ML20027C119

Audit for Mark I Containment Long-Term Program - Structural Analysis,Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20027C119
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	08/25/1982
From:	Gonzalez A, Subramonian N FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20027C117	List: ML20027C119 ML20027C120
References
CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 TER-C5506-309, TER-C5506-3090, NUDOCS 8210120640
Download: ML20027C119 (36)

Text

. .

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT l

AUDIT FOR MARK I CONTAINMENT LONG-TERM PROGRAM - STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS L

1RICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT, UNIT 2 4

.m

'J I

FRC PROJECT C5606 FRC ASSIGNMENT 9  ;

.[ NRC CONTRACI' NO. NRC-03-81 130 FRC TASK 309 4

Preparedby Frank!!n Research Center Author: N. Subramonian 20th and Race Street A. Gonzalez P

M Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: N. Subramonian Preparedfar -

Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission  ;

Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: H. Shaw (3

i ~. '

, J

,(

,j August 25, 1982 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their

1. employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or I responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such thiro party would not infringe privately owned rights.

I s ';

D

-l4 w% '

O 00. Franklin Research Center

$ A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Frank 5n Parkway Ptula. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 t,.

M 8210120640 820923

- PDR ADOCK 05000341 A PDR

I l

l TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT  ;

AUDIT FOR MARK I CONTAINMENT l LONG-TERM PROGRAM - STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

. ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT, UNIT 2 FRC PROJECT C5506 FRC ASSIGNMENT 9 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81-130 FRC TASK 309

~

Preparedby Franklin Research Center Author: N. Subramonian 20th and Race Street A. Conzalez Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: N. Subramonian i Prepared for

• I Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: H. Shaw l

i

(

August 25, 1982 i

This report was prepared as an acccunt of v.ork sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, nxpressed or impiled, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not inf ringe privehly owned rights.

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by:

N & S ar*~em a A 13, vie; ff L

> Princ; pal Author: " Department [ ire [ tor Date: I' U

• Date: E 2 S~ l'/f d- Date: f- 2 S - # 2_

4

00. Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Bernorrun Franhan Parkway. PNia. Pa. 19103(215)448 100o

TER-C5506-309 CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 AUDIT FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 t

APPENDIX A - AUDIT DETAILS APPENDIX B - ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION e

e nklin Research Center A Omneon of The Franhan insense

TER-C5506-30 9 FORENORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research 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.

Contributors to the technical preparation of this report were Dr. Vu Con, Dr. B. Dhillon, T. Stilwell, and M. Darwish of the Franklin Research Center.

s J

A Duman of The Franhan kweswe

, o TER-C5506-309

1. INTRODUCTION The capability of the boiling water reactor. (BWR) Mark I containment suppression chamber to withstand hydrodynamic loads was not considered f.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 shcrt-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 j (LOCA), the NRC staff granted an exemption relating to the structural factor of safety requirements of 10CFR50, 55(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 margins. The results of the long-term program are contained in NUREG-0661

[1], which describes the generic hydrodynamic load definition and structural accsptance criteria consistent with the requirements of the applicable codes and standards.

The objective of this report is to present the results of an audit of the Fermi Unit 2 plant-unique analysis (PUA) report with regard to structural analysis. The audit was performed using a moderately detailed audit procedure davaloped earlier [2] and attached to this report as Appendix A. This report does not include results of the audit related to torus attached piping, which will be provided in a supplementary report. The key items of the audit procedure are obtained from " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Urique Analysis Application Guide" [3], which meets the critoria of Refereace 1.

nklin Research Center a cum.on a Tw. r en %.

I \

.TER-C5506-3

2. AUDIT FINDINGS A detailed presentation of the audit for Fermi Unit 2 is provided in Appendix A, which contains information with regard to several key items outlined in the audit procedure [2]. Based on this detailed audit, it was concluded earlier that certain items in the Fermi Unit 2 PGA 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 was requested to provide additional information on these aspects in order to indicate compliance with the criteria. The items contained in the request for additional information are attached to this report as Appendix B.

4 The Licensee has responded [5] to all the items contained in the request for additional information ( Appendix B) as discussed in the following subsections.

Question 2.1.1 (NRC Question 10.1)

In response to this question, the Licensee has shown that the method of analysis used in Reference 4 gives a more conservative estimate of the lateral load compared to the result of an analysis based on a 180* beam model. Also, the magnitude of the stresses that would be indicated in the region surrounding the support columns using a 180' beam model is estimated to be negligible due to the f act that the overturning moments are small. The Licensee has provided adequate justification for not considering an analysis using a 180' beam model.

Question 2.1.2 (NRC Question 10.2)

In response to this question, the Licensee has provided justification for assuming that only 20% of the total mass of water in the suppression chamber acts as a rigidly attached mass, based on experimental evidence [6] which is shown to be applicable to Fermi Unit 2 analysis. The Licensee's response is considered to be technically adequate.

lI00hranklin Research Center A DMason of The FrankAn insatute

i TER-C5506-309 I

l Question 2.1.3 (NaC Question 10.3) -

In response to this question, the Licensee has indicated the basis for obtaining the modal correction factors used in Reference 4 and has shown that the restits are applicable to multidegree-of-freedom systems if the modal superposi-tion method is employed. The Licensee's derivations and assumptions are techni-cally adequate since their conservatism is demonstrated using Monticello tests.

Question 2.1.4 (NRC Question 10.4) '

In response to this question, the Licensee has shown that the bending moments in the suport columns are small since the columns are permitted to slide horizontally at their baser further, the effects of buckling are negligible since the columns are heavily braced. The Licensee's response is considered to be technically adequate.

Question 2.1.5 (NRC Question 10.5)

In response to this question, the Licensee has provided justification for not performing a nonlinear time history analysis based on the fact that the Fermi Unit 2 suppression chamber is fully anchored to the basemat and that the tensile forces are less than the allowable anchorage capacity. The Licensee's justification is satisfactory.

Question 2.1.6 (NaC Question 10.6)

In response to this question, the Licensee has indicated that two

. different tempertures,173'F for the suppression chamber and 100'F for the base plate of the support system, were used in the analysis since these were i the maximum values expected in the specified regions. The Licensee's explanation is satisfactory.

4 b Franklin Research Center A OMemn of The Frankhn hwatute

/

TER-C5506-30 9 Question 2.2.1 (NRC QuestiG511.1)

In response to this question, the Licensee has provided justification for .

using the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method for combining the responses in the SRV piping based on Reference 7, which indicates that the -

probability of exceeding the loads is 16% or less when the SRSS method is used. The Licensee's justification is satisfactory.

1 Question 2.2.2 (NRC Question 11.2)

In response to this question, the Licenseee has justified the use of

~

Mark 1's equation for SRV piping fatigt analysis since the SRV piping is a Class 2 system and Mark 1's equations are applicable for this class. The Licensee has further indicated that the fatigue analysis for SRV piping presented in Reference 4 incorporates the recommendations of the generic appec 'ch developed by the Mark I Owners Group, which is subject to NRC approval.

Question 2.2.3 (NRC Question 11.3)

In response to this question, the Licensee has provided the reasons for not using the fatigue equation for Class 1 piping and indicates conformity to the recommendations of the Mark I Owners Group. The Licensee's approach is l satisfactory subject to NRC approval of the recommendations of the Mark I Owners Group.

Question 2.2.4 (NRC Question 11.4)

In response to this question, the Licensee has provided the basis for ,

developing maximum-stress cycle factors and indicated that these are derived from Cisss 2 piping thermal fatigue techniques which are defined in Section l

1 nklin Rewan:h Center A Dunen of The Frankhn kunute

TER-C5506-30 9 NC-3611.l(e) (3) of Reference 8. The Licensee's approach is satisfactory subject to NRC approval of the recosusendations of the Mark I Owners Group.

Question 2.2.5

. (NRC Question 11.5)

In respouse to this question, the Licensee has provided information on the dynamic load factors used in Reference 4 with justification for the values assumed. The Licensee's response is satisfactory.

Question 2.2.6 (NRC Question 11.6)

In response to this question, the Licensee has indicated that the SRV support connection stresses are within the allowable limits. The Licensee's response to this question is satisfactory.

Question 2.3.1 (NHC Question 12.1)

In response to this question, the Licensee has provided the basis for calculating the hydrodynamic masses used in Reference 4 for evaluating submerged structures as the relationship contained in Table 4.3-4.1 of Reference 9. The Licensee's approach is technically adequate.

Question 2.3.2 (NaC Question 12.2)

In response to this question, the Licensee has indicated that all the

, applicable loads included in Table 1 of Appendix B have been considered in the analysis. The Licensee has provided justification for not considering a few of these loads in the analysis based on the fact that these are of negligible magnitude. The Licensee's response is satisfactory.

4% UUUU Franklin Research Center A DMeson of The Franten inemewe

TER-C5506-30 9 Question 2.3.3 (NBC Question 12.3)

In response to this question, the Licensee has indicated that the ,

attachment welds to the torus shell connecting the internal structures have been evaluated as Class MC components and are within allowable limits. The .

Licensee's response is satisfactory.

1 i

l l

l 4

A- 00b ranklin Research Center A DMason of The Franhan kwehde l

l - -

TER-C5506-30 9

3. CONCLUSIONS From the audit of the Fermi Unit 2 plant unique analysis report, it was

~

concluded earlier that certain aspects required additional information. The Licensee's response (5} to the request for additional information indicates that the Licensee's structural analysis with regard to major modification is in general conformance to the criteria requirements [3). The Licensee's approach to fatigue analysis of SRV piping as clarified in response to questions 11.2 to 11.4 of Appendix B indicates conformity with the approach recommended by the Mark 1 Owners Group, which is subject to NRC approval.

The Licensee's analysis of torus attached piping will be audited at a later date and the findings will be included in a supplementary technical evaluation report.

U00 Franklin Research Center 4 % w w n no m.

-. _ . . . . _ _ . _ - - - - - . . -.~ - . . . ,

TER-C5506-30 9

4. REFERENCES ,

t

1. NUREG-0661

" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment 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 Center, Philadelphia, PA June 1982, TER-C5506-308

3. NEDO-24583-1 i

" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co. , San Jose, CA October 1979

4. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 7.

! Plant Unique Analysis Report, Volumes 1-5 Prepared by NUTBCH Engineers, Inc.

April 1982 t

l S. H. Tauber (Detroit Edison) l Draf t copy of letter to B. J. Youngblood (Division of Licensing, USNRC)

I Letter identification EF2-59, 222, and attachments

6. NEDC-23702-P

" Mark I Containment Program Seismic Slosh Evaluation" March 1978

7. NUREG-0484, Revision 1

" Methodology for Combining Dynamic Responses"

! USNRC May 1980 ,

8. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1

" Nuclear Power Plant Components" .

New York: 1977 Edition and Addenda up to Summer 1977

9. NEDO-21888 Revision 2 l " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" I

General Electric Co. , San ' Jose, CA November 1981 I

nklin Research Center A Dhamon of The Frenidn insuue

a%p APPENDIX A AUDIT DETAILS l

1 A 3 Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin institute The Beniarrun Frankhn Parkway. PNia., Pa. 19103(215)448 1000

TER-C5506-309

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

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 column indicating " Additional 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 uses o A susmary 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, the specific reasons for noncompliance will be given.

o where the Licensee's response to the request for additional information provided satisfactory evidence for compliance with the criteria, an appropriate remark is made and the original audit finding

, is provided only for the sake of completeness.

A DMoon of The Fransen inoesuee

l NRC Contract N::. NRC-03-81 130 pa .

D' kiin a: arch center u00Er:n FRC Proi.ct N3.Cssos FRC Assigrement No.9 A DMen of The Frankhn Institute 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 191031215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 3o4 2 Plant Name FERMI WNff" 2.

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of MarkiContainment Long-Term Program c; l Criteria ucensee uses Section Keyitems Considered Addtl. Alternate Approach No. [2] in the Audit Not info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Consor. Unconser-yative vative 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) muct be considered in the reviews o Tbrus shell with associ- V ated penetrations, reinforcing rings, and support attachments o Tbrus shell supports to V

~

the containment structure o Vents between the drywell V and the vent ring header (including penetrationa therein) o Region of drywell local V to vent penetrations t

o Bellows between vents and Y l

torus shell (internal or external to torus) o Vent ring header and the V downcomers attached to it o Vent ring header supports /

to the torus -

o vacuum breaker valves y M T'o BE attached to vent penetra- Aupf 7ED tions within the torus uygg (where applicable) o Vacuum breaker piping #

systems, including vacuum breaker valves attached to torus shell penetra-

% lu Fr:nklin R: search C:nter NRC Contract N3. NRC43-81 130 FRC Project Nr.C5506 Page A DvWon of The Frankhn Instituu FRC Assignment No. 9 20th and Race Streets. Phde.. Pa. 19103(215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. 309 3 Plant Name FER Nf f U Nf T2 Tabl32-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark i Containment Long-Term Program Criteria Licensee Uses section Keyitems Conaldered Addtl. Alternate Approach N .[2] In the Audit Not Info. NA Remarks et Met Reqd. Consor. Unconser-vative vative 1.2 (Cont.)

tions and to vent penetrations external to the torus (where applicable) o Piping systems, including 4

• TO E pumps and valves internal AUDs T ED to the torus, attached to LATER the torus shell and/or vent penetrations o All main steam system safety relief valve

/

(SRV) pipingf fINCLUDES O Applicable portions of # SUPPORTS the following piping systenar

- Active containment system piping systems (e.g., emergency core cooling system (ECCS) and other piping required to l maintain core cooling af ter loss-cf-coolant accident (UJCA) )

- Piping systems which provide a drywell-to-

,. wetwell pressure dif-forential (to alleviate pool swell effects) .

- Other piping systems, including vent drains o Supports of piping systems e mentioned in previous item o vent header deflectors V including associated ha rdwart:

NRCContractN2 NRC43-81130 00 ' r:nklin R:se:rch Ccnter FRC Project No. C5506 Page A DMuon of The Franklin Instnute FRO Assignment No.9 20th and Race Streets. Phda . Pa. 19103 0 Q 4481000 FRC Task No. 309 WERMS UMtY 2, &

Plant Name Table 2-1. Au,dit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark 1 Containment Long-Term Program 1

Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl. Alternate Approach No.12) Not Info. NA Remarks l Met Met Reqd. Consor.

Unconser-y give 1.2 (Cont.)

o Internal structural V l elements (e.g. , monorails, catwalks, their supports) whose failure might impair the containment function

a. 'Ihe structural V 1.3~

acceptance criteria for existing Mark I containment systems are contained in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASMC) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code,Section III, Division 1 (1977 Edition) , with addenda through the Summer 1977 Addenda (3) to be referred herein as the Code. 'Ihe alternatives to this criteria provided in Reference 2 are also acceptable.

b. When complete appli-cation of the criteria (itez 1.3a) results in hardships or unustal difficulties witho2t a compensa-ting increase in level of quality and safety, other structural acceptance criteria may be used after approval by the N.1 clear Regulatory Cosmaission.

4 I

-f -vom

NRC Contract N2. NRC-03-81-130 00 Fr:nk!!n R:se:rch Ccnter FRC Project N2.C5506 Page A DMsion of The FrankhnInstitute FRC Assignment No.9 20th and Race Streets. Phala.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 3og Plant Name pg RM a UNI T 2.

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

Criteria Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Addtl. Alternate Approach N212} e udit Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Consor. Unconser-vative vative 2.1 a. ggE Lf cen420d Identify the code or other classification

/ sact. cpm 44, 8'd of the structural element 233 CF m ia f d o d

b. Prepare specific g . AP-dimensional boundary NN definition for the 4 specific Mark I contain-ment systems (Note:

Welds connecting piping to a nozzle are piping welds, not Class MC welds) 2.2 Guidelines for classification of structural elements and boundary definition are as follows:

(k fer to Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 for non -piping and piping structural elements, respectively, and to item 5 in this table for row designations used for defining limits of boundaries)

$gg .L t CC,%tt $

a. Tbrus shell (Bow 1) -

The terus membrane SECT.

3

%em 8d in combination with o - '^ 'd reinforcing rings, , A P-penetration elements MNDN within the NE-3334 (3] A limit of reinforce-ment normal to the torus shell, and attachment welds to the inner or outer surface.of the above members but not to nozzles, is a Class MC (3) vessel.

NRC Contract N3. NRC-03-81-130 fll00hr:nklin R seirch Center FRC Project Nr.C5506 Pag]

A D:vason cf N Fr nklin Incut FRC Assignm:nt ND.9 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 3c9 g Plant Name FER&fiUNIT2.

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Criteria Licensee Uses Section KeyitemsConsider d Addtl. Alternate Approach Nr.[2] Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)

b. 'Ibrus shell supports V (Row 1) - Subsection NP

[3] support structures between the torus shell and the building structure, exclusive of the attachment welds to the torus shell; 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 V vent-to-torus bellows (aow 1) 'Ihe external vents (between the l attachment weld to the I

drywell and the attachment weld to the bellows) including:

vent penetrations within the NE-3334 [3]

limit of reinforcement normal to the vent, internal or external attachment welds to the external vent but not -

to nozzles, and the vent-to-torus bellcws (including attachment welds to the torus shell and to the external vents) are Class MC [3] vessels.

NRG ?.ontract No. NRC-03-81-130 00 r:nk!!n R: search C;nter FRC Project No.C5506 Page A DMsion of The Frankhn Institute FRC Assignment No. 9 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 309 7 Plant Name FEstMI UNIT 2 Tabl321. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark i Containment Long Term Program Section Criteria t icensee Uses Keyitems Considered Addtl. Alternate Approach NP.[2] Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)

d. Drywell-vent connection V region (Row 1) - Vent welded connections to the drywell (the drywell and the drywell region of interest for this program is up to the NE-3334 [3] limit of reinfcrcement on the drywell shell) are Class MC [3] vessels.

e. Internal vents (Rows 2 V and 3) - Are the continuation of the vents internal to the torus shell from the vent-bellows welds and includes the cylindrical shell, the closure head, penetrations in the cylindrical shell or closure head within the NE-3334 [3] limit of reinforcement normal to the vent, and attachment welds to inner or outer surface of the vent but not to nozzles,

f. Vent ring header (Hows V 4 and 5) and downcomers (Row 6) - Vent ring -

header including the downcomers and internal or external attachment welds to the ring header and the attachment welds to the downconers are Class MC (3] vessels.

I

I NRC Contract N ?. NRC-03-81-130 Obhr:nklin Research C:nter FRC Project Nr.C6506 Page A thvmon of The Franklin Institute FRC Assignment Nr.9 20th and Race Streets. Phda . Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. p g Plant Name PERMS U NI T 2.

Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of MarkiContainment Long-Term Program I

Criteria Licensee Uses Section Keyitems ConsiderM Addtl. Alternate Approach N;.[2] Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Consor. Unconser-vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)

- The portion of the V downconer within the NE-3334 [3] 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 How 5.

g. Vent ring header V 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;

% Tomu5 ATTACHac >

h. Essential (Hows f PIP:N(, To B E 10 and 11) and Auoeren LATER-l non-essential (Hows 12 and 13) piping systems - A piping p S R v P I P I N Cr system or a portion g ,(S TE M H A 6 of it is essential BEEN TREATED if the system is AS ESSENTIA L necessary to assure l

the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, +

the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a shutdown condition, or the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of

... ~ . .

NRC Contract No. NRC4341-130 00 Fr:nklin Rese:rch Ccnter FRC Project N3. C5506 Page A Divwon of The Frankhninstnute FRC Assignment No.9 20th and Race Streets. Phde.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.

Plant Name 3oq paarMs uses T 2.

g Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl. Alternate Approach No. [2] In the Audit Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Consor Unconser-votive vative 2.2 (Cont. )

accidents which could result in potential off site exposures comparable to the guideline exposure of 10CFR100 [4]. Piping should be considered essential if it performs a safety-related role at a later time during the event combination being considered or during any subsequent event M TORUS ATTACHED combination. p, p,g

i. Active and inactive M To SE component (Rows AU DI T ED 10-13) - Active LATER component is a pump or valve in an essential piping system which is required to perform a mechanical motion during the course of accomplishing a system safety function.

j. Containment vacuum M breakers (Row 2) -

Vacuum breakers valves mounted on the vent internal to the torus or on piping associated with the torus are Class 2 [3] ccaponents.

-- --- - - - _ - - - - -- -- - - - - -A

NRC Contract N;. NRC-0341-130 f.u00h' r:nklin Research C:nter FRC Project N r. C5506 FRC Assignment No.9 Page A Duson of The Frankhn insiirus.

20th and Race Streers. Phila . Pa 19103 (215) 44810m FRC Task No. 309 IO Plant Name pr a k M I U NI T 2.

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark iContainment Long-Term Program Criteria Licensee Uses Section Keyltems Considered Addtl. Alternate Approach N2.[2] Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Heqd. Consor. Unconser-vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)

k. External piping and E supports (aows 10-13): # ToRuas ATTACHED

- No Class 1 piping PI PIN (r To 85.

Auperse LATER

- Piping external to N and penetrating the torus or the external vents, including the attachment weld to the torus or vent nozzle is Class 2 [3] piping. 'Ih e other terminal end of such external piping should be determined based on its function and isolation capability.

- Subsection NF [3]

support for such estternal 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.

1. Internal piping and V supports (aows 10-13) - Are Class 2 or Class 3 piping and Class 2 or Class 3 component supports.

m. Int.:rnal structures V (aow 8) - Non-safety-related elements which are not pressure retaining, exclusive of attachment welds to any pressure retaining

NRC Contract No. NRC4H1 130

@U U"U

. Fr:nklin Research Center FRC Project No. C6808 Pa03 A DMWon of The Frankhn Instnute FRC Assignment No. 9 20th and Race Streets. Phde. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 3c9 ,g Plant Name suaaMi UN97 2 Tabl]2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark 1 Containment Long-Term Program Section Criteria Licensee Uses Keyitema Considered Addtl. Alternate Approach No. [2] in the Audit Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vative votive 2.2 (Cont.)

member (e.g. ,

monorails. ladders, catwalks, and their supports) .

n. Vent deflectors (Bow 9) V

- Vent header flow deflectors and associated hardware (not including attachment welds to Class MC vessels) are internal s tructure s.

3.2 Load turninology used V should be based on Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the unit or the Icad Definition Report (LDR) [5]. In casa of '

conflict, the LDR loads shall be used.

3.3 Consideration of all load V SEE I'N ' #Y~

combinations defined in SET.

2.M b *W*hof"bj Section 3 of the LDR [5]

shall be provided.

h 4.3 a.

PENDet y No reevaluation for A

• limits set for design pressure and design temperature values is needed for present structural elements.

b. Design limit V requirements used for initial construction following normal practice with respect to load definition and allowable stress shall be used for systems or

NRC Contract N2. NRC43-81-130 00hr:nklin R: search Center FRC Project No.C5506 Page A DMsnon of The Frank!6n Instnute FRC Assignment ND.9 20th and Race Streets. Phda . Pa. 19103(215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. 309 l2 Plant Name FW8tMI UNeT 1 Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl. Alternate Approach N3.[2] in the Audit Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vative Vative 4.3 (Cont.)

portions of systems that are replaced and for new systems.

4.4 Service Limits and See definition Design Procedures shall for Service be based on the Limits in B&PV Code,Section III, Section 4 of Division 1 including Reference 2.

addenda up to Summer 1977 Addenda [3], specifically:

a. Class MC V containment vessels: Article NE-3000 [3]

b. Linear-type component (Class 2 and 3) support -

with three modifications to the Codes

- For bolted connections, the h @ THERE IS NO I N D f f.AT I O N CP requirements of A N Y B o bT E (>

Service Limits A don N EcTioN and B shall be applied to Service Limits C and D without increase in the allowables above those applicable to Service Ievels A and B;

- NF-3231.1 (a) @

[3] is for primary plus secondary stress ranger

NRC Contract No. NRC43-81-130 M'

UUUU Fr:nklin R:se:rch Ccnter FRC ProjectN .C5606 Page A DNimon of The Frankhn institute FRC Assignment No.9 20th and Race Streets. Phda . Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 309 I3 Plant Name su a at M g u e s y 2, Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Criteria Addtl. Ucensee Uses Section Keyltems noldered Alternate Approach No. [2] Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conse gg Unconser-yogiy,

@ Q TMEDr.E D $ NC

- All increases in a w pe c AT s oN CF allowable stress ANy SoLTED permitted by Subsection CONN EC T I ON NF [3] are limited by Appendix XVII-2110(b)

[3] when buckling is a consideration.

M. Tc,stus ATTACNED

c. Class 2 and 3 piping, PA PIN G To BE pumps, valves, and AuDITE D LAT E R.

internal structures (also Class MC) 5.3 The components, component y f Alst LoADIN6 oN loadings, and service level Tha Toftus 15 assignments for Class MC NE(ELECTED

[3] components and internal SINCE .S R V A N O structures shall be as Ploot swgLL defined in Table 5-1 of EVENTS Am.E Reference 2. ACsgMao Te 5.4 The components, component y loadings, and service level assignments for Class 2 and Class 3 piping systems shall be defined in Table 5-2 of Reference 2.

5.5 The definition of operability is the ability to perform required mechanical motion and functionality is the ability to pass rated flow.

a. Active components M shall be proven operable. Active components shall be considered operable if Service Limits A or B or more conservative limits (if the original design criteria required it) are met.

NRC Contract NO. NRC-03-81-130 00hrinkhn R:se:rch Ccnter FRC Project N2. C5506 Page A Dumon of The FrenkN Instrue, FRC Assignment N2.9 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103(215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. 309 g4 Plant Name FERMI UNIT 2 Table 21. Audit l'iocedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Criteria Licensee Uses Sedicn Keyltems Considered Addtl. Alternate Approach rv3. [2] Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser. Unconser- '

vative vative 5.5 (Cont.)

y M Towus ArrAenED

b. Piping components shall PlP'IN G To SE be proven functional in a manner consistent AuoirED LATER 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. ggay Qw

a. All loadings defined in V ger kSeed'YT Section 3.3 SE(J.

subsection 3.2 of 232 of this table.

Reference 2 shall be 'F considered. .A g, Ed f

b. A nummary technical M-report on the analysis shall be submitted to the NRC.

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

, analyzed: ,

SEE l'-I"*#'E# 'C $b

a. Perform analysis V SEcr. l'a 3,.J:i $ d eg according to goudeline 2 3.z defined herein for all CF loads defined in LDR W8 d'

[5). (Pbr loads N* A considered in original -

design, but not redefined by LDR, previous analyses or new analyses may be used.)

gg 1. h.ca4af, Quvv4-

b. Cnly limiting load V #E#* "

combination events need 2 2 be considered. APn +

084 A 1 W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

A NRC Contr:ct Ns. NRC-03-81-130 .

dbanklin Research Center FRC Pr: Ject No. C5506 p g3 ',

A DMoon of U.e Frankl6n Instnute FRC Asilgnm:nt No. 9 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRCTask No. 309 g9 y d Plant Name PER vi l U NI T 2. . ..

Tcbla 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Contaloment Long-Term Program ,.

i Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl. Alt nate App oach No.[2] In the Audit Not Info. NA Remarks ,

Met Met Reqd. Consen Unconser-  ;.. g .

vative vative t,icen M F4hd

• 6.2 (Cont.) SEE a Mi. p op  ;.

S M' 222 ,o y ect- b, NstC. ( ~_

c. Fatigue effects of all g 4 gg, .,

operational cycles shall be considered. g p, 6c es's M d --

ArrEn V y,-

d. No further evaluation D8A A ~

of structural elements s~ .:

for which combined ,

effec', of loads defined "

in LDR. [5] produces g; L. ?

stresses less than 10%

Me of allowable is required. Calculations g'.%.*

demons trating . ,'

conformance with the .,

10% rule shall be '

provided. ,,

.+

a. Damping values used in V .

dynamic analyses shall i.

be in accordance with . dp NRC Regulatory Guide - '

l.61 [6]. .. , Q}

6.3 Structural responses for .-

loads resulting from the ~,,

combination of two dynamic  :*.

phenomena shall be obtained

• in the following manners ~..

a. Absolute sum of stress 6EE / ,-licen M Q M ,~h'

;,j.

components, or .AP-g;43, PENDIA , . 3

b. Cumulative distribution A -l*

function method if g/ Suc,T. ..,; ..

absolute sum of stress 228 .g components does not ' "

satisfy the acceptance  ;,; * .

i criteria. -

6.4 ibrus analysis shall  : . .; [.j consist of: e. .' j

" .g_ ~

Ei ;i.

qJ 4; ,,

k .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

s NRC Contract N r. NRC-03-81 2 s-00 rink!!n R:se:rch C nter FRC Project N2. C5506 Page A Dimen of The l'rankhn Institute FRC Assignment N 2. 9 20th and Race streets. Phila-. Pa 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. 309 ;g Plant Name FER Nt i UM E T 2.

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criterla of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Criteria Addtl. t.lconsee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Alternate Approach No.[2] he Audit Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser- '

vative vative 6.4 (Cont.)

, sus

a. Finite element analysis SEcn for hydrodynamic loads 242 (time history analysis) AnD and normal and other 2. l. 6 loads (static analysis) #F making up the load AppEN-combinations shall be 08x-4 performed for the most highly. loaded segmept of the torus, including the shell, ring, girders, and support.

E y Lice + ' r*>>o "

b. Evaluation of overall E y y, g ogj ,j effects of seismic and 2 11 2.I 3 other nonsymmetric ap 4gp loads shall be provided AP- 2 l'4 using beam models (of #Deu 0F at least 180* of the A APPD torus including columns -bl%

and seismic restraints) A by use of either dynamic load factors or i

time history analysis. , ,

I y 1_ic e% M **

c. Provide a non-linear . SEE SECI*

g yspoy time history analysis, using a spring mass 2' model of torus and gg support if net tensile forces are produced in Dix A '

columns due to upward phase of loading.

d. Bijlaard formulas shall W g. To nus AT TACH ED be used in analyzing PlPIN 6 To BE each torus nozzle for AuoeTEo LATER effect of reactions produced by attached piping. If Bijlaard formulas ese not

NRC Contract N 3. NRC-03-81-130 00 rink!!n R: search Ccnter FRC Project N2. C5506 Page A Dimw>n of The Frankhn Ins:itute FRC Assignment No. 9 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 3081 g7 Plant Name perR MI UNIT 2.

Tabla 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long Tem Program Criteria Licensee Uses Section Keyitems na ord Addtl. Alternate Approach No. [2] Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vative vative 6.4 (Cont.)

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

6.5 In analysis of the vent system (including vent penetration in drywell, vent pipes, ring header, downcomers and their intersecticas, vent column supports, vent-torus bellows, vacuum breaker penetration, and the vent deflectors) , the following guidelines shall be followed:

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

b. Finite element analysis V shall be performed to evaluate local effects in the ring header shell and downcomer intersections. Use time history analysis for pool swell transient and equivalent static analysis for downcomer lateral loads.

a

I NRC Contract N3. NRC-03-81-130 i Ob FrInklin R:seirch C:nter FRC Project N . C5506 Page A Division of The Franklin Instnute FRC Assignment No. 9 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. 309 g Plant Name fram.v11 UNI T" 2 Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program l

Ucensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl. Alternate Approach N;.[2] Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vative vative 6.5 (Cont.)

l

c. Evaluation of overall  !

effects o2 seismic and other nonsymmetrical loads shall be provided using beam models (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.

/ VENT' bE'FLECTOR.

d. Use beam models in IS itect.UDED IN THE analysis of vent oVERALL MoDEL.

deflectors.

e. Consider appropriate superposition of reactions from the vent deflectors and ring headers in evaluating the vent support columns for pool swell.

6.6 a. Analysis of torus internals shall include the catwalks with supports, menorails, and miscellaneous internal piping.

b. It shall be based on # ~

hand Lalculations or simple beam models and dynamic load factors and equivale.*.t static analysis.

NRC Cont /act No. NRCM-81-130 p'Fr:nklin UUUU R:se:rch Ccnter FRC Project N2.C5506 Page A Divtcon of The Frankhn Institute FRC Assignment No.9 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 309 lq Plant Name FERMI IJNIT 2 Tabl]2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark 1 Containment Long Term Program Criteria Addtl. Licensee uses Section Keyitems Considered Alternate Approach N3.[2] the Audit Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser-yetive G1conser-vative 6.6 (Cont.)

c. It shall consider @ @ MeNA,a of Service Lwel D or E when =pecified by the 8 0{ ' .

structural acceptance H W f V8 f, criteria using a simplified nonlinear e%con not ems'om id 4; cit tcI.

te bt, 8QDdd unalysis technique (e.g. , Bigg 's Me thod) .

6.7 Analysis of the torus attached piping shall be performed as follows:

EToRug ATTACHED

a. Designate in the Pi PIN (r To BE summary technical AupiTED i ATER 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 anchor (or where effect of torus motion is inaignificant) .

c. Use response spectrum

• or time history analysis for dynamic effect of torus motion at the attachment point, except for piping systems less than 6" in diameter, for which equivalent static analysis (using appropriate amplification factor) tuy be performed.

NRC Contract N J. NRC-03-81-130

'00 rrnklin R:se:rch Ccnter FRC Project No. C5506 Page A Divisen of The Frankhn Institute FRC Asaignment Nr. 9  !

20th and Race Streets Phda.. Pa. 19:03 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. 309 g I

Plant Neme F'E'Rrd8 UNET 2.

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

Criteila Licensee Uses Section Keyltems Considerg Addtl. Alternate Approach N2. [2] Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Consor. Unconser-vative vative 6.7 (cont.)

yD MTACHEP 4

d. Ef fect of anchor PlPING 70 B E displacement due to Auoe rgo LATER.

torus motion may be neglected from Equation 9 of NC or ND-3652.2 [3]

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

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

a. Analyze each discharge / SEE b8ht" .

linas. SECT

• 2.z.I tni ~hr"*ks

'k "d8'a 2 2 1,

b. Model shall represent To piping and supports, Z.2 6 -

2 2. ry,2,2 (,

from nozzle at main Anp eeuJ 2 3 1 steam line to discharge in suppression pool, 231 Lia% @ad and include discharge device and its supports.

OF p 6 MMgp"; 9 p,g A .,

A Os.[ s d o)

c. For discharge thrust 44'd h NRC loads, use time history analysis.

ghd g h I

dourie. Abpad

d. Use spectrum analysis /

or dynamic load factors for other dynamic loads.

l l

1

1 NRC Contract N3. NRC-0341-130 p,g 3 1 FRC Project N3. C5506 00J Fr nklin R: search Center Assignment No.9

. A DM 6on of1he Franklin Insutute ,

j 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa.19103 (215) 448-1000 P N W WW 2 Table 2-2. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program I

)

Re IENnts Analysis Requirements Structural Element . I oIS Remarks 9

II-3,i 3i si i.

al

==

f3 3g s.

i 00E a3 43 zo< <a ww 2 m z

'1brus shell with associated y V V V '

2.

penetrations, reinforcing f

Actad,strus yp g A ssegu,,

rings, and support .

3;,

cttachments y / / V / / IBA E W IBA E

b. V Torus shell supports to

/ Q'M iw 'TMk-the building structure y / Z-2 2-12 [7]

c. Vents between the drywell 2. . [M SkShd and the vent ring header \ Allmd /

(including penetrationa 4 g ggg,y

, y / V W W D B A H & u.A.

d. Region of drywell local to ak TO vent penetrations 2 -2

• 2 - 12. [ 7 ]

/ V / l l

9. Bellows between vents and V torus shell (internal or external to torus) j ggg

f. Vent ring header and the [U*

• downcomers 4.ttached to it for DB A I y Y l l SBA E

g. Vent ring header supports . .

to the torus shell T4La. 2-2,2-12(7]

h. Vacuum breaker valves 4 # y. * * * *

• attached to vent penetra-tions within the torus (where applicable)

1. Vacuum breaker piping 4 * * * * * * * $ ^

systems, including vacuum p i N No. To M breaker valves attached Aunirgo LATfER to torus shell pen **'ations and to vent penetu ans external to the (where applicab.

j. Piping syste- ding M- k * * *

• 4 4 pumps and 5 c :nal to the tor.t. to the torus sh vent penetrations

NRC Contract N c. NRC-03-81-130 Pago i FRC Project N2.C5506 nklin Research Ccnter Assign ent M. 9 A DivWon of The Frankhn Institute as o.

20th and Race Streets. Phlia.. Pa.19103 (215) 4481000 FERMI LJ N i T 7. I Table 2-2. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark i Containment Long-Term Program I

l Re Nnts Analysis Requirements StructuralElement [ oIS Remarks 13q

. 2 si ]$o<i u.<an. = 1Hi

?! 215g =!

00E a1 23 wm 0m. a

k. All main steam system safety / V V h b" "' '"

relief valve (SRV) piping denuic Apprud to be $ rove.I,

1. Applicable portions of the by b NR.C-following piping systems (1) Active containment 4- 4 .,w .*

4 4 4 system piping systems (e.g. , emergency core cooling system (ECCS) suction piping and other piping required to maintain core cooling after loss-of-coolant accident (IDCA))

Piping systems which + -* * * * * * *

(2) provide a drywell-to-J l wetwell pressure dif-ferential (to alleviate pool swell effects)

(3) Other piping systems, -4 # # + + * *

• including vent drains E. Supports of piping systems *. * * *- + # *

• mentioned in previous item

/ v V V V

n. Vent header deflectors / V V including associated hardware y / V V V h

o. Internal structural / / 4.;fAcLO Akstst 7*h elements (e.g. , monorails, 4 Allg dda. }

catwalks, their supports) whose failure might impair fw dwak the containment function verkad 6%

For bBA 25 4AL TA4. -2 7- 2 WT [73-

TER-C5506-309 Table 2-3. Non-Piping Structural Elements STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ItOW External Class MC Torus, Bellows, 1 Externt.1 Vent Pipe, Drywell (at Vent) ,

Attachment Welds, Torus Supports, Seismic Restraints Internals Vent Pipe General and 2 Kttachment Welds At Penetration 3 (e.g. , Header)

Vent Ring Header General and 4 Attachment Welds At Penetrations 5 (e.g. , Downcomers)

Downconers General and 6 Attachment Welds Internals Supports 7 Internals Structures General 8 Vent Deflector 9 1

nklin Research Center A DMe on of The Franun ineutuee

l TER-C5506-309 l

Table 2-4. Piping Structural Elements l

STFOCTURAL ELEMENT ROW Essential Piping Systems With IBA/DBA 10 ,

With SBA 11 Nonessential Piping Systems With IBA/DBA 12 With SBA 13 5

A UO0hranklin Research Center A DMuon of The Franhan be

I TER-C5596-309

2. AUD7.T FINDINGS A detailed presentation of the aud!.t for Fermi Unit 2 and a summary are provided, respectively, in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, which contain information with-regard to several key items outlined in the audit procedure [8]. The following sections indicate the areas that required justification for I noncompliance with the criteria and/or additional information necessary to indicate if the criteria are met. The Licensee was required to provide information required in the questions for each of the items. Based on the Licensee's responses, it is concluded that the Licensee's analysis conforms to the requirements of the criteria with regard to the key items audited except for fatigue ant. lysis of SRV piping where the generic approach used by the Licensee is satisfactory subject to the NRC approval.

2.1 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER 2.1 1. The PUA report [7] does not indicate compliance with the criteria requirement that a beam model representing at least 180' of the torus, columns, and seismic restraints should be analyzed to consider the effect of seismic and other lateral loads. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

2.1.2 Proper justification is not provided to indicate the applicability of test results based on which only 20% of the total mass of water is assumed to contribute to lateral seismic loads in the suppression chamber. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

2.1.3 Proper justification is not provided for the modal correction factors given in Sections 1-4.2.3 and 2-2.4.1 of the PUA report [7] which are used to convert forced vibration response to free vibration response.

(The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

2.1.4 In the analysis for the suppression chamber support columns, the effect of bending moments has not been included, and there is no indication of any interaction formula used. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

, 2.1.5 Although not tensile forces are indicated in the columns (Table 2-2.5-2 of Reference 7) , there is no indication that the Licensee performed a nonlinear time history analysis as required by the criteria. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

A UO0hranklin Research Center A DMeson of The Frenten insature

TER-C5506-309 l

2.1.6 The PUA report [7] indicates on page 2-2-94 that the allowable stresses in the suppression chamber components and the vertical support system are based on a 173*F temperature as compared to 100*F temperature for the vertical support system baseplate. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

2.2 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE (SRV) PIPING ANALYSIS .

2.2.1 Section 5-2.2.3 of the PUA report [7] indicates that the peak responses resulting from safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and IOCA loads are combined using the square root of a sum of the squares (SRSS) technique, which does not conform to the criteria requirement that the responses should be combined using the absolute sua method or the cumulative distribution function method. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

2.2.2 The fatigue evaluation given in Section 5-2.4.3 of the PUA report [7] is based.on Mark 1's fatigue equation, which is less conservative than the fatigue curve given in Figure XIV-1221.3(c)-1 of the ASMB Boiler and i

Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code (Section III Division I, Appendix XIV [3,j g

for the range of cycles less than 2 x 10 . (This concern is resolved subject to the NRC approval of the generic approach.)

2.2.3 The PUA report [7] indicates (page 5-2.103) that the alternating stress due to dynamic loads is combined with stresses due 'to dead weight thermal loads and pressure loads using an equation similar to equation '

11 of ASMB B&PV Code, Cection III, Subsection NC [3]. The actual method of combining the stresses is not indicated. (This concern is resolved subject to the NRC approval of the generic approach.) -

2.2.4 The PUA report [7] provided the maximum stress cycle factors (R) used for the SRV piping under different loads without explaining how these factors were obtained. (This concern is resolved subject to the NRC '

approval of the generic approach.)

2.2.5 The PUA report [7] does not provide the values for the dynamic load factors used in calculating the SRV discharge loads shown in Tables 5-3.2-1 to 5-3.2-3. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

2.2.6 The PUA report (7] does not indicate the results of analysis of bolted or welded connections associated with the SRV piping. (The Licensee's .

response has resolved this concern.)

2.3 GENERAL 2.3.l~ The PUA report [7] indicates that additional fluid masses are lumped along the length of the ring beam and quencher beam (page 2-2.103) and nklin Research Center A Dhamon of The Frenen Insecute

.- - + -_ _--_ . - - _ - . . _ , ._. _ - . ~ . _ . - . . - .. ., ... .. - , - - . . _ . - . . - .- _ . , . . , ,

/

TER-C5506-309 submerged lengths of the SRV piping, T-quencher, and supports (page 5-3.49) without providing the details of or justification for the method of lumping the mass of fluid. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

- 1 2.3.2 Table 1-4.3-1 of the PUA report [7] indicates that several loads required to be considered by NUREG-0661 [1] are not included in the

- analysis as shown in Table 1. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

2.3.3 Section 4-2.5 of the PUA report [7] dealing with internal structures does not present all the information necessary to demonstrate code compliance. In particular, it is not clear that weld stresses at the points of attachment of major components to the torus shell were investigated according to code requirements. (The Licensee's response hac resolved this concern.)

2.3.4 Tables 2-2.5-3 and 2-2.5-7 of the PGA report [7] indicate that calculated stresses are very close'to the allowables with regard to the torus shell. Similarly, Table 3-2.5-6 of the PUA report indicates that the calculated stresses in the weld are very close to the allowables, and Table 4-2.5-1 indicates that calculated stresses for the catwalk vertical hanger support are very close to the allowables. Although this does not signify any deviation from the criteria [2], this discussion is included as a matter of precaution.

4

+

TER-C5506-309

3. REFERENCES

1. NUREG-0661

" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Office of Nuclear Beactor Regulation USNBC

• July 1980 2

2. NEDO-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 III, Division 1

" Nuclear Power Plant Components"

• New York: 1977 Edition and Addenda up to Summer 1977

4. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

5. NEDO-21888 Revision 2

" Mark I containment Program Load Definition Report" i General Electric Co., San Jose, CA November 1981

6. NRC "Dasping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants" October 1973 Regulatory Guide 1.61

7. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report, Volumes 1-5 Prepared by NUTECH Engineers, Inc.

April 1982

8. Technical Evaluation Report Audit Procedure for Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Structural Analysis Franklin Research Center, Philadelphia, PA June 1982, TER-C5506-308

• l l

l 000llgigarchgter

APPENDIX B ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION l

i i

4

_ _ 0J Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamir. Frankhn Parkway. Phila Pa. 19103 (215)448-1000

I I

TER-C5506-309 l

1. ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION  !

Question 2.1.1 With regard to suppression chamber analysis, provide (NRC No.10.1) justification for not analyzing a 180* beam segment including the torus, columns, and seismic restraints as required by the criteria (1, 2] for considering the effect of seismic and other lateral loads. Also, discuss the implications of this approach with regard to stresses in the supression chamber in the region surrounding the support columns.

Question 2.1.2 With regard to the assumption that only 20% of the total mass (NBC No. 10.2) of water in the suppression chamber contributes to lateral seismic loads, provide justification to indicate the applicability of the tests cited in the PUA report [3] to support this assumption.

Question 2.1.3 a. Provide detailed calculations to indicate how the modal (NRC No. 10.3) correction factors given in Sections 1-4.2.3 and 2-2.4.1 of the PUA report [3] are obtained.

b. Provide justification for the applicability of these f actors to 'multidegree-of-freedom' systems since the factors were developed using simple 'one-degree-of-freedom' systems.

Question 2.1.4 Provide justification for not considering the effect of (NRC No. 10.4) bending moments in column analysis.

Question 2.1.5 with regard to the suppression chamber columns, provide (NRC No.10,5) justification and/or additional information to indicate why a nonlinear time history analysis was not performed as required by the criteria when not tensile forces are produced in the columns. Table 2-2.5-2 of Reference 3 indicates that not tensile forces are produced in the columns.

Question 2.1.6 Provide justification for using two different temperatures, (NRC No.10.6) 173*F for suppression chamber and vertical support system and 100*F for the base plate of the support system, for calculating the respective allowable strasses.

Question 2.2.1 Provide justification for using SRSS method to combine the SSE (NRC No.11.1) and I4CA responses for SRV piping analysis instead of the absolute sum or cumulative distribution function approaches as required by the criteria [1, 2] .

000 Franklin Research Center A Osweeson of The Frenten Insetwee

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . ______._ , _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ , _ ~ _ , _____ , _ _ , _ , -_ .. . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . ,

1 TER-C5506-309 Question 2.2.2 Provide justification for using Markl's equation for fatigue (NBC No. 11. 2) analysis of SRV piping instead of the fatigue curve given in Figure XIV-1221.3(c)-1 of the ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Division 1, Appendix XIV [4].

Question 2.2.3 Provide justification for not using Equation 11 of ASME B&PV (NBC No.11.3)' Code,Section III, Subsection NB [4] for calculating the fatigue stresses, and explain the method used. -

Question 2.2.4 Provide justification and reference for the maximum stress (NRC No.11.4) cycle factors given in Table 5-2.4-4 of the PUA report [3].

Question 2.2.5 Provide the magnitudes of the dynamic load factors used in (NRC No.11.5) Tables 5-3.2-1 to 5-3.2-3 of the PUA report [3] and the justification.

Question 2.2.6 Provide the results of the analysis of bolted or welded (NRC No.11.6) connections associated with the SRV piping.

Question 2.3.1 Provide justification for the method of lumping additional (NRC No.12.1) fluid masses along the ringbeam, quencher beam (page 2-2.103 of Reference 3) , submerged length of SRV piping, T-quencher, and supports (page 5-3.49 of Beference 3) as indicated in the PUA report.

Question 2.3.2 Provide justification for not considering the loads indicated (NRC No. 12. 2) in Table 1 which are required in the analysis according to NUREG-0661 (5].

Question 2.3.3 Provide information on the analysis of the attachmont welds of (NRC No.12.3) regions connecting the internal structures to the torus shell, indicating whether the criteria recr irements have been satisfied.

l l

l 6

l l

l l

l p branklin Research Center A Chanson of The Frankan hechae

NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 p,g3 FRC Project No.C5506 0 Fr.nklin R: search Ccnter

_ ,,n,-.

20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000

yg ";";f 3 p gg Tcble 1. Structural Loading (from Reference 6) other wetwell Interior Structures Structures E I E

$ 5 b 5

y 3

ggj g 3 E E Loads

:  : z g

5 j i 3

j E so

=El

<a l..i l2$)al],

o _

1. Containment Pressure and Temperature X X X X X X X X X

2. Vent System Thrust Loads X X X

3. PoolSwell 3.1 Torus NotVertical Loads 3.2 Torus Shell Pressure Histories

@ Ox X X 3.3 Vent System impact and Drag X X X 3.4 Impact and Drag on Other Structures X X 3.5 FrothImpingement

, ,3.6 Pool Fallback

@ @ X X X X 3.7 LOCAJet X X 3.8 LOCA Eubble Drag

4. Condensation Oscillation X @ X 4.1 TorusShellLoads X X 4.2 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 TorusShellLoads X X 5.2 Loads on Submerged Structures X X X 5.3 Lateral Loads on Downcomers X 5.4 Vent System Loads

6. T-Quencher Loads @ X 6.1 Olscharge Line Clearing X 6.2 TorusShellPressures X X 6.4 Jet Loads on Submerged Structures X X X X 6.5 Air Bubble Drag 6.6 Thrust Loads on T-Quencher Arms h h h 6.7 S/RVDL EnvironmentalTemperature

7. Ramshead Loads 7.1 Discharge Line Clearing 7.2 TorusShellPressures X @ ,

{ -

7.4 Jet Loads on Submerged Structures -

f~' T 'X i X 7.5 Air Bubble Drag 1 7.6 SIRVDLEnvironmentalTemperature 7

T I

Loads required by NUREG-0061(1] and included in PUA report.

Loads required by NU REG-0661[1] and not included in PU A report.

b Notapplicable.

l TER-C5506-309

2. REFERENCES

1. NEDO-24583-1

" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique .

Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co. , San Jose, CA October 1979 -

2. Technical Evaluation Report ,

Audit Procedure for Mark I Containment Long-Term Program - Structural Analysis, 1 Franklin Research Center, Philadelphia, PA June 1982, TER-C5506-308

3. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report, Volumes 1-5 l

Prepared by NUTECH Engineers, Inc.

April 1982

4. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1 "Nucitrar Power Plant Crm.ponents" New York: 1977 Edition and Addenda up to Summer 1977

5. NUREG-0661

" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program, Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation USNRC July 1980 l

6. NEDO-21888 Revision 2

" Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" General Electric Co. , San Jose, CA '

l November 1981 O

AN 000hranklin Research Center A DMaan of The Freren insature

- - , . , . . -