~ Pal O. FTWO NORTH NINTH STREET, ALLENTOWN, PA. 18101 PHONE t215) 821-5151

February 16,1977

Mr. J. P. O'ReillyDirector-Region IU. S. Nuclear Regulatory CcLTTKission931 Park AvenueKing of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

SU~2Qu~ FEME EUXTRIC STATION (SSES)DEFINITIVE REPORT OF SIGNWICAhT DEFICIENCYDEFECT IN RPV UNIT 52 BOTXCN HE&33 SIDE PZATEDOCKET NO: 50-388LICENSE NO: CPPR-102ER 100508 FILE 840-4PLA-162

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

This letter supplements PLA-142, dated hTovE5nber 5, 1976 and provides a finalreport of the nature and success of rework performed on the SSES Unit 52,RPV, Bottom Head Side Plate. The resiark rrLs necessary to correct a deficient~,reported as a 50.55(e) "Significant Deficiency", which resulted from anunintentional oxy-acetelyne burn on the surface of the Unit 92 vessel bottomhead side plate.

As stated in the referenced letter (PZA-142), a CBI Recast For AcceptanceOf Nonconformity As A Deviation, RAD 48, Rev. 0, was issued on 10/10/76documenting the nonconforTIIiT~ condition. The process of re~mrk, inspectionand acceptance of the nonconforming condition was successfully concluded onJanuary 19, 1977, as evidenced by the clo~~re (G.E. Q= Representative'ssignature dated 1/19/77) of CBI RAD NS, Rev. 0.

The locally reduced wall thickness of the vessel and the addi~nal stressconcentration resulting from the reTTnval and blending of De burn cavity havebeen evaluated and the resultant condition is considered adequate as substantiatedin the CBI stress evaluation, Engineering Justification For RAD 58, Rev. 0",which is an attachment to RAD NS, Rev. 0.

~ hying

PENNSYLVANIA POWER 8 L IGHT COMPANY

s T

\

Mr. J. P. O'Reill'IA-162

February 16, 1977

~ physical ramark of the vessel as performed by CBI was under the closesurveillance of the General Electric Resident Qua1ity Control Representativeand was periodically nunitored by Bechtel Qh and PP&L NQK personnel.

The metallurgical concerns were investigated by PP&L's metallurgical consultant.Also, the final etch ard, inspection to verify complete renoval of all heataffected material ard the liquid penetrant examination for surface indicationswere witnessed by the metallurgical consultant. A copy of the consultant'sreport which concludes "There is no reason to.suspect that any metallurgicaldamage remains.to interfere with the service performarce of the. pressure. vessel." .

is attached. Kb provide quality assurance coverage, a mea9~r of the PP&L NQA,site staff was present, on Decetnber 16, 1976 durirg the metallurgical. consultant'sexanL'Lnation'of the reworked area of the vessel and during the performance ofthe anannium persulfate etch test foi the verification of heat affected zonerenoval.

Since PP&L has received positive assurance frcm its metallurgical consultantregarding the adequacy of the vessel.remrk arB sir~e.PP&L ~i'as rranitored theactivities performed by CBI and General Electric within the prescri3x6.measures'f

their respective procedures and quality programs, PP&L is satisfied with therework and that Nm resultant quality of'he vessel has not been impaired and,therefore, the vessel will perform its intended safety function.

We trust this corresponderce and the attached technical evaluations provideinformation sufficient for your uses. Please advise should you requirefurther relevant information.

Very truly yours,

Mt'u.W~N. W. CurtisVice President-Engineering and Construction

AttachmentsARS.mcbcc: Mr. Ernst Volgenau (15) Mr. G. MDonald, Directo"

Director Office of Yanagenent IrdonnationOffice of Inspection ard Enforcement ard Program ControlU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission U. S. Nuclear„Regulatory CortmissionWashington, D.C. 20555. Nhshington, D.C. 20555

bcc: Mr. W. E.Mr. W. L.Mr. N. W.Mr. E. E.Mr. J. W.Mr. E. A.Mr. H. L.Mr. J. T.Mr. M. J.Mr. H. F.

Barberich —N5Bohner —N5Curtis —N4Felton —Bechtel SSESGeiling, —N5Gustaf son —GE SSESHarris — SSESKauffman — 8&6Lidl — Bechtel SFHOLilligh—Bechtel SSES

Mr.Mr.

„Mr.., Mr.

Ms.Mr.Mr.MrsMr.Mr.

E. M. Mead —N5J. W. Millard — GEM. R. 51oir —Bechtel SFHOE. M. Nagel — 'JVQ

J. M. Reese —N5A. R. Sabol —N4P. F. Schock — 'I%4R. J. Shovlin —N5M. E. Taylor —N5G. F. Trowbridge - Shaw, Pittman,Potts, & ~r. @<bridge

8 I

,h

~ ~

'e~ 2= ~ i

Ve")hei N.ilna

REQUES

Su" tluc'..

REC�V HD

pdIIIN(MbY/wc.A

Of. I'JONCONIFORMITY AS A DEVIATIONVESSELS AND PARTS

IP. I

RAD =. 3Rav-,'rPace I of~

CBI Contract = 6~~- "2U

nnaibnr.. p.o. = 205H0957r Bov. 12

Prepared By A. L. Dahlber

October 10 1976Date

Cooiponao; Lot+om Head 5 S::.i:" rauckle cBI D>Y9. ~ 9 Rev. and 1 Rev.

Descriritioii of Nonconformity tdcscritie actual and required conditions)

T .e thickness of the bottom .head side lates mas blend round to a 5 7 16" min .'hic1wess as

:-a.ia'-'.:z ..=" ~6~6" CL

skirt knuckle has been blend Fround to 1 ll 16" minimum thickness as shown on a e 5 and

violates the 2" ~+/8u required on dra;Tinr-, 9.

Cause of Nonconformity ".fhen burning, a terra)ora trunion stiffener oer LRP-1 the incorrect torchan~le caused the torch to cut into the bottom head late (see a e 2) and in the skirtknuckle (epee ria e cauein burn cavities.

Re'commcndod Disposition NOTEB IF CONDITIONS ARE SIGNIFICANTLYAOVERSE TO QUALITYSTATE ACTION TO OE TAKEN TO raRECLVOE REOCCURENCE.

Aeze~w~&m~i sc c"

ea

an~ heat effective zone vias assured by an amaoniua persulfate etch per ASfK Code, Section IX,

A2"endi:. Ilr oa".apraoh OA-21 - 19ir8 Edition addenda i nnro h 1970.

CBI EnnincerinfJ Justification Req'd No LT Yes If Yes X See Attached IfYes p Sec Stress Analysis

Locail ft'it!'.t / /( /

CBI QrS (~(r',",/(: ~ '% r'( "/r/'(6 osar..nnn()CBI Bnry r ~J

+/7 d. Dataa

Cost Rc;>.

Dato.

Custorucl Jua:iiicatior:.'cu::I:Iicnts

Custom er Appro Ya I

i

Laj~An(rrnC Q niaapprnrrri

Name Title

Q App. N/comments

Date

Bfi Snroff;-', ~;,')z ...I,gi.rIC Engineer

BK Lloyd, 4 '5 .r.-.6":, z'.,"~Buyer

R I Pen; ose g,!u.'''ateri al s Engr.i ~

v- (-(' '4r -7r'

JG Erbes ~C~~.~ Responsible Engr .

The loc~".llv reduced t;all thickness and additional stress concentrations are adequate

per trle at taci'.ed justi i cation, and excavations have b..erl adequately <>"I-'R AI-'.";VANcrc.i;.:o Lj 'Ja

blended to leave no heat-a: fee(ed zones and yfill not '.mpair in-service"'".".A( 'oYAa osi llr-0

exarr.iri:.tiori of the skirt we1d. TII~I.e I!ill be no efrect on the safety, utility or operating

ciii'cl"1 0 v ririr.;jiui <. si i fe of the vesse i

n .:r i I'rr ''.,'5''' . ( ~" % "".~g 1.-'. i+~ Q,. r J~P.

RAD ". ~ Rev ~f

I~ I. EBS I> aa ~ aitl llI.V I r P p „Sco RI!Ycrsc Sirle For IlistructionsAw I

0 cs

I

II ~

'EQUEST FOR AC~<PTANCE OF NONCONFORMITY AS A DEVIATIONr g fPf f ~CLEAR VESSELS AND PARTS

RADRgvPage2 of~

yesseI game Susquehanna IICBI Contract 4

Customer P.O ¹ 205H0957, &v. 12

prepared B> A. L. Dahlberf

October 10, 1976

Component Bottom Head II Skirt Knuckle CB) 0 9 ¹ 9 ~+ 3

q&~ (OpalppPP~X 1+" i~T~rt,q~ 2]0 AK

Qax. VE. pTHI5y>»

f

SkierVotfcK(f(ft-A)

~puffs

5 CAN.c~vrf lr

SR7104{ Lard"Sc=- Rf K

~<S )I (l9.+

~KINET Q or- 'K

~ S~go~~~Fig.

gE SISA

1

'IV

8

%, ~ ~

'Vessel Name

REQUEST FOR A~PTANCE OF NONCONFORMITY ~ A DEVIATIONNUCLEAR VESSELS AND PARTS M

RAP 0Rev 4Page 3 of~

.'CBI Contract 4

Customer P.O. 0

Component

Rev 12

ttom Head II Skirt Knuckle

P epared By A L 'ahlbe

pate October 10 1 76

.."~9. ~ . 8

S<tegKNUf g<'-

8 »

gl I3

A

g.'70

hhA$ . ~+~3/~

GE sasA

t ~ 't

ll

I)

yO

~ i 8 ap K!

~ f a ~ g g '~'EQUESTFOR ACCEPTANCE OF NONCONFORMITY AS A DEVIATION RAD"

NUCLEAR VESSELS AND PARTSPage4 of

.yes') Name Sus uehanna IICBI Contract ~

Customer P.O. ~

prepared 8> A. L. Dahlberg

Date October 10, 1976

Component ttom Head & Skirt Knuckle CBI Dwg „" 9 Rev. 3 & 13, Rev. 8

OVE,ALA,Y

MIN. +AD PE.Q'DWG. ~9

5 7/16 min. thickness can be assured'as follows:

From after forming dimensional checkrecords, the minimum thickness of theperimeter of the plate was 6.76n.The center of the plate, the thinnestarea, was recorded to be 6.53".. To beconservative, take 6.53" and subtract thedepth of the burn cavity to bright metal,1.06", to resul~ 'n 5.47n (5 17/32)assuring a 5 7/'5" thickness.

-„~qO ~

1

~ ~ ~ ~

L

'U - « ~ h ~ ~ ' I e % 4 t el tV

Vessel Name

CSI Contract ~

REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE 0 NON ONFORMITY AS A DEVIATIONNUCLEAR VESSELS AND PARTS

anna IIprepared B

A. L. Mberg

RAD ~~

Rev 4Page 5 Of~

C<(stoma< P O ~ 205H09575 Rev 12 DateOctober 10, 1976

Bottom Head & Skirt Knuckle CBt Dw 9, ~v. 3 and 13, Rev.

I

(<I

f IMlH.X t

3 I u

1 ll/16" min. thickness can beassured as follow:

- <-<ou.'=g, ",."nog-,u

TP/~I'M c < l'3:il

SKiRT i< VUC< i E.

From after machining dimensionaitche k r cords, the thick.".essa+ th skir 'r~uckle joint eras

measured to be 2 3/32" minimum.Subtract from this the depthof the burn cavity to brightmeta1.p 3/8p and the result is1 23/32" assuring 1 ll/16thickness.,

G(: f<f(sA

~p" PJ ' y 4- ~ 't

~ JI

\ '

I

1

I

I ~ IP

1

ao a'~

*

I

I

CHICAGO BRIDGE 5 IRON COMPANY

Location Oax Braot: E:I IBc:f:3

ENGINEERING JUSTIFICATION FOR RAD r'8 REV. 0

SUS UEHANNA II RPV

CBI CONTRACT 68-3332

RAD gi8, Rev. 0, covers blend ground areas on the boLtomhead and the vessel skirt knuckle to remove burn scars fromthese locations. The ground out areas are pictured on pages4 and 5 of RAD N8, Rev, 0. The deepest point of the ground

4

out area on the skirt knuckle is about 3/4 inches above theknuckle tangent line. The deepest point of the ground outarea on the bottom head is approximately 11 inches above theweld joining the bottom dollar plate to the bottom head sideplates. Both ground out areas are essentially circular inconfiguration.

In the following we will investigate the effects of the groundout areas from a fatigue standpoint and also the increases inprima=y stresses that can occur at the affected locations.

GO 151

SUSQUEHA~ttNA II251" HtlR VESSEL

&ADC BY CMKD BYAEE LJL

DATEDATE

10-76 10-76CHKD

DA TC

CHARCK HOo

S~T I Or 2Z

u 0 0 I ~ ~ 1

a

e ~

A

V

~ I'I

CHICAGO BRIDGE 5 IRON COMPANY

Lag)I(y OA i 0+'C w

Vessel Skirt Knuckle

Page 5 of RAD $i'8, Rev. 0, states that the actual measured

thickness at the skirt knuckle joint was found to be 2 3/32inches. For an extra margin of safety, we will assume inthe following calculations that this skirt knuckle thicknessis actually. 2 inches. After subtracting the 3/8 irich depthof the ground out area from the assumed 2 inch thickness ofthe skirt knuckle, we have left a net thickness of 1 5(8 inches.

instead of the 1 ll/16 inches shown on page5 of RAD >j8.

To perform the fatigue analys~s at the location of the groundout area, we use figures 19 and 35 from "Stress ConcentrationDesign Factors" by R.E. Peterson. Using the above reference..and pertinent dimensions from page 5 of RAD fr8 iv'e comput'e

a stress concentration facto. as follows:

D=2t =2x2d=2t . =2x15/8=31/4"min

3~jll2

D/d = 4/3. 25 = l.231

r/d = 3.5/3.25 = 1.077

From Figure 19 for tensile stresses:

K = 125

From Fig re 35 for bene':-,.g st=esses:

K~ = 1.16

For the sake of conservati"m, we will use a stress concen-tration factor of K = 1.3. Due to the circular configurationof the ground out area, this stress concentration factor isapplied to both longitudinal and circumferential stresses.

GO TET

SUSQUEIQ.h'NA XT.

251" F.NR Vt'.SRt'.T-

>JADK nv

1>AT E

CHKO OY

L3LDATE

10-76 10-76

nv

CHKO

OA T I'.

CHARGE HO

$ HT 2 OAZZ

P

' t4

~ ~

A~ ~

n

~ 4

HICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY

Location Cst l)a~ s. I+ i <-~P>-

Tn the analysis of the vessel skirt in Stress Report Section2, the closest point to the ground out area where stressesare computed is point 15. Point 15 is shown on page S2-8

to be at the tangent line of the skirt knuckle which is about3'/4 inches below the center of thegground out area as was

stated above. To use the stresses at Point 15 for ourcalculations is quite satisfactory.

From page 35 of Report Section F2, the governing cases /orpeak stress intensity range at Point 15 are cases 10 and 13.

Case 10 is refueling with design earthquake at 0 around thecircumference. Case 13 is startup at 267 minutes.

The primary and secondary stresses for case 10 are given on

page S2-52 and those for case 13 on page S2-167. These stressesare based on a 2 inch thickness at point 15. Actually, thethickness should have been 1.9375 inches after subtractingthe corrosion allowance. To compensate for this error, thestresses from pages S2-52 and S2-167 will be multiplied below

by the ratio2

We can now compute the peak stresses at the ground out areaof the skixt knuckle:

Cise 10

47?9 x 1.3 x 1.065o593 x 1.3 x 1.06560

6020 ps',821 psi

SUSQUEHANNA II251" BWR VESSFL

MAORI OY

DAfF.10-76

caKo =nvLJLOAT E10-76

nv

CMKO

CHAACC NO

SHY 3 OFZZ

'I~ I I

~ \

t

r 4 . IJ: P%' M Al ~: ~

P

HICAGO BRIDGE 6 IRON COMPANY

LocQIIOA Or~ BrouI; I;n~incern:y

Case 13

-44530 x 1.3 x 1.065624190 x 1.3 x 1.06560

-61687 psi33510 psi

The peak stress intensity range for governing Cases 10 and13 is;

S (peak) = (-61687 - 33510) .- (6620 - 821) = 100996 psi

The peak stress intensity amplitude is one half of the abovevalue. Before entering the applicable design fatigue curve, thepeak stress intensity amplitude has to be multiplied by theratio of the modulus of elascicity used in the fatigue curve

~

. to the modulus of elasticity of the material under considerationat actual temperature. Accordingly the peak stress intensityamplitude is:

S = l; 10099627.7 x 10

54691 psi

c r,ec>~ ez T7

ARfE Code, to obtain the a '.:able numbe" of cycles:

N = 3500 cycles

T¹ actual number of stress cycles affecting the skirt knuckle

Accordingly a conservative value for the fatigue usage factoris:

U= -~= .131

wunaa;c rSuSqUEIVV,V,A T.r.

~A>nK 4V CVIKD OY

LJLCHARCL NO

CO 281 251" B'.ll< VESSELoArc

10-760 ATf.

10-76CHKO

ORETC»v + oiZ~>

'I ~ I

'C

th

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY

O>I: Brooi: Eopincrric ~

Location

This is less than the code allowable value of 1.0.

The stresses at Point 15 due to various primary 1oadings

are given in Report Section S2. These stresses are againbased on a skirt knuckle thickness of 2 inches. Accordinglywe have to adjust these stresses for the reduction in thicknessresulting from the depth of the ground out area of"3/8 inchesand the total corrosion allowance of 1/16 inches. The new

net thickness at the point under consideration is therefore:k

= 2 - 3/8 - 1/16 = . 1 9/16"N

To compute the adjusted stresses, we multiply the stressesfrom Section S2 by the ratio 2.0/1.5625 = 1.28 to obtainmembrane stresses and by the ratio 2.0 /1.5625 to obtainbending stresses. The adjusted stresses are used t'o=compute

net stress intensities. Proceeding in the above mannerin'ffect

assumes that the'ground out area extends all around the

circumference o the skirt. This is a conservative assumption.

In the following calculat'ons we first list the section S2

~c a.> f., c i ',w r, ~ -p eiq~ yvipp~ r i oaga qo coen j 'j one: ~

Membrane and bending stresses are listed separately. B nding

stresses ar obtained by subtracting membrane stresses, as

given in Section S2, from the total stresses given in the same

.section. From the listed stresses, the worst loading cases

for the design, emergency and fault conditions are selected.:he stresses for these wo"s= loading cases are multip: d oy

thr. appropriate thickness r tios to obtain adjusted stressesfrom which new primary membrane stress intensities and primarymembrane .+ primary bending stress intensities are computed.

GO 751

S USQ UEHA TNA II251" BUR X'KSSL'L

t»OF. llY

0Ar F.

10-76

CHKO OY

10-7(

OY

CHICO

DAYC

CHAHCC t40o

sH'r ~ oF ~~z~

~ ~

CHICAGO BRIOGE 5 IRON COI'APANY

pgY' i t. ~

Location

DESIGN CONDITION

DESIGN MECHANICAL LOAD - Membrane Stresses

At 0 (p. S2-34)At 90 (p. S2 40)At 180'p. S2-46)

2697-3120-8936

51555272

5389

0

0

0

1506

0

DESIGN MECHANICAL LOAD - Bending Stresses

At 0'p. S2-34)At 90'p. S2-40)At 180'p. S2-46)

Og)

842- 5962-11084

- 238-1789-3340

0

0

0.

Iq O.

0

1262

0

REFUELING WITH DESIGN E.Q. - Membrane Stresses

At 0 (p. S2-52)At 90'p. S2-58)At 180 (p. S2-62)

0 ())

2508-3307-9122

Oc.

104

48

198

0

0 ' ~

0..

I ge0

1512 '.

0 .

REFUEL'ING WITH DES)TGN E.Q. - Bending Stresses

At 0'p. S2-52)At 90'p. S2-58)At |.80'p. S2-62)

2271-2699

7068

697810

-2316

Or0

0

0

Qe0

12600

SUSQUEHANNA II AEE LJTMADE. I ~ Y CHKD E) Y CHARCC HO,

oo 787 251." BMR VESSEL 10-76 15"-'7'6OAYC 5HT Q Ol'l 3,

a e

~ ~ ~ ~

1I

/I

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COIVIPANY

LOCgjoq ORL IIfOOa ',U 'iqcqgj~i

By inspection design mechanical load at 180 is most critica ~

for both the primary membrane stress intensity (P or P ) andthe primary membrane + primary bending stress intensity(p + PB) categories.

Primary Membrane Stress Intensity (PM or PL):

Og = 1.28 x (-8936) = -11438 psiOe = 1.28 x (5389) =, 6898 psi

P or PL = 11438 + 6898 = 18336 psi < S = 26700 psiM L m

P

Primary Membrane + Primary Bending Stress Intensity (P + P )

= 1.28 (-8936) + 1.638 (-11084) = -29594 psiGe = 1.28 ( 5389) + 1.638 {- 3340) - 1427 psi'

+ P = 29594 + 1427 = 31021 psi ( 1.5 S = 40050 psi

CO TS)

SVVJCC ISUS~UEHANKK 1'I

251" R41R VF.SSET,

>>AOC OV CHKO OV

AEE LJT.OAT 4QATC

1.0- 6 10-76

ov

CHKO

OATC

CHA AC K HO,

SHT 7 OCQQ

CHICAGO BRIDGE 5 IRON COMPANY

Lppggjpp Ol~ lirolk L:ip~'~~TIERI

Emer enc Condition

MAXIMUMEARTHQUAKE - Membrane Stresses

At 0'p. S2-79)At 90 (p. S2 85)At 180'p. S2-91)

OQ'321

- 3309«14940

Oe409943854671

Or0

0

0

lye0

30140

>QXIMUial EARTHQUAKE - Bending Stresses

At 0'p. S2-79)At 90 (p. S2-85)At: 180'p. S2-91)

0$4709

- 5485-15680

Oe1443

-1646-4735

0

0

0

tg:e

0

25180

REACTOR OVERPRESSURE - Membrane Stres'ses

(p. S2-97) - 2767 5966 0 0

0 ip

(p. S2-97) - 6015

Oe-1804 0

Wg) g0

inspection maximum ear";.q"ake at 80's most critica1fo'oth PM or PL and PL ".- PB categox "es. '.

GO 137

S'V to J CC T

SUSQUEHAbRLM. II'251" B':lR VESSF'.L

>AADc g)Y

AEEDATE

]0- 6

CHKD OYLJLDATt

10-76

DY

CHKD

OA1 C

CHAffCL '40

~ T 8 Oi2Z

I\ y

~ ~ ~ ~

(CHICAGO BRIOGE c?c! RON COMPANY

'q~

Qt(Wa LllglRCCCIUgLocation

P~ 'r PL

Gg = 1.28 x (-14940) = -19123 psiOe = 1. 28, x (, 4671) = 5979 ps i

P or P = 19123 + 5979 = 25102 psi < Sy = 42600 psiM L

PL + PB

= 1.28 (-14940) + 1.638 (-15680) = -44807 psigc = 1.28 ( 4671) + 1.638 (- 4735) = - 1777 psi

P + P = 44807 + 0 = 44807 psi ( 1. 5 Sy = 63900 psiL B

co var

SUSQkJEklANt''A T.I

25 1 gg~ VP.SSLQ

LoAOc. 0 (

CHRIS

QVLJLPATEDATE

1.0-76 10- 76

llY

CHKO

OA TE

CHARGC HO

SHT Q OPZ

0 ~ ~

~ ~~ ~

I ~ I

~ CHICAGO BRIDGE 5 IRON COiVlPANY

Location L'O inCerin

Fault Condition

FAULT CONDITION WITH 60 psi PRESSURE - 11embrane Stresses

At 0 (p. S2-110)At 90'p ~ S2»116)

At 180'p. S2-122)

10265- 3309

-16879

-26082

'23

0

0

0.

T@g0

3552

o.

FAULT COÃ3ITIONS MXTH 60 psi PRESSURE. - Bending Stresses

At 0'p. S2»110)At 90'p. S2-116)At 180'p ~ S2-122)

GQ9035

- 2784»14601

ag2746

- 836-4417

~r.

0'

0

~4e

0'974

0

FAULT CON)ITION WITH 1025 psi PRESSURE - Membrane Stresses

At 0'p. S2-128)o (~ g'7 1 tb'i

At 180'p. S2-140)

10267~ D)A>i

-16885

CTe

4048<3854721

lfe0

3518.0

FAULT CONDITION WITH 1025 psi PRESSURE - Bending Stresses

0 ( p . S2-128)90'p. S2-134)

A" 180 (p. S2-140)

0 (f)

5423

5485-17395

1962-1646-5253

0

0

0

'Tf80

29070

SUSQUEHANNA XI

'251" PAR V.':SHEL

~ i*DC OY CRKD OY

LJLAEE0ATE

10-76 10-76

OY

CRKD

DATC

CHARCC t4De

s~< lO o+ZZ

~ ~E

E CHICAGO BRIDGE Bc IRON COEYIPANY

ppgljpp Oal: litmus En8inaering

By inspection fault condition with 1025 psi pressure at180's

most critical for both P> or PL and P< + PB categories

P~ '" PL

0$ = 1.28 x (-16885) = -21613 psige = 1 28 x ( 4721) = 6043 psi

P or P = 21613 + 6043 = 27656 psi < Sy = 42600 psiH I.

PL+ PB

Gcf> = 1.28 (-16885) + 1.638 (-17395) = -50106 psi,C7e = 1.28 ( 4721) + 1.638 (- 5253) = - 2561 psi

PL + PB = 50106 + 0 = 50106 psi < 1.5 Sy = 63900 .psi

'rom

the above calculations we conclude that a11 requirementsfor prima y stress intensit'es are satisfied at the ground outa'.ea on tne vessels -'Iixrc t'nuc;k~e.

GO 737

SUSQUEHANNA. IT.

2 51" BVR Vj..SSI."I,

MACLE tlY

OATE;

10-76

C ~ EKO OY

LJLOATE

10-76CHKO

DAE Q

CHAACK NO

5HT f f OiEp AE

0 I lr=

pl

ef

~ ~

1

m

I

J

4 * ~*

\ P

I4 'I g ~ ~ tl

CHICAGO BRIDGE 5 IRON COiVIPANY

O„„„';. '„!.'ii c:r attLocation

VESSEL BOTTPil HEAD

iPage 4 of RAD N8 states that the actual measured minimumthickness of the bottom head side plates was found to be6.53„ inches. For an extra margin of safety we will use inthe following calculations the minimum thickness of 6 3/16 inchesas specified on the CBT. contract drawings. After subtractingthe 1 1/16 inch depth of the ground out area from the assumed6 3/16 inch thickness of the bottom head plates we have lefta net thickness of 5 1/8 inches instead of the 5 7/16 inchesshown on Page 4 of RAD Pi8.

To perform the fatigue analysis at the location of the groundout area we use again Figures 19 and 35 from "Stress ConcentrationDesign Factors" by R.E. Peterson. Using the above'eferencearid pertinent dimensions from page 4 of RAD 5'8 we compute a

stress concentration factor as follows:

D

d

2i = 2 x 6 3/16 = 12 3/8"2t ~ = 2 x 5 1/8 = 10 1'4"8lt

D/D = 12.375/10.25 = l.zU,"r/d = 8/10.25 = .78

From Figure 19 for tensile stresses:

Frt.t. Figure 35 for bending stresses:

KB = 1.21

~ SUSQUEHANNA T.T.MAO" iiVAER

C ~ 1+D QVLJL

CHARCC ND,

251" Pq'R VESSELOATCDA Tl

10-76 10-7CHKD

DA. F.S~V f Z, OF 2.Z

' ~

4 ~ 0CHICAGO BRIDGE 5 IRON COMPANY

LOCGIIOA Oat DrcoL: B"oiRv PIcg

For the sake of conservatism we will use a sLress concentrationfactor of K = 1.35. Due to the circular configuration of theground out area, this stress concentration factor is applied toboth longitudinal and circumferential stresses.

As was previously stated, the deepest point of the ground outarea on the bottom head is approximately 11 inches above the weld

joining the bottom dollar plate to the bottom head sid3 plates.No stresses are given at this point in Report Section S2, however,they can be found in the computer outputs in Appendix „A toSection S2. The closest point to the ground out area, for whichstresses are listed in Report Section S2, is Point 38 at thetransition between the bottom dollar plate and the vessel sideplates. Point 38 is shown on page S2-9 of the Stress Report.A comparison of the stresses at point 38 to those given inAppendix A for the ground out area location "shows the point38 stresses to be slightly larger. Therefore, for the sake

of conservatism and for ease of reference, we will use point 38

stresses at the location of th= ground out area in the followingcalculations.

From Page 36 of Report Section F2, tne governing cases forpeak stress intensity rang at Point 38 are cases 1 and 13.

Case 1 is the zero stress case. Case 13 is startup at 267 minutes.

GO 187

SJSJCCTSUS UEHANciL4 T.I

251" BUR VESSEL

AEE

10-76LSL

MAOISM QY CHKO OY

CHKO

A*YC

CHARCC 40,

SHY f~ OY ~2 ?'7

q ~~ ~

~ ~~ I

~ ~ CHICAGO BRIOGE & IRON CO"APANY

Osh Hro~''ngineeria8location

The primary secondary stresses for case 13. are given on

page S2-168. These stresses are based on a 6 3/16 inchthickness at Point 38. Actually the thickness should havebeen 6 5/32 inches after subtracting the corrosion allowance.To compensate for this error the stresses from page S2-168will be mutliplied below by the ratio

6 ~ 1875 1 P12

6.1562

Ne can now compute the peak stresses at the ground out areaof the bottom head:

Case 1

Op=0Oe =00'I- - 0

Case 13

Og = 23280 x 1.35 x 1.01 = 31742 psiI ~

Tn addition to the above peak stresses, we also have to considerthermal skin stresses. The maximum range of thermal skinstresses on the outs'de surFace of t¹ bottom head- is givenon va -e 72-39 as 12931 psi >

Accordingly the total peak s"ress intensity range at the groundout area in the bottom head for governing cases 1 and 13 is

S (peak) = (31742 - 0) + 12931 = 44673 psi

GO 767

lv3JC:CTSUSOVE<~A.>ma II251" Bh'R V:"SSEL

>AAOf'Y CHKO OY

0 ATE,OATS10-76 10-76

CwKO

CHANOK HO

SHY 14, O<z?

VP

t '~ e ~ I I

1 ~

'

1

d 9

l, ~

~ ~ ~

g6 ~t I

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY

Location Oa~ Broa~ E:]'jgywgj-

The peak stress intensity amplitude is one half of the above

value. Before entering the applicable design fatigue curvethe peak stress intensity amplitude has to be multiplied bythe ratio of the modulus of elasticity used in the fatiguecurve to the modulus of elasticity of the material underconsideration at actual temperature. Accordingly the peakstress intensity amplitude is:

3 = ", 44673 30 x 10

27.7 x 1024191 psi

<faith this value we enter rigure N-415(A) of Section III, ASME

Code, to obtain the allowable number of cycles:

N = 14000 cycles

The actual number of stress cycles aff cting the bottom head isgiven on Page 1'2-41 as n = 458.

3

Accordingly a conservative value for the fatigue usage factoris.

U = ~7- = 0.0g~)

This is less than the code allowable value of 1.0.

oO 187

7

SUSQP.'.HANNA II251" Bt:>R VESSFL

6446340& llY

AEEOATE

< 0-76

C; ll34',P I) Y

LJL0 A T t.

10-76C ~ I KQ

C3AZC

CHANCE HO

i~a )5 oFZ

4 Pvc"~ ~ ( ~ ~

I

I'I

~ g

~ q a1

a

t I

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY

Location Olla BC<>A L'dlilllCC(I:lit

The stresses at Point 38 due to various primary loadingsare given in Report Section S2. These stresses are againbased on a bottom head thickness of 6 3/16 inches. Accordinglywe have to adjust these stresses for the reduction in thicknessresulting from the depth of the ground out area of 1 1/16 inchesand- the total corrosion allowance of 1/32 inches.. The new

net thickness at the point under consideration is therefore:

= 6 3/16 - 1 1/16 - 1/32 = 5 3/32"

To compute the adjusted stresses, we mutliply the stressesfrom Section S2 by the ratio 6.1875/5.0937 = 1.215 to obtainmembrane stresses and by the ratio 6.1875 /5..0937 = 1.476 toobtain bending stresses. The adjusted stresses are used tocompute new stress intensities. Proceeding in the abovemanner in effect assumes that the ground out area extends allaround the circumference of the bottom head. This is a

conservative assumption.

In the following calculations, we first list the Section S2

stresses for all the different primary loading conditicns.0~I,'lJ c nV c iu Cl0 nc,'., i~i 0lC ',.ibiii".0 ci l ~ 'Ce«0 Sc O«J «I CJ ye .QelIQ at g

stresses are obtained by subtracting membrane stresses, as givenin Section S2, from the total stresses given in the same section.From the listed stresses, the worst loading cases for the design,emergency and fault conditions, are selected. The stresses forth se worst loading cases are multiplied0 by the ppropziatethickness ratios to obtain adjusted stresses fry which new

primary membrane stress intensities and primary membrane +primary bending stress intensities are computed.

SUSQUEHAiXVA II l00* >t OYAEE

CH00i'0 OYLJL

CHAACC NO,

co )a) 25l" RWR VFSSELOATt:

10-76 10-76C%0 K0OATC gHT I 6 Oi Zg

4>

t1 4 y+h4

~ lf ~

'

I

CHICAGO 8RIDGE 5 IRON COMPANY

Location Oa< BaxA Lupine.ring

DESIGN CONDITION

DESXGN MECHANICAL LOAD » Membrane Stresses

At 0 (p. S2-35)At 90 (p. S2 41)At 180'p. S2-47)

1266912696

12723

11220

11375

11540

-625-625-625

l qe

53

DESIGN MECHANICAL LOAD - Bending Stresses

At: 0'p. S2-35)At 90'p. S2-41)At 180 (p. S2-47)

Op

276135344307

7801035

1290

0

0

0

Wg8

0

35

0

REFUELING WITH DESIGN E.Q. - Membrane Stresses

At 0'p. S2-53)At 90'p. S2-59)

~ ~ 1 cIpcr (~ qQ

596 319

487

-30 O.

59

'EFUELING

NXTH DESIGN E.Q. - Bending Stress s

At 0'p. S2-53)At 90'p. $2-59)Ac 180'p. S2-65)

CTcJ>

- 38

1508

Oe- 6

2+7

501

OI- . Tj)g0

'

0 '360 . 0

GO 181

SUSQUEHANNA II'251" HHR VESST:.L

LJLAEEOI TKDATE

10-76 10-76

Mknl. OY CHKO OV

CHKO

OATE

CH* 4CE NO

s~r I7 oc>g

C,

1 1 IIt

4

CHICAGO BRIDGE 6 IRON COMPANY

'aGG~A', LBgN~ITSGgLocation

O~'y

inspection design mechanical 1oad at 180's most criticalfor both the primary membrane stress intensity (P or PL) andthe primary membrane + primary bending stress intensity(PL + PB) categories.

Primary Membrane Stress Intensity (P< or P )

= 1.215 (12723) = 15458 psi<8 ~ 1.215 (11540) = 14021 psi0 I- = -625 psi

P or P = 15458 + 625 = 16038 psi < S = 26700 psiL m

Primary Hembrane + Primary Bending Stress Intensity (PL '+ PB)

OP = 1.215 (12723) + 1.476 (4307) = 21816 psiGe = 1.215 (11540) + 1.476 (1290) ~ 15925 psiGi- .= 0

P + P = 21816 psi < 1.5 S = 40050 psi

'SVBJEC T

SUS UEHANNA EX

251" BUR VESSEL

M*OC BYAF.E

10-76

C>N 1 BYLJL

10-76

BY

CBRIT

GATE

CHARGE HO

*-. IS o.zz

CHICAGO BRIDGE 6 IRON COMPANY

LOCGIIOfl '1r

EMERGENCY CONDITION

HAXRIUi~l EARTHQUAKE - Hembrane Stresses

At 0'p. S2-80)At 90'p. S2-86)At 180 (p. S2-92)

10359

10413

10472

899093189647

-512«5 12

-512

Vgg0

118

0

HAXIHUi~f EARTHQUAKE - Bending Stresses

At 0'p. S2»80)At 90'p. S2-86)At 180'p. S2-92)

Gp14613017

4578

CTe

379

8921403

GI-0

0

0

tqg0

72

0

REACTOR OVERPRESSU1<E — Hembrane Stresses

(p. S2-98)Gcp

13965 12515 -688

~ l,, t tll

{p. S2-98)Gg

3765

Og1095

GrG

~d> 80

i/spec-„ i on reactor o;7ergrF ss/reP, "l" P, and PL + PB categories.

~ ~

r.s vc.osc crt 1.ca1 Jor botl1

SUSQLV.I&NYA II2 >1" %1R VT"-lSf'.T.

~rs,Al: llY C«KO llYAEE

OATGOA'TC

1.0- 76 10-76C ~ IKO

CHAACC HO

gwT J g OFZg

N ~

~ ~ > )

~ ~

~ CHICAGO BRIDGE 5 IRON COMPANY

Location

PM '" PL

Gg = 1.215 (13965) = 16967 psiOg ~ 1.215 (12515) = 15206 psigi- = -688

P or P = 16967 + 688 = 17655 psi < Sy = 42600 psiM L

PL + PB

OP =- 1.215 (13965) + 1.476 (3765)- = 22525 psige = 1.215 (12515) + 1.476 (1095) = 16822 psi

0;=0

P + P = 22525 psi ( 1. 5 Sy = 63900 psi"L B

SU~Si UEHAN!tA rt251II Ptqg g., c Q,.f

MAt>l'lYAF.E,oarn

ZO-76

CHKO llY

QArt'0-76

OY

CHKO

OATC

CHAAGt-'O,

r+OOcZZ

r~e ~

I

'k

~ ~

CHICAGO BRIDGE 5 IRON COMPANY

Location QaL Brio» Eu;ii»:erictt

FAULT CONDITION

FAULT CONDITION MITH 60 psi PRESSURE - Membrane Stresses

At 0'p. S2-111)At 90'p. S2-117)At 180'p. S2-123)

Oq560

625

689

125

5071144

-30-30-30

7+80

390

0

FAULT CONDITION WITH 60 psi PRESSURE - Bending Stresses

At 0'p. S2-111)At 90'p. S2-117)At 180'p. S2-123)

g cI)

-1088719

252o

Ge.- 354

240578

GI-'00

0

T@g0

840

FAULT CONDITION MITH 1025 psi PRESSURE - Membrane 'Stresses.

At 0'p. S2-129)At 90'p. S2-135)hg 1:?h J /'~ > Q I/.1'>

Og1034911289

Gg92859425

-512-512-5 2

~(p0

137

FAULT CONDITION 4'ITH 1025 psi PRESSURE - Bending Stresses

At0'r

Qg~

A"180'p.

S2-129){p. 52-135)

(p. S2-141)

12012141

4793

Og- 56

785

1489

~pe0 00. 8/.

0 '

By inspection fault conc ition t)ith 1025 psi pressure is, mostcritical at 90'or the PM or PL category and at 180'or the

PL + PB category.

$ VOJKCTSUS UEHANiN TI251" BWR W:SHEL

MADI'>4

AEE =

1()-"7'6

C ~ >Kr& i>Y

j.I)-'t6DY

C ~ >»0

~ 0*'ic

CHARGC >>O

s r <)orZ~~

II

~~

P

~ g 4Q '0

~ s

jCHICAGO SRIDGE 5 IRON

COMI'AN'ocation

PM or PL

Og = 1.215 (11289) = 13603 psi08 = 1.215 ( 9425) = 15451 psi

Oi- = - 512

p oz p = 13603 + 512 = 14115 psi( Sy = 4260$ psiM L

4

PL+ P~

Qq = 1.215 (10437) + 1.476 (4793) = 19755 psigg = 1.215 '( 9701) + 1.476 (1489) = 13984 p'si

Gi- = "0

P + P = 19755 psi( 1.5 Sy = 63900 psi

From the above calculations, tre conclude that all requirementsi:or primary stress intensities are satisfied at the ground outarea on the vessel bottc:-„ head.

GO 787

sv(IJcc rSUS UEHANNA XT.

251" 8':jR VESSEY

M>OI !) Y

1.0)76

CHKO !iY

LJLOArsln- i6

CHKO

OATC

CHARCC KO.

s~r Pros .~ rl !

7

<0 STP;

W. E.D. S.R. A.W. L.E. J.C. C.S. L.R. W.J. W.

Barber ichBastBeckleyBohnerBrignoleColeDensonDunnGeiling

N5N2Susq. SESN5Susq. SESN5Susq. SESAl-2N5

J. D. GreenH. L. HarrisE. M. MeadJ. M. ReeseW. J. RhoadesA. R, SabolG. E. ShamisR. J. ShovlinW. R. White

Susq. SES

Susq. SES

N5N5N5-v4~N2N5TW7

SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATIONUNIT //2, REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL (RPV)ER 100450 FILE 899PLI; |fA3Attached is a copy of Dr. R. D. Stout's metallurgical report cn hisexamination of the RPV oxyacetylene torch burn repairs.

Dr. Stout found that both the procedures used and physical repairs wereacceptable.

Should you have any questions or comments, please contact me.

M. E. TaylorSupervising Engineer-Technical

JAZ BSW

613016

P E t4 N 5 Y L VA8 I A P O'W 6 R 8 ' G H T C Q,v, P A iV Y

gO y P'

e

~ tyiQ o~gi lpp. ~ ~

Ct>s go

~vsi <~ca~i '

~

~to1

t

LEHIGH UNMRSIYYBcthlehe>n, Pennsylvania 28015

T tlE GRADUATE SCHOOL

Robert D. Stout, Dean

Telephone: 215.691-7000 Ext. 427

f~'t ~ $ tttP':.',:.'D

QEC2u 1976

f'iVP l'LT..=NC.

December 17, 1976

Mr. J. W. GeilingManager-Power Plant EngineeringPennsylvania Power and LightTwo North Ninth StreetAllentown, Pa. 18101

Dear Mr. G'eiling:

On December 16 a visit was made to theSusquenhanna Station at Berwick in,the companv of ~lr.Walter Rhoades. Tne purpose of the visit was todetermine wnether the proceaures used to repair theregion of the Unit 2 reactor vessel burned by an oxy-acetylene torch were successful'from a metallurgicalviewpoint.

All personnel were extremely cooperativeduring the examination. Those who were present orparticipated in the work were Mr. LeVasseur of G.E.,Messrs Holfast, Dahlbe g, Howerton, and Cristoferi ofCBI, Mr. Morgan of'Hartford Al, and Mr. Beckley of PP&L.

As a first step the written proceduresfor the grinding, etching, and aye penetrant inspectionwere reviewed. When tnese appeared to be in orae , tneparty went to the location of the repairea burn area.The contoured area was smooth and regular to the eyeand to the toucn. The area was then etcned with anaqueous ammonium persulfate solution by rubbina it witha saturated cotton swab for two minutes. After a sprayrinse of distillea water, the area was cried. and carefullyexamined. No trace could be aetected of any darkenedportions which would have indicated residual heat-affected 'ones proaucea bv tne ovyacetvlene burn. Nextthe dye penetrant was applied, the excess was removed,and the white developer was sprayed on the'rea. After7 minutes the surface was closely scanned to searcn outpossible indications. None were discovered. These stepscompleted the examination.

caus

k

Mx'. J. N. Geiling December 17, 1976

It is my con'elusion from the results ofthe inspection procedures that the burn area has beensatisfactorily repaired with regard to the presence ofmetallurgical anomalies. There is no reason to suspectthat any metallurgical damage remains to interfere withthe service performance of the pressure vessel.

information.Let me know if you need further

Very truly yours,

'obert D. Stout

p- w~%. ')