ML20106A557
| ML20106A557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1984 |
| From: | Le A CALSPAN CORP. |
| To: | Shaw H NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20106A558 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 TAC-07918, TAC-7918, TER-C5506-328, NUDOCS 8410010242 | |
| Download: ML20106A557 (51) | |
Text
_ _
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT I
! A'UDIT FOR MARK i CdNTAINMENT LONG-TERlVI PROGRAM - STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FOR OPERATING REACTORS BOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM STATION UNIT 1 NRCDOCKETNO. 50-203 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRCTACNO. 07918 FRC ASSIGNMENT 12 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81-130 FRC TASK 328 Prepared by Franklin Research Center
? Author:
A. K. Le 20th and Race Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103' FRC Group Leader:
V. N. Con Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: H. Shaw September 26, 1984 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither th'e United States Government nor any agency 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.
1 Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Yu Y
l'
. PriWcipal Author
' Departmentpirecjor
~
Date: 9,.85-8g Date: 'l-26, f t{
Date: ( 2&- FA FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER flioo10 7 'l2 /
DIVISION OF ARVIN/ CAL 5 PAN 20thand Race Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 l
TER-C5506-328 CONTENTS i
Section Title Page 3.-
1 INTRODUCTION 1
i 2
AUDIT FINDINGS.
2 3
CONCLUSIONS.
10.
4 REFERENCES.
.11 APPENDIX A - AUDIT DETAILS APPENDIX B - ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 4
+.-qq 9
e s
9 L
6 1
4 e
4 l
1
)
l i
111 l
u i
~
F TER-C5506-328 FOREWORD r
\\
l This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Frankli'n Research Center j
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.
e O
e G.
V
TER-C5506-328 l.
INTRODUCTION
-The capability,of the boiling water reactor (BWR) Mark I containment suppression chamber to withstand hydrodynamic loads w'as not considered in the original design of the structure's. The resolution of this issue was divided l
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 1
(LOCA), the NRC staff granted an exemption relating to the structural factor
'l 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 consistent wif.h the requirements of the applicable codes and standards.
The objective of this report is to present the results of an audit,of the Pilgrim Station Unit 1 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 " Mark I containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" [3), which meets the criteria of Reference 1.
~
i I
TER-C5506-328 2.
AUDIT FINDINGS A detailed presentation of the audit for the Pilgrim Station Unit 1 is provided in Appendix A, which contains information with regard to several key items outlined in the audit procedure [2]. Based on th'is detailed' audit, it was concluded that,certain items in the Pilgrim PUA reports (4, 5] indicated noncompliance with the requirements of the criteria [3] and several aspects of the analysis required further information. Based on this conclusion, the Licensee was requested to provide additional information on these aspects in order to indicate compliance with the criteria. The items contained in the request for additional information are attached to this' report as Appendix B.
The Licens^ee responded [6, 7] to all the items contained in the request for additional information (Appendix B), including the items related to torus-attached piping. Af ter an initial review of these responses, meetings were.
held with the Licensee to clarify certain aspects of References 4 and 5 and to verify the criteria and approach used by the Licensee for performing analysis of torus-attached piping, supports, and the torus penetrations. A brief review of the Licensee's responses [6, 7] and clarification obtained during the meetings with the Licensee is provided below. It is worth noting that each item in References 6 and 7 was discussed in the August 9, 1983 and August 24, 1984 meetings, respectively.
Item 1 In response to this item, the Licensee stated that the vacuum breaker valves at the Pilgrim plant have been considered to be Class 2 for analysis purposes hence, the Licensee's analysi.s conforms to the criteria [3]
requirements. Criteria for vacuum breaker modification were not addressed in Reference 3, and this issue is considered to be ouside the scope of this TER.
This issue is still a part of the Mark I Long-Term Program a'nd will be reviewed by the NRC separately.
Item 2 In this response, the Licensee indicated that all torus p.iping systems
-have been considered to be essential for plant operation for each load.
e
TER-C5506-328
' combination. The torus motion has been applied to'the piping system as a time 3
history for al.1 dynamic-loads.'.During a meeting with the Licen'see/ consultant on' August 9,198'3, an overview of the Licensee's analytical aphroach was presented. Subsequently, tho' Licensee submitted the PUA report for torus attached piping [5] which was reviewed, and a request for additional information was sent to the Licensee to which the Licensee responded during the meeting with the Licensee / consultant on August 24, 1984 [7). See Responses 7.1 through 7.7 for detailed discussions of the Licensee's response.
t Item 3 In, this response, the Licensee indicated that the analysis of the SRV discharge line at the Pilgris plant has been done separately for the portions of the piping within the torus and for all upstream piping (including vent 4
pipe penetration) in order to provide early results for torus wetwell piping which is included in Reference 4.
During a meeting with the Licensee /
~
consultant on August 9, 1983, an overview of the Licensee's analytical approach was presented which indicated that the Licensee's approach confor'as 5 -
to the criteria' requirements. Subsequently, the Licensee submitted the PUA -
report for torus attached piping [5] which was reviewed, and a request for additional information was sent to the Licensee to which the Licensee respondad during the meeting with the Licensee / consultant on August 24, l'984
[7]. See Responses 7.1 through 7.7 for detailed discussions of the Licensee's response.
j Item 4 i
During a meeting with the Licensee / consultant on August' 9,1983, an I
overview of the Licensee's analytical approach was presented which indicated that the Licensee's approach conforms to the criteria requirements. Subse-quently, the Licensee submitted the PUA report for torus attached piping [5]
which was reviewed, and a-request for additional information was sent to the Licensee to which the Licensee responded during the meeting with the Licensee / consultant on' August'24, 1984 [7). - See Responses 7.1 through 7.7 for detailed discussions of the Licensee's response. t
.. - ~ -,,,
TER,-C5506-328 Item 5 In response to this item, the Licensee indicated that all torus-attached-piping systems-at the Pilgrim plant have been classified as essential Class 2 piping systems and that all componen'ts associated with these systems.are considered active for purposes of the required evaluations. The Licensee's
+
approach is conservative and conforms to the criteria requirements.
Item 6 In response to this item, the Licensee provided jus.tifications for choosing five of the load combinations to be the governing ones..The Licensee's response is technically adequate and meets the intent of the criteria.
Item 7 In this response, the Licensee indicated that the conclusions of the Mark I Owner's Group generic study on piping fatigue are applicable to Pilgrim Station piping analysis, which implies that no plant-specific piping fatigue analysis is warranted. The Licensee's approach is technically adequate.
Item 8 In response to this item, the Licensee provided a drawing which indicates the actual saddle web and column support geometry. The Licensee's response has resolved the concerns with regard to this item.
Item 9 In response 'to this item, the Licensee provided copies of the actual computer plots for the 360' torus beam model which verify the accuracy of the computer model. The Licensee's response has resolved the concerns with regard to this item.
4-y a
w.m
-r y
e 4-
TER-C5506-328 Item 10 In response to this item, the Licensee indicated that the ring girder web
\\
d'imension'should be 23.5 inches; Figure 5-1 of the PUA report 14] had shown this dimension to be 20.50 inches. This error in the illustration did not affect the analysis and hence the Licensee's response has resolved the concerns with regard to this item.
Item 11 In response to this item, the Licensee provided justifications for neglecting the following loads (the Licensee's justification is noted briefly in parentheses).
1.
Torus shell - post Pchugging load (this is bounded by pre-chug load) 2.
Vent header support columns - pool swell drag and LOCA jet forces (they do not contribute to load combinations causing maximum stress)~
drag forces due to chugging (they do not contrib'ute to load combinations causing maximum stress)
]
drag forces due to condensation oscillation (condensation oscillation does not contribute-to the maximum column loading) 3.
Vent header system - condensation oscillation - IBA (these loads are
4.
Catwalk structure - effects due to motion of catwalk attachment points at the ring girder (they are negligible) _
]
e 5.
Internal spray header - effects due to motion of attachment points at I
the ring girder (they are negligible).
j The Licensee's response is technically adequate and meets the intent of l
the criteria.
i Item 12 l
4 l
In response to this item, the Licensee indicated that the 45' segment i
model of the vent header and downcomer used in'the analysis is conservative compared to a 180* segment vent system beam model because of the conservative
)
)
c "
TER-C5506-328 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.
Item 13
-In response to this ites, the Licensee indicated that the reactions from the vent deflectors and ring headers were superposed in the analysis of vent
~
support columns for pool swell. The Licensee's response has resolved the concern with regard to this item.
Item 14 In this response, the Licensee provided justification for not considering certain asymmetric modes in the analytical model for torus. The Licensee indicated that the highest shell stresses will occur at load frequencies that are highly coupled to symmetric modes (v.here the ring girders do not move).
Based on this, the Licensee has conclu(ed that the analysis is conservative.
The Licensee's approach is technically adequate and meets the intent of the criteria.
Iton 15 In this response, the Licensee indicated that all combinations of responses due to dynamic loads were analyzed using the absolute sua method.
The Licensee's approach conforms to criteria requirement.
Item 16 In this response, the Licensee indicated that, because Emergency Procedure Guidelines will be used at the Pilgrim Station, chugging is not expected to occur during a small break accident (SBA). Based on this fact, the Licensee's analysis excluded fatigue cycles due to SBA chugging. The
~
Licensee's approach is technically adequate and meets the intent of the criteria.
TER.-C5506-328 Item 17 In d11s response, the Lice'nsee indicated that the effects of seismic and thermal ~ response which were not included in Reference 4 have been subsequently co'nsidered for the analysis of drywell/ vent pipe intersectionL The results of the analysis show that the spresses in that region do not exceed the criteria allowables. The Licensee's response to this item is technically adequate.
1 Item 18 In this response, the Licensee indicated that ring girder analysis.is.
conservative for the following reasons:
1.
The ring girder flange in the model is smaller in area than the actual ring girder ' flange at the Pilgria plant and will indicate conservative results.
2.
The saddle in the 1/16 ring girder model used in the analysis has the abbreviated geometry and not the full saddle design of the Pilgrim plant. This will conservatively result in a concentration of load over a smaller saddle area. The Licensee's response has resolved the concerns with regard to this item.
Item 19 In responte to this item, the Licensee indicated that the natural frequency of the ring girder in the lateral direction is much greater than the corresponding loading frequency and hence will prevent frequency interaction with dynamic loads. The Licensee's response has resolved the concerns with l
regard to this item.
Item 20 In this response, the Licensee indicated that adequate conservatisms have been incorporated into the analysis of ring airder shell welds in the outer column and saddle regions which can offset the high stress values in those.
locations. The Licensee's response has resolved the concerns with regard to this item.
TER-C5506-328 Item 21 In response to this item, the Licensee stated that the maximum calculated differential motion across the bellows is less than 10% of the rated movements for the rated' number of cycles. Also, based on the manufacturer's fatigue data for unreinforced austenitic bellows, the permissible number of cycles for 6
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.
Item 22 In this response, the Licensee indicated that stress range amplitudes and the associated number of cycles were corrected in the fatigue analysis of the torus shell to account for the interspersion of stress cycles of unlike character. During th'e meeting with the Licensee / consultant on August 9, 1983, the Licensee outlined the procedure used for fatigue analysis of the torus-attached piping and penetrations. See Item 7.5 for details.
Item 7.1 In response to this item, the Licensee confirmed that there are no SRV piping supports located in the main vent pipe. The Licensee's response has resolved the concerns with regard to this item.
Item 7.2 The Licensee stated that pressure was considered as a sustained load and is included in the DW term of the equations in Section 2.4.2 of the PUA report (5] for SRV load cases. The Licensee's response has resolved the concern with regard to this item.
Item 7.3 In response to this ites, the Licensee indicated that five branch lines were analyzed separately using the,10% rule and in each branch analysis, the resulting stresses were less than 10% of the allowable. The Licensee'.s response is technically adequate and meets the intent of the criteria (31.
- F l
J i
j TER-C5506-328 Item 7.4 The Licensee confirmed that the SSE seismic load is included in the evaluation of load case 25.
The Licensee's response has resolved the concerns with regard to this item.
Item 7.5 In response to this item, the Licensee provided the analytical results for the three penetrations with the highest usage factors for small bore piping and large bore piping. The results indicated that the usage factors for these piping are less than the allowable factor. The Licensee's response is technically adequate.
Item 7.6 In response to' this item, the Licensee stated that some piping lines are connec,ted by a cross-over system or by having similar configurations; similar or identical designs were analyzed as a single line. Except for lines X-206C and X-206D, which were analyzed separately, the results were presented in Reference 7 and will be reported in Revision 1 of the PUA report, Table 3-2.
The Licensee's response is technically adequate.
Item 7.7 In response to this item, the Licensee provided the analytical results for the small bore lines associated with penetrations X-218 and X-219 [7].
These results will be reported in Revision 1 of the PUA repcrt, Table 3-2.
The Licensee's response is technically adequate.
s
TER-C5506-328 3.
CONCLUSIONS From the audit of the Pilgrim Station Unit 1 Plant Unique Analysis Report, it was c'oncluded earlier that certain aspects required additional information. The Licensee's responses [6, 7] to the request for additional information and subsequent clarification obtained during meetings 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 by the Licensee during the meeting on August 9,1983 and documented in Reference 5 conform to the requirements of the criteria. The Licensee's approach to evaluation'of piping fatigue conforms to the approach recommended by Mark I Owner's Group, which has been accepted by the NRC.
The evaluation criteria of the containment vacuum breaker valves is not addressed in Reference 3 and is therefore outside the scope of this TER; however, this issue will still be examined as part of
~
the Mark I Long-Term Program.
9 4
l S
l
- l I
TER-C5506-328 4.
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.
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 Pro' ram Structural Acceptance Criteria
- Plant Unique g
Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA October 1979
~
4.
Pilg' rim Station Unit 1 Plant-Unique Analysis Report of the Suppression Chamber Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Technical Report TR-5310-1 Boston Edison Company October 27, 1982 5.
Pilgrim Station Unit 1 Plant-Unique Analysis Report of the Torus Attached Piping Mark I Containment Program Technical Report TR-5310-2 Boston Edison Company October 1983 6.
W. D. Harrington Letter to D. B. Vassallo (NRC) with attachment
Subject:
Responses to NRC Request for Information Boston Edison Company July 13, 1983 7.
Mark I Torus Program Review of Plant Unique Analysis Report for Pilgrim I Nuclear Power Plant Teledyne Engineering Services August 23, 1984 (August 24, 1984 Meeting)
l 6
3 APPENDIX A AUDIT DETAILS FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISION OF ARVIN/CALSPAN 20thand Race Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103
f5[
i
+
TER-C5506-328.
1.
INTRODUCTION
,,The.keyikenssedtoevaluatetheLicensee'sgeneralcompliancewiththe u
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 j
containments, which h' ave a concrete torus.
For each requirement listed in Table 2-1, several options are possible, j-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 I
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 informat. ion. provided by the Licensee is inadequate to make an assessment.
A few remarks concerning Tables 2-1 and 2-2 will facilitate their future use:
A summary of the audit as detailed in Table' 2-1 is provided in Table o
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.
l l
.j
\\
l 1
O
NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81-130 Qll00U Franklin Research Center FRC Project No.C5506 Page A Dwoon d The Frankimlnsatute FRC Assignment No.
/".,
20th and Race Streets. Phda. Pa 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
J48 g
Pfant Name FN GR/Af &WW /
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark 1 Containment Long-Term Program Licensee uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addt!.
Alternate Approach No. [2]
Not Info.
NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser-Unconser-vative vative 1.2 All structural elements of the vent system and suppres-sion chamber must be considered in the review.
The following pressure retaining elements (and their supports) must be considered in the reviews o Torus shell with associ-ated penetrations, reinforcing rings, and
.:upport attachments o Torus shell supports to
/
the containment structure o Vents between the drywell and the vent ring header (includirig penetrationa therein) o Region of drywell local to vent pene trations o Bellows between vents and
[
torus shell (internal or external to torus) o vent ring header and the V
downcomers attached to it o Vent ring header supports to the torus o Vacuum breaker valves
- EE goyg w.c,orso4 vn rWss attached to vent penetra-j ww tions within the torus (where applicable) o Vacuum breaker piping 3E5 ut:evt.rE'J8 N ##
systems, including vacuum NOT#
W""#
breaker valves attached
/
to torus shell penetra-1
. NRC Crntract N 2. NRC-03-81-130
- dd Franklin Research Center FRC Project No. C5506 Page A Dwmon of The Franklin Instnute FRC Assignment No.
/4 20th and Race Streets. Phila. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
Jc28 3
Plant Name. P/468/M UNW /
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long Term Program Licensee Uses -
Section Keyitems n idered.
Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach" No.121 Not info.
NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative -
R 1.2 (Cont.)
tions and to vent i
penetrations external to the torus. (where applicable) ggswsft.$~ RfSO^'"
1 N#3 ###M# #"
o Piping systems, including go7y-pumps and valves internal 4
to the torus, attached to the torus shell and/or
- vent penetrations jjc2pvSEEb* EESNA o All main steam system As9s #4'5D 4 #
safety relief valve to#cE4" (SRV) piping o Applicable portions of the following piping 4
systems:
- Active containment system piping systems (e.g., emergency core cooling system (ECCS) and other piping required to maintain core cooling after loss-of-coolant accident (I.DCA) )
- Piping systems which provide a drywell-to-wetwell pressure dif-ferential (to alleviate pool swell effects)
- Other piping systems, including vent drains o supports of piping systems
<ME NCE*'SEE'# ##*"'#
mentioned in previous item
"'4 # #EJC' * "#
D ~,, '
Co</Ce.- WN G
bs 4 o Vent header deflectors
/
including associated hardwaru
NRC Contract N 3. NRC-03-81 130 000a e,ankiin ae.earch center FRC Proi t No. Css 0.
pa.
A DMeen of The Frankhn Insutute FRC Assignment No.
AC 20th and Race Streets. Phde.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRCTask No.
338 ff Plant Name p/4 6,tyH f./Af/I /
Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Key items Considered Criteria tl.
Alternate Accroach No* [2]
in the. Audit Not NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 1.2 (Cont.)
/
o Internal structural elements (e.g., monorails, catwalks, their supports) whose failure might impair the containment function 1.3
- a. Die atructural acceptance criteriw 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 addenda through the Summer 1977 Addenda
[3] to be referred nerein as the Code. The alternatives to this criteria provided in Reference 2 are also acceptable.
V
- b. When complete appli-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 af ter approval by the Nuclear 11egulatory Commission.
NRC Contract N3. NRC-03-81-130
%u Franklin Research Center b
FRC Project No. C5506 Page A Dwmon of Tne Franklin Institute FRC Assignment No.
/2 20th and Racejereets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
M8
.g Plant Name f/LGK/M UNd /
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses.
Section Keyltems nsidered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach No. [2]
Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser-Unconser Met Met Reqd.
vative Vative
~
2.1 a.
Identify the code -
or other classification of the structural element j
b.
Prepare specific dimensional boundary definition for the specific Mark I contain-ment systems (mte:
Welds connecting pipin,g to a nozzle are piping welds, not Class MC welds) 2.2 Guideli'nes for classification of structural elements and boundary definition are as follows:
(Refer to Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 for non-piping and piping structural elements, respectively, and to item 5 in this table for row designations used for defining limits of boundarie s) a.
'Ibrus shell (Aow 1)
/
The torus membrane in combination with reinforcing rings, penetration elements within the NE-3334 [3]
limit of reinforce-ment normal to the terus shell, and attacnment welds to the inner or outer surface of the above members but not to nozzles, is a Class MC [3] vessel.
O
~
NRC Contract ND. NRC-03-81 130 UNU Franklin Research Center FRC ProjectN.C5506 Page A Diwoon of The FranklinInstuute FRC Aasignment No.
/4 20th and Race Streets. Phila. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
S88 6
Pf ant Name l
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program l
l Licensee uses
\\
U" Keyitems Considered Criteria Addt!.
Alternate Approach j
NO l2I in the Audit Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser-Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)
b.
'Ibrus shell supports ~
/
(Bow 1) - Subsection NF
[3] support structures between the torus shell and the building structure, exclusive of the attachment welds to the torus shellt welded or mechanical attachments to the building structures (excluding embedments);
and seismic constraints between the torus shell i
and the building structure are Class MC
)
[3] supports.
c.
External vents and
/
vent-to-torus bellows (aow 1)
'Ihe external vents (between the l
attachment weld to the drywell and the attachment weld tc, the bellows) including:
vent penetrations within the NE-3334 (3)
Limit of reinforcement normal to the vent, internal or external attachment welds to the external vent; but not to nozzles, and,the vent-to-torus bellows (including attachment welds to the torus shell and to the external vents) are Class MC (3] vessels.
l
NRC Ccntr ct N 3. NRC-03-81-130 000d Franklin Research Center FRC Project No. C5506 Page A Desen of The FrankLn Institute FRC Assignment No.
/4 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
54 8 7
Plant Name. PMBR/M ~ UN/7 /
. Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of MarklContainment Long-Term Program Ucensee Uses S~ection Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach" No. [2]
in the Aud t Not info.
NA Remarks Conser-Unconser.
Met ReQd.
g g
2.2 (Cont.)
d.
Drywell-vent connection
/
region (Bow 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 (aows 2
/
and 3) - Are the continuation of the vents internal to the torus shell from the vent-bellows welds and includes the cylindrical shell, the closure head, penetrations in the cylindrical shell or closure head within the NE-3334 (3) limit of reinforcement normal to the vent, and attachment welds to inner or outer surface of the vent but not to nozzles.
f.
Vent ring header (Bows
/
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 are Class MC (3] vessels.
NRC Contract N;. NRC-03-81.-130 000Erankiinae.,chc.ni.,
FRC Proi.ct No. Cssos psa.
A Otvmon of The Franklin insatute FRC Assignment No.
/4 20th and Race Streets. Ptula.. Pa 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
J48 8
Plant Name A26</M UNW /
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Marki Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Key items Considered Crh8 8 Alternate Approa No. [2]
NA Remarks 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 aow 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.
4 sfE s/cawsss$~R & #
h.
Essential (Bows g7e g ggum 7 fps 10 and 11) and ggg 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 capaoility to prevent or mitigate the consequences of
I M -2 NRC Contr ct N O. NRC-03-81 130
' bd Franklin Research Center FRC Project No. C5506 Page A D,wsion of The Franklin insnrute FRC Assignment No.
40 20th and Race Sgreets. Phda. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
J48 9
Plant Name M46L'A f UN/7 /
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark lContainment Long-Term Program t
Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach Nr. [2]
Not Info.
NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser-Unconser '
vative vative 1
2.2 (Cont.)
accidents which could result in potential off site exposures comparable to the guideline exposure of 10CFR100 (4]. Piping l
should be considered essential if it performs a safety-related role at a later time during the event combination being considered or during l
any subsequent event combination.
- i. Active and inactive 4 M'M component (Rows
- 2 W MM * ##
10-13) - Active 6
N G A"^'
l component is a pump l
or valve in an essential piping system which is l
required to perform a mechanical motion l
during the course 1
of accomplisning a l
system safety l
function.
l 3
Containment vacuum 888 ANU ###
l breakers (Bow 2)
AtP78 NAJAf04VEo N
)
Vacuum breakers valves
/
mounted on the vent l
internal to the torus or on piping associated with the torus are Class 2 (3) components.
@00uu Franklin R:se:rch C:nter -
NRC Contract Nr. NRC-03-81-130 FRC Project N 3. C5506 Pag 3 A Dmsen of The Frankhn Instnute FRC Assignment No.
/4 20th and Race Streets. Phda. Pa. 19103(215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
' 74 8
/d Pfant Name f/4 67,g/ M L/A//7~ /
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program a
Licensee Uses Section Key items Considered Criteria Adct!.
Alternate Approach No.[2]
in the Audit Not Info.
Conser. Unconser-Met. Met RW.
vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)
gEg f /C&VWS AWM k.
EKternal piping and p ;2r MS #E4oz VEW JWWS supports (aows 10-13):
g c:c>scEp.N
- No Class 1 piping
- Piping external to and penetrating the torus or the external vents, including the attacament weld to the torus or vent nozzle is Class 2 [3] piping. Ute other terminal end of such external piping should be determined 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.
$ff JdfMSEES &M
'- %;;":' gne ~a
-Sns-s 4-c<:wc4 cal 10-13) - Are Class 2 or-Class 3 piping and Class 2 or Class 3 component supports.
m.
Internal structures
/
(Row 8) - Non-safety-related elements which are not pressure retaining, exclusive of attachment welds to any pressure retaining
NRC ContrOct N8. NRC-03-81-130
,. ~
M Franklin Research Center FRC Project No. C5506 Page A Dmsson of The Franklin Insnrute FRC Assignment No.
/c8 20:n and Race Streets, Phda.. Pa-19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
J49
//
Plant Name. FRGA'/N/ UNW /
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Marki Containment Long-Torm Program Licensee Uses Se' ction Key items Considered, Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach" j
No.12) in the Audit Info.
NA Remarks p ww-Met Met Read.
vative -
vative 1
2.2 (Cont.)
member (e.g.,
monoraile ladders, catwalks, and their supports).
n.
Vent deflectors (Row 9)
- Vent header flow deflectors and associated hardware (n'o t including attachment welds to Class MC vessels) are internal s tructure s.
3.2 Ioad terminology used
[
should be based on Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the unit or the Ioad Definition Report (LDR) (51 In case of conflict, the LDR loads shall be used.
3.3 Consideration of all lead M
4/CEN M I # # #
comninations defined in
- 7#
M S A:Efot V## '"#
Section 3 of the LDR [5]
//
shall be provided.
4.3 a.
No reevaluation for L/
limits set for design pressure and design temperature values is needed for present structural elements, c.
Design limit
/
requirements used for initial construction following normal practice with respect to load definition and allowable stress shall be used for systems or
A NRC Contract N 2. NRC-03-81r130 d
ranklin'Research Center FRC Project No. C5506 Page A Owmon of The Frankhn Insuture FRC Assignment No.
/4 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
<$48 g
Pfant Name F/.!GR/M L/N/7 /
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Ucensee USGS Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addt!.
Alternate ADDreach No. [2, Not Info.
NA Remarks s
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 ne 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 vessels: Article, NE-3000 (3) b.
Linea r-type
/
component (Class 2 and 3) support -
with three
)
modifications to the Codes
- For bolted connections, the
{
requirements of Service Limits A and B shall be applied to Service Limits C and D without increase in the allowables above those applicable to Service kvels A
)
and B;
- NF-3 231.1 (a)
[3] is for primary j
plus secondary s tress range;
i
@!!00U Franklin Research Center -
NRC Contract N2. NRC-03-81 130 FRC Project No. C5506 Page A DMuon of The Franklin Instaut, FRC Assignment No.
/O 20th and Race Streets. Phila. Pa. 19103(215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
pg 73 l
Plant Name F/4 Se/M ///W /
/
Table 2-1.' Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Ma'rk l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses 1
Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach No. [2]
in the Audit Not Info.
NA Remarks Consor. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative r.
- All increases in allowable stress permitted by Subsection NF [3] are limited by J
Appendix XVII-2110(b)
[3] when buckling is a consideration.
c.
Class 2 and 3 piping,
/
pumps, valves, and internal structures (also Class MC)
/
f 5.3 The components, component loadings, and service level assignments for Class MC
[3] components and internal structures shall be as defined in Table 5-1 of Reference 2.
~
S.4 The components, component
/
loadings, and' service level assignments for Class 2 and Class 3 piping systems shall be defined in Table 5-2 of Reference 2.
5.5 The definition of 85#
4/c s,eSE E I M M X i
operability is the ability A'D M NM #NM to perform required 6
So^'N'#
mechanical motion and functionality is the ability to pass rated flow.
a.
Active components shall be proven operable. Active components shall be considered operable if Service Limits A or B or more conservative limits (if the original design criteria required it) are met.
~
NRC Contract N3. NRC-03-81-130 UUUU Franklin Research Center FRC Project No.C5506 Page A D6woon of The Frankhn Instaure FRC Assignment No.
/4 20th and Race Streets. Phde.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
548
/g Piant Name F/L6R/M L/N/7" /
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach No. [2]
in the Not Info.
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 structural elements identified in item 1.2 of this table.
4KEASM ##
pS RJGadVED IMC CoMl%AA/
a.
All loadings defined in JES See Section 3.3 subsection 3.2 of NO78 of this table.
Reference 2 shall be G
. m.
considered.
b.
A summary technical efEE f./caffs'c fra: yew.ws report on the analysis
'N r*d" M N " #
shall be submitted to
- > 4 6####
~
the NRC.
5 4) 3 5~
6.2 The following general guidelines shall be applied to all structural elements l
analyzed:
a.
Perform analysis
.SE#
4/C845##'#
- ^ "
MS ##
according to guideline 1
defined herein for all 0
loads defined in.LDR (5].
(Ebr loads j
considered in original design, but not redefined by LDR, previous analyses or new analyses may be used.)
b.
Only litniting load-comoination events need be considered.
De.
NRC Contract N3. NRC-03-81130 00b!! Franklin Research Center FRC Project No. C5506 Page A Dmsen of The Frankhnlausuu FRC Assignment No.
/4 20th and Race Streets. Phde.. Pa. 191031215) 448 1000
' FRCTask No.
J48
/.5~
Plant Name. F//.GK/M t/M/T
/
Table 21. Audit Pfocedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark i Containment Long-Term Program ucensee uses Section Keyltems noidered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach' No.12) in the Not Info.
NA Remarks Consor. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 6.2 (Cont.)
1
- c.. Fatigue effects of all JEB DCJ9vrsw$ A':e:cAwSfs I
M 7Ef WE BMo4#p operational cycles shall be considered.
- fgy,
.rNEF N N#
y d.
No further evaluation of structural elements for wnich combined effect of loads defined in LDR [5] produces stresses less than 10%
of allowable is required. Calculations demons trating conformance with the 10% rule shall be provided.
e.
Damping values used in
/
dynamic analyses shall be in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 (6].
6.3 Structural responses for SEE uMME16dE loads resulting from the gord gg acceve combination of two dynamic Y
N N##
phenomena shall be obtained in the following manner:
a.
Absolute sum of str'ess 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:
A.
A~
NRC Contract N 2. siRC43-81-130 b!! Frank!!n Research Center FRC Project No. C5506 Page A Division of The Frankhn Insedute FRC Assignment No.
/.3 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
J48
/C Plant Name P/4 GA'/p/ t./NW /
Tabf e 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Key items Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Accroach No. [21 in the Audit Not Info.
NA Remarks Met Met Reg vative vative 6.4 (Cont.)
e.
Finite element analysis g gr J./cfN.rff's #EJMS og ppE,eSfo' 4F8#
for hydrodynamic loads pggpp f
~ (time history analysis) 3 >
and normal and other
/O> #4 loads (static analysis)
//o /8, j
making up the load
/9,20 combinations shall be performed for the most highly loaded segment of tne torus, including the shell, ring, girders, and support.
gscaq/25=$A'ESfbDJE b.
Evaluation of overall SEE m s,g g.,gggg effects of seismic and
- T#
,;yfj m g w M other nonsymmetric 9
loads shall be provided 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
/
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 t/
be used in analyzing each torus nozzle for effect of reactions produced by attached piping.
If Bijlaard formulas are not
g NRC Contract N D. N RC-03-81 130
.1 Franklin Research Center FRC Project No.C5506 Page A D v. son of The Frenan Insraut, FRC Assignment No.
/,6 20th and Race 9 reets. Phda, Pa 19103 42th 4481000 FRC Task No.
4 38
/7 Plant Name
/Y4 GR/M 4/M7
/
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses,
Section
' Key items Considered Criteria dil.
Alternate Approach No.'[2]
in the Audit No NA Remarks Conser-Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 6.4 (Cont.)
applicable for any nozzle, finite element analysis shall be performed.
6.5 In analysis of the vent ME e N EFISE I # 4 N 5e system' (including vent NAS #SSc4rE4 77#5 f
penetration in drywell,
/7 N MEM vent pipes, ring header, downcomers and their intersections, vent column supports, vent-torus bellows, vacuum breaker
~
penetration, and the vent e
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 atta ched.
D.
/
shall be performed to evaluate local effects in the ring header shell and downcomer intersections.
Use time history analysis for pool swell transient and equivalent static analysis for downcomer lateral loads.
e b
A
4 NRC Contract No. NRC-03 81-130 3
000U Franklin Research Center FRC Project N2.C5506 Pag 3 A Dwoon of The Franun inwouse FRC Assignment No.
/4 20th and Race Serests. Phde.. Pa. 19103(2154 448 1000 FRC Task No.
&S Jg P1 ant Name F/4.diGe/M UA//2"
/
Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee uses Section Key items Considered tl.
Alternate Approacn No. [2]
in the Audit Not g-NA Remarks Consor. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 6.5 (Cont.)
- c., Evaluation of overall fni' 4/CEsSEE3 N #2 etfects of seismic and MD77 MASAYSO4VfD other nonsymmetrical
/4 WS '#MN#
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
/
analysis of vent deflectors.
d22r 4/cEvsrs h ACAb^W e.
Consider appropriate gg g g gfjog g o superposition of reactions from tne vent
'y yyn cowcr~ed 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.
1 b.
It shall be based on hand calculations or simple beam models and dynamic load factors and equivalent static analysis.
O
O NRC Contract N 3. NRC-03-81-130 U2d Franklin Research Center FRC Project No. C5506 Page A Dn,ision of The Frankhn Instaure FRC Assigoment No.
/-6 20th and Race Streets. PMa.. Pa 19103 (215)448 1000 FRC Task No.
J28 jg FMGR/M l/N/7 /
Plant Name s
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Ucensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered-CH,teda Addtl.
Alternate Approach, NA Remarks No' (2) in the Audit Not Conser-Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative.
6.6 (Cont.)
s/
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).,
@SEEI MS&/f6 6.7 Analysis of the torus JEE MS M+5 #EtoM4 attached piping shall be performed as follows:
g.
M'.S co^'M
' Designate in the a.
summary technical report submitted all piping systems as essential or non-essential for each lqad combination, b.
Analytical model shall represent piping 'and supports from torus to first rigid anchor (or where effect of torus motion is insignificant).
c.
Use response spectrum or time history analysis for' dynamic effect of torus motion at the attachment point, except for piping systems less than 6" in diameter, for which equivalent static analysis (u sing appropriate amplification factor) may be performed.
/ n%
NRC Contract No. NRC.03 81-130
!!NU Franklin Research Center FRC Project No. C5506 Page A owmon of The Fr.nkhn inanw.
FRC Assignment No.
/oS 20th and Race Streets. Phda,. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
3,3g g
Plant Name
//t.GNM f/A//7" /
Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Key items Cons.dered Cnteria Addtl.
Alternate Aporoach No. [2]
,gg, NA Remarks Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 6.7 (Cont.)
d.
Ef fact 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].
sgg sscENs;ff$42/oM 6.8 Safety relief valve goggg discharge piping shall be analyzed as follows:
O j, gay a.
Analyze each discharge
~
line.
b.
Model shall represent piping and supports, 4
from nozzle at main steam line to discharge in suppression pool, and include discharge device and its supports.
c.
For discharge thrust loads, use time history analysis.
d.
Use spectrum analysis or dynamic load factors for other dynamic loads.
t e
4 2
g
'.branklin Research Center NRC Contract No. NRC-03-81 130 FRC Project No. C55C6 A Drwsnon of The Franklin Insnrute
^88'E" U'
20th and Race Streets. Phda. Pa. 19103 (2151 448 1000 j
p l
j7 j
Table 2-2. Audit Summary forStructural Acceptance Criteria of Mark iContainment L ong. Term Program Re ir nts Analysis Requirements StructuralElement I
oIR
~
{=. E w. i d s e 2 "[
- =8 2
Remarks
.=
isa sg s
. a s
b05b
&$ 5%k 43 E5 58E E Torus shell with associated
/ ! / /
a.
pene trations, reinfoccing rings, and support attachments b.
Tcrus shell supports to
/ ' !
the cuilding structure Vents between the drywell
/
/
c.
and tne vent ring header (including penetrations therein) d.
Region of.dr?well local to.
/
/
/
/ //
vent penetrations Bellows between vents and
/
y
/
/
F W
e.
/
V torus shell (internal or
, external to torus) f.
Vent ring header and the downcomers attached to it Vent ring header supports 9
/
/
/
to the torus shell n.
Vacuum breaker valves attached to vent penetra-
- M/W/A N tions within the torus VA N WE4##A (where applicable)
A/o/W /CA7/o^/ NAS NoroffN AM#
i Vacuum breaker piping
/WcrF&eEWen 4
/
V'
/
systems, including vacuum breaker valves attached
/45VE /r et/73^02 to torus shell penetrations
,g,g pg and to vent penetrations ff
,7 7fg,
external 1.n tne torus yg.g g g [ m gff (where applicau., e) euus ve4 ac
,ag g, y,,,p,3 y j
Piping systems, itcluding 7,g,,
g g
/
V V
/
V W
pumps and valves :nternal FAAT~ oc MARX I
, to the torus, att ached to scyg 7pg mg.,egu the torus shell and/or vent penetrations k
NRC Contract No. NRC-03 81-130 U
Franklin Research Center FRC %ect No. N FRC Assignment No.
/4 3
g7 20th and Race Seese. Phde.. Pa.19103 (2153 448-1000 g
j gj 7 j Table 2-2. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Crtteria of Mark i Containment Long-Term Program R
r $nts Analysis Requirements If III Remarks Structural Element N
! 3)!$l l a
k.
All main steam system safety /
/
/
/
/
/
relief valve (SRV) piping 1.
Applicable portions of the
/
/
/
/
/
/
following piping systems:
(1)
Active containment
/
/
/
system piping systems 3
(e.g., emergency core cooling system (ECCS) suction piping and other piping required to maintain core cooling after loss-of-coolan t accident (IDCA))
(2)
Piping systems which
/
/
provide a drywell-to-wetwell pressure dif-ferential (to alleviate pool swell effects)
(3)
Other piping systems,
/
/
including vent drains m.
Supports of piping systems
/
mentioned in previous item n.
Vent header deflectors
/
/
including associated nardware o.
Internal structural
/
/
o elements (e.g.,* monorails, catwalks, their supports) whose failure might impair the containment function 1
l l
3
.:b5nklin Research Centst NRC Antract No. NRC-C3 81 t30
'RC'*****"**C#'**
y FRC Assignment No. /2, pagg 20th and Race Screets. Phala. Pa. 19103 (215) 443 1000 j
P Na e W
FMT /
Table 1. Structural Loading (from Reference 5)
CinerWetwell.
Structures Interior Structures Eo E
- 3 U
g
$2-W 352 3 l
i
$1$ IE
=
LC408 g
2 3
e s
s s=2 5s o
k i_ $US $h
- 1. ContainmentPressure and Temperature
- 2. VentSystem Thrust Loads X
X X
X X
X X
X X
- 3. PoolSwell X
X X
3.1 TorusNetVerticalLoads 3.2 Torus ShellPressure Histories X
X 3.$ Vent System impact and Drag X
X 3.4 Impact and Drag on Other Structures X
X X
3.5 Froth lmpingement X
3.6 PoolFallback X
X X
X X
3.7 LOCAJet X
X 3.'8 LOCA Bubble Drag
- X X
X
- 4. Condensation Oscillation X
X 4.1 TorusShellLoads X
X X,
4.2 Load on Submerged Structures X
X 4.3 LateralLoads on Downcomers 4.4 VentSystem Loads X
X X
- 5. Chugging X
X X
X 5.1 TorusShellLoads 5.2 Loads on Submerged Structures X
X 5.3 LateralLoads on Downcomers 5.4 VentSystem Loads X
X X
{
- 6. T-Quenchar Loads X
X X
X 6.1 DischargeLineClearing 6.2 TorusShellPressures 6.4 Jet Loads on Submerged Structures X
X X
6.5 AirBubble Drag X
X X
X 6.6 Thrust Loads on T-Quencher Arms X
X X
X 6.7 S/RVOL EnvironmentalTemperature
- 7. Ramshead Loads X
7.1 Discharge Line Clearing
'X 7.2 Torus ShellPressures 7.4 Jet Loads on Submerged Structures g
g g
7.5 AirBubble Drag 7.6 SIRVOL EnvironmentalTemperature g
g g
g g
Loads recuired by NuREG-0661[4]
3 Not applicable.
t l
l W-
TER-C5506-328 Table 2-3.
Non "iping Structural Elements STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ROW
, External Class MC Torus, 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 l
General 8
Vent Deflector 9
1 i
(
l l.
i l
~
~
TER-C5506-328 Table 2-4.
-Piping Structural Elements 1
STRUCTURAL ELEMENT RCW Essential' Piping Systems With IBA/DBA 10 With SBA 11
- Nonessential Piping Systems With IBA/DBA 12 With SBA 13 9
D e
n.w.
4 e
t-4 4
4 O
e e
4 1
l t t
~
TER-CSS06-328 j
NOTES RELATED TO TABLES 2-1 AND 2-2 NOTE 1:
The Licensee has not provided information on the analysis of th to vent penetrations within the torus, and has not indicat e
these are Class 2 components.
a NOTE 2:
The Licensee has not provided information on the analysis attached piping systems.
of torus NOTE 3:
The Licensee has not provided information on the analysis of s f t relief valve discharge piping.
aey NOTE 4:
The Licensee has not provided information on the analysis of drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential, and other internalc active systems.
piping NOTE St The Licensee has not provided information indicating whethe piping, or essential or non-essential piping systems, a r the pump or valve associated with the piping is an active or inactive a
component, and is considered operable.
NOTE 6:
The Licensee has not provided adequate justification for d t several load combinations used in the PUA report e ermining
[8] to be the controlling load combinations.
NOTE 7:
For the case of piping fatigue analysis, the NRC staff ha documented and submitted'for NRC approval.the conclusions of s requested i
o be acceptable to the NRC, each PUA report would be required to indicatIf these co that the fatigue usage factors for the SRV piping systems e
tort fatigue analysis of these piping systems is not warrantedattach and the NOTE 8:
With reference to the finite element model of thv shell, ring girders, and supports, torus including the webs and the-torus columns were welded together as s'hown in Fiit is not c 2-5, 2-11, 2-12, 3.1, and 3.2 of Reference 8.
gures provide information showing the as-built configuration of the tori s The Licensee should and its supports.
NOTE 9:
With regard to the 360* torus beam model, the Licensee sh information showing the finite element model actually used i ould provide 3.4 of the PUA reportanalysis and justify the reasons for those missing mem n the (8).
e
c ^
(.,
TER-C5506-328 1
.With regard to the' ring girder moCel presented in Reference 8, the NOTE 10:
dimensions.shown 'in Figura 3.3 seen inconsistent with the dimensions shown in Figure 5-1.
The Licensee should provide information showing
{
the as-built dimensions of the ring girders.
I NCPFE 11: With reference to Table 1 of Appendix B, the Licensee should' indicate if all loads have been considered in the analysis and/or provide justifica, tion if any load has been neglected.
NOTE 12: The Licensee should justify the reasons for not considering a 180*
segment of the~ vent systems in order to determine the effects of seismic and other nonsymmetric' loads.
f NOTE 13: The Licensee should justify the reasons for not consider'ing the superposition of reactions from the vent deflectors and ring headers j
in evaluating.the vent support columns for pool swell.
i NOTE 14: 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 i
using only symmetric boundary conditions, the Licensee has not justified the reasons for not considering skew symmetric boundary conditions in order to evaluate the effect of the resulting modes.
NOTE 15: The Licensee has not indicated that structural responses 'from any.two dynamic phenomena have been combined using either their absolute l sua i
or the cumulative distribution function method. The Licensee should provide justification for using any alternative methods to combine
~
responses.
t j
NOTE 16: The Licensee has not indicated the present status of the proposed study of plant procedures to ensure that the operator would depressurize the system within 15 minutes after chugging begins, since this is assumed for fatigue analysis with regard to chugging.
1 i
NOTE 17: With reference to page 70 of Reference 8, the Licensee has not provided justification'for not considering stresses due to the seismic and thermal response of the drywell in analyzing the main j
vent drywell intersection.
j 1
NOTE 18: With reference to the 1/16 model used for the ring girder analysis, i
the Licensee should provide more details'to justify the assumption
~
)
that the dimensions of the torus at the Pilgrim plant are similar to the dimensions of the torus at the plant which'was actually
)
analyzed. The Licensee-should compare the boundary. conditions and the support systems of these torus structures.
I NOTE 19: The Licensee should justify the assumptions, with regard to drag loads, that the columns, column gussets, and saddle would make the' ring girder very stiff and would prevent frequency interaction with dynamic loads.
- i i
t m
..-!-..,.._.,~.,..--..
~-
.__m,-..
.m__ --.,- -....
, -. - _. _ _.,,,,, ~.
F" TER-C5 506-328 NOTE 20: With reference to the high values of actual loads in the ring girder-shell welds in the outer column and saddle regions, the Licensee should indicate any conservatism in the analysis which would ensure
, that the allowables will not be exceeded.
NOTE 2'l: The Licensee has not provided information on the fatigue evaluation of the bellows.
NOTE 22: The Licensee has not indicated the procedures used for computing fatigue usage when a member is subjected 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).
9 9
9 9
0 e
9
'TER-C5506-328
- 3. REFERENCES l.
" 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 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., San Jose, CA November 1981 6.
NRC
" Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants" 0ctober 1973 Regulatory Guide 1.61 7.
P. M. Kasik
" Mark I Piping Fatigue," Presentation at the NRC meeting, Bethesda, MD September 10, 1982 8.
Pilgrim Station Unit 1 Plant-Unique Analysis Report of the Suppression Chamber Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Technical Report TR-5310-1 Boston Edison Company October 27,* 1982 l.
1 1
1
- ~
APPENDIX B i
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED 1
l l
l I
l f
l FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISION OF ARVIN/ CAL 5 PAN 20thand Race Streets.
Philadelphia, PA 19103'
, -,, ~. - - - - _ - _
-,,,--,,..w.,
y -
F' l
TER-C5506-328 l
REQUEST POR INFORMATION Item 1: Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to the. vacuum breaker piping systems and the vacuum breaker valves; indicate whether they are considered Class 2 components as required by the criteria [1].
Item 2: Provide a summary of the analysis of torus attached piping systems consisting of analytical models which represent piping and su~pports from torus to first rigid anchor (or where the effect of torus motion i
is insignificant), and classification of piping systems as essential or non-essential for each load combination. Also, indicate whether a response spectrum or time history analysis for dynamic effect of torus motion at the attachment points has been considered.
i Item 3: Provide a summary of the analysis for each safety relief valve (SRV) discharge piping which should include the analytical model with piping and supports, from the nozzle at the main steam line to discharge in the suppression pool, and the discharge device and its supports. Also, the information should indicate that time history has been used for discharge thrust loads, and spectrum analysis or dynamic load factors for other loads. Justification should be provided if the above criteria are not met.
Item 4: Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to the active containment system piping systems, piping systems which provide a drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential, and other internal piping systems.
Item St Provide a list indicating whether all the piping systems and their supports have been classified as Class 2 or Class 3 piping, or essential or non-essential piping systems, and whether a pump or valve associated with the piping is an active or inactive component, and,is considered operable.
Item 6: Provide justification for determining the load combinations indicated throughout the PUA report [2] to be the governing load combinations.
Item 7: Indicate whether the fatigue 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 (3) 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.
TER-C5506-328 I tem 8 : - With regard to the fini.te element model of the torus, including the
.shell, ring girders, and supports, it is not clear whether the saddle i
webs and the torus columns were welded together as shown in Figures 2-5, 2-11, 2-12, 3.1, and 3.2 (2 ). = Provide information showing the as-built configuration of the torus and its supports.
Item 9: With regard to the 360* torus beam model, provide information showing-the finite element model actually used in the analysis, which should not have missing members as shown in Figure 3.4 in the PUA report -.[2].
Item.10: With regard to the ring girder model, the dimensions shown in Figure 3.3 [2] seen inconsistent with the dimensions shown in Figure 5-2 (2). Provide information showing. the dimensions of the ring girder.
Item 11: With refere'nce 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.
4 Item 12 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 nonsymmetric loads as required by the criteria [1].
Item 13: Provide and justify the reasons for not considering the superposition of reactions from the vent deflectors and ring headers in evaluating the vent support columns for pool swell.
Item 14: With reference to the computer model for the 1/32 segment of the torus shown in Figure 3-1 of Reference 2 and the analysis performed using only symmetric boundary conditions, provide justification for not considering skew syreetric boundary conditions in order to evaluate the effect of the resulting modes.
Item 15: Confirm that structural responses from any two dynamic phenomena have j
been combined using either their absolute sum or the cumulative 1
distribution function method and provide justification for using any j
alternative methods to combine responses.
}
Item 16: Indicate the present status of the proposed study of plant procedures to ensure that the operator would depressurize the system within 15 minutes af ter chugging begins, since this is assumed for fatigue analysis with regard to chugging.
l Item 17: With rgference to page 70 of Reference 2, provide justification for i
not considering stresses due to seismic and thermal response of the drywell in analyzing the main vent drywell intersection'.
4 i '
}
1.-
=, - - _ -.. -
~., -..
TER-C5506-328.
~
Item 18: With reference to the 1/16 model used for the ring girder analysis, provide more details to justify the assumption that the dimensions of.
I the torus at the Pilgrim plant are similar to the dimensions of the
~.-
torus at the plant which was actually analysed.. Compare the boundary-conditions and the support systems of these torus structures.
a.
l
\\
i Item 19: ' Justify the assumption, with regard to drag-loads, that the columns,
(
column gussets, and saddle would make the ring girder very stiff and
. prevent frequency interaction with dynamic loads..
1 Item 20: With reference to the high values of actual loads in the ring girder-i shell welds in the outer column and saddle regions, indicate any conservatisn'in the. analysis which would ensure that the allowables will.not be exceeded.
i
)
Item 21: Provide the fatigue evaluation of the bellows.
1
{
Item 22: The ASME Code provides an acceptance procedure for computing fatigue
}
usage when a member. is subject to cyclic loadings of random j
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 j
considered and of the associated number of cycles in order to account j
for t,he interspersion of stress cycles of unlike character. State whether or not the reported usages reflect use of this method.
If i-j not, indicate the effect on reported results.
l Item 7.1: With' respect to Section 2.3.2 of the PUA report, TR-5310-2 (5),
indicate whether any SRV piping supports are located in the main i;
vent pipe. It so, explain how the stresses in the main vent wall, l
near the supports, were calculated.
}
Item 7.2: With respect to Section 2.4.2 of the PUA report, TR-5310-2 (5),
i indicate whether pressure (P) was considered in the SRV load cases.
)
Item 7.3: With respect to Section 3.3.5 of the PUA report, TR-5310-2 (5),
1 provide calculations demonstrating conformance to the 10 rule of j
Section 6.2 d (1) that may have exempted some branch, piping at the j
Pilgrim plant from analysis, i
~
[
Item 7.4: Regarding the controlling load cases for torus att' ached piping vent' given in Section 3.4.1.of the PUA report, TR-5310-2 (5), indicate whether seismic loads were considered in load case 25 (Table 1).
i 4
Item 7.5: With respect to Section 3.4.7 of the PUA report TR-5310-2 (5),
provide the an,alytical results of the fatigue evaluation of torus j
shell penetrations.
t i t
.,_.a_.._
. _ _, ~. _ -.. _ _ _ _. -.,.. _
._-...,-,_.__;__.~.,....,___,_.___u.__
TER-C5506-328 Item 7.6: With respect to Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the PUA report, TR-5310-2 (5),
indicate whether the lines in each of.the following sets are identical and explain why only one result appears for each set:
X-222A and X-222B, X-222C and X-2220, X-206C and X-206D, X-209A and X-2090~, X-214 and X-215, X-216 and X-217, X-218 and X-219, X-228D and X-228F, and X-240A, X-240B, X-241A, and X-2415.
Item 7.7: Provide the analytical results for the small bore lines associated with penetrations X-218 and X-219.
9
+
e 6
'1 1
1 e
O 6
e 0
e
./
1 t
k
........ ~
NRC Contract N. NRC-03-61-130 FRC Project N3. C5506 nklin Research Center FRC Aasignment No.
/.S g,
20th and Rue 5 reets. PMe.. Pa.19103 (215) 4481000 P
Na N
M //~~
/
Table 1. Structural Loading (from Reference 3) otner wetweit intenor structures structures t
8 Sb.
1 id 3
a a
k I
$1
]
f i
1 5 i L. 3.5m3, a 5
to.a.
=
v 5
i E
$I $$ S' 8
=m8 2
m
<a 4
- 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 Tdrus Not Vertical Loads X
X i
3.2 Torus Shell Pressure Histories X
X 1
3.3 Vent System Impact and Drag X
X X
3.4 Impact and Drag on Other Structures X
X X.
3.5 Frothlmpingement X
X X
X X
3.6 PoolFallback X
X X
3.7 LOCA Jet X
X 3.8 LOCA Subble 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 Oo.vncomers X
X 4.4 Vent System Loads X
X
- 5. Chu0ging 5.1 TorusShellLoads X
X 5.2 Loads on Submerged Structures X
X X
5.3 Lateral Loads on Downcomers X
X 5.4 VentSystem Loads X
X-
- 6. T-Quencher Loads 6.1 Discharge Line Clearing X
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-Quencher Arms X
6.7 S/RVOL EnvironmentalTemperature X
- 7. Ramshead Loads 7.1 Discharge Line Clearing g
7.2 Torus ShellPressures t
7.4 Jet Loads on Submerged Structures g
7.5 Air Bubble Drag 7.6 SIRVDL Environmental Temperature Loads required by NUREG 066141 X
Not apphcable.
~
TER-C5506-328 REFERENCES 1.
" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co.~, San Jose, CA October 1979 2.
Pilgrim Station Unit 1 Plant-Unique Analysis Report of the Suppression Chamber Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Technical Report TR-5310-1 Boston Edison Corapany October 27, 1982 3.
Pilgrim Station Unit 1 Plant-Unique Analysis Report of the Torus Attached Piping Mark I Containment Program Technical Report TR-5310-2 Boston Edison Company October 1983 3.
P. M. Kasik
" Mark I Piping Fatigue," Presentation at the NRC meeting, Bethesda, MD September 10, 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 e
s e,