Text

Forwards SERs for Mark I Containment long-term Program & Technical Repts by BNL & Franklin Research Ctr. Mods Acceptable. Vacuum Breakers to Be Reviewed Independently Later, Per Generic Ltr 83-02, Tech Spec Changes Requested
	ML19203A093
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	12/12/1984
From:	Vassallo D; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Corbin McNeil; New York Power Authority
References
	NUDOCS 8501110394
	Download: ML19203A093 (90)
	v • d • e

Docket No. 50-333 Mr. C. A. McNeill, Jr.

Executive Vice President, Nuclear Generation Power Authority of the State of New York 123 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601

Dear Mr. McNeill:

December 12, 1984

SUBJECT:

MARK I CONTAINMENT LONG :ERM PROGRAM Re:

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant We have completed our post-implementation audit review of thr Fit1Patrick Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) for the Mark I containmPnt long term program. Enclosed are the staff's Safety Evaluations for the pool dynamic and structural load aspects of this program. Technical assistance was providPd by Brookhaven National Labortory for the pool dynamic load audit review and by Franklin Research CentPr for the structural audit review.

Copies of their technical Pva1uations are also enclosed.

The staff has determined that all but a few of the modifirations made by Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) are in accordance with the generic acceptance criteria contained in Appendix A of NUREG-0661, Mark I Con ta i nmP-nt Long Term Program and its supplement. Where deviations from the acceptance criteri specified in NUREG-0661 h?VP been taken, they have een found acceptable. Therefore, the staff has conclurled that the PASNY PUAR analysis verified that the containment modifications Jde have restorPd the original design safety margin to the Mark I containment at thP FitzPtrick facility. This action completes our review of this issue.

The vacuum breakers nn Mark I containments, which were the subject of Generic Letter 83-02, are not considered within the scope of the Mark I containment long term prnram. This issue will bP reviewed independently at a later date.

8501110394 841212 PDR ADOCK 05000333 E

PDR

I

'/

f Mr. C. A. McNeill, Jr.

- (. -

Within 90 days of receipt of this letter it is requested that you submit any Technical Specification changes required as a result of thP Mark I containment modifications you hdvA made; (i.e. torus temperature monitoring system changes, torus to drywell differentia1 pressure control changes, torus water leve1 changes).

Enclosures:

Sincerely, Original signed by/

Oomenic B. Vassal1o, Chief Operating Reactors Branch#?

Division of Licensing 1.

Safety Evaluation - Pool Dynamics Load 2.

Safety -valuatiori - Structural Review 3.

RNL Technical Evaluation Report 4.

FRC Tr.chnical Evaltrntion Report cc w/enclosures:

See nrxt page DISTRIBUTION Docket File,

NRt: PDR Local PDR ORG#2 Reading ni:isenhut OELD SNorris HAbelson ELlordan PMcl<r.e l1Partlow ACRS (10)

Gray FilP RSieqel DL:ORB#2 SNc1rr1s-: a j s 12/p /84

1,11/84

-;#2 DVasallo 12/,.J.184 I

Mr. C. A. McNeill, Jr.

Power Authority of the State of New York James A. FitzPdtrick Nuclear Power Plant cc:

r. Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 RPsident Inspector's Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 136 Lycoming, New York 13093 Mr. Corbin A. McNeill, Jr.

Resident Manager James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Post Otfice 8ox 41 Lycoming, New York 13093 Mr. J. A. Gray, Jr.

Oirector - Nuclear Licensinq - BWR Power Authority 0f the Stat of New York 123 Main Street v'hite Plains, tlew York 10601 Mr. Robert P. Jones, Supervisor Town of Scriba R. D. #4 Oswego, Ne-York 13126 Mr. LProy W. Sinclair Power Authcrity of thP State

, 1 _1-,* :r*rv., i*.',*,

)(,Ir.

lu(JlSI Mr. Jay Dunklebœrger Division of Policy Analysis and Planning New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 mpire State Plaza Albany, New Yor 12223 Thomas A. Murley Regional Administrator Region I Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. A. Klausman Vice President - Quality Assurance Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019

r. George WilvPrding, Chairman Safety Review Committee Power Authority of the State of New York 123 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601 Mr. M. C. Cosgrove Quality Assurar,ce Superintendent James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Pr.wer Plant Post Office Box 41 Lycoming, New York 13093

}

UNITED STATES NUCLl:AR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO MARK I CONTAINENT LONG-TERM PRORAM POOL DYNAMIC LOADS REVIEW POWER AUTHORITY OF THF STATE OF NEW YORK OOCKET NO. 50-333 1.0 Inrr:,l!CTION In luly 1980, the staff issued a report, NUREG-0661, "afety Evaluation RP.port, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program," to address the NRC acceptance criteria for the Mark J containment long-Term Program, which are intended to estahlish design basis loads that are appropriate for the anticipatP.d life of each Mark I BWR facility, and to restore the originally intended design safety margins for each Mark I containment system.

Since the issuance of NUREG-0661, the Mark I owners submitted additional reports in which they provided additional justification for the adequacy of:

(1) the data base for specifying toms wall pressure during condensation oscillations; (2) the consideration given to asymmetric torus loading during condensation oscillations; and (3) the effect of fluid rni:-r:i-r:ssibility in thP. vent system on pocl-s111ell loads.

As a result of the staff's ard its consultant's (Brookhaven National Laboratory) evluatinn of these reports, Supplement 1 to NUREG-0661, dated August 198?, has been issued.

?. 0 EVALUATJ ON PowAr Autrrity of the State of Nrw York (PASNY) ubitt0d Plant Unique Pr:2lysis Pr-port (PUAP.) nn t:he pool rlynamic loads -r-nr thP,*1?.riPs A.

Fitzr2tric Nuclear Power Plant (,lAFNPP) Mark I contRinment. This report provides a description of the specific application of the genAric Mrl: I po0l dyn2mic loads and methods for JAFNPP and the plant unioue loads used in asse$%ing the capability of the containmPnt and comrrnents to accnndtc

+.hr pce,l dynamic lr.ading phenomr.na.

Tllf: rrnokhaven National L,.t:crrit:nry (p.*L) was contrcted to rPview the PUAR for c0rnpliace with the st?ff's arrptance rriteri? anrl to evaluatP tr acrAptbilitv of any prnonsP& ltrrnativr* 1rd

.iticrl\\.iori.

,1*,:

.,,. 1 t 'C r. *.... rev;***.*, ** r,, ';d II'.

r*r,)ach of thr* 1 '1* !

,J..,

c l 1J -:* *,

I.>

f)l""Sl:li'.*.*(1 i:i thr,*.*.0uw0 )(.::[;(Ii titl,_d 1'Trc..trnica1 hi!l1,o71L'1

(,'

.*'

r::Pi'i+.rid rlant Uniqur /\\.na1 _vsis Pr.:r0rt. 11 As inrlicatP<1 fo tt:e renor',

f1fl"'*'\\'

l*:1':

"l(, (\\r)tf'r' t1 Q'!+

1.r,-:,.* '

r

hr r.*'1()\\'.:,. crirr-.

-R*r,.rr*

fr**.. *

1-'r*r 1*i'-r**,-,

,*L.rr,

-*M

,,,**,;1,

! *(

1 *. :J.

.(

lI r ' ; * ( ri cl i (, i r* C l t!,:; {o c! i n t h (

i: ;. - d I_ h,.,1 I. 1 *(Ir-t.

P. il s (l" r' I

' * *_; r r. \\' i ' I.' '

' I '. * % (: f *

-n: i(*"J*', tl:P h\\'.L 1:*.t 1 uc1tion crl (.(.,,<.lu'.;i1r,,

8501110397 841212 PDR AD0CK 05000333 E

PDR

- ? -

3.0 CONCLUSION

S The staff has completed an assessmr.nt rf FitzPatrick against 9E>nrric

1ccPptt1ncr. critria contained in NllREr--QG61 and its supplPme,,t, and has als0 revirwrd those few areas where alternative criteria have been proposed.

In addition, the staff has completed its review of those areas where aditional infnrmation was releaatAd to the plant unioue reviPw.

In each of these

.s thP. staff has concludP.d that the rool rlynarnic loads utiliz2rl by PASNY arP. conservative and, therefore, accptable.

/it t,:1dri,011t:

Technical Evaluation, dt1trd June 1984, prepared by BNL Principal Contributor:

F. Eltawila Date:

December 12, 1984

l.. .,}.,-.

?lant Unir:... *e ;._,.,alysis Report.

'....... Sonir.

Jc:-.. 'i ?. * :....eh!"le ::-

C-eo:ge 3ienkowsKi Constantino Sco:1o:nos Reac:or Sa::e:y :.icensi:1;.:...ss:..s:ance Di*:::..s10:1

!)2paz{nt o: Nuclear Energy

'

C..., -

.i..:_., I J

. ),. r 1'*')

ABSTRACT Tris ichnical Evaluation Repo:-t (ER; presents tne results of :ne post-imlement?:ion audit of the Plant Unique Anlysis Reoort 1 ::,1

r R)

\\

Va"\\'

for the J. A.

Fitz;:,c:rick Nuclear Power Plant.

ine conten:s of tne PUAR were compared against the hyd... odynamic load f..ccept2nce Criteria (AC) c.ontai:'1 ed i1 NUREG-0661.

The TER su:-izes : audit incings (Table l), anc ciscusses :ne nature an: s:a:us of

ne exce:i:ns to tne C ientifec :uring :re au: ra1e 2).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS "ihe cocnizant N¹C Techr.ical Monitor for tris proaram was Dr. Farouk El:a1-,iic cf the Containment Sys:erns 3rancn (DSI) anc the NP.C Project Manager was Mr. Jack N. Donohew of the Technical Assistance Program Managernert Group of tne Division cf Licensing.

Mr. Syron Siegel of the::..Operating Reacto:-s Branch Number 2 (D!...) ac:e.:: as rleaa Prcjec: Manager.*

0

,1:

ll*

'J f)

I 1,

,r*

(.

\\

l,.

')

II

,1, 11'

11 1:,

cP n,

,t, I

\\11 I':

I

,:1 I

i (),,

J1;

I) 1n

.n C

\\II Ii

,1,

,1

()

,)

r*

lf)

\\..

j C,

' t, rt

.1 1\\1 r,1

' ( 4 C

lH 11 (t'

IJ) rn tn

i,

\\I!

I

i r, (f)

-1

'l IU

(_

I *

\\)

,1,

tu

'1

1 r,,

(t)

I l'll if

v

()

.1

()

n*

1

o.

11) n

J

{/1 0

ln

))

()

I*

11*,,

{ll en

'JI

'U

/,

['

r.

I'

)

(:

',tJ

J

t... :i

\\ 1

=;

( l

.11 Ii l;

'II

'V

'Z, s* L' b'

,r, f-'

C

.q (l*

()

,i) in cu L

1 II) n.

IV r I

. (ll I

,n I

I'll

l 0

!is' rt..

11 (ll It,

1 u

I t-f1 I '

it'

()

t-**

()

.q

{)

8 11

(.

\\()

'I)

ID r:

ti rt I*

I*'

0 I'll

J -

1

1*

o,

,o

1 0

th

'.1 r*

1 rt

J

()

\\\\1 0

I*'

'.1 I

,:2 3

'.Al I,'

()

(l}

!u

(,1

()

'8 rt

,. u l/)

C:.

1

('

(i;.

rt

1 J

1 (l,

(t

'8 (11 (fl I'

( t 0

(,)

).

')

u l )

u r Ul LU

)-'

Lil l'l (fl (fl

{/I I'

U'

+,

n

L-

H I-'

1 #

t.

11 I l

, )

- J

tj tJ

\\ J

n 2

u.1

).*

i\\,

r:

I-'

t-*-

0 r-;

()

rt

-J r:

tn

J

.J. 8 0

(t)

<D t-'*

t-'

1*

o.

r-'

ro D

11 0,

l/l IJ)

Ul (1)

u fll ri 1-**

,J.

-i

J

J r1' ID 1-*

(/)

0 0

tn 1()

cu

o.

ru rt

J

J R?

(\\)

Pl I--'

11 ft -*

ro 0

O*

I-*

CD L

()

0 (n

'1J

J co t1) n I h 1-h....

0 rt (ti n

1--3 rt 1/l

J (I)

7.

R rt (l) c;

(/)

t **

ti OJ l;J 11 l/l

'1

'f{

0 rl t-'

r-;...

rt co 1/l n

Ul fu'.....

rt Ill

()

rt Cl>

()

n 0

Cl) fll

*J rn 0,

J r-;

r -

()

(II Ul o.

I-'

0 p,

Ji 0

r1' (l) f--'

rt'._,

n,

)*

IJ-(1) t*I

J

-J OJ 0

(J

,?

t-1

1 tO rt rt t"1 f;

()

IU

,3-n,

'U I-'-

J rl

()

0 8

0, rt

J 111 t...

-J 0

(D 0,

r1 tn rt 0

rt

{U

('1' 0

t--ti I I l :J II I

iab le of Contents

°bs"C ract Ac(nowledgemen:s Li st of.A.cronyms 3.

+/-xceptions to Generic AccEotance Criteria 3.:

²a³'onic Phasing for CO Response 2.2 Harmonic Phasing for Post-Chug µesponse 3.3 CO/Chugging Ring Giraer Drag Loads 3.t

!n-P)ant SRV Data for Suomerged St;ucture 3.5 sv 7orus Loaas

... 01:c: us; c::s urag Page No.

i i ;

i i l

11 13 14

-i 5 15

,

.i.D I

I 15

1.

INTR o:iuc TI ON 7e su;:.-J"ess'cr :i::,o: "yc-:ia;*:c:7:;;; 'tt:s asfo:.::..:,,*i:r-; a ;:ios:u*,a:ec less-cf -cc o: ant a cc i dent ( Lo:: A ) were f i rs: i a en t i f i e d du r i n g 1 a r g e -s cal e test ; n g of an adva::::ed aesign pr-essure-suppression containment (i1,an !II).

These addi-t i o..., a i 1 o ads,...ti i ch had not exp 1 i c i t 1 y been i n c 1 u de d i n t he or i g i n a 1 Mark I ccint.ainment design, result from the dynar:iic effects of drywe11 air-and steam

ein; ra1dy force into :ne suppression pool (torus).

6ecause thes hydro co:1:anm2nt, a detailed reev3hation of :he Mark 1 con:abment sys:em was re quired.

f.. his:orical development of the bases for the orisinal Mark design, as well as a summary of the two-oart overall orografii (.e., Snort 7er;n and L:-n;

,er (rograms) usea tc resolve these issues :a De fauna in Section 1 cf Ref erence 1.

Reference 2 descries the sta7f's evaluation cf the Short ierm Pro-operate s,fely wnne :ne Long 7erm ?rogram (7:,) was bing conducted.

Tne objec:ives of the LT? were to es:a1,sh oesign-oasis (conservative) e ::: c !i *.ar k con:ainrnet sys:e.

The princ:::c:1 thrvs: of the L.T? has been :ne

..,..,.J

I'"'\\..

0. I""'

°::

* ::..... : r. *

.r...

,, '.J

,: r *

: r::.. r,...... r: -

... c

.. : }

,',.. *:.- s

..J...

(NUREG-056:) presentea :ne NRC staff's review of the generic suppression pool

ne r::io,.:s ci:ed aoove.

It was cor,cluaec ::-ia: the ioao definition procedures

.;t>:zet :-y tne Mar: 1 Owners Group, as r.iodified by NRC requirements, provide conserv2:ve estimates of these loading condi:ions and tnat the structural ac ce::itance :riteria are consistent with the req,Jic..ements of the applicable codes

re ;eneric ana1ysis :ecnniques a re in:eice to oe usec to perfcrm a flant-

..inic!..;e a:12:ysis (PUA) for each Mark I facility to verify complian.:e with the ac cec:cnce criteria (AC) of Appendix A to NUREG-0661.

ihe objectiv_e of this study as :o perorm a post-implementati0n auit of the lant-unique analysis for tne J. t... F:z:ic:ricK l'iuclear Power ?lant (Reference 5) against the hydrooynamic oaa cri:eria in G-066:.

2.

P0ST-IMPLEMENTA710N AUDIT SUMMRY nc.:-:-,1c *,::,cc;ng r.ietnoco1ogies which re usec as the basis for rnocifying the pres SJre SL:::i;;,..ession system of the J. A. Fi:zpa:rick Nuciear rower Plant.

Tne ri:zpatrick PUAR methodologies (Reference 5) \\o.l:re compared with those of the LO

(;::efe:e'ice 3) as approved in the AC of NUREG-OtSl '.Reference 1).

Tne audi: pro cecu,..e-consi:ed of a moaerately detailed review of tne plant unioue analysis

ance cri:e,..ia.

A list of requests for further information was submitted (Ref erence 6;, and answers were obtained at a mee":ing with the licensee (Reference i).

7aole l surnar:es :he audit results.

!: lists :he various 1oad catesories se:fe: in :n A:, anc,noicates plan:-Gi:ue informa:ion through :he refer-ences, in :he ri*;ht-r,anc column, to the notes *..mich foliow ;., the to:.

-. s

,e ;)Ort.

I l

l 01\\DS l' :i,i\\lt,Ji.il 'JT PIHS'.;UfH: £1 TEt-.,1PEl1ATU11E V i ;.J I S Y. ; I i r--,, T 11 ! '. ST LO I\\ n S f' i 1; ;\\v:*1 t

l 1 : : ; ' r I r I *. T H I I C fl L I O A D S ii !il,'.j :;llili_ l'HL;s1rnr IIISTOHIES vun SYS IU,I 11.lP/\\Gl /\\NO OH/\\G J.lf',i,-:T /\\rli> llJU\\1, ON OlllER STHUCTURES Ff* 1111 lr.1!'1il1;Fr,IENT

!'11 i\\ f1il_l IL\\CI<

i i, i\\ Jf T I (I.,1 flll[l!I! j OIU\\G

'.'f *: ! !If i\\f f', lllFLEClOrl LOJ\\DS Cl11T[RIA I

lJ I

(() *-,---

o 0

___ I 01-rn I-.-c I

(_)

<? II.I MET NOT 0U I ii Cf)

MET z _J n:

o_

=>u o_

z <(

I

<(

2.1

2.2 v

-i---- ----

2.3

/

2."I v

2.6 v

2.7

/

2.0

../

2.9 v

2.14.1

/

2."1.2

/

I I

2.10

/

1 I

l.2I\\IJ J.

I OAl1 CIIECKLIST FOR POST-IMPLEMP'.T/\\TION /\\IJDIT I

l1J T I- - -

<Cu

--. <.{

,:..o hi n: o*

I-hJ 0

I-o_

z I

_J a_

<{<!

I I

I

r I

S::lON HJv'C*cdd'Q' 3l'v'N3ll'Q' I

-1 '""...,JI - ' Q'

I ICO lON I

i-i-ow z :E c::

I.!.!

i-a::

I-(.)

I.!.!

I I

I tK>ll)3S '"""'

-*V

,

l 9SO- ::L:nN I i I fr

J I -

C I

\\

z

() -

1.-<

_J I

=1 f

I

._1, r_,r I c;

z -*

.*r

- I'

I N

Vi

tr.

('l

\\

1,."')

r<')

N N

C. ')

f-u V)

C -

l" r..:.-.

? --:::

L..,

\\

v1

\\

I

\\

I N

N N

C"J I

I I l

(. ')

0 i

'. I t::

I

--B.

'-J

\\

N t";

w c:: :::

f-u c::

1--

r,/;

I.

A-I'--

\\

r<')

N -

N c.::

C 1

I

\\

I I

N

!-z N

0 -

u N

I I

_J I

=

I Vi I I

w

> I 0

l)

I -

I

.:.. :; I*-..... -

C.. '

C -

...J

I I

I Cfl1TEl11/\\

(0 z

{O 0 01-I

(_)

( ') l 1J NOT Id U)

MET

{l

MET

..J I

u I

.:z <(

LO/\\OS I-I I

I rJClll.l,: l(li\\()S r JI'.* i : Li!? G [ L I: J l CL_ EA n It JG 1 u ii - ; '.; ¸; H c 1. L i, n 1_ s s u r: E s

¹I[ I t_,)1\\l1S (HJ º;um.1LHG[O STRUCTuHES i, lfl i ! 1 I I lD I I: (') : U\\ G 1 IIPil' T LOI\\[ )'., (HJ T/Q /\\l<MS

>>;;1,,, t_ [ rJVt1:rm1.1ENTAL TEMPERJ\\TURES 2.13.2 l

,/

2.13.3 v/

2.l"l.3 2.14-4 2.13.5

/

2.13.G I

I Lil w

_J

._ :r:

en

<( u I-<(

z-::C

(/)

o!

-o Id Z-1 o:: o laJ 0

o_

- 0.

o_

-1 o_

z

<(

<t <(

8

/

?

/

I I I

_j T /\\nl[ 1.

(CONT I NUEO)

I "'

t r*

' )

L,.

cn1TERIA fl[ )en IPT ION

'.:; I ii' li' : '. '. i C r--J POOL T E., PE f V\\ TUR E LI i.' I S 111 'Hi S '. ION I' O O L T E M f> E n AT Un E

r. IO fJ I I () H I N (; ; Y STE tv1 1111 r* I i ?! f,J Tl I\\ I. f >r?E SSUI H: CONT flOL

y: ; 11 rv1 I Of 1 IIOSE PLANTS USING A

(}f?Y\\VI LI.-TO-W[TWELL rnEssunE

[)II* Fl Hr JC[ /\\S I\\ POOL SWELL r.11 r 1 1,.,'\\, - c, n

(() **-

l() 0 0 I-I

(.)

(.9 \\ 1J l.J I Cl) n:

J u z <(

2.13.0 2.13.9 2.IG MET

/

v 1------1 ------

'.;I,\\/ I, 1 Id l /\\ '. '.; [ ;;ML N r DY I r,J. ! 'I ;\\ r J i I L :; r 2.13.9

\\./

NOT MET l.J.I lt..J._x:

fl)

<( u I-<(

-* -:(

ll I OU

:O z _J l.JJ o:

0 U.

I-n.

z

_J n_

CL

<{ <{

<t v

-/0 I

fl 8

J J

l /\\IH.E 1.

( Corn I NUED)

2.

' - J,..

o 5U w.:; '70 '" tne analysis of strucr.ures affec:eG by CO loads. Fi:;:;n:r;cK usec a

,c '"iCC7. ::;r,asing methodoiog_y rns:eac, w:-iere the acso1ute sum of es: cconent responses s addec algebraically to the SRSS of

.. '.. ne tne four high-remaining ccc,e: resoonses to get a to:al shell re!onse.

Loas c suJoor and an-c,or sys:ef'Tls were ceter'mnea :y accing trie abso*1L."te value of :ne :hree ni;h-vcu2.*, har:-:ionic stresses i"itc :ota*1 element stress was aone by consideriny frequency contributions at 31 : and below.

This menodology,*,as found 3c-ceptaJ,e.

See Section 3.: for aocitional oetai1s.

Fer co,aensatian oscil1atio leads en suberged s: ;uc: u res, reaui res

a: ios be cornpu:ed on :e asis :JK otn :ne average cf a11 sorces and ffiaxium neares: ;ource as deried from FSTF da:a. S! effects us: be in-

"' L : : : C :... M : *-

to the sss s m of See

.:.,c

.,. r -. *..,-.... *.. r-.,...

"'\\,.j \\,,

! I_=:.. '

-...I' I s:a:es.

,c 5 C:: - * "",.... :....

i'

'. C V

_ f* - .....,...,-,::..,.J

..,r. -.,.

,_ -* - -,.N:.,..... ':"

-*.f

.,e-

- r

5.

Tne.:;.c requires that total response to post.-chug loads is ootained by sum-

,..,

.._,i,

..; SO z.

T,e

a:ric post chug res;:,onse... as oo:ane:: by coriii:-ig t!le t maximum har-

ic responses with :ne SRSS of the otners for frequencies below 31 Hz.

7:-is '7let.hoco1ogy 'ncS found acceptaole.

See Secticn 3.2 for further discus-s on.

o.

= c cnugging l0acs o submergec s:ruc:ures, :he apprach wset for s: re n t. r, for o o st GH.* g i o a cs i s b.: s e d on a p n as i n g met hoc o l o gy

Ho we v er,

for ost chug loacs five maximum frequency contributors are uided to the S?-S sum of :he o:hers.

Tnis me:hoa was f:u:1c ac::.eptabie.

See SPc:ion 3.2 for further dscussion.

ev2.l...;a:ion was perforeo w:1icn showed tnat interna*1 vent system pressures load cases i1vcvi1; cuging pressures.

,;115 anal1sis was found acceot-

: e.

r -

r,.,.,._,

._.)

l Q.

correct :or ap;,ropri,:te SRV conch tions and ther. appli'?c to t.he structural AC an:: *,.;a c:.1sc..;sse::: *... *1 :r. the licensee.

n:c:":'i\\atio regarding :is isse.

local sup;ressic:i ;:o::l te:n;:,erature

=-......

!t was found accep:c:.!)le iarge.ly See Sectio.4 for additional

..,,.as ce::..:-!2-C in l'.uK.EG-OS 61 as t:-.

.. """'- t.:-1e generic rk I :-quencher as descritec :n Ap;,end:x A, Sec:io C

restrictio:1s coulc te :-:-,2t.

Ho.;ever, t:J1e-applicant uti-2.:.::e= a loccl ;xx:l :.e.'7'.:,...2ra:'..!re "1'Ceel *.::-i8se ove:-2.ll :Tt2th::ool0:-1* provides a zat.::-ick

..:.c:-.s,

-'--*.... :..s c:,:-:--.:::*....::: 12 C: h:;.. ": '

_.,j __ _

-.-p C: c::* u*-.::,

r... ______ - *

o c::rr,e

>uses cf a: - Si)ace.

S* *c: ,,:,

3.

E:XC:'.:?'!IO'.'\\S TO GENERIC ACCEPTANCE: CRITER.!.?..

- -.

ro;: ).

7ne m:thodolo;;y differs :ran L,e geeric acce?ance criteria of

>.-::;.sG-OS6:. ¢n five major areas which a::-e l.:.s:ec-in Table 2.

!n..,,;-,.a: :::)llo*..,.s, eac:-. of t:.nese a:-eas :.s :::.scussec

£1 oe:..:.¥,

\\ '

I I

I l., *.: : rw.

1.

rnnu: 2:

ISSlll:S mun JFIL O IHJIUM11 i\\lll)IT /\\S [XC[l'Tl OII;>

TO Ill[ GUil.Hi( f\\CC[Pl/\\flCI CIUT[H1" Sl/\\TIIS or ISSUI RESOLVfO 01'1 N DESCIUPTION 01 ISSlJ[

- ----"- --* -L--- *-*- - *-*- -- ------- - --------- --- - --M------------- - ---

l'li.,sinq of lo.it ! h.innonics used to Mlill_yze stn1clures afl1'clrd by CO loads X

*-*------ ---1 *-----

Ph,1sinq of JoMI h.:innonir.s used lo a11.ilyze sln1cturcs cl f I er. led hy pos l-ch11q I o.:ids CO/cl11irJ dr,,9 lo.i<ls on Ille 1*inq girder S1il>1nP.rJed d1*.i9 loads due lo SHV water jr.t ilnd air c I c,1r i ng SllV torus she 11 l lMcls X

X X

X 1*/lii le use of in-pl<rnt SHV lest d.it.a lo develop snv torus shell pres

111*(' ln t1ds is per111illed hy LIH? /\\C, I.he use or Lhe dala hy ritz1r1trick n*prescnts an except.ion l.o lhe /\\C requirement. of conservative inler pntalion of I.he in-plant l<)SI. data.

3.2 armonic Pnasinc for CO Resoonse.

"!",..e CO torus* shell bad is an cscillati9 1.c.cd caused by periodic pressure os:ia:ions superiposet upon the prevailing 1ocal static pressure.

Tne LDQ deines the load in erms of a rigid wa11 pressure amplitude versus frequency sec:ra fro:n Oto SO Hz l>f.",ich is to be used in ccnj,.mction with a fiexib*1e \\.ell copled fluid structure model.

ln addition, three alternate sets of soectral c":".:'.":t.;aes are proviced ir, the range frc.! ::: 16 1-lz ano tne alter:-ate 1-,ich

-:-ne res;::ionses amlitu1e at each freuency ;iven in the total spectra to be analyzed are to be summed.

Tne above procedure was found acceptable in the AC because the igh de gree of conservatism associated witn :he direct summation of the Fourier cornpo-ne:s of :he soectrum was more than sufficient to compensate for a1y uncertain-opec.

Direct ap;::ilication of the above methodclogy to the Fitzpatrick :orvs crJved :o be :oo conservative and sc an a1:erc:e ap:r0ach based on a s:udy :er-fcrec n efere!lce 8 was used.

The al:e rnate c;::;::ircach ootains :e tctal re-sose fer CC jy taking :e absolu:e sum of :e fcJr highest harmoric c,onen:

a:cng :ne tnree hifhes: armonics to tne SSS of :he 0*1ers.

For CO drag 1 cads

.. -.

,.,.._.. r-...,.. ;: - :.....

r _.

r

...., I r"

I I

rt

(/l t:

(/l (fl 1\\1 th lll

()

l*I UI fir I-'

()

1\\1 111 1)1

(/)

(J I..J.

1'

\\,'

1 rt (I)

(I

'Tl (fl

'1 111

r 0

IU 0

I {

u tr

-r-1:)

r:

u*

[11 r

'1 111 l)

Ul fl)

{)

,11 I,)

({)

ru rn

(\\)

I*'

I-'

CTI

't; lll I).

I>'

,1,,#

Ill

J 8

.q

}

en I-'

0 0,

(1)

(t)

I '

( I rt f'

(I)

(l)

,1 L

(fl I-'

0 In h{

L' 1:

UI I-'

1--

0 I I Ill o,

UI ro fD

(\\)

u

1:

_1 11*

I-'*

11 th 0

1-*

{/I (II

J

{/I

()

ru

'll

{Jl

r

({J Ill I,

(/)

I I

'l n,

I,.

rt O

( I 5*

(/)

!J 11 fu

1 Ii*

0

!/1 I)>

[',I

1 CD

()

rt (D

0,

{/)

1)1

(/) *

11 1\\1 I

I

,11 I.

,O.

{).

t,.

I

1)

(/l rD h

f It) rD i,,

(I

I

(.

l 111 rt I:

th

,1 n

.'l (fl

i h

f

()

fl Ch

{fl I,.

(11

'r.

ill

_i

. {/)

11 r,

P

J t **

r.:

tu f

ID I-'

0 (l)

(Jl r*

0

(,

1ij

'I Ill B

ID r:

9 C

0 11 rr (t)

J u Q

ro

1 (l) r,

J

\\

ti*

T rt

'tl

,u (t)

.J (l.

(ti

(/l

'1

'I

\\,.

I h

v

'8 I

rt

,n

'tl Ill

()

J

1 1\\1

()

i)

.J C

ID I-'

I) 0 I*'*

I 9T' I-'

rt-.

01 rt f)J 11 n

["

r.,

(fl U1 (T

f

'1

(}.

1*

Q

.J Ill 0

3

()

0 (ll I-'

ro rt

'l C

(

7) rn rt ft 1:

8 1()

Ill 0,

()

n rt

(},

I,.

1()

I '

I lll o*

(.

'IJ 0

<<()

0, (ti 1\\1 R

I-'

1 hi

- - .I

-

(n.

J Ill t),

'U

u n

ff (l)

Ill

....... S rn IJ\\

Ill n.

rt

'U 1)1 CII 0

Ill

,j I t 1\\1 1/l 0

()

N-0, lll 1\\1

'1 r_,.

I-'

'U 2

I- '

111

. 1 111 rt 0

r1 ll*

o.

CD 0

tJ 0

I-'

t1 r I

1 I I Ill

'{J I h T

r:

().

rt ID 0

Ul

()

I*'

n, (l)

(Jl 0

l,1 (1

fil

(/l O*

1

'8 t*l In lh

'1

'§ (0

(I) 0

(/)

rt

J fl*

(JI I-'

'Y rt

o

r t1 I-'

r I l(J

(/l

.:1 ro Ill ffi.

t:

U

'\\.l 0

r' t-h CD 0,

g to' tn tn 0

rt 1\\1

(/f

<t>

0 Ff 1)1 H,

0

(/)

f.

(j,

'fl

J I

Ill

- 1 CD

o.

In CT C

0 11

(/1

o.

()

'I

.1 In

,5 0

0 0

0 t1 rt-0 I-'

(/l 11 (t)

(/)

I; (l)

(n Cu

T rt 0

11

}f cu I

CD rt

{/)

Ul

1

'1 fi*

I' C

ff

,g-Ill n

t-'*

0

l rt 1".

J (I)

I t)

1

,n ro

..,1 ll*

r N

Ul

,o H

t-'*

'1 ru

()

I V

o, 11 1\\1 I,.

I' n,

C

.

I'*

<t>

(/)

'IJ 0

()

I-'

(fl rn..

rt

8) p,

()

'rJ p,

0

(/)

'1 ro

\\

I I l c.:

rt

J IJ (1J

l 1/l 0

0

g.

(/1 g

()

<n 1()

ti)

!l*

rD

'1 I t1 ro

o

().

o *$

.o I h m

111 (l)

(1 li}

l

)

I- *.

Ul (1) 0 0,

n, I-'

(!I 0

(J)....

r-t (t)

(/)

CD (f'

00 I*

r1

()

J (I) 11 rt.%

I-'.

n

<n

'1 0

(V

'1 I),

1

()

1/l

.Y,'

11 r*t rt rJ

.J (l,

1.0 0

C\\I

,, 1

\\I' t/t tll

,n I h C:

11 I) rt (fl I-'

..JI, 11

J" tt

,o (l.

{lo

'8

'1 Ill 11 0

U1 o.

P*

J

r 8

(/).

rt (t'

II) ft

\\i'

(/l

_l Ill § r.

(0 I*-'

(Jl I-'*

0 t-'*

N 0.

W q,

t,1

,n 1:

.q X.

fD Ul ru ro

..T r-

'I

'J

{l r*

11 1l}

C rr I-*

If)

I-'

\\()

0 10, I

t\\)

'1 It>

()

-

()

I-'

u I-'

rt r

(

l'

(;,

r.J

. )

J" (ti

.1 I-J 0.,

0 rD C

'"1 1\\1

1'

1 0

()

l{l ffi

().

01 X

I 1 1)1

l '

I,.

Y

(/l til 0

1:1 C

11 Z'l

1 o.

1,J 0

0

(

{:

ll\\

l)

(t) r1i 11>

ro

(/)

o, ID 0,

0, rt th

I

£j n,

It.

l.*.'

,o -

lll 1()

(/)

rt

s.,

0 0

(/l

r 0

Ill

't ti*

I*

'8 (I) n 11

!()

rt Ul 0

(/)

IJ*

r:

0.

,r,

()

f I

J rt I*,

hf

-1 (U

0 th c::

[

.;r ru I()

J n.

'1 Ul

'U G

0

'0 (l) 0, 8.

o.

(()

J CD f)I I-'

I'll

{:

ct>

tn

r I 1

'8 tr o,

'!l

().

,()

co CD I-'*

('I Cl*

'1 I-'

().

.r, (Jl ru

(/)

'1 th 0

L 0

I T

en

l

()

r*t

.J.

\\

8 rt o,

g (l)

(/1 C

I rt n

I J

]

n, ll*

'1 i:

'r rt

^

fl (l'

.(Jl f{)

(0 0

,

rt lll

.J.

lll I-'*

o.

( I, It)'

';tJ I

I

u, X

rt ltl

(/)

().

'0 Ill 0

16

.1

l.

I*'

'll 1/l o.

1:

t'*

(D OI

1

1

(/)

J t--'*

It,

\\J,

lJ I:

(D (I) hi

`

CD 1

a-ct)

,o rt

(/)

rt

'1 (J

b

.l (11 5

(11 hf rt en 1p c

(/)

n 11

'I

.r (fl (II (l}

(1.

rt

<n II*

-r UI

(},

1-:

ro l!.l ti>

C C

(J

r;.1 r-r d

C

_-y*

Ul "I

':)

'1

,-1 lf, (ll I l

1*

2

(_l n.

Ii Ill 8

.J.

C rt

J

g.

I 1 1:

_1 p,

1 rt ro

't

()

'tl n*

')

I J

'1 (l.

rt IP

.l

{fl If) 0 0

t*h 2

,* '8 0

I-*'

II

'/l t***

I I 0

u (ll rt I t, 0

Ul

"1 1-t,

' t I;

n I

.1 If) flJ

.J.

0 (l)

I-'*

1-1 j()

()

it,

1

'rl I-'.

I'*

J" lh I-'

11,

,.n r I

(/)

.J rt o,

e i/)

11 T

t1 0

(}

([)

q

1 rr r:

'8 0

I-'

o,

'l

, h IU Ul ro

,_. H

'"1 rt>

r n,

11 1---'

(/l I-'

0...

(I)

{f)

. i fl (n

()

rt

J t1 I-"

1)

.q (t) rll C

?

0

()

I '

r,

r I

J

'r c::

1n t/1 o.

(/1 Cl)

,1; tP C

()

n*

(1, It>

n.

11>

(1) rt r

'U

'l

.l r,,

t,*

Ill rl

11)

.r

<D

J rt Ii f

rt I

ID C

o.

0 0

01 I

I' Ill

,o

J I{)

Fer su!::me::-ged structure crag due to s-chug sources a phasec rrethodology,

ive has teen e:::;:.2.cye:: :c:: Fi:zp':t.:-ick. Since ;os:-cnug loads for s!::rne:-ged st.:.1.Jc-r...ire crag loads can :e expected to te even.";':o:-e desynchronized than for shell leads ac sice a!::sclute s-rrni:1g o: t..e five.axLJ:i, ha:::nonics is a :airly con-se::-vative hasing a?proach, this method has als.:> teen foud acce?tabl.

rv-, 'C'

/ :'"',;.JC:: l:1*=

Loads.

and chugging c::-ag analysis of Fitzpatrick is rY.)t the limiting one required !:J.i.'

the AC, i.e., a circumscribed C'Jlinder of dieneter equal to I.max in t..'1e r.2.xi.."TIL.."TI ::a;;sverse dimensio:1.

Instead, a circt..'1',Scri.t:ed C'jlinde:- c: cia.-:-,eter

...:rx is use=, jstified :.he re:atively low :-atio of :luid rrotion to s :.!:"'..ict-.:ral cimension.

je sta:: finds is calculation a2ceptale.

Adjus-=ne:1 made to ""le wail inter:erence :actor r.1ade in,e R:.n; Girder s:r"....:ct:..::-es ::: ::e calc'..:late: o:: :tie ::Csis c: ar. ar-.aiy:ical mcx5el..... *:-i::se :-:-.2::;cr ass-

.,::--1e;.

cc-.. :"'--**-*

... :/*.:c0j *w::*12-:

-:::.--* l

-!""r'*--""'

.

j D:ng irrlan: SJ tests

=-err, t..'le q..iencher

The cJ..rVe is S?;osec to represent the equivalent static

_,,,_"':i _

.: ;.. __, \\\\,..:.;..,-

.... i....... v--*-::

cases.:es:.des -:...1-icse tested, t.ne C'..L.'ve is scaled

the ratio *cf t.1-ie calculated Tne st.aff rc several concerns with t..,is iitethodolo;:y, rticularly since it

ics 1 a cirect rr.arllier.

...-1:::.1 ::elo*,.; t..'1e allowable li..-:-.its.

The ratic which the S!\\V-induced drag could

e increased t:efore the allo..:at>le load was reached ranged :::-an 2 in the case of

..:1e d::Y... '71C0"'7lers to 12 in t.'"le case of the do... -ncroer tie.:ars, an 'wc.S greater t.han

::::*r 2.ll *,t.::::-nerged st::-uctures ot..her tr.a:-. ""le do*... 'T"lccr.ie!:"s ( '7).

Fer th-2 c::::r.. n-

T-rs, Tee:::yne :-.as ;,?:esen:e-::: ::-esult.s calcula:.ec :>i a se;:,a.rate a;ent :or a.'1-or.he?: ;ila: o*..:ned :y a differe:it ut.ili ty wnic:i used a test cal.ib:"atec \\7e?:sion of trr2 le ::;::s t:-ie

, -..... Fi tz;>atricr..

sase-:: en he lar8e rr.arc;ins, t.erefcre, anc en u-ie favc'!'.'a::.le co:-:-.;:,2.r::.sc:1 o:

.. -..,. ___.... - -

._._c ::=

-:c-S.E-....

- ,. ;-*. C:,:"' -... =-

. l"':'

' quate procedure in that it does not represent a "conservative interpretation c' "::'"'-:- h-:::i:ari: :*est data" as reauired by ::,e ac--cotance citeria (2.13.?.2.3).

h' n e n e v e : t he: a v a i la b 1 e d at a b a s e i s l i m i t e d, a n d pa rt i c u 1 a r l y 'r,i:1 e n t he a a t a exibi: large variability, a bounding approach is no: approriate.

Conventional en;inering practice dictates the application of statistical methocs for data interre:ation to provide sufficient confidence...hat the loads used for design wi: l no: be exceeded.

For :ne Fit:pitrick tests the average of tne four positive pressures that were recorded was 5.5 psid with a standard oeviation of about 7"',..

Tne corresponding (95-95) nonexceedance value of positive pressure is. 7.4 psid, a value substan:ia11y greater than the peak observed value. Extrapolation of this pressure to design via :he aporoved LOR methoas imlies a design pressure above

si: Jut no greater tan ll sid.

ihis exceeds the value used oy te a;,;,iicant (- 8 psid) but is w::11 below the va1ue that can be accommodated by the s:rc:e accordins :c the infora:ion supolied to us in efrece :2.

.s :,2sis W? find the ;:iroposed Gesisn acceptable.

co::c:..USi ONS cs:-im1emen:aton ool dynamic load audit of the Fitzpatrick ?UAR as bee cpleted to verify com;:iliance tn the generic accep:sce criteria of UQEG-0661.

Five major differences were identiied between tne PUAR anc tne ge-

s c e: c i e c i n : t e *,... e v o us sec: i 0 :. = 1 cf : r-i es e, s s *Jes w*? r i:: res o v e c: *

./' -

I

- :'°

: S - ::: S "

C C ', :: '.: "' ' S :, J: : i: r. *::: *, r*.,;,

' *.

J

5.

RFERENC£S

(;)-? r"--::'>ces citec 1n tr1is rep:: are avai1a:i)e as fo11ows:

,nose terns mar..:ec wi:i cne asterisk (*} are availa:,le fn the t,?.C Puolic Document Room for inspection; thP.y may be copied for a fee.

tJ,aterial marked with tw:> asterisks( *'* ) is net publiciy availa"ble because it contaiGS proprietary informatio:1; however, a nonproprie;ry version is available in the f{RC Pulic Document Room for inspection and may be cop1to far a fee.

ise reference items marked with three asterisks (**) are avaiiaole for pllrcnase &:Oii': the NRC/G?O Sales ?rograrr., L'. S. huciear Regulatory Commission,

'n'ashincton, D. C. 20555, and/or the National iechnicai lnformation Service,

, : _:::.,... \\"

,*n,*- 22,i::1 i-'r,:1'::'.,o:::,...,

,rg o

..11 ctr.er material referenced is in the open literature dnd is available throucn puolic technical libraries.

(1)

"Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Long Term Program, Resolut-ion of Generic 7echnical Activity A-7", NU2EG-0561, July 1980.*,,.

(2)

"11,ark l Containment Srlort-ier:n Program Safety Evaluation Report 11 1

,_,

.:3-Ci408, Decerr.oer :

-- ;.... ':I'...

( 3)

Genen.1 Eiectric Cor.i;;any, ":,1arr. ! Co:".:ain:::ent r')cram Load Definition Report", General Eiectric iopical Reper: rE00-21888, Revision 2, November

-C.'1 t':*

(!,crK ! o.... ':'1ers Grau. " 1*',a:-1: : :on:a1rl:-;1ent ?rogram Sruc:ura:,:..c.:e!::arce S:r:eria Plant-Un;,cue A.nalysis t-.::io1ications Guide, iask Nur.:::ier 3.1.3",

Ge,,erai Eiectric io;)i::?.1 r,e;;ort N:DG-2452;, Kevision :, Ju-:y l979....

(5)

"D1c.nt -Unique Analysis Report of the ior*Js Suooression Char.;:::er 7or Ver:nont c;:::a:rick Nuclear Power ::i1a... :", iechnica1 Re;)or: TP.-5321-2, Te.ledyne Ensneering Services, Revision 0, July 27, 1983.*

Le::er fror.i J. R. Lenr:er, 2:;L, to F. El:a... *ila, 1'KC, da:ed.l.::iril 9, :98.!.

Subject:

Request or lnforrna:ion Regarding Fitzpatrick ou;;,*

( i *

" '.*' c !"',: 1 "'.' o r u s Pro;.. a:-:: :

e v ', e.,.. of ? 1 a r.: 1,, i cue ;..,:--, c 1 _v s s ;: e :, :-: -: c :

t.. *

=- : : : /: r : : ¥ ' C... E: C

... : i'Y;,- '*: a r1

... II, 7 e e C:.. *1 !: ;

&;-s: 0 n s e : :) : r ;: st 0 n s '

.:.E: :], :92i.ir

._ :,... *(.:: ) r -

,,,.. -;,.,.. :- 0--.,..

'.,. :, -..... r-,...:..

_,.\\ ::r *,

-,.. c_ : : 1 ;...

2,'

..,,:::e i

. : '"',.. ':.':.' ' :._ * ? *. II;_ es : *: r = C :: :.:i; s :.. ; ;,..,: : '"" : *-.. e 7: r..: s., *: -:-.. r ' -:. r-.: r :

.. 2 -

8 : . C.:.. C* 'i

,: : * '"'

..J

- 2 : : :. :*..'.. - :, = :., :,.. *:.:... C _.i

-12,-

(10)

Kennedy, R. P., "A Sta:istical Basis -ior Loac Factors Appropriate for Use with CO Harn1onic ResponsE Combin ation De!iign Rules.. :SMA l210l.O-R003D,

--e-.E-i,,..i..,v*c.. _,,,.... r-,,, F;,,..rG"'11"S !cs",.,-c**:::.s*:" c r- :..e*"i=- "' c*l ::-,H,. --I.. C"-"'*c-n**

..J\\.

J\\,,, v..,..

c; ',

l-"'"",\\ "'°,1

.._;,,_, 1 I

,t..,..

'.," t 1*',a rch l 982.

0 (11)

Bienkowski, G., "Review of tne Validity of Random Phasing R:;les as f.pp1ieo

o CO Torus L:iacs", to be páâ, ished.

1'12*,, Letter from i,. S. Celia. ieedyne +o C. =-c '"' n"" "'cc:

=*,",.ia.. ""d J*une,"l l"S'

,J v :II

_ I

,J IL.

U I.<;

I

( :o be docketed).

-:9-

vd 1 ua lion Criteria

.inaycmenl l11vol vc111enl pf>roiich-luH.bs II l u lTcin -

f Technical I,* ues I.

csponstvencss I

t fl lurce111ei1 L-i, i I 01*y epur-l,llil e [ v111 I.'.,

-L:1 f fl tHJ - ---

1*,1 j II i 1-llj -- -- **-

(t.1 lCCJtn*y 2

2 I

11 UICU)SUlt[ 2 S/\\1.1' pt*epa t*ctl L>y lhe (011 t.1 i nmen L Sys lem llrirnch Fl TZP/\\TltlCK Nc1,..-a L i vt! Uc s l rip I i 011 Marlil9emenl took posi live steps to assume timely resol11lio11 of ll1P i-.;_;1w.

I SounJ Technicc1l tJ11dcrstc1ndin<J of the issue.

\\*lurked clo..,ely \\*1il11 lite st.11f arnl its consultant tuw.ird resolution of the issue.

Met with the staff aml its cons ul,rnt shortly after* n!cPiv11111 the llf\\l.

ti//\\

U/f\\

N/f\\

N/1\\

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY TE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION P.F.LATED TO MARK I CONTAINMENT LONG-TERM PROGRAM STRUCTURAL REVIEW POWER Al1Tl-10RITY OF Tr.E ST.TE OF NEW YORK OOfKET NO. 50-333

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The capability of the boiling water reactor (BWR) Mark I contair.ment structures and piping systems to withstand the effect of hydrodynamic loads resulting from a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and/or a safety relief valve (SRV) discharge was not considered in the original design of the structures. The rPrilution of this isue wcic; dividP.d into a shrrt-tPrm program and a 1 on9-te::*m program.

Based nn the results of the short-term program, which verified that each Mark I.containment would maintain its integrity and functional capability when subjected to the lriads induced by a design-basis LOCA, the NRC staff r:;r nPc an exr.r1pticn rr.1 ati""9 to the structural saf Pty requi re111ents of 10 CFR 50.55(a). The study was reported in NllPEG-0408, "Mark I ContairmP.nt Short Term Program.

The objective of the long-term program was to maintain a margin of sfety when the Mark I containment structures and piping systeM are subjected to additional hydrodynamic loads. The detailed guidance of the long-term program are contained in the NRC Saety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0661, "Mark I Containmerit Long-Term Program" and its supplement \\'lhich describe the generic hydr0dyn2nic load definition and structural acceptance criteria r.nnsistent with the rr:ciuirements of the appliccble codes and standards.

To fulfill the objct 1 ve of the long-terM prooram, Pnwer Authority of the Stc1te of New York (rf.::.f.'Y) hrs corr.pleteci all fT'cdifications on the,1i:rirs A.

FitzPa+rick uclear Power Plant {JAFNPP) containment and torus attached pi ri no. The a".1r011.:icv of these modi fi cc*t i M '1!,"' ';

(

1nc 1m:ented :,, r rr:pod

-\\

'(.'

(/*.,;

)

I

\\

I

' i .

i r

I.",

"*c.n.f-'!=, f:.. FitzPttrick Mucler Pm*1er PL,nt" (TR-:?.?1-1.),arid "ti*rk J Contai,,r:r.rt Prn1*,,1,1, Plant-Uni(!U'= Ana1y.is Rcpor: o*' hP Tnru'.1,'1.tached Pipinf] for,lcr.irs A. FitzPatrick NuclP?.r Po\\'1er PL:1nt" (TR-:2?l-j),

I *,'

-i r

*, J i

I

(),, t f....

1 r ',- *.

8501110401 841212 PDR ADOCK 05000333 E

PDR r-(','

t I I I.

2. 0 EVALUATION ThP Mark I lcng-tPrM program of FitzPatrick was dP.scribed in the plant un i nue anc1l*sis report (PUAR) prr.rarP.d by TelPdy., Engini:r.ring Services.

This report describes modifications performed on containment structures and torus attached piping at FitzPatrick. Areas covered by thP. report includ the torus shell, external supnnrt system, vent hPader system, i r,*.:efna 1 structures, torus attached pipings, Sk\\l 1 i nes and vr.nt pipe penetrations.

The materials, design and fabrication requirements of the m0difications werP in nccordance with thP Jl.r1p1*ica11 Society of MPcha11ical r:-.,riir,eers fASME) P,oi11:'r 2rc_. PrPSSure VessP.l (R>f'V) C:ndp, ['ivision 1, SPction III \\-Jith Addenda throuoh Summer 1977 and Code Cilse N-197, "Service Limits for Containment \\IPssels".

Modifications WP.re performed in accordance with the requirements of Section XI of the same code.

To determine the appropriate code allowable service liits for the specified loading combinations, the report followed guidelines of NURE{';-0661 and the GE report, NED0-24583-1, "Mark I Containment Program Structural fl.ccrirta11cP Crit eria Plarit l'niqw:, f.nc1lysis A.pplicc1tion Gt1idP.. 11

rhe portion of the rrport applicable to leadings and loading combinations was audited by BNL, and results of that audit are discussed in a separate SafPty Evaluation.

Using the properly determined loadings and loading coMbin3ticns, Teledyne r:".ployed the ccrnput:0r r,rograr.1, STMDYNE, a c: r,..ijor tool to perform the aalyses. STARDYNE is a progrijm which has been used widely in the industry fr t' i r;1il a r pu rpos rs and \\v?. s approved by NR C. Rf'IS u 1t s of the a na 1 ys rs werP.

summarized to show that modifications are adeauate under various loading combinations.

The adequacy of the modifird containment structurP.s and torus attached piring was audited by the FRC.

FRC dP.velopP.d audit procP.durrs for all Mark I 101:g trrm program sers, which is described in detail in the FRC TER-C5506-308, 11/ludi t PrncPduns for M?.rk l Contai nRnt Long-T0.rm Program - Structurr11 Analysis." ThP. rr*1iew performed by FRC follo'.':ed this document closPly.

Results and concluions of this effort were reported in FRC TER-C5506-31A,

Aurit for Mark I Containme!"lt Long-TP.rm Proqrarn-Structurr1l Analysis few OpPr;.inq Peactct*, - i!PvJ Yorv. PG\\-Jer Authc,r;ty,,lc1mrs f.. FitzPatrick Nuclr.r1r Pm*1rr Plat. 11 ThP 2udit verified analysf's by exilmining rnathematir.al rnod01;

?. n d l r i' o i 'l lJ r. n r b i ri,1 t i r. n c u s p rl

o n d s u rr.rr;, r i 7 Pd t hf'. re c, u 1t s t (I,; n 0 1,

h,-, t hr, r t h "

'I

'1' I 1

f I l'"P<' 1** ;,,rd conctir. wit:h its conclusions tll<1t th, modificatioris nr_,Pt thr> !*ark T Crr+,--;rn:,ent Lr;: c--: 1-:*1 P1*rnri'in1 object.iv* *

!In,1unrr0r:+.c:!d fatir.u(: r:villuzi+ir*r:

mthod for ASE CnP. Class ?/3 piping was dFvrlnrPrl hy PR for GE in VPP Dr, n" rt -7 c:; 1

t ; t 1 (* rl

II ** I "'" l"I r

r, rl Cl ? C

( I :, r,1 t i (II!" r \\' ;i 1,, t i (H) f.',.. - I, r r1

l n rl 7.., ': ,'. ;

r ' I :-.: * ; '

I f:

Y"f... f.'1*t1

t*;,***1*1 t*.

l1

Rt(111

,*r,'

Jt-,,S, rr*t(11.'

i'

'\\

1'

('

torus p1p1ng systems ave a fatigue usage of less than 0.5 during the plant 1ife is acceptable for the JAFNPP.

?.O CONCLUSIONS The modifications performed at the JAFNPP followed the guidelines of URE-0661 and its supplement and met the respective requireents of

)(ct ic..r.s II I and XI of the.'.JE 8oi'ler ant.! PrP.ssure Vessel Code and <<re, therefore, acceptable. The PASNY analyses have been verified by the FRC auciit and approvrd hy the staff under the L0CA and SRV discharge 1no("I.

Attachment:

Technical Evaluation Report, prepared by Franklin Research Center, dated September 26, 1984 Principal Contributor:

H. Sh;w Pate:

December 12, 1984 t,

f

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PL\\NT NRC DOCKET NO. 5 0- 3 3 3 NRC TAC NO. ---

NAC CONTRACT NO. NAC-03-81-130 Prepared by Franklin Research Center LUtn ctnd Race Streets Philadelphia. PA 19103 Prepared for Nuclear'Regulatory Commission Washington, D

20555 FAC PROJECT C5506 FRC.ASSIGNMENT 12 FRC 'TASK 318 Author* S. Trici11), A. K. Le FRC Group Leader.:

V. N. Con Lead NRG Engineer:

H. Shaw September 26, 1984 This report was prepar8d as ;iri <1*.:cot1nl ot work sponsored by an acie:ic 1,,t tt,e United Srates Government. Ne1ti1er tt1e United !;tiltes Government nor any agency lt1trr:of. Jr any of their employees. makes any warranty. r1xpressed or implied. or assumes ilny legal t1abil1ty or responsibility fc,r any third part:;'s use. or the results of such use. of any,ntormation. ar,pa ratus. product or process discloed,n this report. or represents that,ts use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

f t 1 :1 L (

) r Date _3/z (_., /p,4 Date.

\\

.*I\\ '

"i'

) /

I

.,* (

( (, /_-(...-

v1,,0

---*../.-- *----**----

[,*...., * *, *,..,, : *,, * */* *, r I

I Date 'i' _ 2 (., _ '{ 4-DIV IS rn:,; OF ALSPAN 20thand [bee Streets Philad(!l phi.a, PA l 910 3

CONTENTS Section Title 1

INTRODUCTION 2

3 4

AUDIT FINDINGS.

CONCLUSIONS.

REFEPENCES.

APPENDIX A - AUDIT DETAILS APPENDIX B - ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION iii TER-C 5 506-318 Page 1

2 13 14

TER-CSSOG-318 FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin RP.search Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions.

The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the NRC.

V

1.

INTRODUCTION TER-CS506-318 The capability of the boiling water reactor (BWR) Mark I containment suppression chamber to çithstand hydrodynamic loads was not considered ;n the original design of the structures.

The resolution of this issue was divided into a short-term program and a long-term program.

Based on the results of the short-term program, which verified that each Mark I containment would maintain its integrity and functional capability when subjected to the loads induced by a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), the*NRC staff granted an exemption relating to the structural factor of safety requirements of 10CFRSO, SS(a).

The objective of the long-term program was to restore the margins of safety in the Mark I containment structures to the originally intended

.1é:ns.

The reult of the long-tírm program are contained in NUREG-0661

[l), which describes the generic hydrodynam i c load definition and structural acceptance riteria consistent with the requirements of the applicable codes anc standards.

The objective of thi3 report ii to present the results of an audit o[ the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant plant-unique analysis (PUA) report with regard to structural analysis.

The audit was performed using a moderately detailed audit procedure developed earlier [2] and attached to this report as Appendix A.

The key items of the audit procedure are obtained from "Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Gujde" [31, which meets the criteria of Reference 1.

i. .: I.:: l I t.., ! *_.

FINDINGS Power Plant is provided in Appendix A, which contains information with rgari to several key items outlined in the audit procedure [2].

Based on this detailed audit, it is concluded that certain items in the FitzPatrick PUA report (4] indicated noncompliance with the requirements of the criteria [3]

and several aspects of the analysis required further information.

Based on this conclusion, the Licensee is requested to provide information with regard to several items contained in Appendix B of this report.

The responses [5] to these items were presented and discussed at a meeting attended by the NRC, its consultants, and the Licensee at Teledyne Engineering Servics on June 13, 1984.

At the meeting, a detailed discussion of each response was conducted, and each was deemed satisfactory.

An additional set of questions [6],

covering torus attached piping, was sent to the Licens-e on July 24, 19R4.

The Licensee has also responded to these questions [7}.

A brief review of all responses is povided below.

Request Item 1 [Reference 5]

The Licensee pre ided report TR-5321-2 (8), summarizing the analysis of torus attached piping.

The report was considered satisfactory except for a few concerns which gave rise to an additional set of questions [6], to which the Licen.;ee has responded [7] (see below, Items 1 to 5).

Request Item 1 [Reference 7]

In this response, the Licensee explained why similar load cases (1) and (2), in Section 2.4.2 of report TR-5321-2 [8], for SRV piping considered both OPE and SSE seismic loads:

separate spectra were usrl for OBE and SSE.

This mad it possible, with the higher dmping value for SSE, for the OBE response to b, higher than the SSE response; therefore, both OUE and SSE loadings were checked.

The Licen3ee lso verified tht the allowh!0 strss for cas (ll This response is satisfactory...

j

Repose Item 2 [Reference 7]

TER-C5506-318 The Licensee stated that the 10% rule of Section 6.2d (3) was not used to exempt any branch piping from analysis. The Licensee also stated that, contrary to Section 3.3.5 of report TR-5321-2, twice the torus attached piping motion was used to analyze flexible branch ?iping instead of one times the TAP motion.

The Licensee's response is satisfactory.

Request Item 3 [Referen 7]

The Licensee's response indicated that the larger of the OBE or SSE seismic stress was used in the evaluation of load cases 25 and 15 (Table 1

[4]) for torus attached piping.

This response is satisfactory.

Request Item 4 [Refernce 7)

'.:is response, the Licen3ee explained why a single stress result appears for certain groups of torus attached piping lines in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of report TR*-5321 [8]:

some torus attached piping lines are connected by a common system and a single analytical model, with only the maximum stress result reported in Tables 3-1 and 3-2; other lines are identical so only the maximum result was reported. This response is satisfactory.

Request Item 5 [Reference 7)

In this response, the Licensee reported fatige usage factors for torus shell penetrations, ranging from 0.83 to 0.43.

Although 0.83 seems high, the Licensee conservatively assumed the maximum number of full stress cycles to be 10,000, whereas the actual number is about 1000.

Because of this onservatism, all reported usage factors are acceptable.

Th Licensee's respon is satisfactory.

.*...,_ iu:m [Reference '.:.I) analys:s is not required since plant-unique load e*;aluation shows *1cdv1::--; will not cycle due to Mark I dynamic loads..

TER-CS 506-1 lP.

Si:1ce the crir,:,ri-'1 for v,lcuum brear,er modification.:,;.1ri:: not c1ddressed i:1

L:..

\\ :*:,:E).

. :,; L-.....

,1.

,.t...::

of the Mark I Long-Term Program and will be addressed in a separate TER.

The Licensee's response is satisfactory.

Request Item 3 [Reference 5]

In this response, the Licensee stated that typical fatigue data for piping were included in the data used for the generic presentation to the NRC

[9]. Also, the fatigue usage factors for the FitzPatrick plant are small and a plant-unique analysis is not required.

The Licensee's response is satisfactory.

Request Item 4 [Reference 5]

The Licensee indicated that all pumps and valves have been review;d for operability, which was established by maintaining pipe stress at the component below lvel B allc*,;:ihle stress, per Scc'::.ion 5.5 of Prfcrcnc,: 3.

T.:i!'Jles 2-4 and 3-4 in report TR-5321-2 [8] summarize operability results.

This response is satisfactory.

Request Item 5 [Reference 5]

Regarding tensile forces in the torus support columns, the Licensee indicated that the nonlinear analysis required by Section 6.4c of the criteria

[3) was intended for plants that did r have anchor restraints where torus uplif.t was possible; but at tr. f FitzPatcick plant, uplift forces are resisted by anchor bolts, producing a linear system for analysis purposes.

The Licensee also stated that a nonlinear analysis was nerformed in the short-term program, before anchor bults were installed.

The Licensee's response has reolved this concern.

Requ,:,tłt I tern 6 [Reference SJ TER-C5506-318 The Licensee indicated that, except in a few piping analyses in which seismic results were combined by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) with other dynamic loads, all dynamic loads were added absolutely, assuming worst-case phasing.

This response is satisfactory.

Request Item 7 [Reference SJ The Licensee confirmed that the vent ring header supports were considered class MC components.

This response has resolved this concern.

Request Item 8 [Reference SJ In this response, the Licensee provided a list of refrences used to derive the allowable stresses presented in the PUA report (41.

References are listed according to the component analyzed and include the applicable ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code sections.

These references have been reviwed and found acceptable.

The Licensee's responr,e has resolved this concern.

Request Item 9 [Reference SJ The Licensee reviewed the bounding technique used to determine the controlling load cases presented in the PUA report [41:

the most important considerations were that, for shells, level A and B allowables are the same and that the higher stress allowables for earthquake 1.oads were not used because these loads are small.

Also, a table was provided, indicating which comhinations were bounded by which other comhinat ions.

This response is Reauest Item 10 (Reference 5) model to analyze torus shell ztresses for asymmetric loads (horizontal earthquake, SRV, chugging) was justified bP.c,rn,;c the effect of asymmetric loads on shell stress is very small and the conservatism involved in usiny TER-C5506-318 symmetric boundary condition for each torus segment compnsates for *:e

!.iuppression of a3ymmet.ri, 1*p **,,n '"*

The Licen:,:,1_..11i*n ;tated that t.h<:

fini!,:... 1 1,\\rii"#n$,...%*,,\\--,

. ( &*.

The Licensee's response has resolved this c*onl ern.

Request Item 11 (Reference 5)

": f' r!

r"' ' - f'

. -

Regarding the analysis of the vent system for asymmetric loads, the Licensee compard an analysis on a 180 ° model..,ith an analysis on a 45 ° model.

The results showed that the 45 ° model produced higher stresses.

This was attributed to conservctive methods used to apply loads to the 45 ° model.

The Licensee concluded that it was justified in using a 45 ° model instead of a 180 ° model in analyzing the vent system.

This response has resolved this concern.

Request Item 12 [Reference 5]

The Licensee was asked to indicate conservatisms in the analysis to sh0w chat high stresses in the vent header column, ring girder, and catwalk woul 1 not exceed allowables if a different analytical approach were to be used.

The Licensee responded as follows:

the vent header column analysis has recently been revised to remove additional conservatisms, thereby increaing the difference between the actual stress and allowable stress to an acceptable margin1 the ring girder to shell weld was conservatively modeled without gussets for the sake of simplification; conservative load cases and load combinations were used in the analysis of the catwalk support column.

The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.

Request Item 13 [Reference 5]

In this response, the Licensee provided the technical basis for obtaining the static dgrees of freedom for the torus model and a brief description of the boundary conJitions.

The response included th following major points:

TER-C5506-318 o

Five major nodal rings about the tors model circumference.

o Nodes spaced at 10 ° increments about the circumference to maintain an aspect ratio less than 2:1.

o Additional refinement required at shell intersection with ring girder and saddle to obtain local strezses.

o Static degrees of freedom (SDOF) = 2475.

o Boundary conditions for the cross-sectional plane are:

two in-plane moments and the normal translation.

'7'he Licensee's response has resolved this concern.

Request Item 14 [Reference SJ In explaining why four harmonics were considered for torus shell stresses due to condensation oscillation (CO) and only three were considered for the

.:iL.i t=L.:.::;, th*! Licensee refer.:L:d to Struclural Mechanical Associates (SMA)

Report 12101.04-ROOlD.

Based on a statistical study using full-scale test facility data, this report concluded that the condensation oscillation design response should use the absolute sum of the three highest harmonics.

The Licensee used the absolute sum of the four highest harmonics for torus shell stresses to bound the full-scale test facility test data.

The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.

Request Item 15 [Reference 5]

In this response, the Licensee indicated that pre-chug bounds post-chug for saddle and column loads.

However, generic testing showed torus shell stress at mid hay, bottom dead center to be bounded by post-chug.

This apparent inconsistency is explained by examining the type of stress being

,:;crsi-:-J,-*ro:d at mid bay, bottom dead center.

This stress is a cornhin,1tion uf

-.:,*L,*-.* 'r'.*1 '.,,r1'ling stre""s,

.11:.-i th" L1nrl;:*,_1 r,<;rtion i!1 lik;,}*:' 1.,* :,..*.,:lt. of local s:-11::l l I l*!>:1bility wnich.,*ould not incr*.*.:.i::e colun,n lo..ids.

TER-C5SQ,,- 3 JR H*<.Jardinq 1:l,*.,:.li.culati,)n of toru:; i;tr".

.. ;,];,, t(, ;:;:1'..' Jin,*

Jj 0*r::.-,:*

t!1e Licensee :.it:.it,.:d thc1t SIN dry structure t1;;chniques were.::x!.rns1*1ely :c;'..u ::*_, _

by the Mark I program which found excellent correlation of calculated to-measured shell stress.

Also, several conservatisms were included in tl1 actual SRV analysis:

maximum shell pressure and maximum frequency were cuinbined into one bounding case; the maximum frequency was increased by 40% to account for possible frequency shifts; the maximum frequency and maximum shell presures that were combined were for worst cases, not necessarily for the same line; multiple line actuation was accounted for by direct addition of pressures, assuming all lines produced the worst combined loaJ.

This response is satisfactory.

Request Item 17 [Reference SJ Because the fatigue analysis of the torus depended upon the operator initiating a-procedure to end chugging within 15 minutes of a small break accident (SBA), the Licensee was asked to provide precautionary measu:es in case the operator failed to act.

The Licensee responded that the trnc and the TM! BWR Owners Group were reviewing the plant emergency procedure guides and that the FitzPatrick plant would implement the emergency procedure guides as necessary.

This response is satisfactory.

Request Item 18 [Reference SJ In this resronse, the Licensee provided the ASME B&PV code sections used to calculate stress for the vent header columns, vent pipe/vent header intersect ion, vent pipe/drywell* intersect ion, vent header mitre joint, and main vent pipe.

These code sections were reviewed and found to be appropriate.

The Licenee's response is satisfactory.

Request Item 19 [Reference 5]

TER-C5506-318 The Licensee indicated that the maximum load (3600 lb/ft) on the vent deflector was multipled by 3 to account for uncertainties, and applied continuously over the entire length.

The ratio of load frequency to the natural frequency of the structure was 0.034, so the dynamic load factor used was 1.

The Licensee's response is satisfactory.

Request Item 20 [Reference SJ The Licensee was asked to explain how relative timing between pool swell water impact loadings on the vent system was maintained to preserve an accurate representation of the longitudinal and circumferential wave sweep.

The response indicated that a detailed finite element model of the vent system w0 erl and a computer program was written to calculate modal time histories.

Longitudinal and circumferential wave sweep was developed using the load definition report methodology.

The Licensee's response has :esolved this concern.

Request Item 21 [Reference 5]

In this response, the Licensee indicated that a stiffness matrix for the vent header/vent pipe intersection was obtained from a detailed finite element model of ti)e intersection.

This stiffness matrix was input directly into the vent beam model.

This response is satisfactory.

'.,1-._:*

u:::r:d in th( fatique evaluation 1)( '::he V<nt system *..

ett: ui,t"ii;*:d

.):c, f:..

I r

fr:, r pi[***

(' 1;*

-J7;

.:1:id those for vent he.:lder mitre jc,irit *,1ere determined,.in.:1l'l t.i,:.1l :.y [rum the detailed finite element model of the vent header and downcomers.

TER-C5506-313 Th Lic*'nsee's response is Sittisfactory.

f ;;

J.-

'

...... 1"'

l The Licens*=e indicated that conservatism existed in the chugginq :*.,.i:i*.H!

usage factors for the vent system because a full 900-second chugging dcrio was assumed; the LOR requires only 0.5 seconds of chugging in each 1.4-second period.

The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.

Request Item 2! [Reference 5]

In this response, the Licensee explained how dynamic effects of structues attached to the ring girder were considered.

The quencher support beam was included in the SRV piping model, and the dynamic effects were accounted for in the ynamic analysis.

The monorail was analyzed using a dynamic load factor of 1.10, which was based on the natural frequency of the monorail and

. the applied frequency of the FROTH l load.

The spray header system used a dynamlc load factor of 1.0 because of the stiffness and high natural frequency ot the spray l1eader.

The vent header column loads were obtained from d combination of events:

pool swell impact and drag on the vent heade r, on which a dynamic analysis was performed; pool swell impact and drag on the vent header deflector, using a static andlysis with a dynamic load factor of 1.0 (2-Hz loading frequency compared to a structural frequency of 59 Hz); and vent system thrust loads, using a static analysis and a dynamic load factor of 1.0.

The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.

Request Item 25 [Reference 5]

In explaining the dynamic analysis of the quencher and support syster:i for chugging loads, the Licensee indicated that a harmonic analysis was performed using a unit load input for all individual frequency components from 1 to Jl Hz.

The maximum pressure amplitude for chugging at each frequency was thn multiplied by the results of the harmonic anlysis at th3t frequency l*,

the response at that frequency.

.e Licensee's response is satisfactory.

Request Item 26 [Reference 5]

TER-C5506-318 Regarding the analysis of the quencher and the "added ass' effect of the surrounding water, the Licensee stated that Teledyne Engineering Services had performed a generic study on the quencher and hydrodynamic mass and found that the additional mass did not significantly affect piping frequencies.

This is attributed to the rigidity of the supports at the vent penetration, vent neadeL deflector, and uencher support in directios of concern.

The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.

Request Item 27 [Reference SJ T 0xplaining why four requency contributions were considered for the c::m,:-":,.::; t ion oscillation analysis of the quencher and s;..:ppor ts anC: f i *;e were considered for the chugging analsis, the Licensee referred to SM.A report 12101. 05-ROO 1.

Based on a statistical study of foll-scale testing facility data for chugging loads, this report concluded that five chugging harmonics must be combined to bound full-scale testing facility data.

Request Item 14 c;overed the four frequency contribution for condensation oscillatior,.

Request I:em 28 [Reference SJ In this response, the Licensee identified the dynamic load factors used in th analysis of tre catwalk and intrnal spray headers.

The catwalk analysis considered the following:

a dynamic load factor of 2.0 with pool swell and pool fallback loads per the LOR; SRV drag loads from test data whi.:r.

includ n aprptate dynamic load factor; a dynamic load factor of 16.0 with chcq-::1,,,,nd conrlensation osc '.lation; a dynamic load f,ictr)r of 4.0,,ith

"t

_,.:..,r analysis cor,s1,;,r,::d a d1namic; l.oad tactur uf 1.ll tur l:

ii II

l on the r :i * ; **

nich equals 0.L.

The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.

-- - '"?:

i :.)r:...J

...1-;.. :,. *

TER-C 5 506- :, 18

- *_.: I_.) 'tl: j.-/(.J.,.._c.<

,.:1,;.

aynamic response of the containment shell is lesµ than 20% of the Lell0w¶*

allowable deflection.

Because of the low dynamic response of the containment with r*¸pect to the allowable bellows movement, the Licensee concluded that a dynamic analysis of the bellows was not necessary.

The Licensee's response is satisfactory.

Request Item 30 [Reference 5)

In t' ; s response, the Licensee provided some po.;sible reasons for the discrepancy between predicted torus column loads and measured test loads due to SRV actuation.

The salient points of the Licensee's response were:

some plants were initially tested without the saddles fully installed; a single bounding generic calibration factor (0.4) WdS used for all plants tested

-because addition of support sadd¹es made later plant unique instrumentation impractical; analyzed column loads are high because of the assumed uniform load distrioution used by the computer program.

The Licensee's response haº resolved this concern.

\\

3.

CONCLUSIONS TER-CSSOG-318 Basea v.i the audit of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant plant-unique analysis report, it was concluded earlier that certain aspects required additional information.

Based on the Licensee's responses to the requests for additional information, it is concluded that the Licensee's strucural analyses with regard to major plant modifications and the lo[us-attached piping conform to the criteria requirements.

The Licensee's approach to*the eyaluation of piping fatigue conforms to the approach recommended by the Mark I Owner's Group, which has been accepted by the NRC.

The evaluation criteria of the containment vacuum breaker modifications are not addressed in Reference 3 and are therefore outside the scope of this TER; however, this issue will still be examine<l as p1rt of the Mark I Long-Term TE R-C S 5 0 F. - 1 1. P "S.:ifety Ev.:iluation Report, Mark I Containi.,ent Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation USNRC July 1980 2.

Technical Evaluation Report Audit Procedure for Mark I Containment Long-Term Program - Structural Analysis Franklin Research Cnter, Philadelphia, PA June 1982, TER-CSSOG-308 3.

NED0-24583-1 "Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Aalysis Application Guide" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA October 1979 4.

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Plant Unique Analysis Report, Revision 0, TR-5321-1 New York Power Authority Teledyne Engineering Services July 27, l')'B S.

James A. FitzPatric Nuclear Power Plant Review of Plant Unique nalysis Report--Mark I Torus Program New York Power Authority Teledyne Enineering Services June 13, 1983 6.

D. B. Vassallo (NRC)

Letter to J. P. Bayne (New York Power Authority)

Subject:

Request fer Additional Information on Structral Aspects of FitzPatrick Plant PUA Report July 24, 1984 7.

J. P. Bayne Letter to D. B. Vassallo (NRC)

Subject:

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Responses to Request for Additional Information New York Power Authority August 24, 1984 8.

J.:.:::es A. FitzPatrick Nc;clear fower Plant Plant Unique Analysis Report of the Torus Attachec Piping for James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant TR-5321-2 New York Power Authority May 1984 9.

P. M. Kasik "Mark I Piping Fatigue"

?resentation at the NRC meeting, Bethesda, MD September 10, 1982 TER-CS 506-318

APPENDIX A AUDIT DETAILS DI.VIS 10

uF APVlt\\J:/CALSF'AN 20th and Race Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103

1.

INTRODUCTION TER-C5506-318 The key items used to evaluate the Licensee's general compliance with the requirements of NUREG-0661 [l] and specific compliance with the r*quirements of "Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Anal1sis Application Guide" (2) are contained in Table 2-1.

This audit procedure is applicable to all Mark I containments, except the Brunswick containments, which have a concrete torus.

For each requirement listed in Table 2-1, several options are possible.

Ideally, the requirement is met by the Licensee, but if the requirement is not met, an alternative approach could have been used.

This alternative approach will be reviewed and compared with the audit requirement.

An explanation of why the approach was found conservative or unconservative will be provided.

A

=ol.:¸n i¹dicating "Addiºicn>>l Information Required" will be used when the information provided by the Licensee is inadequate to make an assessment.

A few remarks concerning Tables 2-1 and 2-2 will facilitate their future use:

o A summary of the audit as detailed in Table 2-1 is provided in Table 2-2, highlighting major concerns.

When deviations are identified, reference to appropriate notes are listed in Table 2-1.

o Notes will be used extensively in both tables under the various columns when the actual audits are conducted, to provide a reference that explains the reasons behind the decision.

Where the criterion is satisfied, a check mark will be used to indicate compliance.

o When a particular requirement is not met, 1/4h1/2 specific reasons for noncompliance will be given.

j ;l! I I J+l,L Franklin Research Center A D1111s1on ol The Franklin lns111ure 20th and R.ice Stre1m Phila P.1 19 IOJ ;215) 448-1000 NRC Contract No. NRC-03*81-130 FRC Project No. C5506 FRC Assignment No.

I Z.

FRC Task No. 318 Plant Name,-r;t.rA. E.S,- p,-: =-,,.,:.-.:..: **-:-_ r.

Page l 2

T..1ble 2-1. Audit Froceaure tor Structural Acceptance Criteria ot Mark I Conta,nm,_:,nt Long-Term Program 1.2 All structural elements of the vent system and suppres sion chamber must be considered in the review.

'The following pressure retaining elements (and their supports) must be considered in the review:

o Torus shell with associ ated penetrations, reinforcing rings, and support attachments o

Torus shell supports to the containment s tc*,*.,*-: ure o

Vents between the drj",.;ell and the vent ring ne³Jer (including penetrations tnerein) o Region of drywell locdl to vent penetrations o

Bellows between vents and torus shell (internal or external to torus) o Vent ring header and the downcomer s at tacned to it o

Vent ring header supports to the torus o

Vacuu m breaker valves attached to vent pen'tra tions witnin the torus (where appl icablµl o

Vacuui:i breaker piping systems, including v.:icuum breaker valves attctch¶J to torus shell penetr*-

'/:

I I

1 LicrJ.l>t! !J:-;:s

.- *.J d t I ! :,.*,*...,,.* :.

. *:)

va11ve

\\/.J(IVO S ::::::-

i... -

!JOtE 2

I I I :

I I

. I I

I I

I I I I I I

1-

I I

'The L Ir cl F ::= C:

<C.

.....J I

';",c::' c;, i;:.:*,.., ) '"'. c::-

,.._<:',

r

, <=5:J!....'/ED --.5.

i

uli Franklin Research Center

.A. D11-1s,on of The Frar,klin Institute 20th and Race Streets. Phila. P1.1 191031215) 448-1000 NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 FRC Project No. C5506....,

FRC Assignment No. I 0::::::..

FRC Task No. 3 / (3 Plant Name.::-At.-,cS,4.,=/I..::.P/-,TR..::: !(.

Page 3

Table 2*1.* Audit Procedure for Struct:iral Acceptance Criteria of Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Section Key Items Considered No. [2]

in the Audit 1.2,(Cont.)

0 I

I,.)

tions and to vent penetrations external to the torus (where applicable) i::>iping systems, including pumps and valves internal to the torus, attached to the torus shell and/or vent penetrations

,\\}. l m1in steam system safety relief valve (SRV) iping Applicaole portions of tne following piping systems:

- Active containment system piping systems (e. g *,

emergency coce cooling sys tern (ECCS) and C the;;: piping rec;1u i r *d to maintain core cooling after loss-o f-co)lan t accident (UXA))

- Piping sys t:n:;..,.i,ich provide drywel 1-t o-i-*..,,l] nrs:JJJr*,1 i -

t' *H ":! n t i a l

( t o a l :.c: *; i a t

- ut:,er ?lfH!1'J...;l:;t,.:ms, i :1cl1JtJ in 1

1/i:.

1r.,1::,.1 !.::

I o

'v'nt nt.::ader defh:ctors including associatd nard*,.,are Criteria Not Met Met I

I

/

iv"'!

i l

I I

I II I

i I

I I

1/:

I Add ti.

Info.

Aeqd.

<w-t::"

Nar:

I I

I 1s ::.: j tvOTE' I

I I

""r::":::"

}JOT=

I 'I I

I II I IIII I I I

; ::.:r.=-

,,-'

I I Licensee Uses Alternate Approach Conser-Unconser-vative vative I

I I

I '

j I

I I i

I I

NA' I

Remarks I

' I i

I I

rr1-J C" I

1 " C:} J.:. ;:-.:

I "-

........ <...... t J.. -

-...J,-,-

I -c:. * './ C""r.

I,-::-, -....

.:..:) t.J..:. '=',:,...)

I II I

I I

I I II

.,,... .

I

I I

/

1,/!

--I _,.

i/

I I

,**unn$-:::,

e 1.,U Frnnklin Research Center A O,v,s,on of The Franklin lnslltute

.!0th and Race S1re1!IS. Ph1la. P1 t 9 IUJ 12 l =I q48, IOOO NRC Contract No. NRC' 03-31-130 FAC Project No. C5506 FRC Assignment No.

/ 2.

FRC Task No.

3/.:3 Page 4-Plant Name 7AI-"' = :::,

/-, Fi-.:..,:=A-F..,,.

1---------------------..l...._;,_..;.::...;.;...;..;.::.B__.:C.:..;_-=D;__:...___:.. _ __:..:.:.:.....;_..___;__..--=E==---1...------F Table 2*1. Audit Procedure for StructurJ' Acceptance Criteria of Markt Cont.:iinr:;ent Long-Term Pr-::grc.1m r ----,-, -----------*-----: ----,%--&1--*--------------- --

..... -:,::,:* IJ:e-:

C: :7,w.;

,.1 jd'.1.

I K*Y tten1s C....::n1r:ert1 *.

! (1 !rH-: U :; I :

If

,i

\\1 t: t r.. -*...: :

.....,.,. 1. ,

vattve I

'*'-*-.

I vat,vB t----;--------------------J--'--+---(---*-----

l. 2 (Cont.)

1.3 0

Internal structural elements (e.g., monorails, ca':.walks, their supports) whose failure might impair tne containment function

a. '!be structural acceptance criteria for existing Mark I containment systems are contained in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code,Section III, Di*,ision l (1977 Edition), with addenda through the Sununer 1977 Addenda

[3] to be referred nere in as th-e Code.

The alternatives to this criteria provided in Reference 2 are also acceptable.

b. When complete appli cation of the crit*.>ria (item l.)a) results in hard ships or unusual difficulties without a compensa ting increase in level of quality and safety, other structural acceptance criteria ay be used atte approval by the Nuclac Re,:3ulatory Corrunission.

I I

v'"

, I I

I I

/I i

I I

NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130

LlUI Franklin Research Center FRC Project No. C5506 Page A o,..,,s,on of The Franklin lnslltute FRC Assignmenc No.

I "'2.

5 20th and Race StrP.ets. Ph1la. P" 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task N.:,. 3 tC, Plant Name.:TA/'V'I ES A. P tTZ.P/J:t"12 1C I:::..

Table 2-,. Audit Proced*ure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Section No. (2]

2.1 I

i 2.2 I

Key Items Considered in the Audit a.

!den tify the code or other classification of the structural element b.

Pre1?are specific dimensional boundary definition for the specific Mark I contain-

nent systems (tbte:

Welds connecting pipir1g to a nozzle are piping welds, not Class c

.. 'olds)

Gu idelines for classification of structural elements and boundary definition are as foilows:

(Refer to Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 for non-piping and piping structural elements, te pectively, and to it.em in :his table for row designations used for dfinia1g 1 imi ts of boundaries) a.

Torus shell (.KOW l) -

The torus membrane in combination with reinforcing rings,

'1*:?trJ.tion *11*:::::, nts

't"'

J l

[ <

" *. h 1 n tn,_ 14 t:.. 3, J

, J l

.;::,H: ot reinrorc,:-

t.nus snell, and surt-1C*:? of tn,.1oo*J,:

1*.1:nD*.:r s but not t,)

noz:.:les, is J.

Cl ass MC

{ 3 J ve!,se 1.

5 Criteria Add ti.

Not Info.

Met Met Aeqd.

i/

SE:=

WOT:

1 V

I I

I I I

I I

i l

Licensee Uses Alternate Approach NA Conser-Unconser-vatlve vatlve I

I i

i I I I I

I I

I I I

I I

I i

"iH=

Remarks I f"C"t.),::::-:'s

._..\\..-_.a

=5p

)rJ.-: =

.-:1-:.

R.:5:) =-t::,

_..,' I -

..)r,J..: .-E",C /. J I

I

NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 FRC Project No. C5506 onklin Research Center A 01111s1on of The Franklin Institute 20th and Race Streets. Ph1la P, 19 IUJ 121.'>I 448-1000 FRC Assignment No.

1.::::..

FRC Task No. 3.' 9 Plant Name ::-p1,'.::::,:.,

I-:. Fi-z..Dr--FC:.:::. E Page I

Table 2*1. Aue it Procedurn /or Structural Acceptance Criteria of Man< I ContJ1nment Long-Term Program

,..__ _______________________________________ -------------j 1

,..., S A

JC

-t-i o_ n __ ! ____ K_e_y_l'._e_m_:.;_*_*c--n

-.-.. :-d*-----,.,-C-r-i t-1]-,1-a__,

J Jr

-.'-*.l

__,..:--Li_c_e_n_s_e_e_u_-,e-s--

i -------*-**-- *-*----- **-

.JC I

'. T\\ "<' f :-* *: ! ! ) *\\.... :: r-:- *:. - r, n :tU*-- V"' -*.::

1 W1:.:...:

lrXY,.;.

Z:-**- * --*----*** -

1 1

',lf'_

\\

,*I° r

l ---+i -----------------+'--..---4---.....J.l_"'::'.:

1at1ve 1

I I

2. 2 (Cont.)

b.

Torus shell support s (Row 1) - Subsection NF (3) support structures between the torus shell and the building structure, exclusive of the attachment welds to the torus sliell; welded or mechanical attachments to the building structures (excluding embedments);

and seismic constraints between the torus shell and the building structure are Class MC

[3] supports.

c.

External vents and vent-to-torus bellows (Row 1) - '!he external vents (between the attachment weld to the drywell and the at t.achmen t weld to the bellows) including:

vent penetrat:ions within the NE-3334 [3]

limit of reinforcemnt normal to the vent, internal or external attachment welds to the external vent but not to nozzles, and the vent-to-torus bellows (including attachment welds to the torus shell and to th external vents) are plass MC (3] vesso;:ls.

/

I I

I

~nk:in Research Center NRr. Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 FRC Project No. C5506 A D,v,s,on of The Franklin lns!ltute FRC Assignment No. / '2.

20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 1215) 448-1000 FRCTask No. 315 Plant Name.TA f/1 £=<.... l"t' F,-r7 P.A....,E'.':.::::..IC' Table 2-1. Audlt Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Section Key Items Considered No. [2) in the Audit I

2. 2 (Cont. )

I I

d.

Jrywell-vent connection region (Row 1) - Vent welded connctions to the drywell (the drywell and the drywell region of interest for this program is up to the lE-333 4 [ 3] limit o f reinforcement o n the drywel.l shel 1) are

...:... ::iss MC ( 3) vessels.

e.

Internal vents (Rows 2 and 3) - Are the continuation of the vents inter: nal to the torus shell from the vent-bellows welds and include:

the cylindri cal shell, the closure head, penetrations in the cylindrical shell or closure h*a.d with in the NE-3334 [ 3 J limit of reinforcement normal to the vent, and attachment ffelds to inner or outer surf ace of tne vent but not to nozzles.

f.

'v'-:!nt r1n,3 tP:Yier {Rows

1,1,j 5: :::*,J.Jcu,ncomers

J

.. *:tit (lng

tt.!..JLhr lI,..: *Jdif)*-:) th*:!

,Jo..;nr.orn':!r:;.:nd int,rnal

,..,_: '-.J.._j

':.O

.:,,.: r afl'-..J il *.1 d t:? r a n d t n -

at-dc:.rnenr.,..,:.,leis to tnt?

downcomers.:1re Clas:; MC

[3) vessels.

Criteria Llcensee Uses Add ti. Alternate Approach Not Info.

NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser-Unconser-vatlve vatlve

/

I I

I

/

I i

I I

I I I

I I

I l

I I

I i

Page i

I I I I

-enklin Research Center A D1,..,S1on ol The Franklin Institute 20th.ind Race S1re1?ts. Ph1la ?l 191U3,;!151 448* IO<)()

NRC Contract No. NRC--OJ-81-130 FRC Project No. C5506 FRC Assignment No.

2...

FAC Task No. 3' 18 Page PtantName :TAMlS A. F=' 11Z..P.Am.*-::,:n O-------------------...L-P...:;;....;__:..._..;;. ___....:::. ______ __;;;...._ __ _:;:...;_::.._ ___ _.;... _____

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark I Containment Long-Term Program J

,-S-, ic--t-,,-In-. rl ----1\\-f-J

'.1-,-!..,-.,-c1-s-r:--*-: -.. -.-.------.--------....-. -. :*J::K.---.. *-. -, J-.L-,:-

S---...---.......

I I

Crit 0 r;;']

Arltt

-,v :: ;

2. 2 (Cont.)

- The portion of the downcomer within the NE-3334 [31 limit of reinforcement normal to the vent ring header and portion of the vent ring header within NE-3334 limit of reinforcement arc considered under Row 5.

g.

Vent r ing header supports (Row 7) -

Subsection NF [3]

supports, exclusive of the attachment welds to the vent ring header and to the torus shell, are Class MC (3) supports.

h.

Essential (Rows 10 and 11) and non-essential (Rows 12 and 13) piping systems - A piping system or a portion of it is essential if c.nO sys::.t!,il 1s necessary to assure the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a shutdown condition, or thÃ capaoilitJ to prevent or mitigate P1e consequenc3 of i

' *"' t

/

-/ --

I I

l '" : )

s=

rvOTE I

I I

. I i

-i.,.; :=

_..:._ '.3 II. - -

I I R:5 ::"of.Jp::

I "'"'= ** -, I

'/ &:° r-.

- :,... : ':*)

I I

I

-....,- -

.:.: ::) I -..Ce !:... t-.)

I i I I

I I

I

*:;0 Franidin Research Center A D:v,s,on ol The Franklin lnsotute 20th and Race Streets. Phda Pa 19103 1215) 448-1000 NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 FRC Project No. C5506 FRC Assignment No. I '2..

FRCTask No. SIB Plant Name Al-1:$ A p,-r-, r:'/... I.... '., t Page Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Section No. [2]

2.2 I

Key Items Considered in the Audit (Cont.}

accidents which could cesult in 2otential off.site exposures comparable to the guideline exposure of lOCFlUOO [ 4 I

Piping should be considered essential if it performs a safety-related cole at ;i later

.:.:r: l \\ :i thP *'?1/'::1 t

-*-* ::1:1.1t.:.on being cons1deced or during any subsequent event combin,1tion.

i.

Active and inactive component (Rows 10-13) - Active component is a pump o r val*; e i n a n essential piping system 1,mich is cquicJ to perform a me chwnial motion during the course of accomplisning a system safety function.

-::.::, '.1..,1 : :: * -., :. t '/ a c u u :n L) ( *i ;r', *::-

1. :;1-.J 2)

*.'.1 ; *+ r s *,.i l *; '=.:;

.. _(J th*(

t.()C s

,J r

! i

'J ! ; ; l,, j

.J ); *: <) C i d t l

I Criteria Met I I Not Met I

-/,

l,., I Add ti.

Info.

Reqd.

I Licensee Uses Alternate Approach Conser-Unconser-vatlve vative I

NA Remarks i

I I I

1-,

r-J *.,. I.)-::=,.::

I--.... -.,*-,=.- r:. -.,.

I

., --.::, r' f-..J,.") _

I F'=".-., */-=-D

-:... r

")

1-:..:;i,J

,:;:_t,J I

I I

//

Ü NRC Contract No. NAC--03-81*130

, JU Franklin Research Center FRC Ptoject No. C5506 Page FRC Assignment No.

I-.

A 01111s,on of The Franklin lnst,rute 20th and Race Street!. Ph,la Pl l9ltJ31215i >48-1000 FRC Task No. :S I :8 Iv Plant Name :-,:c. t.1\\ -=*... /-

,=:-, "f*-:. r:;,,1..... t: * '. * :

Table 2-1. Audit Procedurn for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark I Ccn!.::i,nment Lom;* Term Program r----r-1 --------------------------------------.------*- *---*----

1 Lic,n'>eá uâ')'.i I Sec.ion;

"-JY items C,J,1::;:,,H"'j Criteria Ai!.':i

'. t- .:

2. 2 (Cont.)

k.

External piping and supports (P.ows 10-13):

- No Class l piping

- Piping external to and penetrating the torus or the external vents, including the attachment weld to the torus vr vent nozzle is Class 2 (3] piping.

The other terminal end of su ch external piping should be determined based on its function and isolation capability.

- Subsection NF (3]

support for such external piping including welded or mechanical attachment to structure; excluding any attachment welds to the piping or other pressure retaining component are Class 2 [3) supports.

l.

Internal piping and sup!?()rts (Rows 10-13) - Are Class 2 or Class 3 piping and Class 2 or Class 3 component supports.

m.

Internal structures (lbw 8) - No_n-safety related elements whicn are not pressure retaining, exclusive of attachment w¶lds to any

ressure retaininq

f.1+-

>

'

I,

ls=e-I INOf= I I

(.... 1 * °l,...* '

- " #. i. t*

vat1vt:?

--= :.-1.::,.:'IJ:.=: S I

I *-*r::-.:_ -, *;t

./- -***

I - 'Jt.J:.: '5 r_ r I

I

I I

NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 FRC Project No. C5506

... Frankiir Resl?arch Center FRC Assignment No. *-

A D,,, *. en c,t Tr.c Frankin, Institute 201h 11nd R11c11 Sircl!tS. Phila P11 191UJ 12151 -l41S-IOOO FRC Task No. 'SI 3 Plant Name

':""/\\ f..-\\ 'f

I*.

F"1 /\\'_..Jc J: '., -

Table 2-1 Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Section No. (21 2.2 I '

3.2 j

3, 3 I

4. 3 Key Items Considered in the Audit (Cont. J member (e.g.,

monorails. ladders, cat*,..,alks, and their SU[)f)Orts)

n.

Vent deflectors (Row 9)

- Vent header flow deflectors and associated hardware (not including attachment

(),:l,]SS.'1C

/ *"- -* ';r;!.:. S) are internal s tructures.

Load terminology used snouhi O*] oased on Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the unit or the wad Definition Report (LDR)

[ 5 J

In case of conflict, the LDR loads snall be used.

Con.3,ler.:ition of all load comoinations defined in Section 3 of the LDR [ 5 J shall b8 provided.

a.

,b r*] e*1 alua tion for limits set for design

,*!:-:*_;re and d,sign

.-:.:,*1::,lture values 1:3

- - >*1 ::or pres*?nt

.).

_ ** ;: 1:1 l i:ni t 11til con3truct1on

* : :,_,*.: 1 n*-J no r:n.i l rJct1e ith respect tJ loJd definition and 3llowole stress shall oe u3ed for systems or Criteria Not Met Met I

I

./

J I

/i I

Add ti.

Info.

Reqd.

i !* !:-_E_

>f"'/1_

,'.)

I I

I

1 Licensee Uses I

Alternate Approach NA I Conser-Unconser-I vative vative I

I I

I Ii !

I I

I I I I

I I

I I I

I I

I Remarks

::. :: --- ;::;-r-.

, ".' f J. I : I-- ( J Page II I I

Énklin Research Center A D1111sion of Th11 Fr<1nkl,n Institute 201handR.lceS1ret.?!\\ Ph,l,1 P.1 JQl(JJl215)448-1000 NAC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 FAC Pro1ect No. C5506 FAC Assignment No. I 2.

FAC Task ;o. ?.' 0 Plant Name :;-,,:. /.;4_ Ç S A.,c:., .o,t:.- '_,, *c Page

/2 iJble 2*1. Audrt Proc*.iduro for Structural Acceptance Cr1ter1.1 of Mark I Conta,nrner.t '._ong-Term ?ror,,

I r..

,ec!1cn:

4.3 4.4 (Cont.)

portions of systems that are replaced and for new systems.

Service Limits and Design Procedures shall oe based on the B&PV Code, St?ction III, Division 1 including addenda up to Sununer 1977 Addenda [31, specifically:

a.

Class MC containment vessels:

Article lE-3000 [3) o.

Lir.ed r -t:; :"<::

component (Class 2 and 3) support -

with three modific1tions to the Code:

- For bolted connections, the requirements of Service Li :nits A and 8 s h,:i l l bP.

applied to Srvice Limits C and D without increase in the allowables above those applicable to Service vels A and 8;

- NF-3231. l (a)

{3 I is for pr imar-1 plus secondary stress rangt:;

Cr,-r,

.. :; !

I v

I

:!dtl.

I I

I

.- r::-

I - * **

t-xrrE"'

8 I

I

I I

'

l.lC'?:"lS*e Uses

-. r,..

l *,:-r"'.';v:h

/-

....,- '

.-,*

j r vat1*,e v.Jtive I

I I '

I I

I

..... **--------

I I I

--*-

for Ser*, ice Li:ni ts in Section 4 of Reference 2.

-* c:.*--J... "),

I :;. )'

I :_:;, 1..:. s,.,. ;

I i

i I I

- --*v

_;/..

I i

I nklin Research Center NRC Contract No. NAC-0-81*130 FRC Project No. C5506 "2-Page A D,1.,s1cn of The Franklin lnshlute FRC Assignment No.

20th and R,,ce Streets. Ph1la. Pa 19103 !215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. :SI

/3 Plant Name... -AME'2:;;,A, p112.P1+r,Q,c..:*c..

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Section No. [2)

I 5.3 i 5.4 I

5. 5 1

Key Items Considered in the Audit

- All increases in allowable stress permitted by Subsection tiF [3] are limited by

.f>p endix XVII-2110 (b)

[ 3 l when buckling is a consideration.

c.

Class 2 and 3 piping, pumps, valves, and internal structures (also Class MC)

... ;. ' co,f)Oneri ts, component lOdu.Lngs, and service level assignments for Class MC

[ 3 J components and internal s = t.:.ct.res shall be as def in*=d in Table 5-1 of Reference 2.

The components, component loadings, and service level assi,3nments for Class 2 anct Class 3 piping systems sh<1ll b* defined in Table 5-2 of Reference 2.

The J,;f inition of opert1bility is the ability to prf0rm required mechan ic-:ll motion and E*inc 1 r::1al1t1 1s the 381.l! to pass rated E:w.

*;>> c:,_,:nn0n":'n ::;

.*.;.. '_ -- be proven

,, :.: r.Jo le.

Act iv e

.*;,*:. t::; SfLl 11 C*:

..,\\1r*Ll *..:iper,wl,:

1i [VlCe Liits

.. *;c i..i or more cunservative limits (1 f t.l1e original d J s i 9 n c r i t e r i a r': !quired it} are met.

Criteria Addtl.

Not Info.

Met Met Reqd.

V v

.::,_c:

NCJrfS

,,2,4 I

I 1v1 I !

I I

./ 5==

t>Oi1:5 1.2,4 I

I I

I I I I

I I

I i

I I

i I

I Licensee Uses Alternate Approach Conser-Unconser-vative vative I

I i

I j I i

I I I

I '

I NAI Remarks

.,-i.. r::-

I

::: :'I.JS '.:3

! :;::-.:::-,; ;::>., f. j <... ;..:

I :.::

S,:J!..'/Ez. -..-;_. :s IC:"/ )C-'3:F..>J II I

I I

, 7""::

t.,.!C=I J, :q?:* <

I..... r- *. *..... f-J... =-

I ;-:! EE:*:,:, :.. '/: r:-.

I.:.. :),..)::..= t::. r..)

i !

I I II !

i I i

.-/...:,

... ;..I;

I I I

NRC Contract No. NAC-OJ-a1-130 FRC Project No. C5506 nklin Research Center A D11,i11on of The Fr.,nkl.n lnsttrule FRC Assignment No. / 2.

FRC Task No. 3 18 Page IL/-

201h and Race S1ret11s. Phtla Pa 191031215) 448-1000 Plant Name J""At-'1:$ A.,=-."'"'".--:-,......;,:-...:.--- t.:_

I Table 2-1 Aue it Procedure for Structural Accept;:ince Crit0ri:.i of.,.:irk I ContJinment L:)r.g-Term Pro'.;.1..,

I 1---....,----*---------------.-, -----,---.-, -L-i-c e_n_5-,3-. -,J-s-- "-cs--!--,------***

! eti.

l<,Jy Item, C,Jn, !er0d

i. _c_n_t, __

,_1\\ i Ad,.jtl

,,:....,'., :..... r i:1 1 :.J0... ;

in r;* },"\\ J -*:

lr*

1. /.

5. 5 (Cont.)

o.

Piping components shall be proven functional in a manner consistent with the original design criteria.

6.1 Analysis guidelines provided herein shall apply to all structural elements identified in item 1.2 of this table.

a.

All loadings defined in subsection 3.2 of Reference 2 shall be considered.

o.

A suary tchnic3l report on the analysis shall be submitted to the NRC.

6.2 The following general guidelines shall be applied to all structural elements analyzed:

a.

Pee f or:n analysis accocJing to guideline aef1ed erein foe all loads defined in LOR

[SJ.

(For loads considered in original de.,; ign, but not redefined by LOR, cevious analyses or new analyses may oe used.)

o.

On lJ l i:ni ting lo,)d comoination events neJ be considered.

,/

V' I

i i I I

I v'1 c:-_.t=' l 1uo,e1 I

I I

I

(*

1._, :*.'

,

r..

I i

I I

l Th

!....' C.::;I _y:; ::'='.. '5 1:-,:::.--.....,J****=-

I:*/; - **:;

See Sect ion 3. 3 I °_f this taole.

I I

.

;.

-= _.'...:.:::./'

_,1'._

-.:;

I---.-,-..,...

,.=-,-.

..... -

--,=:.... :,_.,, -,, - -

j.:..:ot )C. =

,C_ t..J i

** '-.-:.=::,.J**== I 1.:-:: E.:::OF*?' ).'";,:;;".:..,;;. :.-:...

I

! *'"---. ?'_*.l!::C

--;-.....;.* ..,

-: ':Jt J,.:E t:.:...1.J

]nklin Research Center NRC Contract No. NRC 0?--81-130 FRC Project No. C5506 A D1v:G:on of The Franklin Institute FRC Assignment No. / '2.

20th and R.'lce Streets. Phila. Pa 19103 1215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. 318 Plant Name ::-At!ES 14.

,:,:;,

c..*

Page 15 Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark I Containment Long-ferm Program Section No. [2J 6.2 I

6.3

i.

Key Items Considered in the Audit

!(Cont. I I

c.

Fatigue effects of all operational cycles shall be considered.

d.

No further evaluation of structural elements for wnich combined effect of loads defined in LOR (5 J produces stresses less than 10%

::. l::r..;abl':! is

- *:cqu ired.

calculations demonstrating confofmance with the 10% rule shall be provided.

e.

Dampinq values used in dynamic analyses shall oe in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide

l. 61 [ 6 ] *

.:3trctural responses for lo.=ids resulting fr.0m the co,nbination of two dynamic phenomena shall be obtained i !1

a.

the following manner:

r\\bsolu te sum of stress

.

I"",.. -....,.

..1usolute sum of stre.:;;:;

.,1*1;,.)n(!;l ts dOP*,... n '"

/

'. 1*. :*. '. ),.

o.4 I-..," -l.3.:rnc.1l/3iS Shull l

I Criteria Met I

I I

.. /

I I I I I

I lv;I I

I I

I

//1

\\/

Not Met Addtl.

Info.

Reqd.

s=:

1v<:Jic":,

3, 1'7)

'22,23 I c:.=E

.wart:

/

*.. a --

I t

Licensee Uses Alternate Approach Conser-Unconser-vatlve vative I

I i

I I

I I !

NA Remarks

,*-=

I 1c_::1J.:_;:;.:=':5

esp

;, u; = ;1-,,5 f -*,?:..*../!;(:........., * :...-..

.._") I x.:.^I._ I J

./

I I

! l µ.;::

i l

_,,. !/j == 5

! 'C `. P.!'.J r J ::, :

I

=?: :x.. *1== c

..: 1J..:.£;:..t.J

.: .,.:..)

I

\\

1 LlOUFranklin Research Center A D,,,,s,on ol The Frdnklin lnst11 Jte 20th and R.ic* Streets. Phil.+ Pi l,IOJ 12151 -48, 1000 NAC Contract No. NRC-03*81*130 FRC Project No. C5506 FRC Assignment No.,' =.

FRC Task No. 3.' :3 PL:int NamiJ :.-/ /t* = . F'* - :: :..-/ -1,.

Table 2-1. 1\\udit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark I Containment Long-Term Program r

6. 4 (Cont.)

a.

Finite element analysis for hydrodynamic loads (time history analysis) and normal and o ::her loads (static analysis) making up the load combinations shall be performed for the most highly loaded segment of tile torus, including the shell, ring, girders, and support.

b.

Evaluation of overall effects of seismic and other nonsymmetric lodds shall oÜ rovided using beam models (of at least 180 ° of the torus including columns and seismic restraints) by use of either dynamic load factors or time history analysis.

c.

Provide a non-linear tie histor1 analysis, using a S?ring iq

model of torus and support if net tensile forces are produced in columns due to up.,ard phase of loading.

d.

Bijlaard formulas shall be used in analyzing each torus nozzle for efft:ct of reactton.3 produced o1 att<lched pipin.

If Bijlaard formulas are not

...

f j.,- ; I

....... . -i.l .... : r.; 1...,

Met uv;w ! R*-d. I Consxr-Unconser-j *.,.

I

, vatlve vative I

I y

J.:,,.:S 12, 13) 14-, I

IC, I 1,.-c, ' *=-= ".:;

I,.,.. _

___ 1.;:, __ _

, -. ::.:- ::""I)-=* ::::-

.,;. /!. r.: ..

,........ -..... z

. --

' :;, =.::.._.-' i J:::: ' __.', I

.--....... - __._,1 __., _.._.,

-r-' -.J

...:..:; '..).:...!;.(I.)

'/

I I

/I I

I I

II

NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 1,un r;:-

J 1;

Franklin Research Center FRC Project No. C5506 Page A C,C,s,cn ol The Franklin lnsllture FRC Assignment No. / ""2...

20th and Race Streets. Ph1la. Pa. 191031215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. 31!3

/7 Plant Name 1v\\g A.,=-. ... ,'!

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural AccE.ptance Criteria of Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Section No. [2J 6.4 6.5 Key Items Considered in the Audit

, { *.:on t. )

applicable for.iny nozzle, finite element analysis shall be performed.

In analysis of the vent system (including vent penetration in drywell, vent pipes, ring header, downcomer s and their 1,-..

....,-.......,- *,,**-

- : :** :'.C : t S, V ':: i1 t-t Or US bellows, vacuum breaker penetration, and the vent deflectors), the following gidelines shall be followed:

a.

Finite element. model shall represent the most highly loaded portion of ring heaner shell in the "non-vent" bay with the downcomers attached.

o.

Finite element analysis shall be performed to evaluate local effects in th ring header tr,,nsient and

'* 1' l l *; a l, n t 3 LI t l C

i. '"'4 t r.:.1 l Loctd s.

Criteria Met I

I

/

Not Met I

Add ti.

Info.

Reqd.

Licensee Uses Alternate Approach NA Conser-Unccnser-vative vative I

I Remarks I I I

I I !---r:;:_ -:) f b-==---

1* "=*

1 2

'3 -:.:,

I

\\

I I...... *r: '-... r.,._)::= *-

f"'J-

. RESt.JS: ,c.*;

I I

--: :;? :..

.:....:::,r..>c.. -:::* <: ;'..1

)

1-i..: c::'

'r *=-1,J.! :: :::.

I I- -*--.......... -..

I .: ;::.? ! J.::. ;...1- *;

-*,: "..... *1#*,

"."".'-'/_$

i,...,..-!..,J.....

! *::..c,-Jc =* t-J

NAC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 Lu!Ju Franklin Research Center FRC F-'roject No. C5506 _,

Page A o,,.,,s,on ol The Franklin Institute FRC Arslgnment No.

I.c:,_

J<l 20th.ind R.ice Sire.its. Ph,ia P1 l91UJ 12151 448-1000 FRC Ta;,k No. 319 Plant Name -'A//Jp*s A. F*-:---/c -,,:::_ *c. *.-:

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure tor Structural A:ceptanco Criteria ot Mark I Containment Long-T 0rrn Program

!'Jo :*

K c# *1, $. : '"* *.: Ct%.& :: *j r: red in tnu /,._;cit I C,1'P.' .1 I I -------*** *- '

) 1 '.

Ir r, I

,I 1 V,let Mt!t, rii::!qd.

I vative vat1ve I

1------+--------------------.---....-----....--------------------*** -

.. I 6.5 (Cont.)

c.

Evaluation of overall effects of seismic and other nonsymmetrical loads shall be provided using beam mod~ls (of at least 180 ° of the vent system including vent pipes, ring header and column supports) by the use of either dynamic load factors or time history analysis.

d.

Use beam modP.ls in analysis of vent deflectors.

e.

Consider appropriate superposition of reactions from tne vent deflectors and ring headers in evaluating the vent suppoct colwnns for pool swell.

6.6 a.

Analysis of torus internals shall include the catwalks with

.:?t=,c:t, IT1:.irlVr...Jils, and miscellaneous intecnal piping.

b.

It shall bP. based on hand calculations or simple beam models and dynamic load factocs and equivalent static a.ialJsis.

SEE f'.JOTES 12,2 -

28>

I,..,,,,--

L,,... -

- c::--=:

I.,- t=..

-'.:: fJ.-. - =.)

SrIJS=

!.:P,$

:5-.Y;_'./=:C:., -' S

(_-:Jr ;.:: :=".c:_, J

//

I I

I n+e-t-1-:._ e;r JS= S

-=SP I ;.:,'3'

.--1-.$

'-,.:;-.. -_..,,

1CD -:-.i...*.s

,ac::._...,..'-""""'-"-

1 ::.tJ/ )C.ECIJ

¸¹

.. *.'Franklin Research Center A D,.,1,c,n of The Fr11nl..lin lnst11ute

.?'l1h and Race S1reBts Ph,111 Pa 19 IOJ,21 s,.C8-101)0 NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 FRC Pro1ect No. C5506 FRC Assignment No. I 2.

FRC Task No. 31 S Plant Name :.c.1-1 P-.

t:=, -,-7 P,L _,.,,:._., ' _,. ' #.

Tacie 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criter a of Markt Containment Long-Term Program

ºtionl Key Items Considered I No. [21 I in th*3 Audit I

6.6 I (Cone. I i

I I

l I* I I

I r,. 7 c.

It shall consider Service Level D or E when specified by the structural acceptance criteria using a simplified nonlinear analysis technique (e.g.' Bigg' s Method).

., lysis of the torus a.

Desig...-ia te in the summary technical report submitted all piping systems as essential or non-essential for each

.load combination.

b.

Analytical model shall represent piping and supports from torus to first rigid ancnor (or wnere effect of torus motion is insignificant).

c.

Use response spectrum

.)oint, i::xcept f,.)(

.:li-JiJCOpr1at-:

¹mplification factor) mJJ De perforºed.

Criteria Not Met Met I

i I

/

I

/j

!1/4 Licensee Uses Add ti.

Alternate Approach Info.

Reqd. I Conser-vat,ve Unconser-vative I

I I I I

I 1*

I I

I SE'E' I

"-lO"P=i

/

lsEE lr J

OP=

I

/

ISEc I 1)-?,1=:

I N>> !

Remarks I

I I I

I I

j I

' I.

i I I

I l/

,/

Page 11

c:.-...__

NAC Contract No. NRC-03-81 -130

n,--:-...,

JLlilJFrn'1klin Rsearch Center FAC Project No. C5506 A D11,1s1on of The Franklin lns111u1e FAC Assignment No. I 2.

211th dnd R.ice ::.:.rreers Phila p3 191U3 12151 448, ltlOO FAC Task No. 3 I 8 PlantName :::-tl::;-S

.-... _ c*,.-A**

-B--

Page d-0

-** -*---*

TabltJ 2--udit Procedure for Structural Accepta.1ce Cr,teria of Mark I Conta1n

--ong-Term Prora--------...... -- __

1 I

,-----.-!- ------------------------0 i ----------,--------*-* **-*-------

Lie,?: }"' ;_,1.* }"

'1 :),.;;._:?;,_.:,.

,,.;/ :'-*,"""\\.* ::"":'. f@f:

1 '*.'Cj

\\.,J

, ;-:.;A!

l N :) ' "'

)

In .I*. ). l ! r:; t

\\

I i Met Met 1

Reqd.,,....;i;t:r* '- 1',:,r,_,,_:r*'

vat1ve vat1v

I

---:----------------*-+---,.--1--4----------l,..' -2' -----------

1 I

I 6.7 (Cont.)

d.

Ef feet of anchor displacement due to tor us motion may be negcted from Fquation 9 of NC or ND-3652.2 [3]

if considered in Equations 10 and 11 of NC or ND-3652.3 [3].

6.8 afety relief valve discharge piping shall be analyzed as follows:

a.

Analyze each discharge line.

1

.

del sh.:111 re;:::ri=.!3nt piping and supports, from nozzle at main steam line o discharge in suppression pool, and include discharge device and its supports.

c.

For discharge thr ust loads, use time history analysis.

I a.

Use spctrum analysis or dynamic load fator s for other dynamic loads.

/

I/!

i I

.:::EE p..JOi I

5,.::-.:

,.Jar I

I I

i I

-:-i-E

_. ::::..r:: u.: = = s I

I le=.s:::-Jr)*:=

,.'f-.

1:; ;i, -,:, I I

/

'-'.: IJSe'f 5 I i

::::c: **

1:::r-I r:,- - ;,J_

-=::.,... 1:_

mnklin Research Center NRC Contract No. NRC-03-a1-130 FRC Project No. C5506 FRC Assignment No. I 2..

A Di111s1on of The Franklin Institute FRC Task No. :?IS 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 Plant Name Af-1ES A.

- I -r"7 =/.c ' -

::,-

Table 2-2. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark I Contairiment Long-Term Program General Requirements Analysis Requirements OI

'O Page

.:2. I Structural Element

- Ola, C:

O.:

Ill a,

Remarks a.

Torus shell with associated penetrations, reinforcing rings, and support attachments b.

Torus shell supports to the building structure c.

Vents between the drywell and tne vent ring header (including penetrations

t. ;; -. *' *... \\

d.

Region of drywell local to vent penetrations e.

Be}.lcws b1::tween vents and torus shell (internal or external to torus) f.

Vent ring header and the downcomers attached to it g.

Vent ring header support; to the torus sell h.

Vacuum breaker valves attached to vent penetra tions.,.,i thin the ':orus (where appl icablr)

' 1

I

'./acw11n '"'r1:..:r ?i?in'j

.;*t* >-:r:~;,

1 :-,cl :JC 1nq 'J JC?.:::

r)r-::.1.<*:r

.1_:*10.s atI.JC!1t.::u

' /.

JDU tu ent pnetrat1ons

-:,t,ir n.J ti) r:n torus Pqnn,; S/:;t..::ns, 1nclua,:1,;

pumi.J:, and *1c.1l*J S i.nternal to the torus, attached co tne toru;;; shell and/or vent penetrations Ill

'O "'

0 a,

0 Ill 0 -=

a).§ U)

l *7" I

'O

'iii 0

.c Z:

- C

o<

e.,, :!2

- 'O Ill

..J "' C:

oO

<..J (.)

I I

"'7 I..:.

a) Ill

'O C: C:

o-o oo

.c.c a.

a)

- E.,,

Ill iii ::

Q) 0 a) a, u.. w

(.)a:

a:

I I

i I

I

./"!

I

/,/./,/J/ l/!./1*/*

I I

/.-=. *_y; r /.

'I/.. '.... / ':::,

*..r*.

, L t:;

:::- .-.i ** I t. -.

<"

J#j Franklin Research Center A D1v1s1on of The Franklin lnstlturc NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 FAC Pro1ect No. C5506 FRC Asslgnnient No. / '?

FAC Task¢.

51 8 Plant Name

-/:- fA. ::5,

,..t:..

P*- - :_-.c..-1-- * -- *-

20th.!nd Rae e Streets. Ph1la.. P11. 19103 (215) 448-1000 T.Jbla 2-2. Auc!it Summary fer Structural Accoptance Criteria ot Mark I Containr.wnc Long-Term ?rogram Structural Element

k.

V/

/

./

All main steam system safety v'

v relief valve (SHV) piping 1.

Applicable port.ions of the following piping systems:

(1)

Active containment

?Ystem Pi?ing systems (e.g., emergency core cooling system (>>CCS) suction piping and other piping required to maintain core cooling after loss-of-coolant accident (UXA))

\\: '.....

- - .*r**_;

n

i a:

.___/i (2) i?i?ing systems whicn

,,JA tJA rJA JA tJA r..Jt.. })A, IJA prov 1.Je a drywell-t.o-

m.

n.

wetwell pressure dif-ferential (to alleviate pool swell eff1/4cts)

(3)

Other pi2ing syste1/2s, including ve,t drains Supports of piping systems mentioned in previous item incl3/4din¿ associated nard ware o.

Internal structural elements (e.g., monordils, catwalks, their supports) whose failure might impair the containment function

\\,/'

-, --, --

Table 2-3.

Non-Piping Structural Elements STRUCTURAL ELEMENT External Class MC Torus, Bellows, External Vent Pipe, Drywell (at Vent),

Attachment Welds, Torus Supports, Seismic Restraints Internals Vent Pipe G°neral and Attachment Welds At Penetration

(,-,

G *,,1,, a cl er )

Vent Ring Header General and Attachment Welds At Penetrations (e.g., Downcomers)

Downcomers General and Attachment Welds Internals Supports Internals Structures General

'!*:ri, D*!flector ROW 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

TER-C5506-318

T:.!b],* 2-4.

Pipinr_; Structur.:11 E+,---_.,,'::;;

-

-- -.. ---

Essential Piping Systems With IBA/OBA With SBA Nonessential Piping Systems With IBA/OBA With SBA 10 11 12 13 TER-C5506-318

Note 1:

Note 2:

Note 3:

Note 5:

Note 6:

Note 7:

Note 8:

Note 9:

TER-C5506-318 NOTES RELATED TO TABLES 2-1 AND 2-2

'!'he Licensee has not provided report TR-5321-2 surnmar izin3 the analysis of torus attached, intern!, and SRV piping and the SRV vent line penetration.

Also, no analysis has been provided for active containment piping uch as the emergency core co0ling system and ether systems required to maintain core cooling after a loss-of coolant accident (LOCA).

The Licensee has not provided information on the analysis of the vacuum breaker valves.

For the case of piping fatigue analysis, the NRC staff has requested the conclusions of a study presented at the NRC meeting [7] to be documented and submitted for NRC approval.

If these conclusions are acceptable to the NRC, each PUA report would be required to indicate

.that the fatigue usage factors for the SRV piping system and the torus attached piping are sufficiently small that a plant-unique faiigue analyiis of these piping systems is not warranted.

?iping 1 no in!ormation has been provided on its operability or whether it is considered active or inactive.

The Licensee should indicate if any net tensile forces are produced in the orus support columns due to the upward phase of loading.

Verific.1,.ion is required of the method by which loads resulting from two dynamic phenomona were combined.

The code class of the vnt ring header supports has not been specified as required by Section 2.la of the criteria (2].

The derivation of all allowable stresses and loads presented in the PUA report [SJ must be clarified; the Licensee should specify the code section and formulas that were used.

The Licensee should provide and justify the bounding technique use to determine all controlling load cases presented in the PUA report

[ 8] *

,;i t.h r*,,:;)*:*:t. i:-,, :,:;ct inn 3. l of t:hr> pri,\\ r**pc,rt [8], !'hr*,i,,_*w*p,,

fJOUld ju.tiff the use of th 1./16 :,,c3:r1 > *r1!'_ rr.1.,dl i -,!

tt:1d nf t.[*it

- 1.t 1

,J loads, such as SR'/ discharge.

.

1 f y t,, r *, *

Learn model uf tne vent system 1n orrl*.!f

.-.P.ismic a,,d otrH:r r,cir.Si'rnm,:tric loi.lcb.., r

to rletermine thn etfpcts of

\\

TER-C5506-318 Note 12:

The PUA r(*port [8] indicates that the calt..ulate*J *:::.il.ues of the following stresses are very close to th0 respective allowables:

o catwalk support columns - bending stress.

The Licensee should indicate conservatisms in the analysis to show that these calculated values would not be exceeded if a different analytical approach were to be used.

Note 13:

With respect to Section 3.1 of the PUA report [8], the Licensee should provide the technical basis for obtaining the static degrees of freedom for the torus model.

Also, a brief description of the boundary conditions should be provided.

Note 14:

In Section 3.2.2 of Reference 8, shell stresses were calculated by adding the absolute value of the four highest harmonics to the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of the lower harmonics.

However, in calculating loads on supports, only the three highest harmonics were added to the SRSS of the others.

Explain the reasoning for this inconsistency.

Also clarify whether 31 or 32 Hz (as specified in Appendix 2 [8]) is the cutoff frequency.

. Note 15:

In Section 3.2.3.2, page 31 of Reference 8, an explanation is required as to how the pre-chug bounds the post-chug for column and saddle loads while post-chug stress exceeds pre-chug stress by 53%

and why the analysis for post-chug uses the pre-chug stress value.

Note 16:

In Section 3.2.4 the PUA report [8], the License stated that the dry structure analysis appeared to be acceptable since the correlation of calculated-to-measured shell stress was excellent.

Provide data and plots to show the correlation.

Indicate locations where the correlation was made and whether the comparison was obtained based on time history traces and/or frequency distribution.

Note 17:

In Section 3.2.7 of the PUA report (BJ, the fatigue evaluation was based on asuming that the operator would use a procedure to end in case the oprator fails to act ofter 15 minutes.

Note 18:

With respect to Section 4.2 of the PUA report [Bl, the Licensee should provide a brief description of the stress calculation method for each of the following:

0 vent header support columns 0

vent pipe/vent header intersection 0

vent pipr*/drywell intersection 0

vent header mitre joint 0

main vent pipe.

TER-CS:-06-318 Note 19:

The Licensee should provide a description of the hand analysis mentioned in Section 1.2 of the PUA report [8] that was used to calculate the effects of pool swell ater impact on the vent header deflector. Also, the dynamic load factor used with the impact forces should be provided and justified.

Note 20:

With respect to Section 4.3.1.1 of the PUA report [8], the Licensee should indicate how relative timing between the pool swell water impact loading on the vent system as maintained.

Note 21:

With respect to the vent header beam model 1n Figure 4-4 in the PUA report (8], provide the technical basis and justification for the selection of stiffnesses to represent the vent header/vent pipe intersection.

Note 22:

Regarding the fatigue evaluation of the vent system presented in Section 4.4.9 of the PUA report [8], the stress intensification factor applied to the total stress range should be provided and justified.

,": *:,--,*.t 2j':O':*:n f:i':i<:,,:8 rr>:,U}.t': i:1 ::P,:ticn 4.4.9 of th PU,\\ :-,--::-*,,,n (Bl give a usage factor of 0.98 for the vent header support.

The Licensee should indicate conservatisms in the analysis to show that tbis calculated alue would not be exceeded if a different analytical approach were to be used.

Note 24:

In Section 5.3.3 of the PUA report [8], no dynamic load factors for input loads to the ring girder from the following structures were given:

o quencher support beam o

vent header support column o

monorail supports o

spray header supports.

All factors used should be provided and justified.

Note 25:

The dynamic analysis of the quencher and support system for drag loads due to chugging which was mentioned in Section 6.3.3 (8) is unclear.

The set of harmonic analyses and the method by which r*-S'.J:;-; "0r inrlivi"l1J,1l load c0rd! 1\\nn w,,re oetermined shnu1d he

,

x :- : *, : : :, '. r1 more f :.i 11 y.

,, f 0 c

1 ("l n hf, r -, .

t - * * *, *,.,, * *

rr.,:nt1on*.:d in Section b.3.3 [8], a:. r:xplanation is requu:ed 1Jt" hr_,1.,.

thr! *c*l:.S of the structure was ;:,rl*jq:,,t*,,l t:n account for the, "i,dde.J

l,-..

(., !

,.

/.. I ! r ; ( f I l !'.

J l ! *: "1 I

r

TER-CSSOG-J '..3 Note 27:

The Lic0ns0 should indicate why only four maximum frequency concribucinns were considered in the condenstion oscillation ana1*.,.:,t., c,(

1 :1, quench,..,r and supports (:;..,:t:

1 6.3.4 [BJ), wt:,'.:*

Note 28:

With respect to Sections 7.1.1 and 7.2.l of the PUA report [8], th Licensee should indicate and justify all factors used to account for dynmic effects in the analysis of the catwalk and internal spray header.

Note 29:

In the escription of the dynamic chwracteristics of the bellows in Sect*on 7.3.l of the PUA report [8], the following passage appears:

"We als expect that the convolutions will produce complex modes and strss patterns that will not couple efficiently with specific input frequencies, i.e., high dynamic response is not expected.

Further, the "pogo" and "rolling" modes of the convolutions are non-linear, highly cross-coupled modes that would not be predicted by ordinart structural codes."

The Licensee should provide a detailed explanation to clarify this passage.

Note 30:

With respect to the verification of the computer model used to evaluate torus shell stresses and suport system loads due to SRV actuation (Appendix A, page Al-3 (8)) it was noted that the correlations of predicted column loads and masured column loarls w-

generally off by about 50%.

The Licensee should provide some possible reason for this discrepancy.

l.

NUREG-0661 3.

REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A TER-C5506-318 "Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Office of Nucler Reactor Regulation USNRC July 1980 2.

NED0-24583-1 "Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA October 1979 3.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section rrr, Division 1 "Nuclear Power Plant Components" New York:

1977 Edition and Addenda up to Summer 1977 4.

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Rgulations 5.

NED0-21888 Revision 2 "Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" Gdneral Electric Co., San Jose, CA November 1981 6.

NRC "Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear PowPr Plants" Regulatory Guide 1.61 October 1973 7.

P. M. Kasik "Mark I Piping Fatigue" Presentation at NRC Meeting, Bethesd3, MD Sertembcr 10, 1982 8.

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Plant-Unique Anal:rsis Report of the Torus Suppression Chamber, TR-5321-1 r:>r.>oi {r,n 0

.,-,1 ';', r,: ?uwer Aut-.hor i ry

.,* :*:r;r1ineering Sr:::*11r,:.s I

APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED T"

LJ J.. f .::,... ' ; t. 1

.d ACALSFAN 20th and Race Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103

I tern l:

I tern 2:

I tern 3:

I tern 4:

.... '

TER-C5506-318 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Provide piping report TR-5321-2.

The following items must be covered adequately in order to satisfy the criteria:

o The analysis of applicable*portions of ECCS and other p1p1ng systems requireG to maintain core cooling after a LOCA, vacuum breaker piping, and piping that provides drywell-to wetwell pressure diffeential.

o The classificarion of piping systes as essential or nonessential and by code class.

o Analytical models representing piping and bUpports from first rigid anchor (or where the effect of torus motion is insignificant).

o The analysis of torus piping penetrations.

"')

Th'.? ll2*'=,.-,f !rr,c: :i'"!"Y or respt)n5e p.-:-.--+:rtirn.Jnt11;1 <;i* fnr ::;r*1.--: ;":iC effect of torus motion at piping attachment points.

o The code classification of piping supports and welds.

Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to vacuum breaker piping systems and vacuum breaker valves: indicate whether they are considered Class 2 components as required by the criteria (1).

Indicate whether fatigue usage factors for SRV piping and torus attached piping are sufficiently small that a pJant-unique fatigue analysis is not warranted for piping.

The NRC is expected to review the conclusions of a generic pres8ntation [4] and determine whether it is sufficient for each plant-unique analysis to establish that the expected usage factors for fatigue analysis of piping are small enough to obviate a plant-unique fatigue analysis of piping.

Indicate whether all active equipment associated with piping, such as pumps and valves, has been evaluated for operability nnd discuss the operability criteria.

T n d i c 1 t w hr! t hf! r n c* t ten :, i 1 e f or c e s a r i:> p r od u c..,, i n U1,.

i

:- u

upport columns rlur! to the upward phase of ln,-,.Ji:1n.

rr ','), provi*-:lr.:!

i,

1*;

I torus and support as requireu by the criteria [lJ.

umb1ned.

TE-C55ll6-318 It*m 7:

Sp,::-c ify th0 cr;rlf:? cl3ss of th, V*:!nt r in(] h,.; 1'1*:r supports.

Lut.1.v*.-;11,1..j

1c_.Ll.Vlt;

3. 3. l page 41 3.3.2 through 3.3.5 pages 43 through 46

4. 4.1 through 4.4.6 pages 66 through 69

4. 4. 8 page 70

5. 4. 1 through 5.4.2 page 82 6,4.1 through 6.4.3 pages 90 and 91 7.1.3.l through 7.1.3.3 pages 96 and 97 7.2.3 pages 98 and 99

7. 4. 3 pages 102 and 103 Item 9:

Provide and justify the bounding technique used to determine all controlling load cases presented in the PUA report [ 5) in the following section'3:

3. 3. l page 41 3.3.2 through 3.3.5 page 42 3.3.3 through 3.3.5 pages 44 through 46

4. 4. l through 4.4.6 pages 66 through 69 4.4.8 page 70 5, 4. l and 5.4.2 page 82 6.4.l through 6.4.3 pages 90 and 91 7.1.3.l through 7.1.3,3 pages 96 and 97 7.2.3 page 98 7.4.3 page 102 Item 10:

With respect to Section 3,1 of the PUA report [5), justify the use of the 1/16 segment model instead of the 360 ° beam model to analyze the torus shell for stresses due to asymmetric loads (horizontal earthquake, SRV, chugging).

Item 11:

Proide and justify the reasons for not considering a 180° beam model of the vent system, as rquired by Section 6.5c of Referenct'.!

l, :a, vL!\\;;i.: to r.:trmitH.: t!j.j crI:.eCtS <)[ St-_:_:.l.iC r,J l.:,:.:.1t:L

.i.:,;....., *\\....,.. __

.oads.

Item 12:

The PUA report (5) indicates that the following stresses are very close to the respective allowables:

o vent header column - axial stress o

ring girder at outside column region - shell weld stress o

catwalk support columns - bending stress TER-CS506-318 Indicate conservatisms in the analysis to show that these calc*1lated values would not be exceeded if a different analytical approach were to be used.

Item 13:

With respect to Section 3.1 of the PUA report [SJ, provide the technical basis for obtaining the static degrees of freedom for the torus model.

Also, provided a brief description of the boundary conditions.

Item 14:

With respect to Section 3.2.2 of the PUA report (SJ, explain why the absolute values of the four highest harmonics were considered for shell stresses due to condensation oscillation, wherea only the three highest absolute values were considered in evaluating support loads.

Also, clarify whether 31 or 32 Hz (as specified in Appendix 2 (5)) was used as the cutoff frequency.

Item 15:

With respect to Section 3.2.3.2 of the PUA report [SJ, explain how the pre-chug load bounds the post-chug for column and saddle loads while post-chug stress exceeds pre-chug stress by 53% and why the analysis for pot-chug uses the pre-chug stress value.

It is recommendd that the explanation be detailed enough to thoroughly clarify this issue.

Item 16:

With respect to Section 3.2.4 of the PUA report [SJ, provide the data and plots showing the correlation betwen calculated and measured shell stress in the dry structure analysis.

Indicate locations where the correlation was made and whether the comparison was obtained based on time history traces and/or frequency distributions.

Item 17:

Regarding the fatigue evaluation of the torus presented in Section 3.2.7 [5], provide precautionary measures (if any) in case the operator fails to act after 15 minutes.

Item 18:

With respect to Section 4.2 of the PUA report (SJ, provide a brief description of the stress calculatio,1 method tor each of the following:

o vent header support columns o

vent pipe/vent header intersection o

vent pipe/drywell intersP.ction o

vent haer mitre Joint o

md i n *; *.: :, t. µ i pe,

L)rovi.dt...i

,:_.:.J:.[li,Jl1on u!. ti.t.: l*dOll.:.analy..1 U!...1L*,] tu._..,/1.l..LJL*.:

-.11

effects of pool swell water imp"lct on the vent header di:-!flt=:ctor.

. ":'.Jso, provi,11:' l:ind j*l;..iti!: *r:,.a dynamic lodd f::

. ;it_L r:rif:>

. ' ,J.' **

TER-C5506-318 ltr;:n 20:

With rc'..;p*:ct to Section 4.3. l. l of the PUA report [SJ, ir>li,;a':** 1,,-;.*..;

relaLiv timing between the pool swell water impact loadin*_i:; o:, *h 0 v,*nt ;yst:,*:f\\ W,)S maint.:iin,.d t-*J :*,r,'.;*r*1(" an accurate rP[H*-0*::,int:*1*..,*

t, \\ 1 :..*, - L t I i ; 1 : ;

i L,: 1 r 1 \\ j t.; 1 .. *

1 1

i t 1 1 l *....; 1

1, _

*,., '.:. : ; 1

Item 21:

With respect to the vent header beam model shown in Figure 4-4 in the PUA report (5), indicate how the stiffnesses represnting the vent header/vent pipe intersection were selected.

Also, provide the technical basis and justification for the selection of these stiffnesses.

Item 22:

Provide and justify the stress intensification factor used in the fatigue evaluatin of the vent system, Section 4.4.9 of the PUA report [5).

Item 23:

The vent system fatigue results in Section 4,4.9 of the PUA report (5) give a usage factor of 0.98 for the vent header support.

Indicate conservatisms in the analysis to show that this calculated value would not be exceeded if a different analytical approach were to be used.

Item 24:

Provide and justify all dynamic load factors used in the analysis of the ring girder (Section 5.3.3 [SJ) for loads due to the attachment of the following structures:

o quencher support beam o

vent header support columns o

monorail supports o

spray header Item 25:

Wi ":h respect to Section 6. 3. 3 of the PUA report [ 5), exp la in and provide the set of harmonic analyses.

The Licensee stated, "Results for individual load conditions were determined by scaling individual frequency results of the computer analysis by the apropriate pressure amplitude."

Pleas elaborate on this statement.

Item 26:

With respect to the computer analysis of the quencher and supports in Section 6.3.3 (5), explain how the mass cf the structure wds adjuslc::J to al.:count [or tii,,. ".:idJt:J lnd:3S" t::ffect o[ Lht: ;;.-.. LuL.... "1,,,j water.

Item 27:

Indicate why only four maximum frequency contributions were considered in the condensation oscillation analysis of the quencher and supports (Sction 6.3.4 [5) ), whereas five were considered in the chugging analysis (Section 6.3.3 [5]).

Item 28:

With respect to Sections 7.1.1 and 7.2.1 of the PUA report (5),

indicate and justify all f:1ctors used to account for d:i-n,1*nic effcts in the catwalk and internal spray heJder anlysis.

TER-C5506-318 Item 29:

In the description of the dynamic characteristics of the bdllows_ in Section 7.2.l of the PUA report [SJ, the following passage appears:

"We also expect that the convolutions will produc complex modes and stress patterns that will not couple efficiently with specific input frequencies, i.e., high dynamic response is not expected.

Further, the "pogo" and "rolling" modes of the convolutions are non-linear, highly cross-coupled modes that woulj not be predicted.by ordinary s<<ruct¬ral codes."

Provide a detailed explanation to clarify this passage.

Item 30:

With respect to the verification of the computer model used to.

evaluate torus shell stresses and support system loads due to SRV actuation (Appendix A, o. Al-3 [5]) it was noted that the correlation of predicted column loads and measured column loads was generally off by about 50%.

Provide some possible reason for this discrepancy.

'rER-C5506-318 RequÜst for Information James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 1.

In Section 2.4.2 of the PUA report, TR-5321-2 [6], four conditions are listed that would be evaluated in case the conservative condition for SRV pipe stress could not be met.

Provide the reason for considering the first of these cases and verify the value and derivation of the allowable stress associated with this case.

2.

With respect to Section 3.3.5 of the PUA report, TR-5321-2 [6), indicate whether the 10% rule of Section 6.2d [l) was used to exempt any branch piping from analysis.

If so, provide calculations demonstrating conformance to this rule.

Also, indicate why, in the analysis of flexible branch piping, a displacement equal to the total torus attached piping motion at the connection point was used for the FitzPatrick plant, whereas Teledyne Engineering Services used twice the torus attached piping motion for other plants.

3.

With respect to Section 3.4.l of the PUA report, TR-5321-2 [6}, indicate whether seismic loads were considered in load cases 25 and 15 {Table 1).

4.

With respect to Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the PUA report, TR-5321-2 [],

indicate whether the lines in eah of the following sets are identica and explain why only one result appears for each set:

X-202A and X-2Q2F, X-202B nd X-202G, X-210A and X-211A, X-210B and X-2118, X-213A and X-213B, and X-206A, B, C, and D.

5.

With respect to Section 3.4.6 of the PUA report, TR-5321-2 [6), provide the analytical results of the fatigue evaluation of torus shell penetrations.

--r::::::::::i wUU Franklin Research Center A Div1s1on ol The Franklin lnst11u11 201h and Rac:1 Struts. Ph1!11.. Pa. 19103 !2151448*1000 NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 FRC Project No. C5506 FRC Assignment No.

FRCTask No. :518 Pta,,t Name.._-I'* tr:: S A.. F*-2 r;1-*,--,;. 'C t:.

Page 7

Table 1. Structural loading (from REJfernnce 3)

Other Wetwell 1,1erior Structures Structures E

i 3 I

Q) 0 0 I

Q) 0--

- a, a, -

(/)

CJ 1 0 3:

0

-: , -', E "'

Q G) 0..

Cl)

Cl

.=!:...,.I

,2.

'.)

c

'O E

c::

0 0 :'1 ! 0

<':ii 5

Loads

(/)

a, Q) 0

a.

z

0.,,3:10 J:

u a:

'.)

C:

Q) - f E

C:

'l) 2 J 0

0 > _g = oj 0

Cl) 0 a:

Cl)

) 0 I-0

(/)

<(...J

<( -:)..,.

oc u....

1. Containment Pressure and Temperature X

X X

2. Vent System Thrust Loads X

X X

3. Pool Swell 3., Torus Net Vertical Loads X

X 3.2 Torus Shell Pressure Histories X

X 3 J *.'* nt.$/S'.em lmoact '1nd :Jr-1q X

X X

.4: mpact and Drag on Other Structures X

X X

3.5 Froth Impingement X

X X

3.6 PoolFallback X

X X

3.7 LOCA Jet X

X 3.3 LCCA eut:ble Drag X

X X

4. Condensation Oscillation 4.1 Torus Shell Loads X

X

.2 Load on Submerged Structures X

X X

4.3 Lateral Loads on Downcomers X

X 4.4 Vent System Loads X

X

5. Chugging 5.1 Torus Shell Loads X

X I

5.2 Loads on Submerged Structures X

X 5.3 Lateral Loads on Downcomers X

X 5.4 Vent System Loads X

X

6. T-Ouencher Loads 6.1 Discharge Line Clearing X

6.2 Torus Shell Pressures X

X 6.4 Jet Loads on Submerged Structures X

X I

X i;

0..., Air 8ubt:ln Orctq

'(

'i

'(

-..,.1.:

r -

-::<;*

'.'1 "'""-.::

.**("';(*-..

(

n '.1 : L ::,... \\' 1 r,::. nm e V1 W J, 7,. : *, X-, :, l: *JrY:

'(

.;1scZ1 *.ir;e L: ne [ie.lf'ntJ l'..

$!""r,,r S%"nt! p,.n"',,..,!r&,<'.

'v1

, ! !.,"": : : *:. +,.i..,.. :. rr. f r --; *. !

-,. i111 <) r,.'T'**r"' '.*t *,..

... r *.,

.. l X

Loads rP,quirP.o ov 'WPEG-0661 :,;

0 "lot apo11cao1e i

I I

I J

I

J.

REF'SREJCES FOR APPEND!:{ B Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA October 1979 TER-C5506-318

j. **'-..

.. _J,

,i.

...,.J.j.

2.

NUREG-0661 "Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation July 1980 3.

NED0-21888 Revision 2 "Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA November 1981 4.

P. M. Kasik "Mack I Piping Fatigue" Presentation at the NRC meeting, Bethesda, MD September 10, 1982 5.

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Plant-Unique Analysis Report of the Torus Suppression Chamber, TR-5321-1 Revision 0 New York Power Authority Teledyne Engineering Service August 1983 6.

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Plant-Unique Analysis Report of the Torus Attached Piping, Mark I Containment Program New York Power Authority Teledyne Engineering Services TR-5321-2, May 1984

ML19203A093

Text

Dear Mr. McNeill:

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

3.0 CONCLUSION

Subject:

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Attachment:

Subject:

Subject:

Navigation menu

Search