 140 lbs (Table 4-3). In the worst case, the added weight is

less than 8% of the piping weight based on conservative WOL maximum design dimensions and

piping weight estimates. Overall, the added WOL weight would have negligible impact on

design loads and stresses.

4.3.2 Dynamic Response

While the system mass is slightly increased, the WOL also adds stiffness to the system. Hence,

any increase in mass is compensated for by an increase in stiffness resulting in an insignificant

change in the system frequency. Additionally, since the added mass of the WOL is concentrated

in the vicinity of the anchor point, which is the assumed boundary at the midpoint of the safe

end-to-pipe weld, the effect of the added mass on the dynamic characteristics of the piping

system would be insignificant.


smaller, ranging from about 2 lbs to 140 lbs (Table 4-3). In the worst case, the added weight is

less than 8% of the piping weight based on conservative WOL maximum design dimensions and

piping weight estimates. Overall, the added WOL weight would have negligible impact on

design loads and stresses.

4.3.2 Dynamic Response

While the system mass is slightly increased, the WOL also adds stiffness to the system. Hence,

any increase in mass is compensated for by an increase in stiffness resulting in an insignificant

change in the system frequency. Additionally, since the added mass of the WOL is concentrated

in the vicinity of the anchor point, which is the assumed boundary at the midpoint of the safe

end-to-pipe weld, the effect of the added mass on the dynamic characteristics of the piping

system would be insignificant.


Table 4-1: Weld Overlay Shrinkage Measurements-Unit 2

Hot Leg Hot Hot LegDescription Location Shutdown Leg Drain

Cooling Surge NozzleNozzle Nozzle

00 0.08 0.026 0.39

Axial 900 0.14 0.031 0.35Shrinkage 1800 0.16 0.031 0.41

(in.)2700 0.22 0.143 0.33

Average ---- 0.15 0.058 0.37(in.)


Hot Leg Hot Hot Leg

Description Location Shutdown Leg DrainCooling Surge NozzleNozzle Nozzle

00 0.001) 0.14 0.30

Axial 900 0.12 0.22 0.38Shrinkage 1800 0.02 0.11 0.36

(in.) I2700 0.05 0.03 0.23

Average ---- 0.063 0.125 0.318(in.)

1. Zero value is conservatively ignored for calculation of average shrinkageNote:

V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.0800692.404, Rev. 1 4-5


Hot Leg Hot Hot Leg

Description Location Shutdown Leg

Drain Cooling Surge Nozzle Nozzle

Nozzle

0° 0.08 0.026 0.39 Axial 90° 0.14 0.031 0.35

Shrinkage 180° 0.16 0.031 0.41 (in.) 270° 0.22 0.143 0.33

Average ---- 0.15 0.058 0.37

(in.)


Hot Leg Hot Hot Leg

Description Location Shutdown Leg

Drain Cooling Surge


0° 0.0(1) 0.14 0.30 Axial 90° 0.12 0.22 0.38

Shrinkage 180° 0.02 0.11 0.36 (in.) 270° 0.05 0.03 0.23

Average ---- 0.063 0.125 0.318

(in.) Note:

1. Zero value is conservatively ignored for calculation of average shrinkage

0800692.404, Rev. 1 4-5 () Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Table 4-3: Design Maximum Overlay Weight Summary-Unit 2 and Unit 3

Hot Leg Drain Leg Surge Hot Leg Hot Leg Surge

Nozzle Shutdown NozzleNozzle

Unit 2 Cooling Nozzle Unit 3

Total WOL Volume (in3) 45.1 501.6 692.6 885.6

WOL Volume (in3) to be 8.3 153.4 213.6 478.9Applied to Piping(l)

pWOL (lb/in3) 0.293 0.293 0.293 0.293

Total WOL Weight (lb) 13.2 147.0 202.9 259.5

WOL Weight (lb) to be 2.4 44.9 62.6 140.3Applied to Piping(l)

Nominal Piping Weight (per 8.43 195.16 301.08 195.16ft), with water

System Piping Length (ft) 5.64(2) 9.00(3) 8.6414) 9.0003)

Piping Weight (lb) 47.5 1756 2601 1756

% Weight Added to Piping 5.0 2.6 2.4 8.0System

Notes:

(1) WOL volume/weight added to piping system.(2) Piping length to first rigid support location. Unit 3's shorter pipe length is

used for calculation.(3) Piping length from first elbow to second elbow. Unit 3's shorter pipe length

is used for calculation.(4) Piping length from first elbow to second elbow. The shorter length from

Unit 2 is used.


Table 4-3: Design Maximum Overlay Weight Summary-Unit 2 and Unit 3

Hot Leg Surge Hot Leg Hot Leg Drain

Nozzle Shutdown Nozzle

Unit 2 Cooling Nozzle

Total WOL Volume (in3) 45.1 501.6 692.6

WOL Volume (in3) to be 8.3 153.4 213.6 Applied to Piping(1)

pWOL (lb/in3) 0.293 0.293 0.293

Total WOL Weight (lb) 13.2 147.0 202.9

WOL Weight (lb) to be 2.4 44.9 62.6 Applied to Piping(l)

Nominal Piping Weight (per 8.43 195.16 301.08 ft), with water

System Piping Length (ft) 5.64(2) 9.00(3) 8.64(4)

Piping Weight (lb) 47.5 1756 2601

% Weight Added to Piping 5.0 2.6 2.4 System

Notes:

(1) WOL volume/weight added to piping system. (2) Piping length to first rigid support location. Unit 3 's shorter pipe length is

used for calculation. (3) Piping length from first elbow to second elbow. Unit 3's shorter pipe length

is used for calculation. (4) Piping length from first elbow to second elbow. The shorter length from

Unit 2 is used.

Hot Leg Surge

Nozzle

Unit 3

885.6

478.9

0.293

259.5

140.3

195.16

9.00(3)

1756

8.0


5.0 CRACK GROWTH EVALUATIONS

5.1 Background

In this section, growth of cracks that may potentially exist in the overlaid DMWs is considered

for both PWSCC and fatigue mechanisms. Crack growth evaluations were performed to

demonstrate that flaws equal to or greater than the maximum flaw sizes that may escape

detection during ultrasonic examination would not show unacceptable growth, so as to violate

the basis for the overlay design.


The technical approach used in this evaluation is to determine the through-wall stress intensity

factor (K) distribution associated with assumed axial and circumferential flaws in the DMWs and

stainless steel butt welds using the post-weld overlay residual stresses at operating conditions

plus sustained and transient operating stresses. If the K distribution with sustained operating

stresses is such that it is negative at the crack tip, then no PWSCC growth is predicted [11]. The

maximum depth crack for which this condition is true represents the flaw tolerance depth, below

which no PWSCC growth is predicted. From a fatigue crack growth standpoint, the K

distributions for both the maximum and minimum cyclic stresses during various plant transients

are determined, and bounded by enveloping the transients. The Kmin and Kmax calculations

include both applied and residual stresses. Fatigue crack growth is then computed using crack

growth laws appropriate for Alloy 82/182 weld metal and austenitic stainless steel (where

applicable) [12, 13] at the DMW in a pressurized water reactor (PWR) environment. Fatigue

crack growth in the stainless steel weld is calculated using the austenitic stainless steel fatigue

crack growth law in air from Article C-3210 of the ASME Code, Section XI [3]. Factors (>1)

are applied to this rate to account for the PWR environment. In implementing the crack growth

law, it is assumed that no crack growth will occur if both Kmin and Kmax are less than zero. If

Kmax is positive during any part of a transient, then the fatigue crack growth is calculated to

determine how many years growth can occur until a postulated initial flaw reaches the base

metal/overlay interface or grows into the overlay without violating minimum thickness

0 2 R Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

5.0 CRACK GROWTH EVALUATIONS

5.t' Background

In this section, growth of cracks that may potentially exist in the overlaid DMWs is considered

for both PWSCC and fatigue mechanisms. Crack growth evaluations were performed to

demonstrate that flaws equal to or greater than the maximum flaw sizes that may escape

detection during ultrasonic examination would not show unacceptable growth, so as to violate

the basis for the overlay design.


The technical approach used in this evaluation is to determine the through-wall stress intensity

factor (K) distribution associated with assumed axial and circumferential flaws in the DMWs and

stainless steel butt welds using the post-weld overlay residual stresses at operating conditions

plus sustained and transient operating stresses. If the K distribution with sustained operating

stresses is such that it is negative at the crack tip, then no PWSCC growth is predicted [11]. The

maximum depth crack for which this condition is true represents the flaw tolerance depth, below

which no PWSCC growth is predicted. From a fatigue crack growth standpoint, the K

distributions for both the maximum and minimum cyclic stresses during various plant transients

are determined, and bounded by enveloping the transients. The Kmin and Kmax calculations,

include both applied and residual stresses. Fatigue crack growth is then computed using crack

growth laws appropriate for Alloy 82/182 weld metal and austenitic stainless steel (where

applicable) [12, 13] at the DMW in a pressurized water reactor (PWR) environment. Fatigue

crack growth in the stainless steel weld is calculated using the austenitic stainless steel fatigue

crack growth law in air from Article C-321 0 of the ASME Code, Section XI [3]. Factors (> 1)

are applied to this rate to account for the PWR environment. In implementing the crack growth

law, it is assumed that no crack growth will occur ifboth Kmin and Kmax are less than zero. If

Kmax is positive during any part of a transient, then the fatigue crack growth is calculated to

determine how many years growth can occur until a postulated initial flaw reaches the base

metal/overlay interface or grows into the overlay without violating minimum thickness


requirements, using the defined number of cycles for each transient. Negative Kmin values are

addressed via R-ratio corrections.

Stresses that contribute to fatigue crack growth include stresses due to primary loads, such as

internal pressure and external piping loads, secondary loads, such as thermal gradient stresses

(due to thermal transient events) and local stratification stresses (for the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle

only), and residual stresses. The through-wall stresses from these loads are extracted from the

finite element analyses and fitted to a third order polynomial for subsequent crack growth

analyses. Details of the various loads, finite element analyses, and stress analyses are discussed

in Section 6.0 of this report.

Fracture mechanics models, which are representative for the nozzle geometry, are used to

determine stress intensity factors, K. The model with minimum overlay dimensions is used

for pressure, mechanical load; and residual stresses, while the model with maximum overlay

dimensions is used for thermal transient stresses. For circumferential flaws under uniform

axial load, a 3600 flaw in a cylinder with the actual thickness-to-radius ratios are used. For

circumferential flaws with moment loading, a 360' flaw in a cylinder with the actual inside

radius-to-outside radius ratio is used. For axial flaws, a semi-elliptical inside surface flaw

with an aspect ratio (depth-to-length) of 0.2 in a cylinder is used for fatigue crack growth, and

an aspect ratio of 0.5 for PWSCC. The stress intensity factors for each type of load are

computed as a function of assumed crack depth in the original weld, and superimposed for the

various operation states. Fatigue crack growth (or combined fatigue crack growth and

PWSCC growth if PWSCC is active) is calculated by using linear elastic fracture mechanics

(LEFM) techniques. Crack growth laws for Alloy 82/Alloy 182 weld metals, stainless steel,

and Alloy 52M weld metal, when crack growth is predicted to extend into the weld overlay,

with multipliers to account for a pressurized water reactor environment, are used. Crack

growth is calculated to determine the number of years it takes for a postulated initial flaw of

75% of the original base metal thickness to reach the base metal/overlay interface or grow

into the overlay without violating minimum thickness requirements.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 5-2 U Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

requirements, using the defined number of cycles for each transient. Negative Kmin values are

addressed via R-ratio corrections.

Stresses that contribute to fatigue crack growth include stresses due to primary loads, such as

internal pressure and external piping loads, secondary loads, such as thermal gradient stresses

(due to therynal transient events) and local stratification stresses (for the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle

only), and residual stresses. The through-wall stresses from these loads are extracted from the

finite element analyses and fitted to a third order polynomial for subsequent crack growth

analyses. Details of the various loads, finite element analyses, and stress analyses are discussed

in Section 6.0 of this report.

Fracture mechanics models, which are representative for the nozzle geometry, are used to

determine stress intensity factors, K. The model with minimum overlay dimensions is used

for pressure, mechanical load; and residual stresses, while the model with maximum overlay

dimensions is used for thermal transient stresses. For circumferential flaws under uniform

axial load, a 3600 flaw in a cylinder with the actual thickness-to-radius ratios are used. For

circumferential flaws with moment loading, a 3600 flaw in a cylinder with the actual inside

radius-to-outside radius ratio is used. For axial flaws, a semi-elliptical inside surface flaw

with an aspect ratio (depth-to-length) of 0.2 in a cylinder is used for fatigue crack growth, and

an aspect ratio of 0.5 for PWSCc. The stress intensity factors for each type of load are

computed as a function of assumed crack depth in the original weld, and superimposed for the

various operation states. Fatigue crack growth (or combined fatigue crack growth and

PWSCC growth ifPWSCC is active) is calculated by using linear elastic fracture mechanics

(LEFM) techniques. Crack growth laws for Alloy 821 Alloy 182 weld metals, stainless steel, \

and Alloy 52M weld metal, when crack growth is predicted to extend into the weld overlay,

with multipliers to account for a pressurized water reactor environment, are used. Crack

growth is calculated to determine the number of years it takes for a postulated initial flaw of

75% of the original base metal thickness to reach the base metal/overlay interface or grow

into the overlay without violating minimum thickness requirements.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 5-2 tJ Strueturallntegrity Associates, Inc.

PWSCC potential in the DMW is determined by calculating the stress intensity factor versus

crack depth (K-vs.-a) curve at normal steady state operating conditions. For the PWSCC

evaluation, the fracture mechanics models used are the same as those used in the fatigue crack

growth calculations.

Crack growth analysis details and results are contained in Appendix J (SI Calculation

0800692.316) for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix R (SI Calculation

0800692.326) for the Unit 2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle, Appendix GG (SI Calculation 0800692.346)

for the Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle, and Appendix AA (SI Calculation 0800692.336) for the

Hot Leg Drain Nozzle.

5.3 Crack Growth Results

5.3.1 Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle

Table 5-1 presents the results of the fatigue crack growth and PWSCC growth calculation for the

circumferential and axial flaws in the DMW and stainless steel weld. For a circumferential flaw

and an axial flaw in the DMW, the time it takes for an initial flaw of 75% of the original

thickness to reach the overlay is greater than 40 years.

The analysis showed that PWSCC became active at a flaw depth of 89.3% of the original base

metal thickness at the DMW analyzed section for the circumferential flaw and 90.5% of the

original base metal thickness at the DMW analyzed section for the axial flaw, respectively.

At the SSW, it takes 39 years for an initial flaw of 75% of the original base metal thickness at the

analyzed section to reach the overlay for the circumferential flaw and greater than 40 years for

the axial flaw.

Details of the analysis and results are presented in Appendix J (SI Calculation 0800692.316).


PWSCC potential in the DMW is determined by calculating the stress intensity factor versus

crack depth (K-vs.-a) curve at normal steady state operating conditions. For the PWSCC

evaluation, the fracture mechanics models used are the same as those used in the fatigue crack

growth calculations.

Crack growth analysis details and results are contained in Appendix J (SI Calculation

0800692.316) for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix R (SI Calculation

0800692.326) for the Unit 2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle, Appendix GG (SI Calculation 0800692.346)

for the Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle, and Appendix AA (SI Calculation 0800692.336) for the

Hot Leg Drain Nozzle.

5.3 Crack Growth Results


Table 5-1 presents the results of the fatigue crack growth and PWSCC growth calculation for the

circumferential and axial flaws in the DMW and stainless steel weld. For a circumferential flaw

and an axial flaw in the DMW, the time it takes for an initial flaw of75% of the original

thickness to reach the overlay is greater than 40 years.

The analysis showed that PWSCC became active at a flaw depth of89.3% of the original base

metal thickness at the DMW analyzed section for the circumferential flaw and 90.5% of the

original base metal thickness at the DMW analyzed section for the axial flaw, respectively.

At the SSW, it takes 39 years for an initial flaw of75% of the original base metal thickness at the

analyzed section to reach the overlay for the circumferential flaw and greater than 40 years for

the axial flaw.

Details of the analysis and results are presented in Appendix J (SI Calculation 0800692.316).

0800692.404, Rev. 1 5-3 lJ Slruclurallnlegrily Associates, Inc.

5.3.2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle-Unit 2

Table 5-1 presents the results of the crack growth calculation for the circumferential and axial

flaws in the DMW for the Unit 2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle. Both nozzle-to-safe end and safe end-

to-pipe weld locations are evaluated using bounding stresses. At the DMW, it takes greater than

11 years for an initial flaw of 75% of the original base metal thickness at the analyzed section to

reach the overlay for a circumferential flaw and greater than 40 years for an axial flaw.

At the SSW, it takes greater than 11 years for an initial flaw of 75% of the original base metal

thickness at the analyzed section to reach the overlay for a circumferential flaw and greater than

40 years for an axial flaw.

The analysis showed that PWSCC became active at a flaw depth of 79% of the original base

metal thickness at the DMW analyzed section for the circumferential flaw. For the axial flaw,

the analysis showed that the stress intensity factor is negative at normal operating conditions

(NOC) through the original base metal thickness. Therefore, there is no PWSCC concern at the

DMW location for an axial flaw between 75% and 100% of the original base metal thickness.

Details of the analysis and results are presented in Appendix R (SI Calculation 0800692.326)



flaws in the DMW for the Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle, including the pup piece. Both nozzle-

to-safe end and safe end-to-pipe weld locations are evaluated using bounding stresses. At the

DMW, it takes greater than 40 years for an initial flaw of 75% of the original base metal



At each of the SS welds, it takes greater than 40 years for an initial flaw of 75% of the original

base metal thickness at the analyzed section to reach the overlay for a circumferential flaw and

greater than 40 years for an axial flaw.




flaws in the DMW for the Unit 2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle. Both nozzle-to-safe end and safe end

to-pipe weld locations are evaluated using bounding stresses. At the DMW, it takes greater than

11 years for an initial flaw of75% of the original base metal thickness at the analyzed section to

reach the overlay for a circumferential flaw and greater than 40 years for an axial flaw.

At the SSW, it takes greater than 11 years for an initial flaw of75% of the original base metal



The analysis showed that PWSCC became active at a flaw depth of 79% of the original base

metal thickness at the DMW analyzed section for the circumferential flaw. For the axial flaw,

the analysis showed that the stress intensity factor is negative at normal operating conditions

(NOC) through the original base metal thickness. Therefore, there is no PWSCC concern at the

DMW location for an axial flaw between 75% and 100% of the original base metal thickness.

Details of the analysis and results are presented in Appendix R (SI Calculation 0800692.326)



flaws in the DMW for the Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle, including the pup piece. Both nozzle

to-safe end and safe end-to-pipe weld locations are evaluated using bounding stresses. At the

DMW, it takes greater than 40 years for an initial flaw of75% of the original base metal



At each of the SS welds, it takes greater than 40 years for an initial flaw of75% of the original

base metal thickness at the analyzed section to reach the overlay for a circumferential flaw and

greater than 40 years for an axial flaw.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 5-4 !lJ Strueturallntegrity Associates, Inc.

For both the circumferential flaw and axial flaw, the analysis showed that the stress intensity

factor is negative at normal operating conditions (NOC) through the original base metal

thickness. Therefore, there is no PWSCC growth expected at the DMW.

Details of the analysis and results are presented in Appendix GG (SI Calculation 0800692.346).

5.3.4 Hot Leg Drain Nozzle


flaws in the DMW. At the DMW, it takes greater than 40 years for an initial flaw of 75% of the

original base metal thickness at the analyzed section to reach the overlay for a circumferential

flaw and an axial flaw.

At the SSW, it takes 37 years for an initial flaw of 75% of the original base metal thickness at the

analyzed section to reach the overlay for a circumferential flaw and greater than 40 years for an

axial flaw.

For PWSCC, the analysis showed that the stress intensity factor is negative at normal operating

conditions (NOC) through the original base metal thickness for both the circumferential and

axial flaw. Therefore, there is no PWSCC concern at the DMW location for the circumferential

and axial flaw between 75% and 100% of the original base metal thickness.

Details of the analysis and results are presented in Appendix AA (SI Calculation 0800692.336)

for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle, Appendix J (SI Calculation 0800692.316) for the Hot Leg

Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix R (SI Calculation 0800692.326) for the Unit 2 Hot Leg

Surge Nozzle, and in Appendix GG (SI Calculation 0800692.346) for the Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge

Nozzle.


For both the circumferential flaw and axial flaw, the analysis showed that the stress intensity

factor is negative at normal operating conditions (NOC) through the original base metal

thickness. Therefore, there is no PWSCC growth expected at the DMW.

Details of the analysis and results are presented in Appendix GG (SI Calculation 0800692.346).



flaws in the DMW. At the DMW, it takes greater than 40 years for an initial flaw of75% of the

original base metal thickness at the analyzed section to reach the overlay for a circumferential

flaw and an axial flaw.

At the SSW, it takes 37 years for an initial flaw of75% of the original base metal thickness at the

analyzed section to reach the overlay for a circumferential flaw and greater than 40 years for an

axial flaw.

For PWSCC, the analysis showed that the stress intensity factor is negative at normal operating

conditions (NOC) through the original base metal thickness for both the circumferential and

axial flaw. Therefore, there is no PWSCC concern at the DMW location for the circumferential

and axial flaw between 75% and 100% of the original base metal thickness.

Details of the analysis and results are presented in Appendix AA (SI Calculation 0800692.336)

for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle, Appendix J (SI Calculation 0800692.316) for the Hot Leg

Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix R (SI Calculation 0800692.326) for the Unit 2 Hot Leg

Surge Nozzle, and in Appendix GG (SI Calculation 0800692.346) for the Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge

Nozzle.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 5-5 l) Siruelurallntegrity Associates, Inc.

Table 5-1: Limiting Crack Growth Results - Hot Leg Nozzles

Time to Reach Overlay

Hot Leg Hot Leg Hot Leg Hot LegDrain Surge Surge Shutdown

Nozzle Nozzle CoolingNozzle Unit 2 Unit 3(2) Nozzle

Circumferential >40 years >11 years >40 years >40 years(DMW)

Axial (DMW) >40 years >40 years >40 years >40 years

Circumferential >40 years (2)/SS welds 37 years >11 years >40 years (2) 39 years

>40 years(2)/

Axial SS welds >40 years >40 years >40 years(2) >40 years

Notes: (1) DMW = Dissimilar metal weld; SSW = Stainless steel weld.(2) Contains both a safe end to pup piece SSW and pup piece to elbow SSW.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.5-6

Table 5-1: Limiting Crack Growth Results - Hot Leg Nozzles

Time to Reach Overlay

Hot Leg Hot Leg Hot Leg Hot Leg

Flaw(l) Surge Surge Shutdown Drain Nozzle

Nozzle Nozzle Cooling Unit 2 Unit 3(2) Nozzle

Circumferential >40 years > 11 years >40 years >40 years

(DMW)

Axial (DMW) >40 years >40 years >40 years >40 years

Circumferential 37 years > 11 years

>40 years(2)/ 39 years

SS welds >40 years(2)

Axial SS welds >40 years >40 years >40 years(2) /

>40 years >40 years(2)

Notes: (1) DMW = DIssImIlar metal weld; SSW = Stamless steel weld. (2) Contains both a safe end to pup piece SSW and pup piece to elbow SSW.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 5-6 tJ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

6.0 ASME SECTION III STRESS ANALYSES

6.1 Background -

This section presents a summary of ASME Code, Section III stress evaluations performed for the

weld overlays on the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle, the Hot Leg

Drain Nozzle.

ASME Code, Section III, 1998 Edition with Addenda through 2000 [14] was used for these

evaluations. Reconciliation of a later Code with the applicable Code-of-Record is discussed in

Section 7.0.

6.2 Design Criteria

The weld overlay repairs are designed to the requirements of the ASME Code, Section III for

Class 1 components.

For the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling, the Hot Leg Surge and the Hot Leg Drain Nozzles, the

nozzle portion and the affected piping of the repair are evaluated to satisfy Subarticle

NB-3200 acceptance criteria, with guidance from the rules of Subarticle NB-3600.


Stresses at critical locations due to various loading conditions are determined using finite

element analyses. Applicable design loads and thermal transients are documented in

Appendix E (SI Calculation 0800692.311) for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle,

Appendix M (SI Calculation 0800692.321) for the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle and Appendix V (SI

Calculation 0800692.331) for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle.

Details of the finite element models developed using the computer program ANSYS [9] are

presented in Appendix F (SI Calculation 0800692.312) for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling

Nozzle, Appendix N (SI Calculation 0800692.322) for the Unit 2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle,


6.0 ASME SECTION III STRESS ANALYSES

6.1 Background·

This section presents a summary of ASME Code, Section III stress evaluations performed for the

weld overlays on the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle, the Hot Leg

Drain Nozzle.

ASME Code, Section III, 1998 Edition with Addenda through 2000 [14] was used for these

evaluations. Reconciliation of a later Code with the applicable Code-of-Record is discussed in

Section 7.0.

6.2 Design Criteria

The weld overlay repairs are designed to the requirements of the ASME Code, Section III for

Class 1 components.

For the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling, the Hot Leg Surge and the Hot Leg Drain Nozzles, the

nozzle portion and the affected piping of the repair are evaluated to satisfy Subarticle

NB-3200 acceptance criteria, with guidance from the rules of Subarticle NB-3600.


Stresses at critical locations due to various loading conditions are determined using finite

element analyses. Applicable design loads and thermal transients are documented in

Appendix E (SI Calculation 0800692.311) for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle,

Appendix M (SI Calculation 0800692.321) for the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle and Appendix V (SI

Calculation 0800692.3 31) for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle.

Details of the finite element models developed using the computer program ANSYS [9] are

presented in Appendix F (Sl Calculation 0800692.312) for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling

Nozzle, Appendix N (SI Calculation 0800692.322) for the Unit 2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle,


Appendix CC (SI Calculation 0800692.342) for the Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle and

Appendix W (SI Calculation 0800692.332) for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle.

Stress analyses are presented in Appendix G (SI Calculation 0800692.313) for the Hot Leg

Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix 0 (SICalculation 0800692.323) for the Unit 2 Hot Leg

Surge Nozzle, Appendix DD (SI Calculation 0800692.343) for the Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle

and Appendix X (SI Calculation 0800692.333) for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle.

Details of the ASME Code, Section III evaluations are contained in Appendix I (SI Calculation

0800692.315) for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix Q (SI Calculation

0800692.325) for the Unit 2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle, Appendix FF (SI Calculation 0800692.345)

for the Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle and Appendix Z (SI Calculation 0800692.335) for the Hot

Leg Drain Nozzle.

The Relief Requests, which are based on Code Case N-504-2 and N-638-1, require that the

overlay be sized so that it will be able to provide for load redistribution from the pipe into the

deposited weld metal and back into the nozzle without violating applicable stress limits of

ASME Code, Section III. This was demonstrated in the sizing calculations discussed in Section

2.3 of this report.

The weld overlay sizing evaluations, discussed in Section 2.3 of this report, considered

general primary membrane, Pm, and primary membrane-plus-bending, Pm + Pb, stress

intensities resulting from normal/upset (Service Levels A and B) operating conditions and

emergency/faulted (Service Levels C and D) conditions. While local primary membrane, PL,

stress intensities were not specifically evaluated, any local stress effects due to the weld

overlay repair are expected to be minimal. The sizing calculations did not specifically

evaluate loads resulting from the Test Load Combinations. However, the Test Load

Combinations consider only primary stresses which only result from pressure and mechanical

loads. The added thickness of the weld overlay will only serve to reduce the general primary

0800692.404, Rev. 1 6-2 :U Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Appendix CC (SI Calculation 0800692.342) for the Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle and

Appendix W (SI Calculation 0800692.332) for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle.

Stress analyses are presented in Appendix G (SI Calculation 0800692.313) for the Hot Leg

Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix 0 (SI.Calculation 0800692.323) for the Unit 2 Hot Leg

Surge Nozzle, Appendix DD (SI Calculation 0800692.343) for the Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle

and Appendix X (SI Calculation 0800692.333) for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle.

Details of the ASME Code, Section III evaluations are contained in Appendix I (SI Calculation

0800692.315) for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix Q (SI Calculation

0800692.325) for the Unit 2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle, Appendix FF (SI Calculation 0800692.345)

for the Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle and Appendix Z (SI Calculation 0800692.335) for the Hot

Leg Drain Nozzle.

The Relief Requests, which are based on Code Case N-504-2 and N-638-1, require that the

overlay be sized so that it will be able to provide for load redistribution from the pipe into the

deposited weld metal and back into the nozzle without violating applicable stress limits of

ASME Code, Section III. This was demonstrated in the sizing calculations discussed in Section

2.3 of this report.

The weld overlay sizing evaluations, discussed in Section 2.3 of this report, considered

general primary membrane, Pm, and primary membrane-pIus-bending, Pm + Pb, stress

intensities resulting from normal/upset (Service Levels A and B) operating conditions and

emergency/faulted (Service Levels C and D) conditions. While local primary membrane, PL ,

stress intensities were not specifically evaluated, any local stress effects due to the weld

overlay repair are expected to be minimal. The sizing calculations did not specifically

evaluate loads resulting from the Test Load Combinations. However, the Test Load

Combinations consider only primary stresses which only result from pressure and mechanical

loads. The added thickness of the weld overlay will only serve to reduce the general primary

0800692.404, Rev. 1 6-2 l) Slruclurallnlegrily Associates, Inc.

membrane, Pm, and local primary membrane, PL, stress intensities and are not expected to be

adversely affected when compared to the original configuration.

Therefore, the only load combinations which will be considered in detail herein are for Service

Levels A and B, primary-plus-secondary, and primary-plus-secondary-plus-peak effects.

6.4 Results of Analyses


Stress intensities for the weld overlaid Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle are determined from

finite element analyses for the various specified load combinations, as discussed in Section 6.3.

Linearized through-wall stresses were evaluated through a total of nine stress paths. The stress

intensities along all these paths are evaluated in accordance with ASME Code, Section III,

Subarticles NB-3200 and NB-3600 [14], and compared to the applicable Code limits. A

summary of the stress comparison for the most limiting locations is provided in Table 6-1. The

stresses and the fatigue usage in the weld overlaid Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle are within

the applicable Code limits.


Stress intensities for the weld overlaid Unit 2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle are determined from finite

element analyses for the various specified load combinations, as discussed in Section 6.3.

Linearized through-wall stresses were evaluated through a total of six stress paths. The stress

intensities along these paths are evaluated in accordance with ASME Code, Section III,



stresses and the fatigue usage in the weld overlaid Unit 2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle are within the

applicable Code limits.


membrane, Pm, and local primary membrane, PL, stress intensities and are not expected to be

adversely affected when compared to the original configuration.

Therefore, the only load combinations which will be considered in detail herein are for Service

Levels A and B, primary-pIus-secondary, and primary-plus-secondary-plus-peak effects.

6.4 Results of Analyses

6.4.1 Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle J

Stress intensities for the weld overlaid Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle are determined from

finite element analyses for the various specified load combinations, as discussed in Section 6.3.

Linearized through-wall stresses were evaluated through a total of nine stress paths. The stress

intensities along all these paths are evaluated in accordance with ASME Code, Section III,

Subartic1es NB-3200 and NB-3600 [14], and compared to the applicable Code limits. A


stresses and the fatigue usage in the weld overlaid Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle are within

the applicable Code limits.




Linearized through-wall stresses were evaluated through a total of six stress paths. The stress






0800692.404, Rev. 1 6-3 tJ Siruciurallniegrily Associates, Inc.

6.4.3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle- Unit 3



Linearized through-wall stresses were evaluated through a total of 12 stress paths. The stress







Stress intensities for the weld overlaid Hot Leg Drain Nozzle are determined from finite element

analyses for the various specified load combinations, as discussed in Section 6.3. Linearized

through-wall stresses were evaluated through a total of six stress paths. The stress intensities

along these paths are evaluated in accordance with ASME Code, Section III, Subarticles

NB-3200 and NB-3600 [14], and compared to the applicable Code limits. A summary of the

stress comparison for the most limiting locations is provided in Table 6-4. The stresses and the

fatigue usage in the weld overlaid Hot Leg Drain Nozzle are within the applicable Code limits.

6.5 Concluding Remarks

Evaluations have been performed to ensure that the weld overlay repairs on the Hot Leg

Shutdown Cooling, the Hot Leg Surge and the Hot Leg Drain Nozzles meet the applicable

ASME Code, Section III limits. The evaluations show that all ASME Code limits have been

met.





Linearized through-wall stresses were evaluated through a total of 12 stress paths. The stress







Stress intensities for the weld overlaid Hot Leg Drain Nozzle are determined from finite element

analyses for the various specified load combinations, as discussed in Section 6.3. Linearized

through-wall stresses were evaluated through a total of six stress paths. The stress intensities

along these paths are evaluated in accordance with ASME Code, Section III, Subartic1es

NB-3200 and NB-3600 [14], and compared to the applicable Code limits. A summary of the

stress comparison for the most limiting locations is provided in Table 6-4. The stresses and the

fatigue usage in the weld overlaid Hot Leg Drain Nozzle are within the applicable Code limits.

6.5 Concluding Remarks

Evaluations have been performed to ensure that the weld overlay repairs on the Hot Leg

Shutdown Cooling, the Hot Leg Surge and the Hot Leg Drain Nozzles meet the applicable

ASME Code, Section III limits. The evaluations show that all ASME Code limits have been

met.


Table 6-1: Limiting Stress Results for Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle

Load Path and Type(d) Calculated AllowableCombination Path a nd (P C Allowable

Path 1 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 38.941 49.536Path 2 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 40.097 49.536Path 3 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) 39.221 49.536Path 4 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) (c) 34.581 50.736

Level A/B Path 6 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) (c) 31.622 51.210Path 6 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a)(c) 31.563 50.736Path 7 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 48.362 50.736Path 8 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) 47.991 50.736Path 9 Primary + Secondary (P ± Q) (ksi) (a) 46.65 6 50.73 6

Fatigue Cumulative Usage Factor (b) 0.523 1.000(a) Primary stress acceptance criteria are met via the sizing calculations discussed in Section 2.3(b) The limiting fatigue usage location is at the outside surface at the elbow near the SSW.(c) Elastic analysis exceeds the allowable values of 3Sm; however, criteria for simplified elastic-plastic analysis

are met as shown.(d) Path definitions are provided in Appendix I.

Table 6-2: Limiting Stress Results for Hot Leg Surge Nozzle-Unit 2

Load Path and Type(c) Calculated AllowableCombination

Path 1 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 41.035 56.096Path 2 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 34.399 49.920

Level A/B Path 3 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 49.285 49.855Path 4 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) 37.278 56.096Path 5 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 34.733 49.920Path 6 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 48.887 49.855

Fatigue Cumulative Usage Factor (b) 0.300 1.000

(a) Primary stress acceptance criteria are met via the sizing calculations discussed in Section 2.3(b) The limiting fatigue usage location is at the outside surface at the nozzle near the DMW.(c) Path definitions are provided in Appendix Q.


Table 6-1: Limiting Stress Results for Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle

Load Path and Type(d) Calculated Combination

Path 1 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 38.941 Path 2 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 40.097 Path 3 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 39.221 Path 4 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) (e) 34.581

Level AlB Path 5 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) (e) 31.622 Path 6 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) (e) 31.563 Path 7 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 48.362 Path 8 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 47.991 Path 9 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 46.656

Fatigue Cumulative Usage Factor (b) 0.523 ..

(a) Pnmary stress acceptance cntena are met VIa the slzmg calculatlOns dIscussed m SectlOn 2.3 (b) The limiting fatigue usage location is at the outside surface at the elbow near the SSW.

Allowable

49.536 49.536 49.536 50.736 51.210 50.736 50.736 50.736 50.736

1.000

(c) Elastic analysis exceeds the allowable values of 3Sm; however, criteria for simplified elastic-plastic analysis are met as shown.

(d) Path definitions are provided in Appendix I.


Load Path and Type(e) Calculated Combination

Path I Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 41.035 Path 2 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 34.399

Level AlB Path 3 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 49.285 Path 4 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) 37.278 Path 5 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 34.733 Path 6 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 48.887

Fatigue Cumulative Usage Factor (b) 0.300

(a) Primary stress acceptance criteria are met via the sizing calculations discussed in Section 2.3 (b) The limiting fatigue usage location is at the outside surface at the nozzle near the DMW. (c) Path definitions are provided in Appendix Q.

Allowable

56.096 49.920 49.855 56.096 49.920 49.855

1.000



Load Combination Path and Type(d) Calculated AllowablePath 1 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a)(C) 43.854 48.624Path 2 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 38.053 50.208Path 3 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) 36.714 50.208Path 4 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) 30.688 52.182Path 5 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) () (c) 38.636 48.612Path 6 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) 42.125 50.208

Level A/B Path 7 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)j() 38.373 50.208Path 8 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) 35.494 52.182Path 9 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) 43.529 48.672

Path 10 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) 40.680 50.208Path 11 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 38.762 50.208Path 12 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) 34.344 52.182


(a) Primary stress acceptance criteria are met via the sizing calculations discussed in Section 2.3(b) The limiting fatigue usage location is at the outside surface at the intrados of the elbow at the toe of the

overlay.(c) Elastic analysis exceeds the allowable values of 3sm; however, criteria for simplified elastic-plastic analysis

are met as shown.(d) Path definitions are provided in Appendix FF.

Table 6-4: Limiting Stress Results for Hot Leg Drain Nozzle

Load Path and Type(d) Calculated AllowableCombination

Path 1 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) () (c) 20.636 49.440Path 2 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) (c) 35.151 50.616Path 3 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) (c) 44.182 50.616

Level A/B Path 4 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (kSi)(a) (C) 18.739 49.440Path 5 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) (c) 25.570 50.616Path 6 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) (c) 43.356 50.616


(a) Primary stress acceptance criteria are met via the sizing calculations discussed in Section 2.3(b) The limiting fatigue usage location is at the outside surface at the pipe near the SSW.(c) Elastic analysis exceeds the allowable values of 3Sm; however, criteria for simplified elastic-plastic analysis

are met as shown.(d) Path definitions are provided in Appendix Z.

006 40 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.


Load Combination Path and Type(d) Calculated Allowable Path 1 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) (e) 43.854 48.624 Path 2 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 38.053 50.208 Path 3 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 36.714 50.208 Path 4 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi/a

) 30.688 52.182 Path 5 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) (e) 38.636 48.612

Level AlB Path 6 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 42.125 50.208 Path 7 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 38.373 50.208 Path 8 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 35.494 52.182 Path 9 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 43.529 48.672

Path 10 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 40.680 50.208 Path 11 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 38.762 50.208 Path 12 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) 34.344 52.182


(a) Primary stress acceptance criteria are met via the sizing calculations discussed in Section 2.3 (b) The limiting fatigue usage location is at the outside surface at the intrados of the elbow at the toe of the

overlay. (c) Elastic analysis exceeds the allowable values of 3Sm; however, criteria for simplified elastic-plastic analysis

are met as shown. (d) Path definitions are provided in Appendix FF.

Table 6-4: Limiting Stress Results for Hot Leg Drain Nozzle

Load Path and Type(d) Calculated Combination

Path 1 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (aJ (eJ 20.636 Path 2 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) (e) 35.151

Level AlB Path 3 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) (eJ 44.182 Path 4 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi)(a) (e) 18.739 Path 5 Primary + Secondary (P + Q) (ksi) (a) (e) 25.570 Path 6 Primary + SecondaryJP + Q) (ksi) (a) (e) 43.356

Fatigue Cumulative Usage Factor (b) 0.366

(a) Primary stress acceptance criteria are met via the sizing calculations discussed in Section 2.3 (b) The limiting fatigue usage location is at the outside surface at the pipe near the SSW.

Allowable

49.440 50.616 50.616 49.440 50.616 50.616

1.000

(c) Elastic analysis exceeds the allowable values of3Sm; however, criteria for simplified elastic-plastic analysis are met as shown.

(d) Path definitions are provided in Appendix Z.


7.0 RECONCILIATION OF CODE-OF-RECORD TO LATER CODE EDITION

The applicable ASME Code-of-Record for the Hot Leg Nozzles (RCS Piping) is the 1974

Edition with Addenda through Summer 1974.

The Code (i.e., the replacement Code in lieu of the Code-of-Record) for the weld overlay repairs

is the 1998 Edition (with Addenda through 2000) of ASME Code, Section III [14]. Material

properties are also based on the 1998 Edition (with Addenda through 2000). This section of the

report provides the reconciliations which document the acceptability of using a different Code

edition, or revised Owner's requirements, by meeting the ASME Code, Section XI, 1995 Edition

(with Addenda through 1996) [3], IWA-4170 requirements, and demonstrates that the repairs are

satisfactory for the specified design and operating conditions.

7.1 Design

For the design of the weld overlay repairs, Subarticles NB-3200 and NB-3600 of the replacement

Code (1998 Edition with Addenda through 2000) are adopted.

The design criteria in Subarticle NB-3200 of the original Code-of-Record (ASME Code, Section

III, 1974 Edition with Addenda through Summer 1974) are basically the same as those of

Subarticle NB-3200 of the replacement Code. For Service Level D limits, the intent of NB-3225

and Appendix F of the replacement Code is consistent with that of NB-3225 of the original

Code-of-Record, which is to provide assurance that violation of the pressure boundary does not

occur.

NB-3611.2 of the replacement Code and the original Code-of-Record permit the use of the

alternative requirements of Subarticle NB-3200. The requirements of Subarticle NB-3200 of the

replacement Code and the original Code-of-Record are similar.

7.2 Fabrication

No parts were fabricated; therefore, no Code reconciliation is needed.


7.0 RECONCILIATION OF CODE-OF-RECORD TO LATER CODE EDITION

The applicable ASME Code-of-Record for the Hot Leg Nozzles (RCS Piping) is the 1974

Edition with Addenda through Summer 1974.

The Code (i.e., the replacement Code in lieu of the Code-of-Record) for the weld overlay repairs

is the 1998 Edition (with Addenda through 2000) of ASME Code, Section III [14]. Material

properties are also based on the 1998 Edition (with Addenda through 2000). This section of the

report provides the reconciliations which document the acceptability of using a different Code

edition, or revised Owner's requirements, by meeting the ASME Code, Section XI, 1995 Edition

(with Addenda through 1996) [3], IW A-4170 requirements, and demonstrates that the repairs are

satisfactory for the specified design and operating conditions.

7.1 Design

For the design of the weld overlay repairs, Subarticles NB-3200 and NB-3600 of the replacement

Code (1998 Edition with Addenda through 2000) are adopted.

The design criteria in Subarticle NB-3200 of the original Code-of-Record (ASME Code, Section

III, 1974 Edition with Addenda through Summer 1974) are basically the same as those of

Subarticle NB-3200 of the replacement Code. For Service Level D limits, the intent ofNB-3225

and Appendix F of the replacement Code is consistent with that ofNB-3225 of the original

Code-of-Record, which is to provide assurance that violation of the pressure boundary does not

occur.

NB-3611.2 of the replacement Code and the original Code-of-Record permit the use of the

alternative requirements of Subarticle NB-3200. The requirements of Subarticle NB-3200 of the

replacement Code and the original Code-of-Record are similar.

7.2 Fabrication

No parts were fabricated; therefore, no Code reconciliation is needed.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 7-1 t; Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

7.3 Examination

Examination requirements for Weld overlay repairs are per the Relief Requests [2], which are

based on ASME Code Case N-504-2 and N-638-1 [I ]; thus, no reconciliation is needed.

7.4 Materials

The ASME Code, Section II, 1998 Edition (with Addenda through 2000) is used for all materials

since the original Code-of-Record does not contain properties for Alloy 52M weld metal (Alloy

690 base material). The fatigue strength curve is essentially unchanged between the original

Code (ASME Code, Section III, 1974 Edition with Addenda through Summer 1974) and the

replacement Code (ASME Code, Section III, 1998 Edition with Addenda through 2000) for Ni-

Cr-Fe material. The differences in the coefficients of thermal expansion, modulus of elasticity,

and thermal properties between the original Code-of-Record and the replacement Code for

materials (i.e., ASME Code, Section II, 1998 Edition, with Addenda through 2000) reflect

improvements in the understanding of the material.

7.5 Conclusion

It is concluded that the rules in the 1998 Edition (with Addenda through 2000) of Section III of

the ASME Code, with material properties from the 1998 Edition (with Addenda through 2000)

of Section II, are acceptable for use in the evaluations contained herein, and the replacement

Code is considered to be reconciled with the Code-of-Record.


7.3 Examination

Examination requirements for weld overlay repairs are per the Relief Requests [2], which are

based on ASME Code Case N-504-2 and N-638-1[1]; thus, no reconciliation is needed.

7.4 Materials

The ASME Code, Section II, 1998 Edition (with Addenda through 2000) is used for all materials

since the original Code-of-Record does not contain properties for Alloy 52M weld metal (Alloy

690 base material). The fatigue strength curve is essentially unchanged between the original

Code (ASME Code, Section III, 1974 Edition with Addenda through Summer 1974) and the

replacement Code (ASME Code, Section III, 1998 Edition with Addenda through 2000) for Ni

Cr-Fe material. The differences in the coefficients of thermal expansion, modulus of elasticity,

and thermal properties between the original Code-of-Record and the replacement Code for

materials (i.e., ASME Code, Section II, 1998 Edition, with Addenda through 2000) reflect

improvements in the understanding of the material.

7.S Conclusion

It is concluded that the rules in the 1998 Edition (with Addenda through 2000) of Section III of

the ASME Code, with material properties from the 1998 Edition (with Addenda through 2000)

of Section II, are acceptable for use in the evaluations contained herein, and the replacement

Code is considered to be reconciled with the Code-of-Record.


8.0 EVALUATION OF AS-BUILT CONDITIONS

Weld overlays add mass to the piping system and may impact dead weight loads and the

dynamic characteristics of the existing piping systems. The effects of the added WOL mass on

the piping systems are evaluated in Section 4.0. Additionally, finite element models (including

WOLs), with bounding dimensions based on design drawings, are used in stress calculations.

Field measurements documented in References 15 through 20 have shown that the as-built weld

overlay dimensions and configurations for the Unit 2 and 3 hot leg shutdown cooling, surge and

drain welds conform to the design drawing requirements, with the exception of those addressed

in the Welding Services Inc. nonconformance reports in References 22, 23, and 24. All hangers,

supports, and restraints that may be potentially affected were checked by SCE personnel after the

application of the overlay repairs, and they were all found to be acceptable with the exception of

a surge line jet impingement guide in Unit 3 that will be repaired during the next outage. This

support, although requiring repair, was found acceptable for continued operation. This is

discussed in Section 4.2 [21].

The nonconformance reports are discussed in Sections 8.1 through 8.3.

8.1 NCR No. 08-223

NCR No. 08-223 [22] addresses a nonconformance on the SONGS Unit 3 Shutdown Cooling

(SDC) Nozzle as built condition, measured during final weld overlay dimensioning. The

nonconformance is that the weld overlay dimension from the elbow side toe of the safe end-to-

elbow weld to the end of the overlay is greater than the allowed tolerance. The design length

allowance (SI Drawing 0800692.510) is 2.88" minimum, 3.38" maximum. The as-built

condition ranges in length between 3.48" and 3.54".

All overlay thicknesses are within tolerance. All other overlay dimensions are within tolerance.

In addition the angle of the end slope at the elbow meets the minimum 1350 included angle.


8.0 EVALUATION OF AS-BUILT CONDITIONS

Weld overlays add mass to the piping system and may impact dead weight loads and the

dynamic characteristics of the existing piping systems. The effects of the added WOL mass on

the piping systems are evaluated in Section 4.0. Additionally, finite element models (including

WOLs), with bounding dimensions based on design drawings, are used in stress calculations.

Field measurements documented in References 15 through 20 have shown that the as-built weld

overlay dimensions and configurations for the Unit 2 and 3 hot leg shutdown cooling, surge and

drain welds conform to the design drawing requirements, with the exception of those addressed

in the Welding Services Inc. nonconformance reports in References 22, 23, and 24. All hangers,

supports, and restraints that may be potentially affected were checked by SCE personnel after the

application of the overlay repairs, and they were all found to be acceptable with the exception of

a surge line jet impingement guide in Unit 3 that will be repaired during the next outage. This

support, although requiring repair, was found acceptable for continued operation. This is

discussed in Section 4.2 [21].

The nonconformance reports are discussed in Sections 8.1 through 8.3.

8.1 NCR No. 08-223


(SDC) Nozzle as built condition, measured during final weld overlay dimensioning. The

nonconformance is that the weld overlay dimension from the elbow side toe of the safe end-to

elbow weld to the end of the overlay is greater than the allowed tolerance. The design length

allowance (SI Drawing 0800692.510) is 2.88" minimum, 3.38" maximum. The as-built

condition ranges in length between 3.48" and 3.54".

All overlay thicknesses are within tolerance. All other overlay dimensions are within tolerance.

In addition the angle of the end slope at the elbow meets the minimum 135° included angle.


The disposition of NCR No. 08-223 is to "use-as-is". The "use-as-is" basis results from the

determination that there exists no adverse effects of the additional length on the weld overlay

sizing calculation, including shear load transfer (0800692.310), nor on the finite element model

calculation (0800692.312), nor the ASME Code, Section III evaluation (0800692.315), nor on

the crack growth evaluation (0800692.316), nor the axial shrinkage (0800692.303), nor the WOL

weight (0800692.302). With this justification, the nonconformance report is accepted using the

"as-is" geometry. Additional details are provided in Reference 22.

8.2 NCR No. 09-281

NCR No. 09-281 [23] addresses a nonconformance on the SONGS Unit 2 Hot Leg (HL) Drain

Nozzle as built condition, measured during the initial weld overlay layout. The nonconformance

is that the diameter of the nozzle boss is slightly less than the design dimension. The design

dimension (SI Drawing 0800692.530): 5.44" diameter whereas the as-built diameter ranges

between 5.41" and 5.43".

All overlay thicknesses will be within minimum and maximum tolerances, so there is no adverse

impact on the mechanical load capability of the overlay or increased thermal stresses due to

increased overlay thickness. All other overlay dimensions are anticipated to be within tolerance.

In addition, the angle of the WOL end slope at the nozzle end is still configured to make a

smooth transition into the nozzle and match the nozzle diameter.







"as-is" geometry. No subsequent nonconformance was identified at the time of final as-installed

measurements. Additional details are provided in Reference 23.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 - 8-2 V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.








8.2 NCR No. 09-281

NCR No. 09-281 [23] addresses a nonconformance on the SONGS Unit 2 Hot Leg (HL) Drain

Nozzle as built condition, measured during the initial weld overlay layout. The nonconformance

is that the diameter of the nozzle boss is slightly less than the design dimension. The design

dimension (SI Drawing 0800692.530): 5.44" diameter whereas the as-built diameter ranges


All overlay thicknesses will be within minimum and maximum tolerances, so there is no adverse

impact on the mechanical load capability of the overlay or increased thermal stresses due to

increased overlay thickness. All other overlay dimensions are anticipated to be within tolerance.

In addition, the angle of the WOL end slope at the nozzle end is still configured to make a

smooth transition into the nozzle and match the nozzle diameter.







"as-is" geometry. No subsequent nonconformance was identified at the time of final as-installed

measurements. Additional details are provided in Reference 23.


8.3 NCR No. 09-282


Nozzle related to the weld overlay length dimension. The elbow side toe of the safe end-to-

elbow weld to the end of the overlay is greater than the allowed tolerance. The design allowance

(SI Drawing 0800692.510) is 2.88" minimum, 3.38" maximum. The as-built condition ranges


All overlay thicknesses are within minimum and maximum tolerances, so there is no adverse

impact on the mechanical load capability of the overlay or increased thermal stresses (due to

increased overlay thickness). The overlay surface profile also meets the flatness tolerance, thus

intermediate thicknesses are also per design requirements. All other overlay dimensions are

within tolerance. In addition, the angle of the end slope at the elbow meets the minimum 1350

included angle.

The length dimension on the flat part (OD surface) of the overlay beyond the safe end-to-elbow

weld is within tolerance. Thus there is sufficient length of this "platform" for an ultrasonic

examination to be performed. Therefore, there is no adverse impact on the NDE. Subsequently

the UT examination was successfully performed, with no limitations in this area.









8.3 NCR No. 09-282


Nozzle related to the weld overlay length dimension. The elbow side toe of the safe end-to

elbow weld to the end of the overlay is greater than the allowed tolerance. The design allowance

(SI Drawing 0800692.510) is 2.88" minimum, 3.38" maximum. The as-built condition ranges


All overlay thicknesses are within minimum and maximum tolerances, so there is no adverse

impact on the mechanical load capability of the overlay or increased thermal stresses (due to

increased overlay thickness). The overlay surface profile also meets the flatness tolerance, thus

intermediate thicknesses are also per design requirements. All other overlay dimensions are

within tolerance. In addition, the angle of the end slope at the elbow meets the minimum 135°

included angle.

The length dimension on the flat part (OD surface) of the overlay beyond the safe end-to-elbow

weld is within tolerance. Thus there is sufficient length of this "platform" for an ultrasonic

examination to be performed. Therefore, there is no adverse impact on the NDE. Subsequently

the UT examination was successfully performed, with no limitations in this area.








0800692.404, Rev. 1 8-3 tr Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report provides a summary of the weld overlay design and analyses for the dissimilar metal

welds in the Hot Leg Surge, Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling and Hot Leg Drain Nozzles at the San

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3. The design of these overlays was performed

in accordance with requirements of the Relief Requests [2], which are based on ASME Code

Case N-504-2 and N-638-1[1]. Consolidation calculations were completed for each weld

overlay design (Appendix K for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix S for the Hot

Leg Surge Nozzle (which includes Appendix T for additional analyses completed on the Unit 2

Hot Leg Surge Nozzle), and Appendix BB for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle). These consolidation

calculations allow for easier retrieval of the design analyses that were completed for each weld

overlay design. The weld overlays are demonstrated to be long-term repairs and/or mitigation of

PWSCC in these welds based on the following:

* In accordance with the Relief Requests, which are based on ASME Code Case N-504-2 and

N-638-1, structural design of the overlays was performed to meet the requirements of ASME

Code, Section XI, IWB-3640 based on an assumed flaw 100% through and 3600 around the

original welds. The resulting full structural overlays thus restore the original safety margins

of the original welds, with no credit taken for the underlying, PWSCC-susceptible material.

* The weld metal used for the overlays is Alloy 52M, which has been shown to be resistant to

PWSCC [10], thus providing a PWSCC resistant barrier.

* Application of the weld overlays was shown to not impact the conclusions of the existing

nozzle Stress Reports. Following application of the overlays, all ASME Code, Section III

stress and fatigue criteria are met.

* Nozzle specific residual stress analyses were performed, after first simulating severe ID weld

repairs in the nozzle-to-safe end welds, prior to applying the weld overlays. The post weld

overlay residual stresses were shown to result in beneficial compressive stresses on the inside

surface of the components, and well into the thickness of the original DMWs, assuring that

future PWSCC initiation or growth into the overlay is highly unlikely, or at worst, for certain

cases, limited.


9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report provides a summary of the weld overlay design and analyses for the dissimilar metal

welds in the Hot Leg Surge, Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling and Hot Leg Drain Nozzles at the San

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3. The design of these overlays was performed

in accordance with requirements of the Relief Requests [2], which are based on ASME Code

Case N-504-2 and N-638-1[1]. Consolidation calculations were completed for each weld

overlay design (Appendix K for the Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle, Appendix S for the Hot

Leg Surge Nozzle (which includes Appendix T for additional analyses completed on the Unit 2

Hot Leg Surge Nozzle), and Appendix BB for the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle). These consolidation

calculations allow for easier retrieval of the design analyses that were completed for each weld

overlay design. The weld overlays are demonstrated to be long-term repairs and/or mitigation of

PWSCC in these welds based on the following:

• In accordance with the Relief Requests, which are based on ASME Code Case N-504-2 and

N-638-1, structural design of the overlays was performed to meet the requirements of ASME

Code, Section XI, IWB-3640 based on an assumed flaw 100% through and 3600 around the

original welds. The resulting full structural overlays thus restore the original safety margins

of the original welds, with no credit taken for the underlying, PWSCC-susceptible material.

• The weld metal used for the overlays is Alloy 52M, which has been shown to be resistant to

PWSCC [10], thus providing a PWSCC resistant barrier.

• Application of the weld overlays was shown to not impact the conclusions of the existing

nozzle Stress Reports. Following application of the overlays, all ASME Code, Section III

stress and fatigue criteria are met.

• Nozzle specific residual stress analyses were performed, after first simulating severe ID weld

repairs in the nozzle-to-safe end welds, prior to applying the weld overlays. The post weld

overlay residual stresses were shown to result in beneficial compressive stresses on the inside

surface of the components, and well into the thickness of the original DMWs, assuring that

future PWSCC initiation or growth into the overlay is highly unlikely, or at worst, for certain

cases, limited.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 9-1 fJ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

" Fracture mechanics analyses were performed to determine the amount of future crack growth

which would be predicted in the DMW and stainless steel welds, assuming that cracks exist

that are equal to or greater than the thresholds of the NDE techniques used. Both fatigue and

PWSCC growth were considered, and found to be acceptable.

* Axial shrinkage was measured following the overlay applications and was found to be small.

Therefore, shrinkage stresses at other locations in the piping systems arising from the weld

overlays are not expected to have an adverse effect on the systems.

* All hangers/supports that may be potentially affected were checked after the overlay repairs,

and were found to be acceptable for continued operation.

* The total added weight on the piping systems due to the overlays is relatively small

compared to the weight of the piping systems, and therefore does not impact the stresses nor

the dynamic characteristics of the piping systems.

" The as-built dimensions of the overlays meet the minimum and maximum design dimensions

or are reconciled to those dimensions, thus demonstrating that the as-applied overlays satisfy

the design requirements.

Based on the above observations and the fact that similar nozzle-to-safe end weld overlays have

been applied to other plants since 1986 with no subsequent problems identified, it is concluded

that the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Hot Leg Surge, Hot Leg

Shutdown Cooling and Hot Leg Drain Nozzle dissimilar metal welds have received long term

mitigation against PWSCC.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 9-2 1'ýStructural Integrity Associates, Inc.

• Fracture mechanics analyses were performed to determine the amount of future crack growth

which would be predicted in the DMW and stainless steel welds, assuming that cracks exist

that are equal to or greater than the thresholds of the NDE techniques used. Both fatigue and

PWSCC growth were considered, and found to be acceptable.

• Axial shrinkage was measured following the overlay applications and was found to be small.

Therefore, shrinkage stresses at other locations in the piping systems arising from the weld

overlays are not expected to have an adverse effect on the systems.

• All hangers/supports that may be potentially affected were checked after the overlay repairs,

and were found to be acceptable for continued operation.

• The total added weight on the piping systems due to the overlays is relatively small

compared to the weight of the piping systems, and therefore does not impact the stresses nor

the dynamic characteristics of the piping systems.

• The as-built dimensions of the overlays meet the minimum and maximum design dimensions

or are reconciled to those dimensions, thus demonstrating that the as-applied overlays satisfy

the design requirements.

Based on the above observations and the fact that similar nozzle-to-safe end weld overlays have

been applied to other plants since 1986 with no subsequent problems identified, it is concluded

that the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Hot Leg Surge, Hot Leg

Shutdown Cooling and Hot Leg Drain Nozzle dissimilar metal welds have received long term

mitigation against PWSCC.

0800692.404, Rev. 1 9-2 I) Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

10.0 REFERENCES

1. ASME Code Cases:

A. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Code Case N-504-2, "Alternative Rulesfor Repair of Class 1, 2, and 3 Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping, Section XI,Division 1."

B. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Code Case N-638-1, " Similar andDissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW TemperBead Technique, Section XI, Division 1

2. San Onofre Specification S023-923-01, Rev. 1, Conformed Specification for Design andImplementation of Hot Leg Nozzles Weld Overlay Repair, SI File No. 0800692.202P:

A. Enclosure to Appendix 3A: Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation Relief Request ISI-3-27 and ISI-3-28 Full Structural Weld Overlayand Alternative Repair Techniques Southern California Edison

B. Southern California Edison, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2and 3, Docket No. 50-361 and 50-362, Revision 1 to Relief Request ISI-3-27,"Use of Structural Weld Overlay and Associated Alternative RepairTechniques"

C. Southern California Edison, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2and 3, Docket No. 50-361 and 50-362, Revision 1 to Relief Request ISI-3-28,"48-Hour Hold Period Following Application of the Third Temperbead Layer"

3. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, 1995 Edition with Addenda

through 1996.

4. pc-CRACK for Windows, Version 3.1-98348, Structural Integrity Associates, 1998.

5. Rybicki, E. F., et al., "Residual Stresses at Girth-Butt Welds in Pipes and PressureVessels," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG-0376, R5, November1977.

6. Rybicki, E. F., and Stonesifer, R. B., "Computation of Residual Stresses Due toMultipass Welds in Piping Systems," Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol.101, May 1979.

7. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology: "Residual Stress Analysis of a Multi-PassGirth Weld: 3-D Special Shell Versus Axisymmetric Models," May 2001, Vol. 123.

8. "Materials Reliability Program: Technical Basis for Preemptive Weld Overlays forAlloy 82/182 Butt Welds in PWRs (MRP-169)," EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, and StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc., San Jose, CA: 2005, 1012843.

9. ANSYS Release 8.1 (with Service Pack 1), ANSYS, Inc., June 2004.

006244 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

10.0 REFERENCES

1. ASME Code Cases:

A. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Code Case N-504-2, "Alternative Rules for Repair of Class 1, 2, and 3 Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping, Section XI, Division 1."

B. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Code Case N-638-1, " Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique, Section XI, Division 1

2. San Onofre Specification S023-923-01, Rev. 1, Conformed Specification for Design and Implementation of Hot Leg Nozzles Weld Overlay Repair, SI File No. 0800692.202P:

A. Enclosure to Appendix 3A: Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relief Request ISI-3-27 and ISI-3-28 Full Structural Weld Overlay and Alternative Repair Techniques Southern California Edison

B. Southern California Edison, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Docket No. 50-361 and 50-362, Revision 1 to Relief Request ISI-3-27, "Use of Structural Weld Overlay and Associated Alternative Repair Techniques" '

C. Southern California Edison, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Docket No. 50-361 and 50-362, Revision 1 to Relief Request ISI-3-28, "48-Hour Hold Period Following Application of the Third Temperbead Layer"

3.' ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, 1995 Edition with Addenda through 1996.

4. pc-CRACK for Windows, Version 3.1-98348, Structural Integrity Associates, 1998.

5. Rybicki, E. F., et aI., "Residual Stresses at Girth-Butt Welds in Pipes and Pressure Vessels," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG-0376, R5, November 1977.

6. Rybicki, E. F., and Stonesifer, R. B., "Computation of Residual Stresses Due to Multipass Welds in Piping Systems," Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 101, May 1979.

7. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology: "Residual Stress Analysis ofa Multi-Pass Girth Weld: 3-D Special Shell Versus Axisymmetric Models," May 2001, Vol. 123.

8. "Materials Reliability Program: Technical Basis for Preemptive Weld Overlays for Alloy 821182 Butt Welds in PWRs (MRP-169)," EPR!, Palo Alto, CA, and Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., San Jose, CA: 2005, 1012843.

9. ANSYS Release 8.1 (with Service Pack 1), ANSYS, Inc., June 2004.

0800692.404, Rev. I lO-l l) Slruclurallnlegrily Associates, Inc.

10. "Materials Reliability Program (MRP): Resistance to Primary Water Stress CorrosionCracking of Alloys 690, 52, and 152 in Pressurized Water Reactors (MRP-1 11)," EPRI,Palo Alto, CA: 2004, 1009801.

11. "Materials Reliability Program: Crack Growth Rates for Evaluating Primary Water StressCorrosion Cracking (PWSCC) of Alloy 82, 182, and 132 Welds (MRP- 115)," EPRI, PaloAlto, CA: 2004, 1006696.

12. NUREG/CR-6907, "Crack Growth Rates of Nickel Alloy Welds in a PWREnvironment," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Argonne National Laboratory),May 2006.

13. NUREG/CR-6721, "Effects of Alloy Chemistry, Cold Work, and Water Chemistry onCorrosion Fatigue and Stress Corrosion Cracking of Nickel Alloys and Welds," U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Argonne National Laboratory), 2001.

14. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, 1998 Edition with Addendathrough 2000.

15. WSI Drawing No. 406956, Rev. 1, "Construction Drawing Hot Leg SDC, SONGSUnit 2, 3," SI File No. 0800692.215.

16. WSI Drawing No. 406955, Rev. 2, "Construction Drawing Hot Leg Surge, SONGSUnit 3," SI File No. 0800692.215.

17. WSJ Drawing No. 406957, Rev. 1, "Construction Drawing Hot Leg Drain, SONGSUnit 2, 3," SI File No. 0800692.215.

18. WSJ Drawing No. 408143, Rev. 0, "Construction Drawing Hot Leg SDC, SONGSUnit 2," SI File No. 0800692.221.

19. WSI Drawing No. 408142, Rev. 3, "Construction Drawing Hot Leg Surge, SONGSUnit 2," SI File No. 0800692.221.

20. WSI Drawing No. 408144, Rev. 0, "Construction Drawing Hot Leg Drain, SONGSUnit 2," SI File No. 0800692.221.

21. E-mail from Jose Oikawa to Jim Axline, April 14, 2009, Subject: RE: Draft Rev AThermal Mechanical & Residual Stress Calculations Unit 3 Surge WOL 0800692.343and 0800692.344, SI File No, 0800692.222

22. WSI NCR No. 08-223 to Traveler 104534-TR-017, Rev. 0, SI File No. 0800692.223.




10. "Materials Reliability Program (MRP): Resistance to Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Alloys 690,52, and 152 in Pressurized Water Reactors (MRP-111)," EPR!, Palo Alto, CA: 2004, 1009801.

11. "Materials Reliability Program: Crack Growth Rates for Evaluating Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC) of Alloy 82, 182, and 132 Welds (MRP-115)," EPR!, Palo Alto, CA: 2004, 1006696.

12. NUREG/CR-6907, "Crack Growth Rates of Nickel Alloy Welds in a PWR Environment," u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Argonne National Laboratory), May 2006.

13. NUREG/CR-6721, "Effects of Alloy Chemistry, Cold Work, and Water Chemistry on Corrosion Fatigue and Stress Corrosion Cracking of Nickel Alloys and Welds," u.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Argonne National Laboratory), 2001.

14. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, 1998 Edition with Addenda through 2000.

15. WSI Drawing No. 406956, Rev. 1, "Construction Drawing Hot Leg SDC, SONGS Unit 2,3," SI File No. 0800692.215.

16. WSI Drawing No. 406955, Rev. 2, "Construction Drawing Hot Leg Surge, SONGS Unit 3," SI File No. 0800692.215.

17. WSI Drawing No. 406957, Rev. 1, "Construction Drawing Hot Leg Drain, SONGS Unit 2,3," SI File No. 0800692.215.

18. WSI Drawing No. 408143, Rev. 0, "Construction Drawing Hot Leg SDC, SONGS Unit 2," SI File No. 0800692.221.

19. WSI Drawing No. 408142, Rev. 3, "Construction Drawing Hot Leg Surge, SONGS Unit 2," SI File No. 0800692.221.

20. WSI Drawing No. 408144, Rev. 0, "Construction Drawing Hot Leg Drain, SONGS Unit 2," SI File No. 0800692.221.

21. E-mail from Jose Oikawa to Jim Axline, April 14, 2009, Subject: RE: Draft Rev A Thermal Mechanical & Residual Str~ss Calculations Unit 3 Surge WOL 0800692.343 and 0800692.344, SI File No, 0800692.222




0800692.404, Rev. 1 10-2 I) Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

11.0 APPENDICES - STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES CALCULATION

PACKAGES AND DESIGN DRAWINGS1

Appendix

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

K

L

M

N

0

P

Q

R

S

Document No

0800692.301

0800692.302

0800692.303

0800692.310

0800692.311

0800692.312

0800692.313

0800692.314

0800692.315

0800692.316

0800692.317

0800692.320

0800692.321

0800692.322

0800692.323

0800692.324

0800692.325

0800692.326

0800692.327

Description

Material Properties for the Finite Element Analyses ofDissimilar Metal Overlays

Weld Overlay Design Weight Calculation

Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Weld Overlay Shrinkage Analysis

Weld Overlay Sizing for Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle

Design Loads for Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle withWeld Overlay Repair

Finite Element Model of Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzlewith Weld Overlay Repair

Thermal and Mechanical Stress Analyses of Hot LegShutdown Cooling Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

Residual Stress Analysis of Hot Leg Shutdown CoolingNozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

ASME Code, Section III Evaluation of Hot Leg ShutdownCooling Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

Crack Growth Evaluation of Hot Leg Shutdown CoolingNozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

Consolidation Calculation for Hot Leg Shutdown CoolingNozzle Weld Overlay Repair

Weld Overlay Sizing for Hot Leg Surge Nozzle

Design Loads for Hot Leg Surge Nozzle With Weld OverlayRepair

Finite Element Model of Hot Leg Surge Nozzle with WeldOverlay Repair

Thermal and Mechanical Stress Analyses of Hot Leg SurgeNozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

Residual Stress Analysis of Hot Leg Surge Nozzle withWeld Overlay Repair

ASME Code, Section III Evaluation of the Hot Leg SurgeNozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

Crack Growth Evaluation of Hot Leg Surge Nozzle withWeld Overlay Repair

Consolidation Calculation for Hot Leg Surge Nozzle WeldOverlay Repair

11-1 V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.0800692.404, Rev. 1

11.0 APPENDICES - STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES CALCULATION

PACKAGES AND DESIGN DRAWINGS1

Am~endix Document No Description

A 0800692.301 Material Properties for the Finite Element Analyses of Dissimilar Metal Overlays

B 0800692.302 Weld Overlay Design Weight Calculation

C 0800692.303 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Weld Overlay Shrinkage Analysis

D 0800692.310 Weld Overlay Sizing for Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle

E 0800692.311 Design Loads for Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

F 0800692.312 Finite Element Model of Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

G 0800692.313 Thermal and Mechanical Stress Analyses of Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

H 0800692.314 Residual Stress Analysis of Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

I 0800692.315 ASME Code, Section III Evaluation of Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

J 0800692.316 Crack Growth Evaluation of Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

K 0800692.317 Consolidation Calculation for Hot Leg Shutdown Cooling Nozzle Weld Overlay Repair

L 0800692.320 Weld Overlay Sizing for Hot Leg Surge Nozzle

M 0800692.321 Design Loads for Hot Leg Surge Nozzle With Weld Overlay Repair

N 0800692.322 Finite Element Model of Hot Leg Surge Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

0 0800692.323 Thermal and Mechanical Stress Analyses of Hot Leg Surge Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

P 0800692.324 Residual Stress Analysis of Hot Leg Surge Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

Q 0800692.325 ASME Code, Section III Evaluation of the Hot Leg Surge Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

R 0800692.326 Crack Growth Evaluation of Hot Leg Surge Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

S 0800692.327 Consolidation Calculation for Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Weld Overlay Repair


T

U

V

w

x

Y

z

AA

BB

cc

DD

EE

FF

GG

HH

II

JJ

0800692.328

0800692.330

0800692.331

0800692.332

0800692.333

0800692.334

0800692.335

0800692.336

0800692.337

0800692.342

0800692.343

0800692.344

0800692.345

0800692.346

0800692.510

0800692.520

0800692.530

Reconciliation for Modified Unit 2 Hot Leg Surge NozzleWeld Overlay Repair

Weld Overlay Sizing for Hot Leg Drain Nozzle

Design Loads for Hot Leg Drain Nozzle with WOL

Finite Element Models of Hot Leg Drain Nozzle with WeldOverlay Repair

Thermal and Mechanical Stress Analyses of Hot Leg DrainNozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

Residual Stress Analysis of Hot Leg Drain Nozzle withWeld Overlay Repair

ASME Code, Section III Evaluation of Hot Leg DrainNozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

Crack Growth Evaluation of Hot Leg Drain Nozzle withWeld Overlay Repair

Consolidation Calculation for Hot Leg Drain Nozzle WeldOverlay Repair

Finite Element Models of Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle withWeld Overlay Repair

Thermal and Mechanical Stress Analyses of Unit 3 Hot LegSurge Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

Residual Stress Analysis of Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzlewith Weld Overlay Repair

ASME Code, Section III Evaluation of Unit 3 Hot Leg SurgeNozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

Crack Growth Evaluation of Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzlewith Weld Overlay Repair

Design Drawing Hot Leg SDC, SONGS Unit 2, 3 (SIDrawing No. 0800692.5 10)

Design Drawing Hot Leg Surge, SONGS Unit 2, 3 (SIDrawing No. 0800692.520)

Design Drawing Hot Leg Drain, SONGS Unit 2, 3 (SIDrawing No. 0800692.530)

IFor the revision number of the document, refer to the SI Project Revision Log, latest revision.The appendices are contained in separate individual calculation packages and transmittedseparately from this report.


T 0800692.328 Reconciliation for Modified Unit 2 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Weld Overlay Repair

U 0800692.330 Weld Overlay Sizing for Hot Leg Drain Nozzle

V 0800692.331 Design Loads for Hot Leg Drain Nozzle with WOL

W 0800692.332 Finite Element Models of Hot Leg Drain Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

X 0800692.333 Thermal and Mechanical Stress Analyses of Hot Leg Drain Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

y 0800692.334 Residual Stress Analysis of Hot Leg Drain Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

Z 0800692.335 ASME Code, Section III Evaluation of Hot Leg Drain Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

AA 0800692.336 Crack Growth Evaluation of Hot Leg Drain Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

BB 0800692.337 Consolidation Calculation for Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Weld Overlay Repair

CC 0800692.342 Finite Element Models of Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

DD 0800692.343 Thermal and Mechanical Stress Analyses of Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

EE 0800692.344 Residual Stress Analysis of Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

FF 0800692.345 ASME Code, Section III Evaluation of Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

GG 0800692.346 Crack Growth Evaluation of Unit 3 Hot Leg Surge Nozzle with Weld Overlay Repair

HH 0800692.510 Design Drawing Hot Leg SDC, SONGS Unit 2, 3 (SI Drawing No. 0800692.510)

II 0800692.520 Design Drawing Hot Leg Surge, SONGS Unit 2, 3 (SI Drawing No. 0800692.520)

JJ 0800692.530 Design Drawing Hot Leg Drain, SONGS Unit 2, 3 (SI Drawing No. 0800692.530)

IFor the revision number of the document, refer to the SI Project Revision Log, latest revision. The appendices are contained in separate individual calculation packages and transmitted separately from this report.


Report No. 0800692.404, Rev. 1, 'Design Report for ...

Documents

Transcript of Report No. 0800692.404, Rev. 1, 'Design Report for ...