ML19221B040
| ML19221B040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-75-087, NUREG-75-087-03.9.1, NUREG-75-87, NUREG-75-87-3.9.1, SRP-03.09.01, SRP-3.09.01, NUDOCS 7907120292 | |
| Download: ML19221B040 (6) | |
Text
NU R EG-75/087 pa arcg p
so e'
'l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!ON e
.~
W5 l STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
\\
/
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGUL.ATION SECTION 3.9.1 SPECI AL TCPICS FOR MECHANICAL COM'ONTNTS REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Primary - Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB)
Secondary - Reactor Systems Branch (RSB) l I.
AREAS OF kEVIEW Information concerning design transients and methods of analysis for seismic Category I components, including both those designated as Class 1, 2, 3, or CS under the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III (hereaf ter "the Code"), and component supports, reactor internals, and other components not cover 01 by the Code. is given in the applicant's safety analysis report (SAR) and is reviewed by the MEB to assure conformance with the requirements of General Design Cri-teria 14 and 15.
Certain aspects of dynamic system analysis methods are discussed in SRP section 3.9.2 as well as in this SRP section. The following specific subjects are revier,ed under this SRP section:
1.
Transients which are used in the design and fatigue analyses of all Code Class 1 9
and CS components, and of component supports and reactor internals. The Reactor Systems Branch confirms on request the acceptability of the listed transients and l
the number of cycles and events expected over the service lifetime of the plant.
The Structural Engineering Branch confirms the seismic cyclic ground input loading as described in SRP section 3.7.3.
The metho used to dcFarmine the seismic cyclic loading used for fatigue ana'ysis of appropriate components and supports will be reviewed.
2.
Descriptions of all computer programs which will be used in analyses of seismic Category I Code and nor.-Code items listed in this SRP section.
3.
Descripti ns of any experimental stress analysis programs which will be used in lieu of theoretical stress analyses.
4.
Descriptions of the analysis methods which will be used #f the applicant elects to use elastic plastic stress analysis methods in the design of any of the above-noted l components.
USNRC STAND ARD REVIEW PLAN st.od.,4 e
pi.n.
p,.p.,.d to, th. goed.oc. of th. Of,ic. of nucl, R..c.or 8i.gul.. ion...ff,e.po...bi. f o, th....i.,. of.pplic.tso. to. coo.s Je.t.,id rw.
co-w,e..,,, o, i s. co......
.., io,, 0 en.
ci,
..,y u,.
.....,,0..oi.,0,,,,oc m.
.w. i
,w.,o co-,o.oc.,..in,
.,.4 rw.
o
. si.
no......,,,
.i....,.,..o
. w.com,
...r
.oo.
-. w.c o r
,ouc.
..c io.....,.4,o n o 2.e,s. s,.oo. o... 4 c oo,
.., s.,,,
. v.
n O
,o, uci,...,,. moi.u cuo v en. s,.e4.,4 po
.t h.... c.,
pooo..
..,i
,ow,.a.4..
.,,ii.,
..a p.,.o a,c.ii,....,,,........
.c c o--o o.t. e........o o.,.,i.c,
. io..
.o c.
- i. o o*ic. o, noei, a c.,
co-- ne.
.., noo. vo, i-,,o-
.ui 6. co...a.oo.a.oia 6.
,.,w. u s moci, ii wi...<v co-R.go tsoo, W hoos o D C 20beh 3.9.1-1 Rev. 1 nmn 20146 276
II.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The acceptanct. criteria for the areas of review are as fol b s:
1.
The applicant shall provide a complete list of transients to be used in the design and fatigue analysis of all Code Class 1 and CS components, and of component supports W !eactor internals within the reactor coolant pressure boendary. The number of events for each transient shall be included along with assurance that the number of load and stress cycles per event is properly taken into account and that the method used to determine the number of cycles is acceptable. All transients such as startup and shutdown operations, power level changes, emergency and recovery condi-tions, switching operations (i.e., startup or shutdown of one or more coolant loops), control system or other system malf unctions, component malfunctions, transients resulting from single operator errors, inservice hydrostatic tests, seismic and design basis events, that are contained in the Code-required " Design l
Specifications" for the components of the reactor coolant pressure boundary shall be specified. All transients or combinations of transients shall be categorized with respect to the plant / system cperating conditions identified as " normal,"
" upset," "emergercy," "f aulted," or " testing" The section of the applicant's SAR which pertains to transients will be ac eptable l
if the transient conditions selected for equipment fatigue evaluation are based upon a conservative estimate of the magnitude and frequency of the temperature and pressure conditions resultirg from those transients.
To a large extent the selec-tion of these specific transient conditions is Dased upon engineering judgnent.and experience. Same guidance on the selection of these transients and combinations can be found in References 5 and 6.
Transients, and their inclusion in the design and service loading combinations must provide a complete basis for design of the
.? actor coolant pressure Loundary for all conditions and events expected over the service lifetime of the plant to satisfy, in part, the requirements of General Design Criteria 14 and 15.
2.
A list of computer programs that will be used in dynamic and static analyses to determine the structural and functional integrit;f of seismic Category I Code and non-Code items and the analyses to determine stresses shall be provided, including a brief description of each program and the extent of its appiication. The design contro' measures, as required by Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50, that will be employed to d uonstrate the applicability and validity of these computer programs should meet one of the following criteria:
The computer program is recognized and widely used, with a sufficient history a.
of successful use to justify its applicability and validity without further demonstration by the applicant. The dated program version that will be used, the software or operating system, and the hardware configuration must be specified to be accepted by virtue of its history of use.
f Rev. 1 3.9.1-2 U
u//
b.
The computer program solutions to a series of test problems with accepted results have been demonstrated to be substantially identical to those obtained by a similar program which meets the criteria of (a) above. The test problems 9
shall be demonstrated to be similar to or within the range of applicability for the problems analyzed by the computer program to justify acceptance of the program.
c.
The program solutions to a series 7f test problems are sut/stantially identical to those obtained by hand calculati3ns or from accepted experimental tests or analytical results published in technical literature. The test problems shall be demonstrated to be similar to the problems analyzed to justify acceptance of the program.
A summary comparison of the results obtained from the use of each computer program under options (b) or (c) above with either the results derived frein a similar prooram meeting option (a), or a previously approved computer program, or results from the test problems of option (c) shall be provided. They should include repre-sentative comparisons of responses due to static and/or dynamic loading, preferably in graphical form.
3.
If experimental stress analysis methods are used in lieu of analytical methods, for any seismic Category I Code or non-Code items, the section of the SAR discussing the experimental stress analysis methods will be acceptable if the information provided meets the provisions of Appendix II of Refarence 4, and as in the case of 8
analytical methods, if the information provided is sufficiently detailed to show the validi+.y of the design to meet the provisions of the Code-required " Design Specifications."
Whenservicelimit0isspecifiedbytheapplicantforCodeClass1andCScomponents,l 4.
and for component supports, reactor internals, and other non-Code items, the methods of analysis used to calculate the stresses and deformations shall conform to the methods outlined in Appendix F of Reference 4, subject to deformation.onstraints discussed in III.4 below.
III. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer will select and emphasize material from the procedures described below, as may be appropriate for a particular case.
1.
The list of transients, t'7 number of events estimated for each transient presented in the applicant's SAR, and the method used to determine this number are compared to the same information on similar and previously licensed applications and to the acceptance criteria outlined in II above. Any deviations from previous accepted practice are noted and the applicant is rwuired to justify these deviations. The 6
MEB verifies that e:ch transient has been properly categorized with respect to the
} h Res.
I 3.9.1-3
plant / system operating conditions of design, i.e., " normal," " upset," " emergency,"
" faulted" and " testing."
Any deviations that have not been justified to the satisfaction of the staff are identified and the finding is transmitted to the applicant with a request that, unless conformance with the MEB acceptance criteria is agreed upon, additional technical justification be submitted.
2.
The information pertaining to computer programs which is presented in the applicant's SAR is reviewed as follows:
The list of programs is evaluated to determine that the applicant has ade-a.
quately described each program with respect to the type of analysis that is performed and the specific components to which the program is applied.
b.
The oesign control measures, which are required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, are reviewed for each program. The procedures outlined in subsection II.2.a, l
b, or c must be met for each program. Verification by the applicant that he has met the requirements of at least one of the above paragraphs is acceptable.
c.
The summary comparison of the results obtained from the use of each program which is not recognized and widely used (See subsection 11.2) with either the results derived from a similar recognized and widely used program, a previously approved computer program, or results from test problems is reviewed and ev;1uated. Numerical results so derived should compare favorably enough to provide confidence in the validity of the program.
Any d?viations that have not been justified to the satisfaction of t e staff are identified and the finding is transmitted to the applicant with a request that, unless conformance with the MEB acceptance criteria is agreed upon, additional technical justification be submitted.
3.
If the applicant elects to use experimental stress analysis techniques in lieu of theoretical str ss analyses, sufficient information must be presented in the SAR to demonstrate that the requirements of Appendix II to Reference 4, as they apply to the conditions set forth in the " Design Specifications" have been met.
4.
If the applicant employs an elastic plastic method of analysis to evaluate the design of safety-related Code or non-Code items for the faulted plant condition (NB-3225 and Appendix F of Refer 3nce 4), the review covers the following points:
a.
The applicant must demonstrate that the stress-strain relaticnship for component materials that will be used in the analysis is valid. The ultimate strength values at service temperature must be justified.
{
}f}
Rev. 1 3.9.1-4
b.
The analytical procedures to be used in the analysis are reviewed to determire the validity of the analysis. If a computer program is used, the applicable requirements of 11.2 above shall be met.
c.
If elastic, elastic plastic or limit analysis methods are use d for components in conjunction with elastic or elastic plastic system analyses, the basis upon which these procedures are used are reviewed. The applicant shall provide assurance that the calculated item or item support deformations and displace-cents do not violate the corresponding limits and assumptions on which the methods used for the system analysis are based.
(For example, current small deformation methods of analysis typically tend to have acceptable effective strain limits up to 5 percent and large deformation methods op to la percent. )
Any deviations that have r,at been justified to the satisfaction of the staf f are identified and the finding is transmitted to the applicant with a request that, unless conformance with the MEB acceptance criteria is agreed upon, additional technical justification be submitted.
IV.
EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer verifies that sufficient information has been provided in accordance with l
this SRP section, and that his evaluation supports conclusions of the following type, to be included in the staff's safety evaluation report:
9-
"The criteria used in the methods of analysis that the -pplicant has employed in the design of all seismic Category I ASME Code Class 1, 2, 3, and C5 components, component supports, reactor internals and other non-Code items are in conformance with established technica' 90sitions and criteria which are acceptable to the Regulatory staff and satis
- the applicable portions of General Design Criteria 14 and 15.
"The use of these criteria in defining the applicable transients, computer codes l
used in analyses, analytical methods, and experimental stress analysis methods provides assurance that the stresses, strains, and displacements calculated for the above-noted items are as accur:te as the current state-of-the-art permits and are adequate for the design of these items."
V.
REFERENCES 1.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 14, " Reactor Coolant Pressure l
Boundary."
2.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 15, " Reactor Ccolant System l
Design."
146 280 3.9.1-5 Rev. 1
3.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants."
4.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division I, " Nuclear Power Plant Components," American Society of Mechanic?l Enginee s.
S.
Regulatory Guide 1.68, " Initial Test Programs for Water-Cooled Reactor Power Plants."
6.
Standard Review Plan Section 3.9.3, "ASME Code Class 1, 2, 3 Components, Cor.
.it Supports, and Core Support Structures" 9
146 281 Rev. 1 3.9.1-6