Attachment Report on Flaws in Stress Analysis During Pipe Design (Overview) 1.

Introduction It has been discovered that faulty data processing in a computer program used by the contracted company that conducted structural strength analyses of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Unit 7 (the contracted company below) caused errors in some of the evaluation results. This report brings together the results of a stress analysis of the pipes concerned, and of an investigation into the causes, and measures to prevent any reoccurrence of the fault at the contracted company and Chubu Electric, based on instructions issued by the NISA on April 10, 2008 (Concerning Responses to Errors in Stress Analyses conducted during Pipe Design). 2. Fault details The program in which the fault in question was discovered (HISAP) consists of a universal finite element pipe stress analysis program (Main Program B), a pipe stress evaluation program based on Japanese standards created by the contracted company (Main Program D), and programs that receive and transfer data (Sub-programs A and C). The present fault originated in the fact that the processing of positive and negative signs for the moment acting on the branches of Class 1 and Class 2 pipes in Sub-program C (Input/output data creation program) was based on an evaluation method that differed from the method stipulated by technological standards.
Sub-program A (Produced by contracted company)
Input data creation program

Main program B (Universal)

Finite element program (SAP)

Sub-program C (Produced by contracted company)

Input and output data creation program

Main-program D

(Produced by contracted company)

Pipe stress evaluation program

Creates data used in pipe stress analysis.

Conducts numerical analyses of pipes using finite element program.

Creates input and output data for pipe stress evaluation program from output data of finite element program.

Evaluates pipe stress based on Japanese standards

Fig. 1 HISAP Program 3. Responses based on NISA instructions The results of a pipe stress analysis conducted by the contracted company using the computer program in which the fault has been discovered were used only in the approval application for the construction plans of Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Reactor No. 5 (third application; approved in April 2000). (1) Method used in structural strength reevaluation The pipe model that was being used at the time of the construction plan approval application was reproduced and used to evaluate structural strength. To verify the soundness of the existing facilities, structural strength was reevaluated by comparing figures for stress at the maximum stress evaluation points on the pipe model with figures for allowable stress. The reevaluations were conducted under the following conditions: Input seismic excitation: Codes and standards: Design seismic excitation Standards for Nuclear Power Generation Facilities: Design and Construction StandardsJSME S NC-2005 Technical Guidelines for Aseismic Design of Nuclear Power PlantsJEAG4601
1/4

Reproduction of pipe model used at time of application for approval of construction plans * The seismic excitation shown in the Explanation of Aseismicity appended to the approval application for the construction plans of Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Reactor No. 5 should be used in the reevaluation of the design seismic excitation. (2) Results of reevaluation The pipe branches were the maximum stress evaluation points in the pipe model used in the reevaluation. While figures for stress at the maximum stress evaluation points increased after the computer program was corrected, they remained within allowable limits. As such, the reevaluation confirmed that the pipe displayed sufficient structural strength and presented no safety concerns. (See separate sheet). 4. Investigation of causes (1) Results of study on contracted company-side causes <1> Insufficient checking of interface items Specific measures to define and check consistency of sub-program interface items (units of data received and transferred, digits, positive and negative signs, etc.) when creating computer programs have not been sufficiently outlined. <2> Insufficient review and evaluation of the effects of revisions of Ministry notifications, etc. The contracted company failed to sufficiently review and evaluate the effects of conceptual and formulaic changes used in stress evaluation as stipulated in Ministry notifications, etc., on the computer program. <3> Insufficient review of verification methods and results The contracted company did not sufficiently review methods for checking sub-program interface consistency during program verification, and did not sufficiently examine the results of these checks. (2) Results of study on Chubu Electric-side causes Chubu Electric checked the past performance of the computer programs used in the analyses and evaluations conducted while formulating the approval application for the construction plans of Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Reactor No. 5 (third application; approved in April 2000), but did not check the program verification results of the contracted company. 5. Measures to prevent reoccurrence (1) Measures introduced contracted company-side The contracted company will establish in-house standards outlining specific measures to be used in the formulation and verification of computer programs, including the use of a newly formulated check list for the consistency of interface items, cross-checks of data input and output between programs, and comparison of computational results spanning multiple programs with the results of manual calculations. In addition, the contracted company will continue to work to increase the quality of analyses conducted when requesting approval of plans under a quality management system introduced in 1999. (2) Measures introduced Chubu Electric-side Chubu Electric will implement the following measures with regard to analyses conducted when seeking approval for plans: <1> Addition of items to procurement requests When procuring services, Chubu Electric will request the presentation of documents
2/4

Pipe model:

evaluating the appropriateness of the verification of computer programs (scope and method of verification, consistency of interface specifications, etc.) by the company that receives the contract. Chubu Electric will confirm the appropriateness of the verification of the program by the company that receives the contract, and this fact will be reflected in in-house rules. <2> Confirmation that the contracted company has implemented measures to prevent a reoccurrence Chubu Electric will monitor the contracted company to ensure that measures to prevent a reoccurrence of the fault are implemented. (3) Further measures Chubu Electric has reviewed the programs used by the contracted company in the analyses conducted in seeking the approval of plans for Chubu Electric plants, etc., and has not discovered any programs that contain interface specifications of the same type as those used in the program in which the fault occurred. Chubu Electric has reviewed the programs that were formulated by the contracted company and used in the analyses conducted in seeking the approval of plans for Chubu Electric plants, etc., and confirmed that the contracted company had verified the programs. Chubu Electric will use the same inspection procedures with regard to programs used by other contracted companies during analyses conducted when seeking approval of plans for Chubu Electric plants, etc. Information regarding the fault that forms the subject of this report will be recorded in the Nuclear Information Archive (NUCIA) so that it becomes publicly available and can be shared between government, private enterprise and academia.

3/4

(Separate sheet) Results of Structural Strength Reevaluation of Pipes (1) Construction plans for Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Reactor No. 5 Table 1: Results of structural strength reevaluation of pipes, Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station Reactor No. 5*1 Primary and secondary stress Primary stress evaluation*2: Fatigue evaluation*: evaluation*3: (Stress produced) (Coefficient of accumulated fatigue) (Stress produced) System Before After Before After Before After Allowable Allowable Allowable correction correction correction correction correction correction value value value of program of program of program of program of program of program MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa Main steam pipe (Class 2) 113 129 180 *5

*1: Maximum figures are shown for each evaluation item. *2: In primary stress evaluations, it is stipulated that calculation of the stress on Class 1 and Class 2 pipe branches should consider the sign of the moment acting on the main and branch pipes. *3: In primary and secondary stress evaluations, it is stipulated that the sign of the moment acting on the main and branch pipes must be considered only in calculations of stress on Class 1 pipe branches. Consideration of the sign of the moment is not required in the case of Class 2 pipe branches. *4: If the results of primary and secondary stress evaluations exceed allowable values, a fatigue evaluation is conducted. If the fatigue evaluation results do not exceed allowable values, the structure is considered sound. *5: In the case of Class 2 pipes, consideration of the sign of the moment is not required, and therefore was not included in the reevaluation.

4/4