ML20054C429

Summary of 820311 Meeting W/Util & Nutech Re Discussion of Planned Containment Plant Unique Analysis,Analysis of Torus Attached Piping & Info for NRC Development of Audit Review Procedure

ML20054C429
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	03/22/1982
From:	Kintner L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8204210046
Download: ML20054C429 (26)

Text

.

_r

.o iA g

D D V,E n p.

,9 NhR 2 21982 T

MAR g U I98%~L n

E'@y k

f,-

Docket !!o.: 50-341 6

-~

APPLICANT: Detroit Edison Company FACILITY:

Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No. 2

SUMMARY

OF !!ARCil 11, 1982 ffEETIt:G REGARDING ttARK I CONTAIHf!ENT AMALYSES On March 11, 1982 the staff met with representatives of Detroit Edison and HUTECII to discuss the planned containnent plant unique analysis (PUA) and' the analysis of torus-attached pining (TAP). The purpose of the meeting was to obtain information for the staff's development of an audit review procedure for these analyses. The nectino attendees are identified in Enclosure 1.

The meeting agenda and copies of view-graphs presented during the necting are contained in Enclosure 2.

The table of contents of the PUA is given in Enclosure 3.

fir. R. Kohrs (NUTECH) presented the planned schedule, outline, and basis for the PUA report. The PUA report, to be submitted by 11ay 1,1982, will address the najor nodifications which include the torus, vent systen, internal struc-tures and safety relief valve (SRV) discharge lines. A scoping interin analysis for the torus-attached piping (TAP) will be subnitted by August 1,1982 and the TAP final report will be submitted prior to return to power following the first refueling outage. The PUA for major modifications will be divided into five volunes. Enclosure 3 contains both a general and detailed outline.

of the contents of each volune in the report.

The flRC project manager, L. Kintner, said he had understood that the analysis of torus-attached ciping to be subnitted August 1,1982 would be the final analysis (SER, Page 3-18). However, the scoping analysis outlined in Enclosure 2, pages R and 9 nay be satisfactory for fuel loading and interin operation (scheduled for Povenber 1982), provided it acceptably supports a finding that there is reasonable assurance such interin operations can be carried out without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. A date for subnission of the TAP final analysis should be earlier than the first refueling outage to allow time for review and should therefore be based on a reasonable time period to complete the analysis.

The staff indicated that the scoping analysis of torus-attached piping to support short term plant operation should address the following areas; (1) those f. elected torus-attached piping systens to be evaluated mist be shown to bound all other, torus-attached piping systens, (2) the loading conbinations resulting in the highest stresses nust be shown to result in a Safety Factor of 2 against any failure node and (3) piping support yielding nust be accounted u-l

- gg51oo45,gggggi

~*

PDR ADOCK PDR sunmainc k

-- ~~---

- - - - - - ~ ~ -

--~~~--

Of.TE )

...u..

.g..................

NRC FORM 318 0480) NRCM Cao OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usam mi-.mm i

)

l Detroit Edison Company MAR 2 21962 1

The staff said that for the final analysis of torus-attached piping, the use of ASME Code Level D stress limits for all postulated loading conditions on piping and supports (as indicated on Pace 9 of Enclosure 2) is questionabic.

For loading conditions caused by an DBC or safety relief valve operation, Level B stress linits should be used because these events are expected to occur nuch more frequently than an SSE or LOCA.

The status of the plant unique analysis (PUA) report was also discussed with the intent of detemining if a draf t copy of sono or all of the volunes could be obtained to aid the staff in developing the audit review procedure prior to fornal submitta'i of the report. The staff said that it would be difficult for our contractors to complete the review in the scheduled six weeks if the audit review procedure could not be developed prior to fornal submittal of the report on Fay 1, 1982.

L. Schuernan of Detroit Edison stated that the draft report would probably not be sufficiently co picte and approved for transmittal until shortly before submittal to tRC and that they are reluctant l

to provide unapproved draft copies to the staff. Detroit Edison and HUTECH invited the staff and its contractors, Drookhaven and Franklin, to HUTECH's offices in San Jose, California to review the written portions of the PUA.

However, since the last three volune; were only approxinately 50% complete 4

it did not seem feasibic at this time.

l.

The staff will consider coing to San Jose to use available portions of the draf t report in April 1982 if the draft is sufficiently conplete at that time J

to warrant the trip.

' Original Signed By:

l Lester L. Kintner I

L. L. Kintner, Project Manager Licensing Branch flo.1 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ enc!s.: See next page t

1 4

_ bk f) /

s,.

DL:LB#1

/

DL: $V

@,J,(3...

,. g........

ornce, sua - >..LL Ki,n,,,,,, /,,

, r

,,,1,9,9,d, t r 3/22/82 3/i 82 om>

NHC FORM M OOQRCM Om OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usa u,n-mm

i Mr. karry' Tauber

'Vice President Engineering & Construction Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 cc:

Mr. Harry H. Voigt, Esq.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

20036 Peter A. Marquardt, Esq.

Co-Counsel The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. William J. Farner Project Manager - Fermi 2 The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. Larry E. Schuerman Detroit Edison Company 3331 West Big Beaver Road Troy, Michigan '48084 David E. Howell, Esq.

3239 Woodward Avenue Berkley, Michigan 48072 Mr. Bruce Little U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Dr. Wayne Jens Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. James G. Keppler Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

. ~

Fermi Meeting on PVA March 11, 1982 NRC Staff Franklin Research Center Byron Siegel William A. Segraves Keith Wichman John Lane Singh Bajwa Detroit Edison David Terao Lester Kintner Al Lim -

L. E. Schuerman BNL Staff NUTECH John D. Ranlet George Maise N. W. Edwards D. K. McWilliams R. H. Kohas Multiple Dynamics Corporation D. F. Lehnert

9 vm i

n l

f c

p i-i 1

t i

1 P

J 1

l.

Deco FERMI-2 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS I

i I

1 t

1-i i

I.

I I

I i

l' I

I i

I l

i f

i J

?

l NRC MEETING i

BETHESDA, MD l

MARCH 11, 1982 RHK-1 e-y----w-----w---

m or

>,w n,,

,,wv__

..w+,-m

._,.,--~%.--...-----~~,-.-.,.-.-.,--.--mm-.

.e.-~r

l..

MEETING AGENDA TIME TOPIC 1300 INTRODUCTION SCHUERMAN i

1315 CONTAINMENT REEVALUATION OVERVIEW KOHRS II 1330

.PUA TECHNICAL CONTENT KOHRS REPORT OUTLINE (HANDOUT)

ANALYTICAL APPROACH 1400 TAP Sc0 PING ANALYSIS MCWILLIAMS I

1415 MEETING CLOSURE SCHUERMAN l

l Il i

s RHK-2 MM

FERMI-2 PUA E.EPORT BASIS CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS OF IMPROVED CONTAINMENT 9

GENE'IC BASIS FOR LOAD SPECS AND STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE CR e

LDR PUAAG NUREG 0661 EVALUATE CRITERI A ON PLANT UNIQUE BASIS, USING TEST DATA 9

AND ANALYSIS e

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF TORUS VENT SYSTEM INTERNAL STRUCTURES SRV LINES.

DOCUMENT RESULTS TO NRC (PUA) 5/1/82 e

e TAP SCOPING ANALYSIS 8/1/82 TAP FINAL REPORT - PRIOR TO RETURN TO POWER /lST REFUELING OU l

e o

RHK-3 gg

PUA REPORT FRAMEWORK VOLUME I GENERAL CRITERIA AND HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS METHODOLOGY l

VOLUME II SUPPRESSION CHAMBER VOLUME.III VENT SYSTEM i

VOLUME IV INTERNAL STRUCTURES VOLUME V SRV PIFING ANALYSIS RHK-4 nutech

PUA VOLUME I - TABLE OF CONIENIS (ABBREV _lA[H).

(GENERAL CRITERIA AND LOADS METHODOLOGY)

SECTIONS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SCOPE OF ANALYSIS GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CONTAINMENT SYSTEM REVIEW OF HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS PHENOMENA 2.0 PLANT UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS PLANT CONFIGURATION OPERATING PARAMETERS 3.0 PLANT UNIQUE CRITERIA HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 4.0 HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY LOCA-RELATED LOADS POOL SWELL CONDENSATION OSCILLATION CHUGGING i

SRV DISCHARGE LOADS l

EVENT SEQUENCE l

i l

l RHK-5 nutech

~-~

PUA VOLUME 111 - TABLE OF CONTENTS ( ABBREVI ATED)

(VENT SYSTEM STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS)

SECTION 1.0

SUMMARY

SCOPE AND CONCLUSIONS 2.0 VENT SYSTEM AND SUPPORTS COMPONENT DESCRIPTION LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA METHOD OF ANALYSIS 1800 BEAM MODEL 1/16 SEGMENT BEAM MODEL VENT LINE-VENT HEADER INTERSECTION FEM DC/ VENT HEADER INTERSECTION FEM VENT LINE-DRYWELL PENETRATION FEM ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

SUMMARY

OF RESPONSES AND STRESSES FATIGUE ANALYSIS 3.0 SRV DISCHARGE PIPING VENT LINE PENETRATION RHK-6 nutech

ANALYTICAL APPROACH e

UTILIZE LOADS FROM MARK I LOAD DEFINITION REPORT (LDR) e COMPLY WITH NRC MARK I PROGRAM ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (NUREG-0661) e SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF APPROACH INCLUDE:

COUPLED FLUID-STRUCTURE MODELS FOR HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE METHOD FOR SRV LOAD ASSESSMENT BY IN-PLANT TEST STATISTICAL BASIS FOR C0 AND POST-CHUG ANALYSIS USE OF PUBLISHED ACCELERATION DRAG VOLUMES TO DETERMINE DRAG LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES FSI EFFECTS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES ACCOUNTS FOR SPECIFIC POOL LOCATIONS USE OF CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS IN ANALYSIS RHK-7 nutech

TAP SCOPING ANALYSIS

?

OBJECTIVE e

DEMONSTRATE MARGINS OF SAFETY DEFINE NATURE OF MODIFICATIONS EXPECTED e

e SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM l

SCOPE OF WORK I

ANALYZE REPRESENTATIVE TORUS ATTACHED PIPING e

l SYSTEMS

\\

COMPARE RESULTS TO ACCEPTABLE SAFETY LIMITS o

EXAMINE STRESS LEVELS TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL e

MODIFICATIONS 1

RHK-8 MM l

TAP SCOPING ANALYSIS SAFETY LIMITS e

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS DEMONSTRATE, SAFETY FACTOR OF 2 AGAINST FAILURE CONSISTENT WITH MARK I SHORT TERM PROGRAM APPLICATION OF LDR DESIGN LOADING CONDITIONS AND COMBINATIONS INSTEAD OF MOST PROBABLE RIGOROUS ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES USED e

SAFETY LIMIT FOR PIPING AND SUPPORTS STRESSES FOR ALL POSTULATED LOADING CONDITIONS WITHIN SERVICE LEVEL D LIMITS e

SAFETY LIMITS FOR TORUS PENETRATIONS STRESSES FOR ALL POSTULATED LOADING CONDITIONS WITHIN SERVICE LEVEL C LIMITS RHK-9 nutech

MEETING

SUMMARY

- FERMI-2 Pila a

FERMI-2 PUA TO NRC 5/1/82 e

PUA IN FIVE VOLUMES (OUTLINE SUPPLIED)

I CRITERIA AND LOADS II TORUS III VENT SYSTEM

]

IV INTERNAL STRUCTURES V

SRV DISCHARGE LINES e

ANALYTICAL APPROACH REVIEWED e

TAP SCOPING ANALYSIS 8/1/82 l

i RHK-10 nutech

y

\\

l l

ENRICO FERMI-2 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT jj TABLE OF CONTENTS l

nutech mm - 300 3/11/82

PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

\\

=

l

\\

VOLUME I GENERAL CRITERIA AND LOADS METHODOIDGY VOLUME II SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS VOLUME III VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS VOLUME IV INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS VOLUME V SRV PIPING ANALYSIS e

O

,.,,.,y-

-.-.--,-4

-.y-.,y-----.r-w ew-'---- - -- --

~+-e--a-r e-

PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 GENERAL CRITERIA AND LOADS METHODOLOGY ABSTRACT LIST OF ACRONYMNS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope of Analysis 1.2 General Description of the containment

~

System 1.3 Review of Phenomena 1.3.1 LOCA-Related Phenomena 1.3.2 SRV Discharge Phenomena 2.0 PLANT UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS j

2.1 Plant Configuration and Operating Parameters 2.1.1 Torus 2.1.2 Vent System 2.1.3 Internal Structures 2.1.4 Piping 3.0 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS CRITERIA 3.1 Hydrodynamic Loads:

NRC Acceptance Criteria 3.1.1 LOCA-Related Loads 3.1.2 SRV Discharge Loads 3.1.3 Other Considerations

PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 (Continued) 3.2 Component Analysis:

Structural Acceptance Criteria and Amendments 3.2.1 Classification of Components 3.2.2 Service Level Assignments 3.2.3 Other Considerations 4.0 HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY AND EVENT SEQUENCE

SUMMARY

4.1 LOCA-Related Loads 4.1.1 Containment Pressure and Temperature

Response

4.1.2 Vent System Discharge Loads 4.1.3 Pool Swell Loads on the Torus Shell 4.1.4 Pool Swell Loads on Elevated Structure 4.1.4.1 Impact and Drag Loads on Vent System 4.1.4.2 Impact and Drag Loads on Other Structures 4.1.4.3 Pool Swell Froth Impingement Loads 4.1.4.4 Pool Fallback Loads 4.1.5 LOCA Waterjet Submerged Structure Loads 4.1.6 LOCA Bubble-Induced Submerged Structure Loads 4.1.7 Condensation Oscillation Loads 4.1.7.1 Torus Shell Loads 4.1.7.2 Downcomer and Vent System Loads 4.1.7.3 Submerged Structure Loads 4.1.8 Chugging Loads 4.1.8.1 Torus Shell Loads 4.1.8.2 Downcomer Lateral Loads' 4.1.8.3 Submerged Structure Loads 4.2 Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads 4.2.1 SRV Actuation Cases 4.2.2 SRV Discharge Line Clearing Loads 4.2.3 Torus Shell Loads 4.2.4 Submerged Structure Loads l

1 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 (Continued) 4.3 Event Sequence l

j 4.3.1 Design Basis Accident 4.3.2 Intermediate Break Accident 4.3.3 Small Break Accident l

)

LIST OF REFERENCES i

i

PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF ACRONYMS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

1.1 Scope of Analysis 1.2 Summary and Conclusions 2.0 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS 2.1 Component Description 2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 2.2.1 Loads 2.2.2 Load Combinations 2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 2.4 Method of Analysis 2.4.1 Analysis of Major Loads 2.4.2 Unbalanced Lateral Loads Analysis 2.4.3 Evaluation of Analysis Results 2.5 Analysis Results 2.5.1 Discussion of Analysis Results 2.5.2 Closure LIST OF REFERENCES

PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 3

VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS ABSTRACT LIST OF ACRONYMS LIST OF FIGURES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

1.1 Scope of Analysis 1.2 Summary and Conclusions 2.0 VENT SYSTEM AND SUPPORTS 2.1 Component Description 2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 2.4 Method of Analysis 2.4.1 180 Beam Model Analysis 2.4.2 1/16 Segment Beam Model Analysis l

2.4.3 Vent Line - Vent Header Intersection Finite Element Model Analysis 2.4.4 Downcomer - Vent Header Intersectior Finite Element Model Analysis 2.4.5 Vent Line-Drywell Penetration Finite Difference Model Analysis 2.4.6 Vent Line Bellows Analysis 2.5 Analysis Results l

l 2.5.1 Summary of Responses and Stresses 2.5.2 Fatigue Analysis Summary

PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 3

(Continued) 3.0 SRV DISCHARGE PIPING VENT LINE PENETRATION 3.1 Component Description 3.2 Loads and Load Combinations 3.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 3.4 Methods of Analysis 3.5 Analysis Results 3.5.1 Summary of Responses and Stresses 3.5.2 Fatigue Analysis Summary LIST OF REFERENCES

PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 4 INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS ABSTRACT LIST OF ACRONYMS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

1.1 Scope of Analysis 1.2 Summary and Conclusions 2.0 CATWALK 2.1 Component Description 2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 2.4 Methods of Analysis 2.5 Analysis Results 3.0 MONORAIL 3.1 Component Description 3.2 Loads atd Load Combinations 3.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 3.4 Methods of Analysis 3.5 Analysis Results 4.0 THERfCCOUPLES AND VACUUM BREAKER CONDUIT 4.1 Component Description 4.2 Loads and Load Combinations

PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 4

(Continued) 4.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 4.4 Method of Analysis 4.5 Analysis Results LIST OF REFERENCES 4

-,--r_.-----w,

-.,~,,, ~, -, e -,

--~----,.......,---_r--

-.-._,4

-,..--,.--__.----,.7,.,

,----,..-----4.,

- ~

PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 5 SRV PIPING ANALYSIS ABSTRACT LIST OF ACRONYMS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

1.1 Scope of Analysis 1.2 Summary and Conclusions 2.0 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING AND QUENCHER 2.1 Component Description 2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 2.4 Methods of Analysis 2.5 Analysis Results 2.5. 1 Summary of Responses and Stresses 2.5.2 Fatigue Analysis Summary 3.0 T-QUENCHER 3.1 Component Description 3.2 Loads and Load Combinations 3.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 3.4 Methods of Analysis 3.5 Analysis Results 3.5.1 Summary of Responses and Stresses 3.5.2 Fatigue Analysis Summary LIST OF REFERENCES

MAR 2 21982 MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION

- Docket File G. Lear NRC PDR W. Johnston Local PDR

5. Pawlicki TIC /NSIC/ Tera V. Benaroya ACRS.(16).

Z. Rosztoczy LB#1 Reading W. Haass H. Denton/E. Case D. Muller R. Ballard D. Eisenhut/M. Jambor W. Regan R. Mattson B. J. Youngblood H. Thompson A. Schwencer F..Congel F. Miraglia

0. Parr J. Miller F. Rosa G. Lainas W. Butler

~

R. Vollmer J. P. Knight R. Houston R. Bosnak F. Schauer L. Rubenstein R. E. Jackson T. Speis Project Manager L. L. Kintner M. Srinivasan Attorney, OELD J. Stolz M. Rushbrook S. Hanauer 0IE W. Gammill W. Minners

>~

F. Schroeder E. Adensam D. Skovholt A. Lee M. Ernst NRC Perticipants:

L. Hulman C. BerHnger B. Siegel K. Kniel K. Wichman G. Knighton J. Lane A. Thadani S. Bajwa D. Terao L. Kintner D. Ziemann, bcc:

Applicant & Service List

.