Why not re-visit re-passivation?

In the early days of crack growth rate modelling the film-rupture/dissolution/re-passivation model was developed by Peter Ford for application within the nuclear reactor community. It is well accepted for crack growth in austenitic stainless steel in a BWR environment. It also seems to be plausible for crack growth in austenitic stainless steel in a PWR environment. It is however not accepted as a model for nickel-based alloys. Should it? Here, it will be shown that maybe it could also be a plausible model for crack growth in nickel-based alloys; by making the re-passivation constant a function of corrosion potential. The film-rupture/dissolution/re-passivation model has been modified accordingly and is able to match the peak in crack growth rate observed at low corrosion potential for some nickel-based alloys. Furthermore, a ‘corrosion potential’-dependent re-passivation rate might shed light on the issue of enhanced environmentally-assisted fatigue in low corrosion potential en-vironments, PWR and BWR-HWC, with respect to the higher corrosion potential envi-ronment, BWR-NWC. And, maybe, an ‘environment’-dependent re-passivation rate could shed light on initiation time differences between the various LWR coolant chemistries? So, do we re-visit re-passivation?