ML20093C382
| ML20093C382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1983 |
| From: | Subramonian N FRANKLIN INSTITUTE |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093C385 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130, RTR-NUREG-0661, RTR-NUREG-661 TAC-07950, TAC-7950, TER-C5506-320, NUDOCS 8309290276 | |
| Download: ML20093C382 (53) | |
Text
.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 7
1 AUDIT FOR MARK I CONTAINMENT I LONG-TERM PROGRAM - STRUCTURAL
! ANALYSIS FOR OPERATING REACTORS VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION i
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION m<
NRC DOCKET NO. 50-271 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO. 07950 FRC ASSIGNMENT 12 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81-130 FRC TASK 320 Prepared by Franklin Research Center 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 September 27, 1983 i
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsore'd by an agency of tne United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agancy thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, 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 infringe privately owned rights.
l l
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
N d i k..~.... e 4
o%
Principal Author Project Manager'
' Depart 71fnt Director (Acting)
Date: g.2 7 g}
Date-g,g743 Date:
1 -2 7-y3 f
Dd?/M
'l
. Il Franklin Research Center 20th and Race Streets, Phila., Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000
'l l
TER-C5506-320 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 iii A%
Ndd Franklin Research Center A Dansen of The From me
TER-C5506-320 FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center k"
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.
Initial review of the plant-unique analysis (PUA) report for this TER was performed by M. Darwish and T. C. Stilwell of the Franklin Research Center.
i l
- 4%
v Und Frankhn Research Center Aw ener,m m.
I
l i
l TER-C5506-320 n
r 1.
TNTRODUCTION The capability of the boiling water reactor (BWR) Mark I containment suppression chamber to withstand hydrodynamic loads was not considered in the l
original design of the structures. The resolution of this issue was divided 1
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 exemptio'n 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
J
[1], which describes the generic hydrodynamic load definition and structural 5-.
acceptance 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 j
vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station plant-unique analysis (PGA) 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 j
Appendix A.
The key items of the audit procedure are obtained from the " Mark i
j I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis l
Application Guide" [3], which meets the criteria of Reference 1.
I i
}
i i
I 4
1 i
i i
l-l
' i
-e#31s i
i 2h) Franklin Research Center l
A Ommen d The Frenten meewe
__,~.m.._,
TER-C5506-320 s
2.
AUDIT FINDINGS
)
A detailed presentation of the audit for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 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 Vermont Yankee PUA report [4] indicated noncompliance with the requirements of the criteria [3]
and several aspects of the analysis required further information. Based on this conclusion, th'e Licensee was requested to provide additional information on these aspects in ordet 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 [5] to all of the items contained in the request for additional information (Appendix B) except the items related to torus-attached piping, which will be addressed by the Licensee in a supplementary PUA report. After an initial review of these responses, a meeting was held with the Licensee to clarify certain ascects of Reference 5 and to verify the criteria and approach used by the Licer.see for performing analysis of torus-attached piping, supports, and tores penetrations.
A brief review of the Licensee's. responses [5] and clarification obtained during the meeting with the Licensee is provided below.
Request Item 1 This request related to the Licensee's analysis of torus penetrations such as vent pipe / torus penetration a13 vacuum breaker line and reactor core isolation cooling line (RCIC) torus penetration. The Licensee's response indicated that a summary of analyses of these items will be included in the supplementary PUA report to be submitted by September 1983.
During the seeting with the Licensee on August 9,198,3, the Licensee provided an outline of the criteria / approach used in the analysis which provides reasonable assurance that the Licensee's analysis conforms to the criteria requirements (3].
Hence, the concerns with regata to this item are resolved subject to a
_n_klin Res_earch C_ enter i
~
TER-C5506-320 written report from the Licensee confirming that the criteria / approach outlined were applied in the actual analysis.
Request Item 2 p
In this response, the Licensee indicated that the effects of seismic and thermal response, which were not included in Reference 4, have been subse-quently considered for the analysis of drywell/ vent pipe intersection. The results of the analysis show that the stresses in that region do not exceed the criteria allowables. The Licensee's response to this item is technically adequate.
Recuest Item 3 In response to this item, the Licensee stated that the maximum calcelated differential motion across the bellows is less than 10% of the rated movements for the rated number of cycles. Also, based on the manuf acturer 's fatigue
"~~
data for unreinforced austenitic bellows, the permissible number of cycles for the design stress level is well in excess of the endurance limit (about 10 cycles). The Licensee's response to this item is technically adequate and meets the intent of the criteria [3] with regard to fatigue of bellows.
Request Item 4
~
In response to this item, the Licensee stated that wetwell/dryuell vacuum breaker valves do not actuate during a chugging event at the Vermont Yankee plant, and hence no analysis beyond the original plant design scope is required at the present time.
The criteria [3], however, require that vacuum breaker valves should be evaluated as Class 2 components.
During the meeting
~
with the Licensee on August 9,1983, the Licensee outlined the original plant design criteria for vacuum breaker valves. The Licensee's approach is technically adequate and meets the intent of the criteria. Criteria for vacuum breaker modification were not addressed in Reference 3, and this issue is considered to be outside the scope of this TER.
This issue is still a part of Mark I long-term program and will be reviewed separataly by the NRC.
~
P[ Franklin Research Center n
b A Dwson of The Frenamn kommere
TER-C550 6-320 Request Item 5 With regard to this item, the Licensee indicated that a summary of the analysis techniques used, piping stresses, support loads, and required modifications will be provided in a supplementary PUA report to be submitted by September 1983. During the rseeting with the, Licensee on August 9,1983, the Licensee provided an outline of the criteria / approach used in the analysis which provides reasonable assurance that the Licensee's analysis conforms to the criteria requirements (3]. Hence, concerns with regard to this -item are resolved subject to a written report from the Licensee confirming that the l
~
criteria / approach outlined were applied in the actual analysis.
Request Item 6 In response to this item, the Licensee provided details of the safety relief valve (SRV) discharge line elbow support and an isometric drawing of the SRV discharge line. The Licensee's response resolved the concern with regard to this item. -
Request Item 7 In response to this item, the Licensee indicated that the Vermont Yankee vent header deflector is a continuous structure through the 16 torus bays.
The connection arrangement does not allow moment transfer at supports, and therefore the analysis was performed assuming each span to be simply supported. The non-vent bay analysis bounds that of the vent bay and was used i
conservatively for both. The Licensee's response is technically adequate and meets the criteria requirements.
Request Item 8 d
i In response to this item, the Licensee provided a set of catwalk drawings. The Licensee's response resolved concerns with regard to this item.
i
_nklin Rese_ arch Center
r i
TER-C5506-320 Recuest Item 9 In this response regarding catwalk supports, the Licensee indicated that the new vertical support legs (4-in schedule 80 pipe) and the new diagonal braces (4-in schedule 80 pipe) have margins of safety against buckling of 13.35 and 4.07, respectively.
The Licensee's response resolved concerns with regard to these supports.
Request Item 10 In this response, the Licensee provided sufficient informatiori to assure
' that the effect of neglecting the offset (4 in wide) between the ring girder and mitre joint in the computer model was technically justified, A qual-tative study indicates that the maximum membrane stress in the torus cannot occJr in this offset region. There is no primary bending stress in the region (because of gross structural discontinuity), and it follows that maximum primary local plus bending stress in the region should be less than the maximum membrane stress. Th6s, the main significance of this region may be for the case of fatigue, and hence the Licensee has conservatively used a stress-intensification factor of 4 (maximum required by the code) for this case.
The Licensee's response adequately resolved the concerns with regard to this item.
Request Item 11 In response to this item, the Licensee indicated that the torus structure and major components were evaluated at a temperature of 200*F, which conserva-tively bounds the maximum temperature obtained f rom the plant-unique load j
definition. With regard to materials, the Licensee indicated that A516 Gr 70 was used for torus shell, support columns, ring girder, saddle support, earthquake restraints, vent pipe, vent header, and downcomers; that A333 Gr 1 was used for vent header support columns; and that A333 Gr 6 was used for the vent header deflector.
The Licensee's response is satisfactory.
i l
! El FranWin Research Center Aom a.ew r, e me.
l TER-C5506-320 Request Item 12 In response to this item, the Licensee stated that all torus-attached piping systems at the Vermont Yankee plant have been classified as essential Class 2 piping systeas and that all components associated with these systems are considered active for the purpose of these analyses and evaluations. The Licensee's response is technically adequate.
Request Item 13 In response to this item, the Licensee provided justification for neglecting post-chugging load on torus shell, pool swell drag LOCA jet forces on the vent header support columns, submerged structure drag for vent header support colaans, drag forces on vent header support columns and intermediate break eccident (IBA) condensation oscillation load on the vent header system.
The Licensee's response is technically adequate.
During the meeting with the Licensee on August 9,1983, the Licensee indicated the approach used for considering the reaction load from attached piping on the torus shell.
The Licensee's approach meets the intent of the criteria.
i Request Item 14 This item relates to completion of the proposed modifications and a summary of relevant analyses.
The Licensee indicated that, with regard to modified items pertaining to torus-attached piping, a summary will be incItdod-in the supplementary PUA report to be submitted by September 1983. With regard to catwalk modifications, the Licensee has outlined the modifications and provided the calculated stress values, which are well below the respective During the meeting w' th' the Licensee on August 9,1983, the allowables.
i Licensee provided an outline of the approach / criteria used for modifications related to torus-attached piping and indicated the expected date for submittal j
of the PUA report to be September 1983.
The Licensee's responses have adequately resolved the concerns with regard to this item subject to submittal of the pertinent PUA report.
I h
l _ Franklin Res,ea_rch C_ enter
TER-C5506-320 Request Item 15 In response to this item, the Licensee indicated daat the conclusions of the Mark I Owners' Group generic study on piping fatigue are applicable to the Verment Yankee piping analysis, which implies that no plant-specific piping p.
fatigue analysis is warranted.
The Licensee's approach is technically adequate.
Request Item 16 In response to this item, the Licensee provided a summary of analysis for miscellaneous internal piping and indicated that, in each case, the maximum stress in this piping is less than the respective criteria allowable. The Licensee's response resolved the concern with regard to this item.
Request Item 17 In response to this item, the, Licensee confirmed that the fatigue analysis of the torus shell incorporated corrections in stress-range amplitudes and associated numbers of cycles to account for the interspersion of stress cycles of unlike character.
Fatigue analysis of the torus-attached piping penetrations will be reported in a supplementary PUA report to be submitted by September 1983. During the meeting with the Licensee on August 9,1983, the L2 ensat ottlined the approach / criteria used for torus-attached piping penetrations and indicated that the supplementary PUA report will be submitted by September 1983. The Licensee's response to this item is satisfactory and meets the intent of the criteria subject to a written summary confirming the approach used for the torus-attached piping penetrations.
Request Item 18 In this response, the Licensee provided justifications for not considering certain asymmetric modes in the analytical model for torus. The Licensee indicated that the horizontal ear'thquake loads are considered using equivalent static analysis and hence only the SRV and asymmetric pre-chug loads need to be addressed with regard to this concern. Although these loads
. dA Ldd Franklin Research Center
%.s N r,.ama =
1 TER-C550 6-320 are not uniform, they always produce pressures that are in-phase in adjacent bays; there fore, their dynamic responses will be primarily controlled by symmetric modes.
The Licensee's justification is technically adequate and the torus analytical model meets the intent of the criteria.
Request Item 19 In this response, the Licensee indicated that all combinations of structural responses due to separate dynamic loads have been analyzed using the absolute sum method. This approach is conservative and satisfies the criteria requirements.
Request Item 20 In this response, the Licensee indicated that the analysis of the SRV discharge line has been done in two separate parts. Analysis of the quenchers, quencher supports, and piping in the torus ir reported in Reference 4, and the analysis of the vent pipe penetration and all upstream piping and supports will be reported in a supplementary PUA report.
During the meeting with the Licensee on August 9,1983, the Licensee outlined the approach /
criteria used for the analysis of the vent pipe penetration and all upstream piping and supports and indicated that the supplementary PUA report containing this information will be submitted by September 1983. The Licensee's approach and criteria for this item are technically adequate subject to a written submittal confirming that the approach outlined was used in the actual analysis.
Request Item 21
.t In this response, the Licensee indicated that the vacuum breaker piping and penetration analysis for the torus and vent pipe penetrations will be presented in the supplementary PUA report.
During the meeting with the Licensee on August 9,1983, the Licensee outlined the technical approach /
criteria used for this analysis and indicatad that the supplementary PUA report containing a summary of this analysis will be submitted by Septemer ljNJ Franklin Resear.ch Center 4 >
w n4 r.
inww.
l l
TE R-C5506-320 1983.
The Licensee's response is technically adequate subject to a written submittal confirming that the approach outlined was used in the actual analysis.
Request Item 22 In response to this item, the Licensee indicated that the 45' segment model of the vent header and downcomer used in the analysis is conservative compared to a 180* segment vent system beam model. The combined seismic and chugging stresses of the 180' segment model are less than the combined stress of the 45' segment model because of the conservative assumptions used to apply antisymmetric chugging load on the 45' segment model.
The Licensee's analysis-is technically adequate and meets the intent of the criteria.
Request Item G1 In this response, the Licensee provided more details on the procedures
~'
used in the PUA report for f atigue evaluation.
The Licensee indicated that the fatigue analysis of the torus was completed using the procedures outlined in Section NE-3221.5 of the ASME Code. The fatigue evaluations of torus-attached piping penetrations will be addressed in a supplementary PUA report to be submitted by the Licensee by September 1983. During the meeting with the Licensee on August 9,1983, the Licensee outlincd the approach / criteria used in the fatigue analysis of the torus-attached piping penetrations. The Licensee's approach is judged to be technically adequate based on information obtained during the meeting and subsequent clarifications.
i Request Item G2 l
In response to this item, the Licensee indicated that, using the criteria l
recommended by Section NE-3221.5, it was determined that the thermal fluctua-tions during LOCA are not significant for fatigue analysis.
The Licensee's l
response resolved the concern on this item.
l
! A NLO Franklin Research Center 4 cum n.m. r,-e w.
1 TER-C5506-320 3.
CONCLUSIONS Based on the audit of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Plant Unique Analysis Report, it was concluded earlier that certain aspects required additional information. The Licensee's response (S] to the request for additional information and subsequent clarifications obtained during a meeting with the Licensee indicate that the Licensee's structural analysis with regard to major modifications is in general conformance to the criteria requirements
('3 ]. The Licensee's analytical approach and criteria used for penetrations and associated equipment and components (as outlined during the meeting on August 9, 1983) conform to the requirements of the criteria.
However, the approach outlined should be confirmed through the supplementary PUA report.
If any deviations f rom the criteria are identified in the supplementary PUA report on torus-attached piping and penetrations, these will be resolved on a plant-specific basis. The Licensee's approach to evaluation of piping fatigue conforms to the approach recommended by the Mark I Owner's Group, which has been accepted by the NRC.
The evaluation criteria of the containment vacuum breaker modifications are not addressed in Reference 3 and are therefore outside the scope of this TER; however, this issue will still be examined as part of the Mark I long-term program.
[
4 I
. A l
ranidin Res.,o.,earch C. enter
.- --.. m.
...-- -s.
. - ~
=_
i TER-C5506-320 4
4.
REFERENCES l
1.
" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Contain.wnt Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation D
USNBC 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.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Plant Unique Analysis Report,' Mark I containment Program Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation November 30, 1982, TR-5319-1, Revision 0 5.
J. B. Sinclair, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Letter to D. B. vassallo (NBC)
Subject:
Request for Additional Information - Mark I Containment Long-Term Program June 17, 1983 I
i l
t l
I l
l i
l i
i
! 4%
l WJ Franklin,vn.searc.h C. enter Re i
n>
rm.
_ _ _ _.,. _.., _.. - _ =. -. _ _. _ _,.. _, _ _ _ _ _, _ _, _..,. _
APPENDIX A AUDIT DETAILS l
1 l
l l
.j.
Franklin Research Center A DMslon of The Frankhn insutute i
- n. n.n,.m.a r,.n a.n p.,..., ru.. r. ioio) a m 44s imo
TE R-C5506-320 1.
INTRODUCTION The key itosa 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 E
Analysis Application Guide" [2] are contained in Table 2-1.
This audit procedure is applicable to Mark I containments except Brunswick Units 1 and 2 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 faci,11 tate 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 tiotes 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 noncomplianct will be given.
o where the Licensee's response to the request for additional information provided satisf actory evidence for compliance with the criteria, an appropriate remark is made and the original audit finding is provided only for the sake of completeness.
. p$nklin Researth Center b
a w.e m r a w
I g
NRC Contract No. NRC-03 41 130 MJ Frankhn Research Center FMC Project No. CS$06 Pag 3 A Divie.on of Th2 Fremu.n Instiewt3 FRC Assignment No.12 20th and Race Streets. Phila. Pa. O103121$) 4441000 PRC Task No. 32 o
- 2 Plant Name Jnit%T % sJtctE Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of MarklContainment Long Term Program Licensee uses Section Keyitems Considered Criterta Addtl.
Alternate Acoroach No. (2l In the Audit Not Info.
et Met W.
Consor. Unconsor.
y,,3y, 1.2 All structural elements of the vent system and suppres-sion chamber must be considered in the review.
S e following pressure retaining elements (and their supports) must be considered in the reviews y,,, Lg...M resborvm o Torus shell with associ-
/
S r r.
y,n 3,,j, iA. ca e 3
ated penetrations,
"*'85 reinforcing rings, and I A LO support attachments
,o Torus shell supports to e/
the containment structure o Vents between the drywell
/
and the vent ring header (including penetrations therein)
SE' N ' 'A '
'N
o Region of dryvell local y
woTC 2 w re M F% c..n o r to vent penetrations o nellows between vents and S t r.
r% Li u
.' et.hiw torus shell (internal or V
$3*T O w tv el v 4 J 14. c a ns t r a external to torus) o Vent ring header and the 8),8,g 3 Q*3 [',f[,(*[d,[M,I.',[
downconers attached to ie, G442 o Vent ring header supports j
to the torus o Vacuum breaker valves v
SCL N Lia.*
- "
- k ' ~~
attached to vent penetra-dote w * * *
- l *
- 4 8C C' ""
tions within the torus 4
(where applicable)
% n.. u -.o s a sj' g.,, u..#,4.L L +u a. o a' o vacuum breaker piping v
f,cc systeras, including vacuum nois breaker valves attached 4
to torus shell penetra-
_---_--------_----Jl
NRC Contr;ct No. NRC-03-81-130 J
8 N Frinkiin RiseIrch Cint:r FRC Pr: Ject ND. C5506 Pag 3 J
A Divmon of The Fr:nklin Inst,tus FRC AssignmInt ND.12 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 3 2o 3
Plant Name VEstMo *JT 1MJKEE Tcble 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Secti:n Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach N3.[2}
NA Remarks Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 1.2 (Cont.)
tions and to vent penetrations external to the torus (where applicable) o Piping systems, including y
SEE R L l o
[ rul'0
- pumps and valves internal goTE A ~ *W M 4 4
to the torus, attached to 5
the torus shell and/or A L ' ',' a *a m l tu,Y "
vent penetrations G ~u v~
wm AN ALMSIS CE DE o All main steam system V
SEE
. dote Sgv TcE QUEMCHER safety relief valve
"# ' " '" D '
(SRV) piping ge p.g.T (SE E NOTES SEC 0
o Applicable portions of y
L tistM rwh*
the following piping systems:
6 n.,; W M 0.ar-
- 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 (IDCA) )
- Piping systeme which
{
provide a drywell-to-wetwell pressure dif-ferential (to alleviate l
pool swell effects)
- Other piping systems, including vent drains o Supports of piping systems V
SEE ALu M
- E***
mentioned in previous item deTE 5 6 rm W M Cou~
o Vent neader deflectors y
SEE g ggc,
- ,, 4 %
l including associated MOTE
%,mlWJ N<***~
hardware T
l
p NRC Contr:ct No. NRC-03-81-130 lj0bu Fr:nklin R:setrch Csntar FRC Project N2. C5506 pcg3 A Dmmon of Thi Frtnkhn institut FRC AssignmInt No.12 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 3 2o 4
Plant Namo vERMo oT N A u K EE.
Ttble 21. Audit Procedure forStructural Acceptance Criteria of MarkiContainment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Sectt:n Keyltems Considered Critada Addt!.
Alternate Approach N2.(2]
in the Audit Not NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser. Unconser-yettve vative 1.2 (Cont.)
o Internal structural V
su r.
L L8c, re d * * *
%.teS M m dWJ IL (o"'~ '
elements (e.g., monorails, g4g catwalks, their supports) whose failure might impair the containment function
% Le u. ud W~
1.3
- a. Se structural
% re.lmi M coaur-acceptance criteria
/
for existing Mark I containment systems are contained in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code,Section III, Division 1 (1977 Edition), with addends through the Summer '1977 Addenda (3] to be referred herein as the Code.
2e alternatives to this criteria provided in Reference 2 are also acceptable,
- b. When complete appli-
/
ExcEPTe oes A.RE cation of the criteria cstep to RE F. 8 (item 1.3a) results APPEGO\\ CGS.
in hardships or unusual difficulties A PPG W oty A2 without a compensa-ci-T E S A. c c EP TA St.E ting increase in level Ev i De OcE,
of quality and safety, other structural acceptance criteria may be used after l
approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l
NRC C:ntr ct N3. NRC-03-81-130 l4 LOOu err.nurin a: 1res cent r FRC Praject ND. C5506 pegg A Division of Thi Fr:nklin Insntut3 FRC Assignm:nt ND.12.
20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 32o G-Plant Name vE R.Mo oT YAuttE.
Tcble 2-1. Audit c rocedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program o
Licensee Uses Secti:n Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach ND* [2]
in the Audit Not in o.
NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
yative vative 2.1 a.
Identify the code
/
or other classification of the structural element
/-
SF E WoTE 11 b.
Drepare specific dimensional boundary definition for the specific Mark I contain-ment systems (Mate:
Welds connecting piping to a nozzle are piping l
welds, not Class MC welds) 2.2 Guidelines for classification l
of structural clements and boundary definition are as follows:
(Refer to Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 for non-piping and piping structure.1 elements, respectively, and to item 5 in this table for row designations used for defining limits of i
boundarie s) l I
a.
'Ibrus shell (Bow 1)
/
'Ihe torus membrane in combination with reinforcing rings, l
penetration elements within the NE-3334 [3]
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.
A NRC C:ntrrct Ns. NRC-03-81 130 00bhrznklin Rise 1rch Cant:r FRC Prcject Ns. C5508 Pago A Division of Thi Frankhn insutut, FRC Arsignm:nt N2. I2.
20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Ps. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 3 2e G
Plant Name V E RwonJ T % dW.EE Tcble 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of MarkiContainment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Socij:n Keyitems Considered Critdria Addtl.
Alternate Apptcach ND.[2]
NA Remarks Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)
b.
Torus shell supports
/
(Bow 1) - Subsection NF
[3] support structures between the torus shell and the building s tructure, exclusive of the attachment welds to the torus shell; welded or mechanical attachments to the building structures (excluding embedments);
and seismic constraints l
between the torus shell and the building structure are Class F.,
[3] supports.
c.
Externni vents and j
vent-to-torus bellows (Row 1)
'Ihe external vents (between the attachment weld to the drywell and the t
attachment weld to the bellows) including:
vent penetrations within the NE-3334 [3]
limit of reinforcement normal to the vent, x
internal or external attachment welds to the external vent but not to nozzles, and the i
vent-to-torus bellows (including attachment welds to the torus shell and to the external vents) are Class MC (3] vessels.
U
N RC Contrret N3. N RC-03-81-130 000hr:nklin RIserreh Csnter FRC Project N2. C5506 p;gg A Division ciThs Frinklin instnut FRC Assignm:nt Ns.12.
FRC Task No. 32c 7
20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 Plant Narne VEC1Mee r yAUKE E Tcble 2-1. Audit Procedure forStructural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program i
Licensee Uses Secti:n Keyitems Considered Criteria dti.
Alternate Approach Nr* [2]
in the Audit Not NA Remarks Met, Met Reqd. Conser. Unconser-vative vative 2
2.2 (Cont.)
d.
Drywell-vent connection j
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 reinforcement on the drywell shell) are Class MC [3] vessels.
e.
Internal vents (Rows 2 j
and 3) - Are the
~
continuation of. tne vents internal to the y
torus shell from the vent-bellows velds and include:
the cylindrical shell, the closure head, penetrations in the cylindrical shell or closure head within the NE-3334 [3] limit of l
reinforc,ement normal to the vent, and attachment l
welds to inner or ooter surface of the vent but not to nozzles, f.
Vent ring header (Rows
/
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 downcomers arg Class MC
[3] vessels.
.. n
NRC Cantrcct No. N RC-03-81-130 A][C Fr:nklin Research Center Ul FRC Project No. C5506 Pago A Cavmon el Ths Fren! din Institut:
FRC ArtignmInt No.12.
FRCTesk No. 32o g
Mth and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa.19103 dis) 4G.1000 Plant Name ve%oOT 3Auges Tcble 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Conthinment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Key items Considr, red Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach N3.[2]
in the Audit Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)
- The portion of the downcomer 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 are considered under Bow 5.
I g.
Vent ring header
/
supports (Bow 7)
Subeection N7 (3]
supports, exclusive of l
the attachment welds to l
the vent ring header and to the torus shell,
(
are Class MC [3]
supports.
' ' " ~ W '. C""'
h.
T.ssential (Rows
/
S E.E A~'**'
10 and 11) and
>JoTES non-essential (Bows 12 and 13) piping b
I systems - A piping system or a portion 17-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
..,,... ~ - -,,,,.
..n,,
h NRC C:ntr ct N3. NRC-03-81-130 000hrrnklin Rssetrch Csnter FRC PrrJect No. C5506 P:ga A Dwision of Thz Fr:nkhn Institus2 FRC AsIlgnm:ntNs. I2.
20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRCTask No. 3 2o C3 Plant Name VER.ModT NAOKEE Tcble 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Sectlin Key items Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach N3* [2]
in the Audit Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser-Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
yative vative tv 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
^
combination.
i.
7ctive and inactive V
Le ct~w' rryo.
gg component (Rows
% rmir e.L Ib W'"
~-
10-13) - Active H 7ES co3ponent is a pump 54 or valve in an
[2, essential piping system which is required to perform a mechanical motion during the course of accomplishing a system safety function.
- j. Containment vacuum V
$EE L e cmJ N*-
go7E
% waslWJ IG C"*
breakers (aow 2)
Vacuum breakers valves mounted on the vent internal to the torus or on piping associated with tne torus are Class 2 [3] components.
_u
NRC Ccntr ct N2. NRC-03-81-130 0008J Funklin Resxrch Cantir FRC Pr: Ject NO. C5506 prgg A Dmson of Thi Franklin Instituta FRC A:signm:nt No. l'2.
FRCTask No. 3"lo to 20th and Race Streets. Phita.. Ps 19103 (215) 448 1000 Plant Name veR,Moe r N KEE Trble 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark 1 Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Sectlin Key (te s Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Accroach NG.(21 Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 2.2 (Cont. )
k.
External piping and supports (Rows 10-13):
- No Class 1 piping 1..c a w l rt-,p
- c.... w ~
- Piping external to
/
SEC q., gy in, and penetrating the go TC5 torus or the external vents, including the N$
uttachment weld to the torus or vent not _la is Class 2 [3] piping.
'Ih e l
cther terminal end of such external piping should be det. ermined based on its function
~
and isolation capability.
- Subsection NF [3]
support for such external piping including welded or mechanical attachment to structure; excluding any attachment welds to the piping or other pressure retaining component are Class 2 [3] supports.
l 1.
Internal piping and SEE L I'-e - * *' T '$
supports (Rows g o7er, b ci' A CL 8 h~'
10-13) - Are Class 2 or p
54 Clar J 3 piping and gg c,w,%
Class 2 or Class 3 component supports.
m.
Internal structures j
(Bow 8) - Non-s af e ty-related elements which are not pressure retaining, exclusive of attachment welds to any pressure retaining
4 NRC Contrtet No. NRC#3-81-130 ObbU Franklin Reserrch Cantir FRC ProjIct No. C5506 pgga A Division of The Frankhn Institute FRC Assignmant No.12, 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 32o II Plant Name N E EMo *J t
't A0 KEE Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark 1 Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Key items Considered Criteria Addt!.
Alternate Approach No. [2]
in the Audit Not Info.
Remarks Met. Met Reqd. Conser-Unconser-ve vative 2.2 (Cont. )
member (e. g.,
monorails. ladders, catwalks, and their supports).
n.
Vent deflectors (Row 9)
/
SEE Q o*T E 7
- Vent header flow deflectors and associated hardware (no t including attachment i
welds to Class MC vessels) are internal y
s tiucture s.
l
=
l~
3.2 Icad terminology used
/
g snould be based on Final Saiery Analysis Report 3
(FSAR) for the ur.it or the 3
I. cad Definition Report
]
(LDR) (5].
In case of 4
conflict, the LDR loads shall be used.
Loca_ & ~
3.3 Consideration of all load
[
SEE I..
L " * 'I 5
coracinations defined in Wo TE Section 3 of the LDR [5]
13 fl shall be provided.
7 F,
4.3 a.
No reevaluation for
/
limits set for design pressure and design temperature values is needed for present structural elements, b.
Design limit
,/
SEE l-3 (I w.I ru g requirements used for pao 7g g,
g, c4 gg, initial construction r,
M follcwing normal N.
b.4(*
practice with respect f
to load definition and i
allowable stress shall
)
be used for systems or l
3 5
A NRC Cantrcct No. NRC43-81-130 00bhrinklin Rssearch Csnt:r FRC Project No. C5506 pggg A Division of Thi Fran3in Institut, FRC AssignmInt No.12.
20th and Rue Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRCTcsk No. 3 2.o l'2 Plant Name N E GLM o O T N A U V.E E Tcble 2-1. Audit Procedure forStructural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program l Criteria Licensee Uses Sectt:n Key ttems Considered Addtl.
Alternate Approach N;.[2]
Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
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 :tp to Summer 1977 Addenda (3], specifically:
S **
a.
Class MC
/
containment vessels: Article NE-3 000 (3]
b.
Linear-type
/
component (Class 2 and 3) support -
with three modifications to the Code:
l'~"
W
- For bolted
/
SEE LwML connections, the g o7s requirements of c--
q Service Limits A and B shall be applied to Service Limits C and D l
without increase in the allowables above those applicable to Service I4vels A and B;
- NF-3 231.1 (a)
(3] is for primarf plus secondarf stress range;
1 N RC Cantrcct No. NRC-03-81-130 000hrInklin Rise:rch Csnter FRC Priject NO. C5506 p;g3 A Divison of Th2 Fr;nkhn Institut2 FRC AsIlgnm:nt No.12 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRCTask Nc. 3'lo D
Plant Name Y ERMo d*T %OKEE Tcble 2-1. Audit Procedure forStructural Acceptance Criteria of MarklContainment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Sectir:n Key items Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach No.{2]
go, NA Remarks Met Met Reqd.
vative vative P
- All increases in
/
- SEE, L L.t.<. 6 sp x L rr+= lwd M C v u r v allowable stress NOTE permitted by Subsection C)
NF [3] are limited by Appendix XVII-2110 (b)
[3] when buckling is a consideration.
1% L k.e & ~Y""
c.
Class 2 and 3 piping, V
SEE y %W IK C* pumps, valves, and MOTE internal structures 5
(also Class MC) n L k,
' Sh" SEE 5.3 The components, component g.
loadings, and service level M e"TE 4N #d c, u,,,
^
assignments for Class MC 13
[3] components and internal structures shall be as I
defined in Table 5-1 of Feference 2.
LLica J WY" Sgg 5.4
'lhe components, component
,/
k~rs.sk'{p],,n 4 7E loadings, and service level assign.nents for Class 2 and 6
Class 3 piping systems shall be defined in Table 5-2 of Reference 2.
5.5 The definition of g L i c., M mp *"
operability is the ability y
y,j ;_
to perform required a,,g,.
5
(
mechanical motion and functionality is the ability to pass rated flow.
a.
Active components shall be proven operable.
Active components shall be considered operable 4 f Service Limits l
l A or B or more conservative limits (if the original design criteria required it) are met.
i
N RC CO ntract N o. NRC-03-81-130 4
!!Q0U Frinklin Rise 1rch Cent;r FRC Project No. C5506 Pag 3 A Dwmon of Thz Frtnkhn Instuur.:
FRC As'dgnmtnt No.17.
14 FRC Task No. 32.o 20th and Race Streets. Phitt.. Pa. 19103(215) 448-1000 Plant Name 'iFR bdoJT
't AeJ KG E Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program t.lcensee uses Secti:n Keyitems Considered Cdtpa A dtl.
Alternate Approach N2. [2]
in the Audit Not NA Remarks Conser-Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
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 structura1 elements identified in g g,-
m item 1.2 of this table, qy c w~
a.
All loadings defined in
/
sEE,
See Section 3.3 l
subsection 3.2 of goic of this table.
Reference 2 shall be G
considered.
nLb a n--p'"
b.
A summary technical V
SEE
% r.,, in.i G I
" *M <-~
report on the analysis 4
shall be submitted to 8 8 29 d the NRC.
14 6.2 The following general guidelines shall be applied to all structural elements analyzed:
a.
Perform analysis y
LLau - N N according to guideline SEE
,% j r_-
defined herein for all MOTE G ^ ' "~
l loads defined in LDR lb I
[5].
(Ibr loads considered in original design, but not redefined by LDR, previous analyses or new analyses may be used.)
b.
Only limiting load combination events need l
be considered.
1
A NRC Contr:ct N3. N RC-03-81-130 000hr.:nklin R:se:rch Cinter FRC Pr: Ject N O. C5506 P;ga A Division of The Funkhn Instituta FRC A:signm:nt Na. n2.
\\5 FRC Task No. 32.o 20th and Race Streets. Phga.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 Plant Name NER. moot NAMKEE TCble 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark lCentainment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Key items nsidered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach NO.[2]
g9, NA Remarks Met, Met Reqd.
vative vative 6.2 (Cont.)
LLic m [ % ~
c.
Fatigue effects of all S'E oE
% M WdI i
operational cycles at, g N~
shall be considered.
gg 4 t7 d.
No further evaluation
/
go f RutE mot of structural elements seccwicAtt1 Mc EE D for which combined Ati ou4Q SoME t.oADS effect of loads defined Age ea rtTED AS in LDR [5] produces NE G LI G t 6 L E stresses less than 10%
of allowable is requir t:d.
Calculations demons trating conformance with the 10% rule shall be provided.
e.
Dacping values used in
[
L ' ' '
"~ h
- src.
dynamic analyses shall N oTE 6 r u lw (I l ' -
be in accordance with 14 c < u r~
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 [6].
i~8# A "' "
6.3 Structural responses for
/
SEE loads resulting from the HoTE 6 m,jm) L combination of two dynamic 19
'.N~
phenomena shall be obtained in the following manners a.
Absolute sum of stress components, or b.
Cumulative distribution function method if absolute sum of stress components does not satisfy the acceptance criteria.
6.4 Torus analysis shall consist of:
4 NRC C ntr:ct N2. NRC43-81-133 lj0bd Fr nklin R:se:rch Cint:r FRC Pr: Ject N3. C5506 pyga i
A Diws.on of Tha FrrnKn Insneut2 FRC As;lgnmInt N3.12 20th and Race Streen. Phda.. Pa 19103(215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. 32o
/G Plant Name VER.Mo dT 4AdtEE Ttble 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Secti:n Keyitems Considered Criteria Addt!.
Alternate ADDreach N2.[2]
Info.
NA Rernarks g, mm.
Met Met Road.
vative vative 6.4 (Cont.)
a.
Finito element analysis T( l-i c< -~cd N" gcc for hydrodynamic loads NdTES h..w ru d M (time history analysis)
'd"'"~
g and normal and other loads (static analysis) 40 making up the load combinations shall be performed for the most highly loaded segment of the torus, including the shell, ring, girders, and support.
b..
Evaluatica of overall
/
effects of seismic and other nonsymmetric loads shall be provided using beam models (of at least 180* of the 2
torus including columns and seismic restraints) by use of either dynamic load factors or
~
time history analysis.
c.
Provide a non-linear
/
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.
NL ' ' '
' #~i*
d.
Bijlaard formulas shall
/
$EE be used in analyzin9 MOTE IM each torus nozzle for
[
i conu ~
effect of reactions produced by attached piping.
If Bijlaard formulas are not
4 NRC Cintr:ct N D. NRC-03-81-130 c00u rrrnarin asse:rch c3nt;r FRC Pr;j:ct Ne. C5506 PQs A Division of The Frtnklin Institut, FRC AssignmInt ND. t2 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 4:8-1000 FRC Task No. 32o l'7 Plant Name V E R.Mc GT W u(EE Table 2-1. Audit Procedure forStructural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Contair, ment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addt!.
Alternate Approach ND. [2]
In the Audit Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative n'
6.4 (Cont.)
applicable for any nozzle, finite element analysis shall be performed.
I* I* ' U "
Y" 6.5 In analysis of the vent V
SEE system (including vent woTc kcm n.dnd IN Gwo~
penetration in drywell, 21 vent pipes, ring header, downcomers and their intersections, vent column supports, vent-totus bellows, vacuum breaker penetration, and the vent
~
deflector s), the following guidelines shall be followed:
a.
Finite element model
/
shall represent the most highly loaded portion of ring header shell in the "non-vent" bay with the downcomers attached.
b.
SEE T'I;'#
'*iM shall be performed to eg
% re.,, lg d IC evaluate local effects 23 in the ring header shell and downcomer intersections.
Use time history analysis for pool swell transient and equivalent static analysis for downcomer lateral loads.
l
fJRC Contract NS. NRC-03-81-130
- @ A J Fr:nklin Resench Cent:r FRC Pr ject N3. C5508 prga A Dwmon of T1u Frink!in Inst: tuts FRC AssignmInt No. 12, FRC Task No. 32o Id 20th and Race Streets. Fhda.. Pa 19103 (215) 448-1000 Plant Name VE RMoOT % UREE Tcble 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Te'm Program r
Licensee Uses Secti:n Keyitems Considered Criteria dtl.
Alternate Aporoach No* [2]
in the Audit Not NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser-Unconser-vative vative 6.5 (Cont.)
b' c.
Evaluation of overall
/
SEE effects of seismic and go7c W m e k! C other nonsymmetrical
< - - ~
n 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
/
N L'" ~ ** W SEc 6 m.W k -
analysis of vent geTg deflectors.
7 o u r~
1 e.
Consider appropriate superposition of
/
reactions from the vent deflectors and ring headers in evaluating the vent support columns for pool swell.
TL Laua d mj.3 -
6.6 a.- Analysis of torus y
gg l
internals shall include woTc L
7,.,, w J iG the catwalks with d.a --
supports, monorails, and miscellaneous internal piping.
t.
b.
It shall be based on y
hand calculations or i
l simple beam mo<*els and dynamic load fr ctors and equivalent static analysis.
NRC CIntr ct NO. NRC-03-81-130 bbbd Franklin R:surch Canter FRC ProjIct No. C5506 p g3 A Divmon of The Franklin Institute FRC AssignmInt N3.12 FRC Task No. 3 2e 19 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 Plant Name VEcucOT M A d k E E.
TEble 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark : Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Secti:n Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach Na.[2]
Not Info.
NA
' Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met -Met Read.
vative vative 6.6 (Cont.)
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).
b '"
G.7 Analysis of the torus
/
SEE attached piping shall be McTE
% re ulved C performed as follows:
3 q
a.
Designate in the summary technical report submitted all piping systems ar 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 insignificant).
1 I
c.
Use response spectrum or time history analysis for dynamic effect of torus motion at the attachment point, except for piping systems less l
than 6" in diameter, l
for which equivalent static analysis (using appropriate amplification factor) may be performed.
l h N RC Contract N o. N RC-03-81-130 3
UbUU Franklin R: starch C:nt:r FRC Proj:ct N:. C5506 Paga A Dmsson of Th2 Frinkiin Insntuts FRC Assignm;nt No.12 20:h and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. 3 2e 2o_
Plant Name v ee.u o O T 1 A ut'.E.E Tccle 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program i
Licensee Uses Sectlin Key items Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach No.[2]
g, NA Remarks Met Met Reqd.
y3 ;ve vative 6.7 (Cont.)
d.
Ef fect of anchor 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-3652.3 (3].
6.8 Safecy relief valve discharge piping shall be analyzed as follows:
L.oM mi'3-a.
Inalyze each discharge
[
SEE g, M d b 7}TM l
line.
c.<~
b.
Model shall represent gayg.
piping and supports, ticssstt N otc ATES from no==le at main TuaT Mo DEL oF steam line to discharge
/
SRV t l W E rECW C A7 ES in suppression pool, AT T HE C 5EM WEU and include discharge 3ET DEFLEcToE2..
device and its supports.
d c.
For discharge thrust
/
loads, use time history analysis.
d.
Use spectrum analysis
/
or dynamic load factors for other dynamic loads.
l i
l e
4 NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 UNU Frtnklin Riserrch Cent:r FRC Projrct No. C5506 PagD ss@nmut No. 3 --
A Dwiuon of Th3 Frrnklin Instituts 20th and Race Streeu. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 yERMoN7 YA N K. E E Table 2-2. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark I Contair' ment Long-Term Program Analysis Requirements Re i nts StructuralElement E
EII Remarks
.=
- . E li." E" 3*E E
- : =8 4
&$ sE= $25 23 E5 E8E E w aa 98 s & a i
bOS 3
,e m.
Tbrus shell with associated V
V V
V V
V y.
penetrations, reinforcing rings, and support attachments y,
V V
V b.
Torus shell supports to the building structure c.
Vents between the drfwell y
/
v V
V
/
and the vent ring header (including penetrations therein) d.
Region of drywell local to
/
V V
/
/
vent penetrations 2.
Bellows between vents and v
V V
torus shell (internal or external to torus) f.
Vent ring header and the y
/
/
V V
downcomers attacned to it g.' Vent ring header supports y
/
/
/
/
to the torus shell h.
Vacuum breaker valves v
V V
V V
V attached to vent penetra-tions within the torus (where applicable) l
- i. Vacuum breaker piping V.
g y
y v
y
/
TC u.M d'^ E e
b =1o~ N L'""*'
systems, including vacuum h w.J.MS ~ c' I breaker valves attached g Q *ecj-t,lh to torus shell penetrations Qm;M k cs and to vent pene trations e
M.
rtf' sr b i
external to tne torus i
(where applicaole)
- j. Piping systems, including v
V V
n pumps and valves internal to the torus, attached to the torus shell and/or vent penetrations
NRC C:ntrret NO. NRC-03-81-130 4
b0 Frinkiin Rzsearch CentIr FRC Prokct No. C5506 AssignmInt No. IZ A Divisen of TM FranMin Insutut:
77 s
O 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 ;000 g
Table 2-2. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Rehi$irNnts Analysis Requirements Structural Element EIS Remarks eY$
$$ )) 53""k$
k k
5 B 3 3
$3 3 <2<3 is 20e 3 8 8
o e c
a na ww k.
All main steam system safety V
V V
/
V A
"~
relief valve (SRV) piping brew M 1-o d w N e t: h it 1.
Applicable portions of the v
following piping systems:
4l N[ f ~
(1)
Active con'tainment system piping systems cooling system (ECCS)
/
j y
7 j
/
33 (e.g., emergency core suction piping and other piping required to maintain core cooling after
' loss-of-coolant accident (ICCA) )
(2)
Piping systems wnich V
V V
V V
Si provide a drywell-to-wetwell pressure dif-ferential (to alleviate pool swell effects)
(3)
Other piping systems, y
V V
V V
V
/
U i
including vent drains m.
Supports of piping systems y
V V
V V
V V
W V
mentioned in previous item n.
Vent header deflectors y
v v
v
/
/
/
including associated hardware o.
Internal structural y
elements (e.g., monorails, V
V V
V catwalks, their supports) whose failure might impair the containment function i
I l
t l
TER-C550 6-320 Table 2-3.
Non-Piping Structural Elements STRI.CTURAL ELEriENT ROW External Class MC 5"p'
'Icrus, Bellows, 1
External Vent Pipe, Drywell (at Vent),
Attachment Welds,
'Ibrus Supports, Seismic Restraints Internals Vent Pipe General and 2
l Attachment Welds i
At Penetration 3
(e.g., Header)
Vent Ring Header
'~
General and 4
Attachment Welds At Penetrations 5
(e.g., Downcomer s)
Downcomers General and 6
Attachment Welds Internals Supports 7
Internals Structures General 8
Vent Defl'ector 9
4 2
.L' J Franklin Research Center A Oms.on of The Fransen kneemste
NS!N;,
f.g;
- c, r ?))j....
.r-
.'!?..' ff < :. 3 d.
{(( / k k' <}.,
ri:
.s.
TER-C550 6-320 Table 2-4.
Piping Structural Elements STRUCTURAL ELD 4ENT ROW Essential Piping Systems With IBA/DBA 10 With SBA 11 Nonessential Piping Systems With IBA/DBA 12 With SBA 13
^
I As Udhu Franklin Research Center Awarn.rm %.
TER-C5506-320 NOTES RELATED TO TABLES 2-1 AND 2-2 Note 1:
Results for the following penetrations were not found:
o Vent pipe torus intersection (Note:
This penetration is connected through a bellows that will reduce penetration loading. Further, on page 97, the Licensee states that there is heavy shell reinforcement in that area.)
o Vacuum breaker line and RCIC torus penetrations ti:Luii.
However, page 1, para.1.0 states that analysis and results for F
piping attached to the torus... will be presented in a separate piping report.
(The Licensee's response (10] resolved this concern.)
Note 2:
The Licensee states (page 66) that seismic and thermal responses of the drywell were not available and therefore have not been included.
(The Licensee's response [10} resolved this concern.)
Note 3:
Para. NE 3365.2e of Section III of the ASME B&PV Code requires
'~'
demonstration of the fatigue acceptability of the bellows, which wts not reported in Reference 8.
(The Licensee's response [10] resolved this concern.)
Note 4 :
The Licensee has not provided information on the analysis of the vacuum breaker valves and has not indicated that these are Class 2 components.
(The Licensee's response (10] resolved this concern.)
Note 5:
Except for the submerged portion of the SRV line and its tee quencher, analyses of piping systems are not included within this report.
The Licensee intends to provide them in a separate report, TR-5319-2.
(The Licensee's response [10] resolved this concern.)
Note 6:
In the model, shown on Figure 6-1 of Reference 8 used for the analysis of the vent pipe and tee quencher, it appears that the line l
is supported at its elbow by a structure within the torus.
This elbow support does not appear in any of the illustrations in the report nor is its presence mentioned in any of the descriptive text.
(The Licensee's response [10] resolved this concern.)
Note 7:
The Licensee has not indicated the end conditions Lasartd ict the beam model of the vent header deflector shown in Figure 4-5 of Reference 8.
These end conditions strongly affect the results and should therefore be described.
(The Licensee's response (10]
resolved this concern.) db 200 Franklin Research Center A Ows.on of The Frenten insatute
1 l
TER-C5506-320 Note 8: Figure 2-15 of Reference 8 represents an artist's sketch of a typical section of the catwalk and handrails, including the newly added 2-inch diameter steel pipe,' diagonal braces, and their attachments to the catwalk. This sketch appears to indicate a rather poor design for the brace-to-catwalk attachment.
(The Licensee's response (10]
resolved this concern.)
Note 9:
Section 7.1.3 (stress results and evaluation for catwalk components) of Reference 8 does not exhibit the margin of safety against buckling for either the 4-inch diameter Schedule 80 pipe supports or the 2-inch pipe brace.
(The Licensee's response (10] resolved this concern.)
Note 10: It is not unreasonable to accept results as accurate when obtained for regions remote from locations where a structure is modeled with slight alterations made for analytical convenience, as was done for prediction of torus shell stresses in its unstiffened region using the model of Figure 3-1 of Reference 8.
It is also not unreasonable to cite a detailed analysis of another structure as providing engineering evidence of the general behavior of a second similar structure of comparable dimensions.
However, tne region of the miter joint (which incorporates two discontinuities--an offset ring and an abrupt angular change) is a
~
prime candidate for maximum shell stresses. The prediction of
~~
stresses here as the sum of those generated from two models, neither of which represents the actual structure, requires fuller justification than the report provides.
This structure is redundant and the stress state is controlled by the relative stiffness of adjoining members--not necessarily by the thickness of any given member.
Moreover, the justification provided (which relies on the Vermont Yankee shell thickness being less than that of the structure actually modeled) does not hold even for simple geometries, such as a tube between fixed suports under gravity-load.
l (The Licensee's response (10] resolved this concern.)
Note 11: The PUA report does not include a discussion, together with an accompanying list of components (and component interfaces), showing how code jurisdictional boundaries apply to the portions of the Vermont Yankee plant to be analyzed.
However, the fact that Tables
-3 2-3 and 2-4 are invoked as the basis of all analyses exhibits evidence of the Licensee's intent to apply the acceptance criteria of the relevant sections of the code.
In all stress evaluations, the numerical value of the stress limit actually used is given. Although this numerically stated limit should provide evidence that the proper criteria (code section and service limit) were used, traceability is lost because (in almost all l
l i nk!in Research Center A Omison of The Franen insoeute
TER-C5506-320 cases) the ASTM designation of the component material is not provided nor is the metal temperature given.
(The Licensee's response [10]
resolved this concern.)
Note 12: The Licensee has not provided information indicating whether the torus attached piping and its supports have been classified as Class 2 or Class 3 piping, essential or non-essential piping systems, and y
whether a pump or valve associated with the piping mentioned above is.
an active or inactive component, and is considered operable.
(The Licensee's response [10] resolved this concern.)
Note 13: With reference to Table 1 of Appendix B (enclosed), the Licensee should indicate if all loads have been considered in the analysis and/or provide justification if any load has been neglected.
(The Licensee's response (10] resolved this concern.)
Note 14: Analysis of a number of the new modifications has yet to be provided, including Items 5, 6,10,12, and 15 of the key for Figures 2-3 and 2-4 of Reference 8.
In addition, per page 9, final configuration of the catwalk is still under consideration.
(The Licensee's response
[10] resolved this concern.)
Note 15: The Licensee has not provided information on fatigue analysis for piping systems.
For the case of piping fatigue analysis, the NRC staff has requested the conclusions of a study presented at the NRC meeting [9] to be documented and submitted for NRC approval.
If these conclusions are acceptable to the NRC, each PUA report will be required to indicate that the fatigue usage factors for the SRV piping system and the torus attached piping are sufficiently small that a plant-unique f atigue analysis of these piping systems is not warranted.
(The Licensee's response [10] resolved this concern.)
Note 16: Compliance with the criteria, as shown in Section 6.6.a of Reference 8, is for items other than the miscellaneous internal piping yet to be furnished.
(The Licensee's response [10] resolved this concern.)
Note 17: The Licensee has not indicated the procedures used for computing fatigue usage when a member is subjected to cyclic load'ings of random occurrence, such as might be generated by excitations from more than one type of event (SSE and SRV discharge, for example).
(The Licensee's response [10] resolved this concern.)
Note 18: With reference to the computer model for the 1/32 segment of the torus shown in Figure 3-1 of Reference 8 and the analysis performed using only symmetric boundary con'ditions, the Licensee has not justified the reasons for not considering skew symmetric boundary conditions in order to evaluate the effect of the resulting modes.
4 (The Licensee's response [10] resolved this concern.)
! v"Stds f
.Nb FranWin Research Center j
A Dumon of The Fransen insesuse
- - _ _ _ ~ _ _ _.., -. _ _ _ _, _ _ _. _ _ - _, -. ~. _ _., - - _ _. _ _ _.
TER.-C5506-320 s
Note 19: The report seems to imply use of the method of summations of absolute values when stresses from two or more simultaneous dynamic events contribute to the total stress, but nowhere specifically states this.
Specific comments addressing the method of summation used and its compliance with the probability of non-exceedance (PNE) criteria of 84% stated in para. 6.3b of Reference 2 should be incorporated into the text.
(The Licensee's response (10] resolved this concern.)
Note 20: The Licensee has analyzed one SRV discharge line, but has not indicated,daat all such discharge lines are identical in configuration to the model or, alternatively, that the model investigate;d conservatively represents all lines.
(The Licensee's response (10] resolved this concern.)
Note 21: Compliance with the criteria as shown in Section 6.5 of Ref erence 8 is for items other than the vacuum breaker penetration yet to be furnished.
(The Licensee's response (10] resolved this concern.)
i Note 22: The Licensee should justify that the 45' model of the vent header ano downcomer used is adequate to meet the intent of the criteria which requires modeling not less than 180* of the header ring.
(The Licensee's response (10] resolved this concern.)
Note 23: Additional information (GE Report NECE 21968) has been requested on this item through the NRC channels.
(The Licensee's response (10]
resolved dais concern.)
Note 24: Page 2 of the TES report indicates that 2% of the critical damping was generally used throughout the analysis unless stated otherwise.
We note that the use of 2% critical damping for service conditions C and D is conservative, since in such cases damping of 4% is acceptable under Regulatory Guide 1.61.
(The Licensee's response (10] resolved this concern.)
i G _nklin Res,e_ arch Center
..~
TLR-C550 6-320 GENERAL NOTES Note Gl From the description provided on pages 36 and 67 of Reference 8, it appears that the Licensee did not follow standard ASME Code procedures when computing cumulative fatigue usage.
For example, the text seems to imply that (although a critical point evaluation is made) the critical point was selected, the critical transient times determined, and the stress range computed--all without benefit of the formation of any load combinations. Moreover, the text
~
refers (on pages 63 and G8, for example) to " controlling loads" for fatig;ue, and presents (on pr.ge 39) a table listing " cumulative usage factors" independently specified for several events, but unsumraed.
All departures from standard code procedures should be fully documented and their effects on computed margins of safety cssessed.
(The Li'ensee's response (10] resolved this concern.)
c Note G2:- The report contains little reference to thermal stresses and thermal-transients.
In Section 4.3.6 of Reference 8, however, it is stated that vent system thermal stresses were assumed equal to those ccrresponding to steady state application of maximum vent system i
temperature.
(The Licensee's response [10] resolved this concern.)
N I $N
...; Franklin liuearch Center at4 ae4n.. %.a %.
l TER-C5506-320 REFF3dNCES FOR APPENDIX A 1.
" Safety Evaluaticn Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation USNBC July 1960 2.
" 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" General Electric Co., C.an Jose, CA November 1981 l
6.
NRC
[
" Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants" October 1973 Regulatory Guide 1.61.
7.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III,' Division 2 l
New York 1977 Edition and Addenda up to Summer 1977 8.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Plant Unique Analysis Report, Mark I Containment Program Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation November 30,1982, TR-3319-1, Revision 0 9.
P. M. Kasik
" Mark I Piping Fatigue," Presentation at the NRC Meeting, Bethesda, MD
(
September. 10, 1982 l
e 10.
J. B. Sinclair, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation
}
Letter to D. B. Vassallo (NRC)
Subject:
Request for Additional Information - Mark I Containment r
Long-Term Program June 17, 1983 1 UUL ' Fren dir. Researet C.e.w,. tar n
A >= a e m r,.n.sn in.
. _.,.,., - ~ -.. -.. _ -, _ _
l APPENDIX B i'
ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
. i l'
/
W e
0 t
f- % 2 l!I
_ _.nl Franklin Research Center l
A Division of The Franklin insutute l
The Ben,4m n Franen Park av. Phda pa 19103 (21Si 4481000
.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ '
TER-C550 6-320 i
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION TORUS, VENT SYSTEM, AND PIPING SYSTEM
~
Item 1:
Provide a summary of the analysis and the results for the following pene trations:
o vent pipe torus intersection o vacuum breaker line and RCIC torus penetration.
Item 2: Comment on the effect of the neglected loads indicated on page 66 of Beference 4 on the stress results for the drywell-to-vent penetration.
Item 3:
Provide evidence that the fatigue criteria for the bellows as required by para. NE-3365-2,Section III of the ASME B&PV code are met.
Item 4 :
Provide a summary 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 5:
Provide analyses of the piping systems not included within the report.
Item 6:
Provide details of the construction of the SRV line as it exists in the Vermont Yankee plant, specifically in the region of the elbow support (if any).
Item 7:
Describe the end conditions assumed for the beam model of the vent header deflector shown in page 4-5, how these were derived, and the sensitivity of maximum calculated stresses to boundary assumptions.
Item 8:
Provide a detailed sketch of the actual diagonal brace-catwalk attachment, together with its stress analysis results.
Item 9:
Provide the results of the buckling analysis including the margin of safety for tne catwalk components, i.e., the 4-inch diameter Schedule 80 pipe supports and the 2-inch pipe brace.
Item 10 : Provide full justification for the stress values shown as representa-tive of those that may occur in the containment shell miter joint.
Establish limits of maximum possible error.
Item 11: Provide a list of the component materials and their corresponding metal temperatures used for the stress limit selection.
Item 12: Indicate whether each torus attached piping and its supports have been classified as Class 2 or Class 3 piping, Class 2 or Class 3 component supports, and essential or non-essential piping systems.
&m
~~
dd Franidin Research Center A Dmenon of The Frenen insotwee
TER-C5506-320 l
Also, indicate whether a pump or valve associated with the piping mentioned above is an active or inactive component, and is considered operable.
Item 13: With reference to Table 1 of Appendix B, indicate whether all loads have been considered in the analysis and/or provide justification if any load has been neglected.
Item 14: Provide a summary of the analyses for the new modifications yet to be supplied; these include Items 5, 6, 10, 12, and 15 of the key for Figures 2.3 and 2.4 of Reference 4.
In addition, if the final configuration of the catwalk is to be changed, update the analysis accordingly.
Item 15: Provide details of fatigue analysis for piping systems.
Indicate whether the f atigue usage factors for the SRV piping and the torus attached piping are sufficiently small that a plant-unique fatigue analysis is not warranted for piping.
The NRC is expected to review the conclusions of a generic presentation (5] and determine whether it is sufficient for each plant-unique analysis to establish that the expected usage factors for piping are small enough to obviate a plant-unique fatigue analysis of the piping.
Item 16: Submit a summary of the analysis fo,r the miscellaneous internal piping.
Item 17: The ASME Code provides an acceptable peccedure for computing fatigue usage when a member is subject to cyclic loadings of random' occurrence, such as might be generated by excitations from more than one. type of event (SSE and SRV discharge, for example).
This procedure requires correction of the stress-range amplitudes considered and the associated number of cycles in order to account for the interspersion of stress cycles of unlike character.
State whether or not the reported usages reflect use of this method.
If not, indicate the effect on reported results.
Item 18: Justify the reason for not considering skew symmetric boundary conditions in the analysis of the torus shown in Figure 3.1.
Evaluate the effect of the thus-neglected modes.
Item 19: Specific comments addressing the method of summation used and its compliance with the probability of non-exceedance (PNE) criteria of t
84% stated in para. 6.3b of Reference 1 should be incorporated into I
the text.
Item 20: Provide justification for analyzing only one SRV discharge line, as shown in Section 6.0 of Reference 4.
Indicate whether all discharge lines are identical in configuration to the one modeled, and whether the model investigated is conservative enough to represent all lines.
l nklin Res
---._earch Center
TER-C550 6-320 Item 21: Submit a summary of the analysis for the vacuum breaker and its penetration.
Item 22: Justify that the 45' model of the vent header and downcomer used in the analysis is adequate to meet the intent of the criteria which requires at least 180'.
b Justify the reasons for not considering skew symmetric boundary 4
conditions to evaluate the effect of the resulting modes.
~
l /%
I 0hd Franklin Research Center J
A we.e n r-=a m.w.
, = -.
TER-C550 6-320 GEhbRAL Item Gl: Describe fully the procedures used to assess cumulative fatigue damage.
In particular, address:
1.
Where departures from standard code procedure were introduced.
2.
How critical points were selected and how stress (or stress intensity) ranges were computed.
3.
Which cyclic loads were omitted, if any, in these computations.
For example, were thermal transients given consideration?
4.
Whether cyclic amplitudes and the associated number of cycles were adjusted to account for the interspersion of cycles of unlike character.
5.
Eow the cumulative usage factor was computed.
6.
What impact departures from code procedures have on the margins of safety shown for each component for which cumulative usage was computed.
Item G2:
Is the method described in Section 4.3.6 of Reference 4 for assessing thermal stress typical of all evaluations made in the report?
Please discuss time tacit assumption that either:
1.
Thermal equilibrium is achieved before other significant mechanical loads are experienced by the structure.
or 2.
Maximum transient thermal stresses are conservatively bounded by the assumptions made.
t l
I l. ___..Resear.ch Center nklin n
NRC Contract No. NRC-0341-130 nklin R: search C:nter C P@ect No. C55M j
FRC Assignm:nt No.12 A Divmon of The Frankhn insatuta FRC Task No 3 '2.o 5
20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (2151 448 1000 Pla Nm 6mC %WM Table 1. Structural Loading (from Reference )
other Wetwell interior structures structures E
e at i
e
~
m
=
om>
o f
=$d $2 B
2 i
{
S l
P g
3' %E k
(
k 2$.$ $
Loads 2
2 j
1!!
t j4 jIE<8sm]$
3 4
S 2
s 5
<a
- 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 Not Vertical Loads X
X 3.2 Torus Shell Pressure Histories X
X 3.3 Vent System !mpact and Drag X
X X
3.4 Impact and Drag on Other Structures X
X X
3.5 Froth Impingement X
X X
X X
3.6 Pool Fallback X
X X
3.7 LOCAJet X
X 3.8 LOCA Bubble Drag X
X X
- 4. Condensation Oscillation 4.1 Torus Shell Loads 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 Torus Shell Loads X
X 5.2 Loads on Submerged Structures X
X X
5.3 Lateral Loads on Downcomers X
X 5.4 Vent System Loads
- 6. T-Quencher Loads X
X 6.1 Discharge Line Clearing X
1 6.2 Torus Shell Pressures X
X 6.4 Jet Loads on Submerged Structures X
X X
X 6.5 Air Bubble Drag X
X X
X 6.6 Thrust Loads on T-Cuencher Arms X
6.7 S/RVDL EnvironmentalTemperature X
- 7. Ramshead Loacs 7.1 Discharge Line Clearing
{
7.2 Torus Shell Pressures
{
x 7.4 Jet Loads on Submerged Structures 3@
7.5 Air Bubble Drag
@y
@g 7.6 S/RVDL EnvironmentalTemperature I
Loads required by NUREG-0661[;d and included in PUA report.
b Not applicable.
TER-C5506-320 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX B 1.
" Mark I containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA October 1979 2.
" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation July 1980 3.
NEDO-21888 Revision 2
" Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA November 1981
?
4.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Plant Unique Analysis Report, Mark I Containment Program Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation November 30, 1982, TR-5319-1, Revision 0 5.
P. M. Kasik
" Mark I Piping Fatigue," Presentation at the NRC Meeting, Bethesda, ti September 10, 1982
.,1
\\
/ nklin Resear 4 %.oa.# n. n ch Center n m.w.
_