ML20080E264
| ML20080E264 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1983 |
| From: | Subramonian N FRANKLIN INSTITUTE |
| To: | Shaw H NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079F168 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 TAC-07944, TAC-7944, TER-C5-506-319, TER-C5506-319, NUDOCS 8309010227 | |
| Download: ML20080E264 (50) | |
Text
r 1
1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT AUDIT FOR MARK I CONTAINMENT LONG-TERM PROGRAM - STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FOR OPERATING REACTORS i
i GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION N RC CCCK ET NO.30-219 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO. 07944
- C ASSIGNMENT 12 j
NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81-130 FRC TASK 319 Prepared by Franklin Research Center Author:
N. Subra=onian, A. K. Le 20th and Race Streets Philadelphia. PA 19103 FRC Grouc Leader:
N. Subraronian Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wasnington, D.C. 20555 Lead NPC Engine 9--
- u.. Shw August 30, 1983 This report was preoarec as an account of work sponscrer2 by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agericy thereof, or 3ry of their employees. makes any warranty. expressed or i=0!'90, Or :::'.: 00 2.-/ ?: :l ':::: t, r
responsibility for any third carty's use. or the results O'su " use. C' :q ~'~ attn. :::2-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report. or represents that its use oy such third party would not infnnge privately owned rights.
XA Copy Has Been Sent to PDR l
2'2 6 9 C / C D dp '?
bNb Franklin Research Center 90th and Race Streets. Phi!a. Pa. 19103 l2T. 445-1CC0 l
l
~
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT a
AUDIT FOR MARK i CONTAINMENT LONG-TERM PROGRAM - STRUCTURAL
- ANALYSIS FOR OPERATING REACTORS GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION NRC DOCKET NO. 50-219 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO. 07944 FRC ASSIGNMENT 12 NRC CONTRACT NO. N RC-03-81 130 FRC TASK 319 Prepared by l
Franklin Research Centcr Author:
N. Subramonian, A. K. Le 20th and Race Streets Philadelphia. PA 19103 FRC Group Leader:
N. Subramonian Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer:
H. Shaw August 30, 1983 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 employees, makes Tny warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liacility 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 infringo privately owned rights.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
N M 4 <*--oal'
/cwtcb~/
((
Principai Au' hor Project Manager liepartment Dirftor (/
Date: 6 30*83 Date:
g 3o, g3 Date:
P-
-93 4
Franklin Research Center 20th and Race Streets. Phila., Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000
3-
=,
TER-C5506-319 CONTENTS Section Title Page 1
INTRODUCTION 1
2 AUDIT FINDINGS.
2 3
CONCLUSIONS.
10 4
REFERENCES.
11 APPENDIX A - AUDIT DETAILS APPENDIX B - ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION i
I l
iii O
b0 Franklin Research Center A w at7% re.nen
. ~ ~ - - -
l TER-C5506-319 FOREWORD 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 NBC operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established my the NRC. Contributions to this audit were also made by M. Darwish and T.
Stilwell of the Franklin Research Center.
i A-y MJ Franklin Research Center Awamrm m
~
i 1
o TER-C5506-319 1.
INTRODUCTION The capability of the boiling water reactor (3WR) Mark I containment suppression chamber to withstand hydrodynamic loads was not considered in the original design of the structures.
The resolution of this issue was divided into a short-term program and a long-term program.
Based on the results of the short-term program, which verified that each Mark I containment would maintain its integrity and functional capability when subjected to the loads induced by a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), the NRC staff granted an exemption relating to the structural factor of safety requirements of 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 acceptance criteria censistent wic. :n_ :2quirements of the applicable codes and standards.
The objective of this report is to present the results of an audit of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station plant-unique analysis (PUA) report with regard to structural analysis. The audit was performed using a moderately detailed audit procedure developed earlier [2] and attached to this report as Appendix A.
The key items of the audit procedure are obtained from the " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" (3), which meets the criteria of Reference 1.
_nklin Resea_rch Center
~
l
TER-C55U 6-319 2.
AUDIT FINDINGS A detailed presentation of the audit for the Oyster Creek plant is provided in Appendix A, which contains information with regard to several key items outlined in the audit procedure [2].
Be. sed on this detailed audit, it was concluded that certain items in the Oyster Creek PGA reports [4, 5]
indicated noncompliance with the requirements of the criteria [3] and several aspects of the analysis required further information. The Licensee was therefore 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.
The Licensee responded [6] to all the items contained in the request for additional information (Appendix B). Af ter an initial review of these responses, a meeting was held with the Licensee to clarify certain aspects of Reference 6.
A brief review of the Licensee's responses [6, 7] and clarifica-tions obtained during the meeting with the Licensee is provided below.
Request Item 1 In response to this item, the Licensee provided a brief summary of the analysis for vacuum breaker valves. The Licensee analyzed the vacuum breaker valves in accordance with ASME Class 2 rules as required by the criteria [3].
To ensure operability, these valves were required to meet the Level 5 stress limits in compliance with the criteria [3]. The calculated stresses for the most limating load combination were well below the criteria allowables. The Licensee's approach to vacuum breaker modifications for performance under accident conditions has not been reviewed in this audit because this aspect is not addressed in the criteria [3]. However, this aspect will be reviewed separately by the NRC as a part of the Mark I Long-Term-Program.
The Licensee's response is technically adequate.
l l
_nklin Rese_ arch _ Center
TER-C5506-319 Request Item 2 In response to this item, the Licensee indicated the locations and limiting load combinations of the piping supports designated as S1, S2, S3, and SS in Reference 4.
The Licensee intends to inspect these supports during the current refueling outage in order to determine whether the as-built configurations of these supports and connections provide sufficient safety margin to withstand the calculated limiting loads. During the meeting with the Licensee on July 14, 1933, the Licensee indicated that the extent of overload (as compared to the original design load) in supports S1, S2, S3, and SS will depend upon the actual attachments used, and their design adequacy will be verified during the proposed inspection. Modification of the attachments will be completed (if required) before startup. The Licensee's' approach is satisfactory and meets the intent of the critecia (3]. The Licensee's response to this item is technically adequate subject to confirmation of the design adequacy of tne as-built configurations of supports S1, S2, S3, and S5.
Request Item 3 In response to this item, the Licensee stated that the connections to the main steam lines were analyzed using Class 2 rules in accordance with paragraph NB-3630 (d) (2) of Section III of the ASME Code, which permits Class 2 rules to be used pr ovided certain criteria are met.
The Licensee's analysis meets these criteria and is in compliance with the requirements of Reference 3.
For a limiting load combination, the calculated stresses for these connections exceeded the allowables by 64.
However, there is sufficient conservatism in the Licensee's analytical approach, and hence the intents of the criteria (3] are met in spite of the slight overstresc. The Licensee's approach is technically adequate.
Request Item 4 In response to this item, the Licensee provided the rationale for determining six of the load combinations from Reference 3 to be the limiting load combinations. These are briefly stated as follows:
l O dOJ Franklin Research Center
% as m remen m.
TER-C5506-319
\\
1.
Criteria allowables are identical for Service Level A and Service Level B for ASME Class MC components.
2.
A combination of events results in a more severe stress state than any subset of the specified event combination. This is a valid assumption since most of the events in the combination are characterized by large dynamic responses which are combined on a worst-casa basis to create a maximum total dynamic r6aponse.
3.
The safe shutdown earthquake (SCE) results in more severe stresses than does the operating basis earthquake (OBE). Thirefore, considering SSE in a load combination is more severe than considering OBE.
4.
SRV discharge loads mechanistically cannot occur during design-basis accident condensation oscillation and chugging.
l The Licensee's rationale for determining the limiting loading combinations is technically adequate.
Request Item 5 In response to this item, the Licensee indicated that there are two safety relief valve discharge lines at the Oyster Creek plant, which are designated as the north header and the south header, respectively. Because a scoping *nalysis indicated that the limiting stresses for the south header are more revere than the limiting stresses for the north header, the south header was fully analyzed. These results were conservatively applied to the north header because the wetwell and vent line runs and supports of both these lines are identical. The Licensee's analysis is conservative and meets the intent of the criteria [3].
i Request Item 6 In response to this item, the Licensee confirmed that all loads required by the criteria [3] have been considered in the analysis. The Licensee's response is satisfactory.
l 1
l
_4_
A l
UCIFrankHn Research Center A oem.an s N reinen insenee j
TER-C5506-319 Request Item 7 In this response, the Licensee provided more details on the coupled torus /
vent system model. The component mode synthesis method was used to generate this model. Because the vent header columns transfer only axial force between the vent system and torus and the columna lie in the symmetry plane of the torus miter joint for the 1/40 segment torus model, it is possible to treat the vent system characceristics as a substructure to the tc.us model by using one-half of the vent system modal properties in the coupled model. Although the vent system will contain nonsymmetric modes with respect to the citer Joint, the vent header support calumns will transfer only vertical or symmetric forces between the two systems. Vent system modal mass, modal stiffness, and modal support reaction terms are generated using a 1/20 segment beam model of the vent system, and half of their respective values are added to the torus physical model. The coupled model has 135 generalized vent system degrees of freedom. The Licensee verified the accuracy of this approach by comparing the displacements, which were obtained using the coupled model and uncoupled torus and vent system models, at several vent system degrees of freedom for a hydrostatically distributed pressure on the torus shell.
The Licensee's response resolved the concern regarding the coupled torus / vent system model.
Request Item 8 In response to this item, the Licensee indicated that a summary of the torus analysis for safety relief valve loads on the ring girders will be documented in a supplementary PUA report to be provided shortly. During the meeting on July 14, 1983, the Licensee presented the analytical approach incorporated in the supplementary PUA report submitted on August 9,1983. The Licensee's response to this item resolved the concerns and is technically adequate.
i Request Item 9 In response to this item, the Licensee provided a summary of the buckling analysis of the torus which was performed in accordance with the rules of ASFE Code,Section III, paragraph NE-3133.
Maximum compressive circumferential -.~_e Res_earch Laboratory,Inc..
nun Institut
TER-C5506-319 membrane stress was evaluated according to the rules of paragraph NE-3133.3 for cylinders under external pressure. Also, maximum axial compressive membrane stress was evaluated according to the rules of paragraph NE-3133.6 for cylinders under axial ccmpression. The allowable compressive circumf erential membrane stress was calculated for the lower half of a typical 1/20 segment of the shell considering the mid-cay saddle as a stiffening ring per the rules of paragraph NE-3133.5 of the ASME Code,Section III. The limiting compressive stresses in the circumferential and axial directions were lees thc.n the respective allowables. Hence, the Licensee's analysis is technically adequate and conforms to the criteria requirements.
Request Item 10 In response to this item, the Licensee indicated that recctions due to nonsymmetric loads were calculated using equivalent static analysis methods which cor.Jervatively accounted for dynamic amplification effects.
Seismic analyses were performed using the methods employed in the original plant design. The Licensee has also stated that the 19-Hz natural frequency referred to in Section 4.6.2.1 of Reference 4 is the natural frequency which responds most to oscillating SRV pressure load on the lower half of the torus and that this frequency was not used for the evaluation of the nonsymmetric SRV loads. The Licensee's response indicates that, although a 180' beam segment of the torus was not analyzed to determine the effects of seismic and other nonsymmetric loads, the Licensee's approach is conservative and meets the intent of the criteria [3].
Request Item 11 In this response, the Licensee indicated that a 360' beam analysis of the vent system was performed to determine the effect of seismic and nonsymmetric loeds. The solution obtained was based on equivalent static analysis and considered the reaction forces and moments at several locations along the vent line, vent header, and vent header support columns. The Licensee's approach is technically adequate and meets the intents of the criteria [3}. d%
MJ Franklin Research Center
% ae w n.un m n
TER-C5506-319 Request item 12 In response to this item, the Licensee indicated that a summary of the analysis including fatigue analysis with regard to the nozzles in the vent system for the SRV piping penetrations wil? be presented in a supplementary PUA report to be submitted shortly. During the meeting with the Licensee on July 14,1983, the Licensee presented the analytical approach incorporated in the supplementary PUA report submitted on August 9,1983.
The Licensee's response is technically adequate.
Request Item 13 In this response, the Licensee indicated that special features were incorporated into the gusset elements of the axisymmetric model of the vent line/drywell intersection in order to account for the fact that the gussets are not axisymmetric. This was accomplished by using a nominally low value of modulus of elasticity (1 psi) in the meridional direction to simulate the negligibla stiffness of the gussets in this direction. The Licensee's approach is technically adequate.
Request Item 14 In this response, the Licensee explained the procedure used to calculate the response spectra for the steady-state condensation oscillation and chugging loads.
Since the condensation oscillation and chugging loads and the response to these loads are defined in terms of harmonic components and the response of a single-degree-of-freedom oscillator in the frequency domain is well known, Fourier analysis techniques can be used to obtain the steady-state response spectrum directly. The Licensee's approach is technically adequate.
Request Item G1 In this response, the Licensee indicated that for load cases 14, 15, 20, and 27 of Table 6.0-1 in Reference 5, separate parametric combinations that considered first the condensation oscillation and then the chugging loads were prepared. The parametric combination that resulted in the worst stress was &b Frenidin Insecute.K tsearch Laboratory. Inc.,
a sm e n re.
'dumum==mu U
TER-C5506-319 then used as the final result for that combination. The Licensee's approach is conservative and technically adequate.
Request Item G2 In this response, the Licensee provided specific information on the conservatisms in the analytical approach which are judged to be sufficient to offset the overstressing at the locations discussed belows o There was a 7% overstress in the vent line/ vent header intersection compared to the criteria allowable. However, an exception can be made because the Licensee conservatively added the maximum stress intensities at this intersection due to internal pressure and beam load effects using absolute summation.
o There were varying degrees of overstress at certain locations of the torus-attached piping. However, an exception can be made because of the following conservatisms in the analysis:
a.
The Licensee used absolute summation for combining responses even in situations where the square root of the sum of the ;quares combination is accepted by the NRC.
b.
All response spectrum dynamic loads were peak-broadened +10%.
c.
Scoping analyses of typical piping have shown that the response spectrum method (use d by the Licensee) provides up to 30% higher stress than time-history analysis.
During the meeting with the Licensee on July 14, 1983, the Licensee outlined the conservatisms in the analysis of the drywell pressure transducer, where the criteria allowables were exceeded by 15%.
Since the Licensee's analysis is conservative and since this component is nonessential, the intent of the criteria has been met. To summarize, exceptions can be made for the overstressing of certain locations in the vent system and the torus-attached piping based on conservatisms in the Licensee's analytical techniques and method of cocbining dynamic responses. The Licensee's response resolved the concerns with regard to this item.
Request Items G3 through G6 i
In response to these items, the Licensee indicated that work is in I
progress to design and fabricate new or replacement piping supports for the I l Om bd i'ranklin Resear.ch Center ao m
.e n. n.a. a ma u.
a I
TER-C5506-319 systems listed above. During the meeting with the Licensee on July 14, 1983, it was indicated that these modifications will be completed before the startup. The Licensee's approach with regard to these items is technically adequate subject to the completion of these modifications before startup.
Request Item G7 In response to this item, the Licensee confirmed that the provisions indicated in the footnote on page 58 of the ASME Code, Subsection NE-3221.5 have been applied in the Oyster Creek fatigue analysis. When cycles occurred sequentially, checks were made to ensure that the correct overall stress range was utilized as per the above ASME Code provisions. The Licensee's response is satisfactory.
i 1
l l
l l
I M ubtij Franklin Research Center a % w n. n.n a m.
.~
TER-C5506-319 3.
CONCLUSIONS From the audit of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station plant-unique analysis reports, it was concluded earlier that certain aspects required additional information. The Licensee's response [6, 7] to the request for additional information and clarifications obtained during a meeting with the Licensee indicate that the Licensee's structural analyses with regard to major modifications and torus-attached piping are in general conformance to the criteria requirements [3]. The Licensee's approach to fatigue analysis of piping conforms to the approach recommended by the Mark I Cwners Group, whien has been accepted by the NFC.
The evaluation criteria of the containment vacuum breaker valves are not addressed in Reference 3 and are therefore outside the scope of this -fER; however, this issue will still be examined as a part of the Mark I Long-Term Program.
7 A b0 Franklin Research Center 4 m.on e Th. rm m
TER-C5506-319 4.
REFERENCES 1.
" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Of fice 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.
" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA October 1979 4.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Plant Unique Analysis Report, Suppression Chamber and Vent System, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program MPR-733 General Public Utilities Nuclear August 1982 5.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Plant Unique Analysis Report, Torus Attached Piping, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program MP R-734 General Public Utilities Nuclear August 1982 6.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Responses to a Request for Information from the Franklin Research Center concerning the Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Plant-Unique Analysis Reports General Public Utilities Nuclear May 1983 7.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station l
Plant Unique Analysis Supplemental Report MP R-772 General Public Utilities Nuclear l
July 1983 i
1 As
!iO0hranklin Research Center A C* season of The Fransdwilrunesuse
APPENDIX A AUDIT DETAILS i
i O
. Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The fenprnin Frankhn Parmway, Phda. Pa 19103 (2151448 1000
~ -...
TER-C5506-319 1.
INTRODUCTION The key items used to evaluate the Licensee'a 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 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 cequirement 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 summary of the audit as detailed in Table 2-1 is provided in Table 2-2, highlighting major concerns. When deviations are identified, reference to appropriate notes are listed in Table 2-1.
o Notes will be used extensively in both tables under the various columns when the actual audits are conducted, to provide a reference that explains the reasons behind the decision. Where the criterion is satisfied, a check mark will be used to indicate compliance.
o when a particular requirement is not met, 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.
l l
l fs%
UM Franklin Research Center i
l w ame r uman me l
Os NRC Contract N r. NRC-03-81-130 d
ranklin R:se:rch Canter FRC Project N3. C5506
[,
A Olvmon of The Franklin Insatura FRC Assignment N2.
/O 20th and Race Serests. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000
- FRC Task No.
.3, J Pfant Name O i.:.~~.c
- <2s.~.
2 Table 21. Auc* ?rocedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark 1 Containrr.ent Long-Term Program Ucensee Uses Section Key items Considered Criterta Addtl.
Alternate Approach No. (2)
Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 1.2 All atructural elements of the vent system and suppres-sion chamber must be considered in the review.
The following pressure retaining elements (and their supports) must be considered in the reviews o Tbrus shell with associ-v' ated penetrations, reinforcing rings, and support attachments o Tbrus shell supports to g
w t e.,mf rup.
the containment structure
.IE5 i-c.U s fa ders h ore I
'O o Vents, between the drywell
/
and the vent ring header (including penetratior.s therein) o Ragion of drywell local V
7-k"*
to vent penetrations
,Geh d
i$
o Bellows between vents and v'
g torus shell (internal or external to torus)
~
o Vent ring header and the v
downcomers attached to it o Vent ring header supports v'
to the torus
"*' b ""**
o Vacuum breaker valves v
attached to vent penetra-J54 E * ~ " M *fd tions within the torus W erE (where applicable) c Vacuum breaker piping systems, including vacuum breaker valves attached to torus shell penetra-
Ing-b-NRC Contract N3. NRC 03-81 130 Ui.U Frank!!n P.:se rch Ccnter FRC Project N3. C5506 p g)
A Dwsaon of The FranW.n Instituo FRC Asaignment N3.
20th and Race Streets. Phdt. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
2,.'
3 Plant Name i. '. ~f, ;.,e F 0. *.
cbla 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program i
Licensee Uses tion Keyitems Considered Cnteria Addtt.
Alternate ADDroach (21 Not info.
NA Remarks Consor. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative
.2 (Cont.)
tions and to vent penetrations external to the torus (where applicable) o Piping afstems, including
/
pumps and valves internal to the torus, attached to the torus shell and/or vent penetrations o All main steam system safety relief valve (SRV) piping o Applicable portions of the following piping systems:
- Active containment system piping systems (e.g., emergency core cooling system (ECCS) and other piping required to maintain core cooling af ter loss-of-coolant accident (IOCA))
- Piping systems which provide a drywell-to-wetwell pressure dif-ferential (to alleviate pool swell effects)
- other piping systems, v
including vent drains L e u M rok+ ~**
- o Supports of piping systems V
. a o p a,3 l
mentioned in previous item M#
t w;W o Vent header deflectors w
' including associated hardware
4 NRC Contract No. N RC-03-81-130 Ud !U Franklin Research Center FRC Project No. C5506 1.
A Otvmon of The Frankhn Insuture FRC Assignment No. /O 20th and Race Streets. P5da.. Pa.191u3 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
~~
Plant Name L.,~ ~~:
J^_4 2 -
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Marki Cor/alnment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Key items Considered Criteria Addt!.
Alternate Approach No. [2]
in the Audit Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser-Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vativo vative 1.2 (Cont.)
o Internal structural
/
elements (e.g., :nonorails, catwalks, their supports) whcse failure might impair the containment function 1.3
- a. The structural v
acceptance criteria for existing Mark I containment systems
~
are contained in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressura ",- =.
(B&?V) Code,Section II I, Division 1 (1977 Edition), with addenda through the Summer 1977 Addenda (31 to be referred herein as the Code. The alternatives to this criteria provided in Reference 2 are also acceptable.
- b. 'nten complete appli-v cation of the criteria (item 1.3a) results in hardships or unusual difficulties without a compensa-ting increase in level of quality and safety, other structural acceptance criteria may be used after approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I
NRC Contract N3. NRC-03-81-130 hbd Frrnklin Rrseirch Canter FRC Project NO. C5506 p g3 A Otvmon of The Frankhn Insnture FRC Accignment N3. /4 20th and Race Streep. Phda.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
..,.2 g
Pfant Name
>. 75 ; : : =~=;
^
"Ebla 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criterit of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program l
Ucensee Uses
. tion Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach
.[2]
in the Audit Not in,o.
NA Remarks Conser. Unconsef-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 2.1 a.
Identify the code or other classification of the structural element b.
Prepare specific V
dimensional boundary definition for the specific Mark I contain-ment systems (Mate:
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:
(Refer to Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 for nor.-piping and piping structural elements, respectively, and to item 5 in this table for etw designations used for defining liraits of boundaries) a.
'Ibrus shell (Bow 1)
V
'Ihe toruc membrane in combination with reinforcing rings, penetration elements i
within the NE-3334 (3) limit of reinforce-ment normal to the torus shell, and attachment welds to l
the inner or outer l
surface of the above members but not to nozzles, is a Class MC (3) vessel.
- h NRC Contract NO. NRC-03 81-130 Uhhbrinklin Rise:rch Center FRC Project N2. C5506 l.
A Dtymon of The Frrnidn Instituts FRC Ass 10nment N3.
20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
,A=,=,='-
Plant Narne
- :. ~W.
Tacle 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark i Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addt!-
Alternate Approach No. [2]
Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser-Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)
b.
Tbrus shell supports V
(now 1) - Subsection NF (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 vent-to-torus bellows (aow 1) - Die external vents (between the attachment weld to the 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-tcrus bellows (including attachment welds to tne torus
,shell and to the external vents) are Class MC [3] vessals.
i
,e-r-
P-
~-
%s NRC C ntract N2. NRC-03-81.f 30 j
h) Fr nk!in Rese:rch Center FRC Project ND. C5506 Pag 3 A Dtwson of Ths Frtnkhn insutur, FRC A.c'gnment Nc. 6, FRC Task No.
J,f 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 P1 ant Name
's. 7.3' '
2=='
ibl3 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Ucensee Uses lon Key items Considered Criterta Addtl.
Alternate Approacn
[2]
Info.
NA Remarks g, ww.
Met Met Reqd.
vative sative
.2 (Cont.)
d.
Drywell-vent connection region (aow 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 reinforcement on the drywell shell) are Class MC (3] vessels.
e.
Internal vents (Ibws 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 I
welds to inner or outer surface of the vent but not to nozzles.
f.
Vent ring header (aows v
4 and 5) and downcomers (Bow 6) - Vent ring header including the downcomers and internal or external attachment welds to the ring header and the attachment welds to the downcomers are Class MC (3) vessels.
9
4 NRC Contract N3. NRC-03-81-130 l!0h) Funklin RtseIrch Cant:r FRC Project N3. C5506 l'
A Divmon of Ths FraaJin Insntuti FRC Assignmint N3.-
20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
.J<.-
Pf ant Nome
>. '*~. C
= i '~
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Key items Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach No. [2]
in the Audit Not Info.
Consor. Uncenser-Met Met W.
vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)
- The portion of the
/
downcomer within the NE-3334 (3] limit of reinforcement nor:nal to the vent ring header and portion of the vent ring header within NE-3334 limit of reinforcement are considered under Bow 5.
g.
Vent ring header
/
supports (aow 7)
Subsection NF (3]
supports, exclusive of the attachment welds to the vent ring header and to the torus shell, are Class MC (3) supports.
h.
Essential (Bows
/
10 and 11) and non-essential (Bows 12 and 13) piping systems - A piping system or a portion of it is essential if the system is necessary to assure the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a shutdown condition, or the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of
M NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 bd Franklin Rsse:rch Csnrer FRC Project N o. C5506 p;gg A Divmon of Ths Frmkle instrus2 FRC A:signm*nt Ng.,a 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
p Plant Name
,.. ~2.
. = E =. ~
ftDia2-1. Audit Procedure forStructural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses
- tton Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach
'- (21 Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Rcqd.
vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)
accidents which could result in potential off sita exposures comparable to tae guideline exposure o.' 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 comoination.
i.
Active and inactive v
component (Rows 10-13) - Active component is a pump or valve in an essential piping j
system which is i
required to perform l
a mechanical motion during the course of accomplishing a system safety function.
- j. Containment vacuum y
Liud re4N
- +
g., pgg breakers (aow 2)
,ta 5 l
Vacuum breakers valves
<Vc 7~5 mounted on the vent
/
internal to the torus or on piping associated with the torus are Class 2 (3] components.
l l
l l
A NRC Contract N2. N RC43-81-130 dl ranklin Rzsetrch Canter FRC Project N3. C5506 I'
A Deseon of The Frsnkhn insinuts FRC Assignment ND.,.
20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa.19303 f215) 4481000 FRC Task No.
.3, i Pfant Name
- s :73C
- ni=~s Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program l ection Licensee Uses S
Keyitems Considered Criteda dtl.
Alternate Approach No. [2]
in the Audit Not NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
sative vative 2.2 (Cont. )
k.
External piping and supports (aows 10-13):
- No Class 1 pipin9 Liu M r*k5
/
lhfg-4 ndio f'dt
- Piping external to 2
and penetrating che torus or the external vents, including the attacnment weld to the torus or vent nozzle is Class 2 (3] piping.
The other terminal end of such external piping should be d termined cased on its function ~
and isolation capability.
- Subsection NF [3]
v support for such external piping including welded or mechanical attachment to structure excluding any attachment welds to the piping or other pressure retaining ccaponent are Class 2 (3] supports.
1.
Internal piping and 7
supports (aows 10-13) - Are Class 2 or Class 3 piping and Class 2 or Class 3 component supports.
m.
Internal structures v
(Ibw 8) - Non-safety-related elements which are not pressure retaining, exclusive of attachment welds to any pressure retsining f
e
NRC Contract N 3. N RC-03-81-130
' NU Frtnklin Rssetrch Canter FRC Project N3. C3506 Pag 3 A Dwmon of The Frtnun lastituti FRC Assignm:nt No.,.,
20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa 19103(215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
.,f Plant Name
'f,
- 7.. ; r,.
abf 3 2-1. Aucit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark i Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Inn Key items Considered Criteria Addt!.
Alternate Aporoach
[2]
in the Audit Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser-Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative
.2 (Cont.)
member (e.g.,
monorails, ladders, catwalks, and their supports).
n.
Vent deflectors (Bow 9)
- Vent header flow deflectors and associated hardware (not including attachment welds to Class MC vessels) are internal s tructures.
.2 Load terminology used
'v should be based on Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the unit or the Ioad Definition Report (LDR) (5 ).
In case of conflict, the LDR loads shall be used.
Y " d ^ t*'h'yT, N*
.3 Consideration of all load V
- c
'a
'2 comoinations defined in a =. 5 Section 3 of the LDR [5]
d' #8 snall be provided.
.3 a.
No reevaluation for v
limits ott for design pressure and design temperature values is rieeded for present structural elements, b.
Design limit v
l requirements used for i
initial construction following normal l
practice with respect to load definition and allowable stress shall be used for systems or l
l
A NRC Contract N2. NRC-03-81-130 00h rsnklin Reseach Center FRC Project N2. C5506 p'
A Otvmon of Ths Frankhn Insneur, FRC Assignment N3.,'O 20th and Race Streets. Phda. Pa. 19103 1215) 448-1000 FRC Task N2.
J,.
Pfant Name
? C.W.:. ?EK Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark i Containment Long-Term Program t.lconsee Uses Section Keyltems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach No. [2]
Info.
NA Remarks g, mm.
Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 4.3 (Cont.)
portions of systems that are replaced and for new systems.
4.4 Service Limits and See definitio 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
/
containment ve.asels: Article NE-3000 (3]
b.
Linear type v-component (Class 2 and 3) support -
with three modifications to the Code:
- For bolted V'
connections, the requirements of Service Limits A and B shall be i
applied to Service Limits C and D without increase in the allowables above those applicable to
~
Service Imvels A and B;
- NF-3 231.1 (a) v' (3] is for primary plus secondary atress ranger
NRC Contract Nc. N RC-03-81-130 Obranidin Rxsearch Csnter FRC Project N. C5506
~
p;g3 A DMson of Ths Frinkhn Instituti FRC AT'gnment ND. ^
f.:
20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103(215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
.;,,'SE
.. : 25m
'~
Plant Name abl32-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses tien Key items Considered Crtteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach 12]
Hot Info.
NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
,.3tive vative
- All increases in V
allowable stress permitted by Subsection NF [3] are limited by Appendix XVII-2110 (b)
(3) when buckling is a consideration, c.
Class 2 and 3 piping, v'
pumps, valves, and internal structures (also Class MC)
.3 The components, component v'
loadings, and service level assignments for Class MC (3) components and internal structures shal] oe as defined in Table 5-1 of Reference 2.
.4 The components, component v'
loadings, and ser,vice level assignments for Class 2 and Class 3 piping systems shall be defined in Table 5-2 of Re ference 2.
i.5 The definition of operability is the ability to perform required mechanical motion and functionality is the l
ability to pass rated flow.
a.
Active components v'
shall be proven operable.
Active components shall be considered operable if Service Limits A or B or more conservative limits (if the original j
design criteria l
required it) are met.
l t
4 NRC Contract ND. NRC-0341-130 F'
00hd Franklin R:seach Cinter FRC Project N2. C5506 A Divmon of The Frinan Insr2ut, FRC Assignment N o.
20th and Race Streets. PMa.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
Pfant Name i.:7~&: :s'2 ~.
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark 8 Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses
{
Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach No. [2]
in the Audit Not o.
NA Remarks Conser-Unconser-Met Met Reed.
vative vative 5.5 (Cont.)
b.
Piping components shall
/
be proven functional in a manner consistent with the original design criteria.
6.1 Analysis guidelines provided herein shall apply to all structural g
elements identified in
,g, g/
item 1.2 of this table.
a.
All loadings defined in
' V'
,e See Section 3 subsection 3.2 of MS of this table Reference 2 shall be _
'Y_.
considered.
L l a *uS r-**)'"
b.
A summary technical 9
s report on the analysis ds a edi4 FJq
'VCM shall be submitted to 4M the NRC.
?> ?>
6.2 Tne following general guidelines shall be applied to all structural elements analyzed:
L 8(**' rs.)HM i.
Perform analysis V
according to guideline N+5 A odi4M*y defined herein for all
< W,7 loads defined in LDR
[5].
(Pbr loads considered in original design, but not redefined by LDR, previous analyses or new analyses may be used.)
b.
Only li:niting load v
combination events need be considered.
w
NRC Contract N3. NRC-03-81-130 Rtserrch Csntir FRC Project N 2. C5506 p;g3 A On.o.
af Ths Fr:nkhn Institut2 FRC Assignment N3.
20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.,;, f
,ef Ptant Name
- i:;~3 2^ <?d~
- tbla 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structu al Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program tJcensee Uses
.tIen Keyitems Considered Criterta Addtl.
Alternate Approach
.[2]
in the Audit Not in9o.
NA Remarks Consor. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 5.2 (Cont.)
c.
Fatigue effects of all V
g Lic e4 ml="",
,; g,. pa-operational cycles
-c -
shall be considered.
A'((8 m
d.
No further evaluation of structural elements for which combined effect of loads defined in LDR (5) produces stresses less than 10%
of allowable is required. Calculations demonstrating conformance 419. the 10% rule shall ce provided.
e.
Damping values used in v'
dynamic analyses shall be in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 (6).
6.3 Structural responses for loads resulting from the combinaticn of two dynamic phenomena shall be obtained in the following manner:
a.
Absolute sum of stress Components, or b.
Cumulative distribution v'
function method if absolute sum of stress components does not satisfy the acceptance criteria.
6.4 Torus analysis shall consist of:
d NRC Contract N3. NRC-03-81-130 00bhranklin Reseirch Canter FRC Project NO. C5506
[,
A Dmsson d Ths Frankhn inst:tuti FRC Assignment N2.,'.',
20th and Race Streets Phila. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
J,.
Pfant Name
. <. :.~cK 1,'23. :
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark iContainment t.ong-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Critetta Addt!.
Alternate Approach No. [2]
In the Audit Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vadve 6.4 (Cont.)
Lics w '. resko 3.
Finite element analysis 6 o d,sf d er for hydrodynamic loads
[h.
(time history analysis) 7 and normal and other a
loads (static analysis)
">g>
making up the load
<-4 combinations shall be performed for the most highly loaded segment of tne torus, including the shell, ring, girders, and support.
LictM rtJho b.
Evaluation of overall'
/
-Y 4 f.3d'aQo r effects of seismic and Js5 other nonsymmetric
^
ewrS loads shall be provided
/0 using beam models (of at least 180' of the torus including columns and seismic restraints) by use of either dynamic load factors or time history analysis.
c.
Provide a non-linear v'
time history analysis, using a spring mass model of torus and support if net tensile forces are produced in columns due to upward phase of loading.
d.
Bijlaard formulas shall V'
be used in analyzing each torus nozzle for effect of reactions produced by attached piping.
If Bijlaard formulas are not l
l
ds N RC Contract N 2. N RC-03-81 130 kJU Franklin Rzserrch Center FRC Project N2. C5506 P:g3 A Divmon of The Frankhn !nstitute FRC Arsignm:nt No.
20th and Race Stregts. Phila.. Pa. 19103(215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
3,.~
.." s i.
Plant Name "aola 2-1. ' Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment 1.ong-Term Program Licensee Uses
- tton Keyltems Considered Criterta Addtl.
Alternate ADDreach
.[2]
Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 1
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 intersections, vent column supports, vent-torus bellows, vacuum breaker penetration, and the vent deflectors), the following guidelines shall be followed:
a.
Finite elemeat model V'
shall represent the most highly loaded portion of ring header shell in the "non-vent" bay with the downcomers attached.
b.
shall be performed to evaluate local effects in the ring header l
shell and downcomer i
intersections.
Use time history analysis l
for pool swell transient and equivalent static analysis for downcomer lateral loads.
I 1
4 NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 UNU Fernklin Rsseirch Center FRC Pro]ect N2. C5506 A Dmsen of The FrtnkLn Insatuu FRC Assignm:nt No., f, 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. e, J P1 ant Name
.732 M.E* Z,~.
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate ADDroach No. [2]
In the Audit Not Info.
NA Ren arks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 6.5 (Cont.)
c.
Evaluation of overall
/
-f
' 5 ' # "**
'##b' effects of seismic and 255 A odi4M other nonsymmetrical
'WE 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.
d.
Use beam models in y
analysis of vent deflectors.
e.
Consider appropriate v'
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, monorails, and miscellaneous internal piping.
b.
It shall be based on
/
hand calculations or simple beam models and dynamic load factors and equivalent static analysis.
~
hp NRC Contract N2. N RC-03-81 130
^ UUUl! Frtnkhn R:seirch Center FRC Project No. C5506 PagB l
A Divaan of The Frtnkhn Insututi FRC AssignmInt No.,:,
20th and Race Streets. Phda-. Pa 19103 1215) 448-1000 FRC Task No..;, f
/o 2
Flant Name L.--..
,.. fu.
Tabla 2-1. Aud.t Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark i Containment Long-Term Program Licensco Uses
- tton Key items Cons.dared Criterb Addtl.
Alternate Approach
- 8. [2]
Not Info.
NA
' Remarks Conser-Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vagve vative l
6.6 (Cont.)
v' c.
It shall consider Service I4 vel D or E when specified by the structural acceptance criteria using a simplified nonlinear analysis technique (e.g., Bigg 's Me thod).
6.7 Analysis of the torus attacned piping shall be performed as follows:
a.
Desianate in the v'
summary technical report submitted all piping systems as essential or non-essential for each load combination.
b.
Analytical model shall v'
represent piping and supports from torus to first rigid anchor (or where effect of torus motion is j
insignificant).
t c.
Use response spectrum
/
or time nistory 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) may be performed.
A NRC Contract ND. N RC-03-81-130 F-Nbrinklin Riseirch Center FRC Project N2. C5506 A Olvmon of Tha Frc.nkhn Inst tut 2 FRC Assignm:nt N3.
.L FRC Task No. d,?
20th and Race Streets. Phda. Pa. 19103(215)448 1000 Pfant Name
- . ;2. =.
~,c E=~,. :
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Markl Containment Long-Term Program L!censee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach No. [2]
Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser-Uncanser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 6.7 (Cont.)
d.
Ef fect of anchor v'
displacement due to 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-365 2.3 (3).
6.8 Safety relief valve discharge piping shall be analyzed as follows:
f i c.< % resper a.
Analyze each discharge V
n
.i M i,2f d er Line.
,vo 7.5 JE=
5 L.'cimd rt1)>~
b.
Model shall represent
,a,op a,
piping and supports,
.;E.5
< 327 from nozzle at main steam line to discharge A3 in suppression pool, A-and include discharge device and its supports.
c.
For discnarge thrust v'
loads, use time history
- analysis, d.
Use spectrum analysis v'
or dynamic load factors for other dynamic loads.
NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 4[i,U Franklin R:se:rch Center FRC Project N226 Pag?
A Demnon of The Fran' din Institute U"
2I N
. Oth end Racs Streets. Phda.. Ps 19103 (215) 448-1000 Plant Name oysreRcedEk Tctle 2-2. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark i Containment Long-Term Program l
R ir nts Ar alysis Requirements en e E*j j-fj Structural Element 5
Remarks e=2 0
2*
EE i 53 2fE 5
3 3
$5 3E O, i$
3oE S
a a
ma mo< <3 wm Max x
Ibrus shell with associated V
V pene trations, reinforcing rings, and support attacnments Torus snell supports to y
V V
cne building structure Vents between the drywell 7
V and tne vent ring neader (including penetrations therein)
Region of drywell local to V
vent pene traticas Bellows between vents and v
v v
v v
v v
V torus shell (internal or external to torus)
Vent ring header and the 7
downcomers attached to it V:nt ring header supports V
V V
to the torus shell Vacuum breaker valves
'A 4
4 4
- WrssoE TM Sc0PE attached to vent penetra-OF THac. TER tions within the torus (where applicable)
Vacuum creaker piping y
y y
e V
V systems, including vacuum breaker valves att;tched to torus shell penetrations and to vent penetrations external to tne torus (where applicable)
Piping systems, including
/
V V
V V
V V
V pumps and valves internal to the torus, attached to l
the torus shell and/or vent j
prnetrations
4 NRC Centract N2. NRC-03-81-130 p;
2003 Fr:nklin R:saarch Canter FRC Project N 2. C5506 A Divuion of T. hankhn instrute
- 8 20th and Raca Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000
~
Plant Name Cys TE R C REck Table 2-2. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Re irNnts Analysis Requirements If 323 Structural Element Remarks 48
- 0. 34 5.2 Ea El" $"
3 E
=
eji %
Ej s$ 3aa 98 a
due 3 S3 535 Q38 E5 582 k.
All main steam system safety V
V V
V relief valve (SRV) piping 1.
Applicable portions of the v
V V
V V
V V
following piping systems:
(1)
Active containment v
V system piping systems (e.g., emergency core cooling system (ECCS) suction piping and ocher piping required to maintain core cooli.sg after loss-of-coolanc accident (IOCA) )
(2)
Piping systems which V
V V
V V
V V
V provide a drywell-to-wetwell pressure dif-ferential (to alleviate pool swell effects)
(3)
Other piping systems, V
V V
~ v V
V V
V including vent drains m.
Supports of piping systems v
V mentioned in previous item y
V V
7 7
V n.
Vent header deflectors including associated hardware 7
V V
o.
Internal structural elements (e.g., monorails, catwalks, their supports) whose failure might impair the containment function 9
TER-C5506-319 Table 2-3.
Non-Piping Structural Elements STRUCTURAL ELEGNT ROK External Class MC Tcrus, Bellows, 1
External Vent Pipe, Drywell (at Vent),
Attachment Welds, Torus Supports, Seismic Restraints Internals Vent Pipe General and 2
Attachment Welds At Penetration 3
(e.g., Header)
Vent Ring Header General and -
4 Attachment Welds At Penetrations 5
(e.g., Downcomers)
Downcomers General and 6
Attachment Welds Internals Supports 7
Internals Structures General 8
Vent Deflector 9
4 nk!!n Research Center
~ ~. - -
T2R-C5506-319 Table 2-4.
Piping Structural Elements STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ROW Essential Piping Systems With IBA/DBA 10 With SBA 11 Nonessential Piping Systems With IBA/DBA 12 With SBA 13 h
nklin Res arch
~ ~- _ Center l
e
TER-C5506-319 NOTES RELATED TO TABLES 2-2. AND 2-2 NOTE 1:
The Licensee has not provided information on the analysis of the vacuum breaker valves attached to vent penetrations within the torus, and has not indicated that these are Class 2 components.
(The Licensee's response (9] has resolved this concern.)
NOTE 2: With reference to Section 6.6 (8], the Licensee should pro"ide information on the analysis of the modified SRV piping supports designated as S1, 52, S3 and S5.
(The Licensee's response f9] and subsequent clarifications have resolved this concern.)
NOTE 3: With reference to Section 3.6 (8], the Licensee has not provided information on the analysis of Class 1 piping connectione which connect the SRVs to the main steam piping in the drywell region.
(The Licensee's response (9] has resolved this concern.)
NOTE 4:
The Licensee has not provided adequate justification for determining the load combinations indicated in Table 6.0-1 (7) to be the limiting (governing) load combinations.
(The Licensee's response [9] has resolved this concern.)
NOTE 5: The Licensee should indicate whether each of the safety relief valve discharge lines has been' analyzed as res : ired by the criteria [2].
Also, Justification should be provided for not considering all of the lines.
(The Licensee's response (9] has resolved this concern.)
NOTE 6: With reference to Table 1 of Appendix B, the Licensee should indicate if all loads have been considered in the analysis and/or should provide justification if any load had been neglected.
(The Licensee's response (9) has resolved this concern.)
NOTE 7: The Licensee should provide details as to how the vent system modal mass and stiffness terms were synthesized into the explicit torus shell model to derive the coupled torus / vent system model.
(The Licensee's response (9] has resolved this concern.)
NOTE 8: With reference to Sectin 6.1.1.2 [7], the Licensee should provide information on the analysis of the torus for SRV loads on the ring girders.
(The Licensee's response (9] and subsequent clarifications have resolved this concern.)
NOTE 9: The Licensee has not provided adequate information on the buckling l
analysis of the torus.
(The Licensee's response (9] has resolved this concern.)
NOTE 10 : The Licensee should justify the reasons for not considering a 180*
segment of the torus including columns, saddles, seismic restraints, and sway braces in order to determine the ef fects of seismic and g,ifFanklin Resea.rch Center d
un = norn.r. an== =.
j'
TER-C5506-319 I
other nonsymmetric loads, and should also confirm whether the overall behavior has been considered for calculating the fundamental frequency of 19 Hz given in Section 4.6.2.1 [7].
(The Licensee's response [9] has resolved this concern.)
NOTE 11: The Licensee should justify the reasons for not considering a 180*
segment of the vent system in order to determine the effects of seismic and other nonsymmetric loads.
(The Licensee's response [9]
has resolved this concern.)
NOTE 12: With reference to Section 6.0 [8], the Licensee should provide information on the analysis of the nozzles in the vent system for the SRV piping penetrations, and should also provide the results of the fatigue evaluation.
(The Licensee's response [9] and subsequent clarifications have resolved this concern.)
NOTE 13 : With reference to Section G.2.2.1 [7], the Licensee should indicate how the gussets at vent line/drywell intersection were modeled in order to account for their meridional stiffnesses in the axisymmetric model.
(The Licensee's response [9] has resolved this concern.)
NOTE 14 : With reference to Section 5.1.3 [7], the Licensee should indicate how the closed form solution was used to calculate the response spectra for the steady-state condensation oscillation and chugging loads, and should indicate the reference used.
(The Licensee's response [9] has resolved this concern.)
i 1
_r nklin Res,e_ arch Center
TER-C5506-319 GENERAL NOTES NOTE Gl: The Licensee should indicate whether condensation oscillation or chugging loads has been used for the limiting load combinations for PUAAG (2) load cases 14,15, 20, and 27 in Table 6.0-1 [7].
(The Licensee's response [9] has resolved this concern.)
NOTE G2:
The Licensee should provide more specific information on the conservatisms used as a basis for accepting the overstresses at various locations in the torus, vent system, and piping systems.
(The Licensee's response [9] has resolved this concern.)
NOTE G3: The Licensee shoulo confirm whether the hanger on the reactor building-to-torus vacuum relief piping which failed to meet the criteria [2] as indicated in Section 6.1 [8] has been modified.
(The Licensee's response (9] and subsequent clarifications have resolved this concern.)
NOTE G4: The Licensee should confirm whether the two supports for the core spray test run piping which failed to meet the criteria as indicated in Section 6.4 [8] have been modified or replaced.
(The Licensee's response [9] and subsequent clarifications have resolved this concern.)
NOTE G5: The Licensee should confirm whether the one support for the demineralizer relief valve discharge piping which failed to meet the criteria as indicated in Section 6.2 [8] has been modified.
(The Licensee's response (9] and subsequent clarifications have resolved this concern.)
NOIE G6: The Licensee should confirm whether the torus containment spray header supports have been replaced and whether the one support on the loop at assembly G has been modified or replaced as indicated in Section 6.3 [8].
(The Licensee's response (9] and subsequent clarifications have resolved this concern.)
NOTE G7: With reference to fatigue evaluation in Section 7.0 [7], the Licensee should confirm whether the provisions indicated in the footnote of page 58 of ASME Code Subsection NE-3221.5 have been l
applied.
(The Licensee's response [9] has resolved this concern.)
l 1
N_nklin Rese_ arch._ Center
TER.-C550 6-319
- 3. REFERENCES 1.
" 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.
" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acccptance Criteria Plant UnAque 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 Sr NEDO-21888 Revision 2
" Mark I Containment Frogram I. cad Definition Report" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA November 1981 6.
NRC
' Damping values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants"
~
October 1973 Regulatory Guide 1.61 7.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Plant Unique Analysis Report, Suppression Chamber and Vent System, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program MPR-733 General Public Utilities Nuclear August 1982 8.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Plant Unique Analysis Report, Tocus Attached Piping, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program MPR-734 General Public Utilities Nuclear August 1982 nklin Research Center A Ommon af The Fransen ensamme
TER-C5506-319 9.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Response to a Request for Information from the Franklin Research Center i
concerning ther Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Plant-Unique Analysis Reports General Public Utilities Nuclear May 1983 i
t i
i
. Ar U000 Franidin Research Center A 08memon of The Fransen inaaeuse s
_g 4,
.o
,,e-
^.-o-s,--
a APPENDIX B ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION I
W
. Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The s.ni.mn rr.,en Partnway. PMa. Pa 19103 (21Si448 1000
- - - - - - -- - - - - ~ - - ~-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- ^ - - - ' ~
- - ~ - - - - - -- -
TER-C5506-319 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION E F4S, VENT S" STEM, AND PIPING SYSTEMS Iten 1: Provide a su;amary of the analysis with regard to the vacuum breaker valves; indicate whether they are considered Class 2 components as required by the criteria [1].
Item 2: Provide a susmary of the analysis with regard to the modified safety relief valve piping st.pports designated as S1, S2, S3, and S5.
Item 3: Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to Class 1 piping connections which connect the safety relief valve to the main steam piping in the drywell region.
Item 4: Provide justification for determining the load combinations indicated in Table 6.0-1 [2] to be the limiting load combinations.
Item 5:
Indicate whether each of the safety relief valve discharge lines has been analyzed as required by the criteria [1]. Also, provide justification for not considering all the lines.
Item 6: With reference to Table 1 of Appendix B, indicate whether 111 loads have been considered in the analysis and/or provide justif scation if any load has been neglected.
Item 7: Indicate, in detail, how the vent system modal mass and stiffness terms were synthesized into the explic!t torus shell model to derive the coupled torus / vent system model.
Item 8: Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to the torus for safety relief valve loads on the ring girders.
Item 9: Provide a summary of the buckling analysis of the torus.
Item 10: Provide and justify the reasons for not considering a 180* segment of the torus including columns, saddles, seismic restraints, and sway braces in order to determine the effects of seismic and other nonsymmetric loads. Confirm whether the overall behavior has been l
considered for calculating the fundamental frequency of 19 Hz given in Section 4.6.2.1 (2].
Item 11: Provide and justify the reasons for not considering a 180* segment of the vent system in order to determine the effects of seismic and other nonsyssetric loads. ranklin Research Center A Dhamen of The Feuen tuamme
- _ =. - -
=
TER-C5506-319 Item 12: Provide a summary of the analysis with regard.to the nozzles in the vent system for the safety relief valve piping penetrations. Also, provide the results cf the fatigue evaluation.
Item 13:-Indicate how the gussets at the vent line/drywell intersection were modeled in order to account for their meridional stiffnesses in the axisymmetric model.
Iten 14: Indicate how the closed form solution was used to calculate the response spectra for the steady-state condensation oscillation and chugging loads, and indicate the reference used.
l l
i
! 00llFranklin Research Center A Dhquen of The Frenten htBahme i
,,,.-nn-
.----,c-,
.--,,n-,..-w,-
TER-C5506-319 GENERAL Item G1: Indicate whether condensation oscillation or chugging loads had been used in the limiting load combinations for load cases 14, 15, 20, and 27 in Table 6.0-1 [2].
Item G2: Provide more specific information on the conservatisa:.used as the basis for accepting the overstresses at various locations in the torus, the vent system, and the piping systems.
Item G3: Confirm whether the hanger on the reactor building-to-torus vacuum relief piping which failed to meet the critaria [1] as indicated in Section 6.1 [2] has been modified.
Item G4: Confirm whether the two supports for the core spray test run piping which failed to meet the criteria as indicated in Section 6.4 [3]
have been modified or replaced.
Item G5: Confim whether the one support for the domineralizer relief valve discharge piping which failed to meet the criteria as indicated in Section 6.2 [3] has been modified.
Item G6: Confirm whether the torus containment spray header supports have been replaced and whether the one support on the loop at assembly G has been modified or replaced as indicated in Section 6.3 [3].
Item G7: Confirm whether the provisions indicated in the footnote on page 58
(
of ASME Code Subsection NE-3221.5 Lave been applied for fatigue l
evaluation in Section 7.0 [2].
l I
(
l l
l l
l
! ranidin Research Center A Ohmen af The Panggn bughee
.., - - -.,.,. -. ~ - -.
9 TER-C5506-319 REFERENCES 1.
" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA October 1979 2.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Plant Unique Analysis Report, Suppression Chamber and Vent System, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program MPR-733 General Public Utilities Nuclear August 1982 3.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Plant Unique Analysis Report, Torus Attached Piping, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program MPR-734 General Public Utilities Nuclear August 1982 4.
" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation July 1980 5.
NEDO-21888 Revision 2
" Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA November 1981 l
l
. ranklin Research Center A Ohemen of The Frenten kummme