ML20106A579
| ML20106A579 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1984 |
| From: | Sonin A BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20106A558 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-3717 BNL-04243, BNL-04243-09, BNL-4243, BNL-4243-9, NUDOCS 8410030413 | |
| Download: ML20106A579 (25) | |
Text
. -
Technical Evaluation of the Pilgrim I Plant Unique Analysis Report Ain A. Sonin John R. Lehner George Bienkowski Constantino Economos l
1 Reactor Safety Licensing Assistance Division Department of Nuclear. Energy Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, New York 11973 September 1984 f
FIN A-3713 BNL-04243 S'il063pq13 f
L
/
l l
l t
t c.
7,
ABSTRACT.
This Technical Evaluation Report (TER) presents the results' of the post-im-ple:tentation audit of the Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) for the Pilgrim I Nuclear Power Plant. The contqnts of the PUAR were compared against the hydro-dynamic load Acceptance Criteria (AC) contained in NUREG-0661. The TER suma-rizes the audit findings (Table 1), and discusses the nature and status of the-exceptions to the AC identified during the audit (Table 2).
O 4.
1
~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS P
The cognizant NRC Technical Monitor for this program was Dr. Farouk Eltawila.o'f the Containment Systems Branch (DSI) and the NRC Project Manager was Mr. Jack N. Donohew of the Technical Assistance Pr,ogram Management Group of the Division of Licensing. Mr. Byron Siegel of the Operating Reactors Branch Number 2 (DL) acted as Head' Project Manager.
E e
me 7 O
4 i
O
.e.
n
~
List'of Acronyms
. AC Acceptance Criteria BNL-Brookhaven National Laboratory BWR Boiling Water Reactor,
C0 Condensation Oscillation DBA Design Basis Accident DL Division of Licensing DSI Division of Systems Integration FSTF Full Scale Test Facility LDR' Load Definition Report LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident LTP Long Term Program NRC Nuclear _ Regulatory Commission PUAR.
Plant-Unique Analysis Report RFI Request For Information SMA Structural Mechanics Associates SRSS Square Root Sum of the Squares SRV Safety Relief Valve STP Short Term Program TER Technica1'Evaluatio.n Report TES Teledyne Engineering Services T/Q T-Quencher i
-111-
Table of Contents Page No.
Abstract 1
A'cknowledgement's 11 List of Acronyms iii 1.
Introduction 1
2.
Post-Implementation Audit Summary 3
3.
Exceptions to Generic Acceptance Criteria 11 3.1 Harmonic _ Phasing for C0 Response 13 3.2 Harmonic Phasing for Post-Chug Response 14 3.3 C0/ Chugging Ring Girder Drag Loads 15 3.4 In-Plant SRV Data for Submerged Structure Drag 15 3.5 SRV Torus Loads 17 4.
Conclusions 17 5.
References 19 S
i
+
9 L
-iv-
~
1.
INTRODUCTION The suppression pool hydrodynamic loads associated with a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) were first identified during large-scale testing of
. an advanced design pressur,e-suppression containment (Mark III)./ These addition-al loads, which had not explicitly been included in the original Mark I contain-ment'~ design, result from the dynamic effects of drywell air and steam being rap-idly forced.into the suppression pool (torus). Because these hydrodynamic loads had not been considered in the original design of the Mark I containment, a de-tailed reevaluation of the Mark I containment system was required.
A historical development of the bases for the original Mark I design, as well as a summary of the two-part overall program (i.e., Short Term and Long Term Programs) used to resolv5 these issues can be found in Section 1 of Refer-ence 1.
Reference 2 describes the staff's evaluation of the Short Term Program (STP) used to verify that licensed Mark I facilities could continue to operate safely while the Long Term Program (LTP) was being conducted.
The objectives of the LTP were to establish design-basis (conservative) loads that are appropriate for the anticipcted life of each Mark I BWR facility (40 years), and to restore the originally intended design-safety margins for each Mark I containment ' system. The principal thrust of the LTP has been the development of generic methods for the definition of suppression pool hydrody-namic loadings and the associated structural assessment techniques for the Mark I configuration. The gener.ic aspects of the Mark I Owners Group LTP were com-pleted with the submittal of the " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Re-l port" (Ref. 3) and the " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Guide" (Ref. 4), as well as supporting reports on the LTP experimental and analytical j
tasks. The Mark I containment LTP Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0661) i i.
presented the NRC staff's review of the generic suppression pool hydrodynamic load definition and structural assessment techniques proposed in the reports cited above. 'It was concluded that the load definition procedures utilized by the Mark I Owners Group, as modified by NRC requirements, prov.ide conservative estimates'of these loading conditions and that the structural acceptance crite-ria are consistent with the requirements of the applicable codes and standards.
The generic analysis techniques are intended to be used to perform a plant-unique analysis (PUA) for each Mark I facility to verify compliance with the acceptance criteria (AC) of Appendix A to NUREG-0661. The objective of this.
study was to perform a post-implementation audit of the plant-unique analysis for the Pilgrim I Nuclear Power Plant (Reference 5) against the hydrodynamic load criteria in NUREG-0661. ~
a 6
1 9
I
2.
POST-IMPLEMENTATION AUDIT
SUMMARY
The purpose of the post-implementation audit was to evaluate the hydrody-i namic loading methodologies which were used;as the basis for modifying the pres-
. sure suppression system of the Pilgrim I' Nuclear Power Plant._ The Pilgrim I r
PUAR methodologies (Reference 5) were compared _ with those of the LDR (Reference
- 3) as approved in the AC of NUREG-0661 (Reference 1). The audit procedure con-sisted of a moderately detailed review of the plant unique analysis report (PUAR) to verify both its completeness and its' compliance with the acceptance criteria. A list of requests.for further information was submitted (Reference 6), and answers were obtained at a meeting with the licensee (Reference 7).
i Table 1 summarizes the audit results.
It-lists the various load categories specified in the AC, and indicates plant-unique information through the refer-ences, in the right-hand column, tc the _ notes which follow in the text.
This audit did not include the Torus Attached Piping Report.
t
}
4 1
- n. --
i j.
t CRITERIA W
W l
id Z
.s r
Q u..
m2 m.
m os g4 z<-
w MT 30 a
J q Z4 LOADS CONTAINMENT-PRESSURE a TEMPERATURE 2.1
/ '
j VENT SYSTEM THRUST LOADS 2.2
/
POOL SWELL i
TORUS NET VERTICAL LOADS 2.3
/
l TORUS SHELL PRESSURE HISTORIES 2.4
/
i VENT SYSTEM IMPACT AND DRAG 2.6
/
IMPACT AND DRAG ON OTHER STRUCTURES 2.7
/
8 FROTH IMPlNGEMENT 2.8
/
POOL FALLBACK 2.9
/
LOCA JET ~
2.14.1
/
f LOCA BUBBLE DRAG 2.14.2
/
VINT HEADER DEFLECTOR LOADS
-2.10
/
TABLE 1.
LOADCllECKLISTFORPOSY-IMPLEMENTATIONAUDIT
f-9 CRITERI A I
BZ "j -
W I os g4
- Qu t
m9 m
m 2 4 w
T 30 a
J<
Z4 l
LOADS CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TORUS SHELL LOADS 2.ll. l
- /
' /'
LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES 2.14.5
/-
f VENT SYSTEM LOADS 2.11.3
/
S
~
h DOWNCOMER DYNAMIC LOADS 2.11.2
/
. /f CHUGGING t
TORUS SilELL LOADS 2.12.1
/-
6 LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES 2.14.6 y
4 VENT SYSTEM LOADS 2.12.3
/
7 LATERAL LOADS ON DOWNCOMERS 2.12.2
/
1 ii e
1 TABLE 1.
(CONTINUED)
~.
CRITERIA gz 3
W I' -
DO o
w m
m op p <t z @.~
W hh MET O
$a LOADS T-0UENCHER LOADS DISCHARGE LINE CLEARING 2.13.2
/
O i
TORUS SHELL PRESSURES 2.13.3
/
JET LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES 2.14.3
/
9 AIR BUBBLE DRAG 2.14.4 y
.9 THRUST LOADS ON T/Q ARMS 2.13.5
/
S/RVDL ENVIRONMENTAL TEMPERATURES 2.13.6
/
i 4
f TABLE 1.
(CONTINUED)
N
~.
CRITERIA I
By 3
I W
Qu m_
m m
3 o i-g4 z<~
-w t
MET O
t J
30 a
Z4 4'
DESCRIPTION SUPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE 2.13.8 j
~
fo.
i LIMIT SUPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE 2.13.9 j
L MONITORING SYSTEM
/
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THOSE PLANTS USING A DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL PRESSURE 2.16 7
II DIFFERENCE AS A POOL SWELL MITIGATOR i
SRV LOAD ASSESSMENT BY 2.13.9
/
g IN-PLANT TEST
~ ~...,
I 1
IABLE 1.
(CONTINUED) i
- Table 1 Notes 1.-
The AC requires ' absolute summation of the.C0 load' harmonics (from 1 to 50 i
~ Hz) for the-analysis of structures affected by C0 loads. Pilgrim I used a random phasing. methodology instead, where the absolute sum of the four highe'st component responses is added algebraically to the SRSS of the re-maining component responses to get a total shgli response. Loads on sup-port and anchor systems were determined by adding the absolute value of the i
'three highest harmonic contributors to the SRSS of the others. Combination of individual harmonic stresses into total element stress was done by con-sidering frequency contributions at 31 Hz and below. This methodology was found acceptable. See Section 3.1-for additional details.
2.
For condensation oscillation loads on submerged structures, the AC requires j
that loads be computed on the basis of both the average of all sources and l
maximum nearest source as derived from FSTF data. FSI effects must be in-i cluded. For Pilgrim I, phased C0 sources were used for C0 and CD-FSI drag. Final loads were determined by adding the four-maximum frequency contributors to the SRSS sum of the others.
See Section 3.1 for additional details.
3.
Instead of using a sinusoidal load superimposed on a static load for a C0 vent system load, both loads were applied in a static manner to calculate pressures for Pilgrim I.
The low frequency of the applied ~ pressure was cited as justification.
This analysis was found acceptable.-
4.
The licensee states that an evaluation was performed which showed that the combined effects (i.e., horizontal and~ vertical components) of the C0 down-comer load was comfortably bounded by the chugging lateral loads.- There-fore, the licensee used chugging lateral load results for all load cases in place of C0 downcomer loads. This analysis was found acceptable (See also Reference 7).
i
,,-e-e
.,w ew,,,
-m-,-.e-,---+
-,+- -,--
- - - - ~, -
,----.---s..
v,--,
3 5.
The AC requires that total response to post-chug loads is obtained by sum-ming steady state response from each frequehey from 1 to 50 Hz. The Pilgrim I post-chug response was bounded by using pre-chug stresses in the torus shell. This was' justified on the basis of comparisons done on an-other TES plant.and the low level of loads involved. Thisl methodology was found acceptable.
See Section 3.2 for further discussion.
6.
For chugging loads on submerged structures, the approach used.for Pilgrim I differs from that approved in the AC. As for CO, source strength for post-chug loads is based on a phasing methodology.
However, for post-chug loads five maximum frequency contributors are added to the SRSS sum of the others. This method was found acceptable. See Section 3.2 for further discussion.
7.
For internal vent system loads due to chugging, the licensee states that an evaluation was performed which showed that internal vent system pressures l
were substantially less than internal vent pressures resulting from pool swell. The licensee used the pool swell pressure values in all combined load cases involving chugging pressures. This analysis was found accept-able.
8.
Torus shell pressures due to T-quencher loads were based on data collected during in-plant SRV tests. While this is in accordance with the AC, the way in which the design loads were developed represents an exception to the AC requirement of conservative interpretation of the test data. The meth-odology was found acceptable in part because of existing margins in'the structure capacity. See Section 3.5 for additional information regarding this issue, i.
__,_y_
7 m
.i
-.---4-a
9.
SRV drag loads on submerged structures in Pilgrim I were not computed according to AC approved methods.
Instead, drag loads were based on data
~ collected during in-plant SRV tests. Test data was scaled to correct for appropriate SRV conditions and then applied to the structural model to
{
determine stress. This methodology represents an-exception to the AC and was discussed with the licensee.
It was found, acceptable largely because of existing margins in the loads. See Section 3.4 for additional information rega'rding this issue.
- 10..The local suppression pool temperature limit was defined in NUREG-0661 as 200*F for the generic Mark I T-quencher as described in Appendix A, Section 2.13.8.
Subsequently, NUREG-0783 provided procedures whereby the limit could be increased if certain restrictions could be met. Conformance with ~
i the above criteria was indicated in the PUAR.
However, the applicant utilized a local pool temperature model whose overall methodology provides a conservative way of computing pool temperature transients for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the provisions of NUREG-0783.
i
~11.
As a means to reduce shell pressures related to DBA pool swell, a minimum positive pressure difference of 1.17 psi is maintained between the Pilgrim I drywell, including the vent system, and the torus air space. A nitrogen inerting system is used to pressurize the drywell to 1.17 psi, while the torus remains at ambient pressure. According to technical specifications, the plant is required to come to shutdown if the main Ap system fails.
1 O l 4
l.. -
3.
EXCEPTIONS TO GENERIC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Pilgrim-I is one of several plants analyzed by Teledyne Engineering i
Services based on an essentially common hydrodynamic loading methodology.
. (Vermont Yankee.. Millstone,, J. A. Fitzpatrick and Nine Mile Poirit are other r
plants in this group). The methodology differs from the generjc acceptance criteria of NUREG-0661 in five, major areas which are listed in Table 2.
In'what follows, each of-these areas is discussed in de' ail, and the bases for the resolutions of the differences indicated.
O I
i e
11-
-n
,. - -. - - - - - - -.. ~ - -
.---,.y
- - - - -e-
c,
Table 2:
Issues Identified During Audit as Exceptions to the Generic Acceptance. Criteria Issue No.
Description Status Resolved Open 1.
Phasing of load harmonics used to analyze X
structures affected 'by C0 loads 2.
Phasing of load harmonics used to analyze X
structures affected by post-chug loads 1
3.
C0/ chug drag ' loads on the ring girder X
4.
Submerged drag loads due to SRV water jet X
and air clearing 5.
SRV torus shell loads
- X
- While 'use of in-plant SRV test data to develop SRV torus shell pressure loads is permitted by the AC, the use of the data by Pilgrim I repre-sents an exception to the AC requirement of con-
'servative interpretation of the in-plant test data.
12-I
!l J
G
-~
,,--,,.,,--,,-n.
n
3.1 Harmonic Phasing for C0 Response.
The C0 torus shell load is an oscillating l'oad caused by periodic pressure oscillations superimposed upon the prevailing local static pressure. The LDR
- defines the load in terms pf a rigid wall pressure amplitude ver' sus frequency spectra from 0 to' 50 Hz which is.to be used in conjunction' with a flexible _ wall coupled fluid structure model., In addition, three alternative' sets of spectral
- amplitudes are provided in the range from 4 to 16 Hz and the alternative which maximized-the response is to be used.
The resulting reponses from applying the amplitude at each frequency given in the total spectra to be analyzed are to be summed. The above procedure was found acceptable in the AC because the high j
degree of conservatism associated with the direct summation of the Fourier components of the spectrum was' more than sufficient to compensate for any I
j uncertainties associated with the FSTF data from which the load specification was developed. Direct application of'the above methodology to the Pilgrim I torus proved to be too conservative and so an alternate approach based on a study performed in Reference 8 was used. The alternative approach obtains the l
total response for C0 by taking the absolute sum of the four highest harmonic
]
component responses and adding algebraically the SRSS of the remaining component i;
responses for shell stresses. Loads on the support and anchor systems.are determined by adding the three highest harmonics to the SRSS of the others.
For.
C0 drag loads on submerged structures the four maximum harmonic contributors I
added to the SRSS~ sum of the others are used for source strength.
In all these j
cases only harmonics of 31 Hz or below are considered, sile the AC requires I
harmonics to 50 Hz.
The Pilgrim I procedure is one of several variations for implementing j
phasing in the C0 load definition discussed in Reference 8 and subsequent SMA Reports (References 9, 10) which account for data obtained after Reference 8 13-
'_.-.------__--,,.---..,an
,.,-e a------~,,--.--
,-- - -., -mn---,,
-e-
-,-en
-r-wm-
- -, ~
~~~w--,
~-
-~~-ww.
,~----------r-,-,-,r-.m
4 4
was published. Reference 11 reviews the various design rules and their justification as given in References 8, 9 and 10 and discusses why they are
]
. acceptable alternatives to the LDR procedure. The method used for Pilgrim I shell stresses and torus loads was one which was found to be marginally acceptable in' Reference 11 provided stresses are not within a few percent of allowables. Since critical stresses in the Pilgrim I shell and its support system are well below allowables for the controlling load combinations which
{
include CO, the-alternative approach for obtaining shell and support system C0 response has been found acceptable. Using phased C0 sources for submerged structure drag loads has been found acceptable since one can expect the C0 pressure signals to be considerably more desynchronized for this loading than for the shell pressure loads.'
3.2 Harmonic Phasing for Post-Chug Response i
Post-chu~gging is defined as a spectral load across a wide band of i
frequencies, similar to CO, but lower in amplitude. The AC requires that total l
response to post-chug loads is obtained by summing steady state response from f
each frequency from 1 to 50 Hz. The response of the torus shell and associated i
support system was obtained for one TES plant by combining the 4 maximum harmonic responses with the SRSS of the others for frequencies below 32 Hz. The licensee states in the PUAR that post-chug stresses were small and loads due to post-chug were always bounded by pre-chug values. Therefore, the licensee used l
pre-chug stress values for all analysis involving post-chugging.
In order' to j
account for the 32-50 Hz harmonics in the post-chug spectrum, the PUAR further states that these pre-chug stresses may be increased by 53% and still mee't i
allowables. Based on these statements by the licensee and the fact that j
chugging is generally acknowledged to be an asynchronous load, the use of i
~
l i 9
~c
,y,-w--wew--.--3
--.w,m,,-e--
-y p l e-m e
.e-%-
._.._.-,---.--w-
,%....m.-
,e w.-
en-e,e-.
m
)
~
- pre-chug stresses for all-load combinations involving post-chugging to evaluate
-)
shell and support system stresses has been found acceptable.
For submerged structure drag due to post-chug sources, a phased methodology. using the fiv.e maximum ' harmonic contributors plus fhe SRSS sum of l
the others, has been employed for Pilgrim I.
Since post-chug loads for submerged structure drag loads,can be expected to be even more desynchronized I
than for shell loads and since absolute summing of the five maximum harmonics is a fairly conservative phasing approach, this method has also been found acceptable.
i 3.3 C0/ Chugging Ring Girder Drag Loads The theoretical hydrodynamic mass coefficient used for the Ring Girder CO l
and' chugging drag analysis of' Pilgrim I is not the limiting one required by the AC, i.e., a circumscribed cylinder of diameter equal to d L in the maximum max transverse dimension.
Instead, a circumscribed cylinder of diameter L is max used, justified by the relatively low ratio of fluid motion to structural l
dimension. The staff finds this modelling conservative because of the j
overprediction of the " effective buoyancy" term for an I-beam like structure, l
and the great overprediction of the flange force. The reduction of the
~
interference factor for web forces may not be totally justified by the argument
~
in Appendix 3.
The even greater reduction that could be used for flange forces,.
l coupled to the remaining conservatism in the acceleration volume, provides adequate conservatism in the PUAR calculation of ring girder loads.
4 3.4 In-Plant SRV Data for Submerged Structure Drag i
The AC and LDR require T-quencher bubble-induced drag loads on submerged structures to be calculated on the basis of an analytical model whose major i
{
assuptions are summarized in Section 5.2.5.1 of the LDR (Ref. 3). For Pilgr.im I i
l !
-., - -., -., +, _ - -. _, - - -.
0
- a completely different approach was used:
During in-plant SRV tests in Pilgrim I and three" other plants, strains were measured on two or three submerged structures in each plant. From these data (a total lof 10 points) an equivalent This was done by. calculating the static load was computed for each structure.
stat'ic pressu~re load 'which would produce the same bending stresses as those measured, when applied uniformly to the structure.f From-these calculations a 4
curve was developed showing static pressure values versus horizontal distance from the quencher.
The curve is supposed to represent the equivalent static 3
drag pressures, including quencher jet loads.
To account for other SRV load cases besides those tested, the curve is scaled by the ratio of the calculated shell pressures for the various cases to the test case.
The staff had several concerns with this methodology, particularly since it did not account for bubble frequency content or structure reponse i
characteristics in a direct manner.
However, the stresses computed for Pilgrim I with this methodology were t
well below the allowable limits.
The ratio by which the SRV-induced drag could
' be increased before the allowable load was reached ranged from 2 in the case of 4
the downcomers to 40 in the case of vent header support pins, and was greater f
than 3.5 for all submerged structures other than the downcomers (7). For the downcomers, Teledyne has presented results calculated by a separate agent for another plant owned by a different utility which used a test calibrated version i
j of the LDR methodology for its SRV drag loads. For a similar downcomer at a i
{
similar distance from the quencher, the loads calculated for this plant were comparable to those obtained by the Teledyne/ Pilgrim I methodology, givin'g the staff confidence that a factor of 2 load margin was quite adequate for the i
downcomer in ' Pilgrim I.
I i
l i
1 Based on the.large margins, therefore, and on the favorable comparison of loads on a similar downcomer computed using a method accepted by the NRC, the Pilgrim I' submerged structure drag load were found to be satisfactorily computed.
3.5 SRV-Torus Loads-l The design value used by Pilgrim I for SRV shell pressure' loads was derived by extrapolation of the peak pressure. (7.8 psid) observed during a series of four SRV actuations performed in the Pilgrim I plant.
If the overall structural capability of the containment is not considered, this is an inadequate procedure in that it does not represent a " conservative interpretation.of the in-plant i
test data" as required by the acceptance criteria (2.13.9.2.3).
l Whenever the available da'ta base is limited, and particularly when the data 1
1 exhibit large variability, a bounding approach is not appropriate. Conventional j
engineer,ing practice dictates the application of statistical methods for data interpretation to provide sufficient confidence that the loads used for design j
will not be exceeded.
For the Pilgrim I tests, the average of the four positive pressures that l
were recorded was 6.0 psid with a standard deviation of about 11%. The
[
corresponding (95-95) nonexceedance value of positive pressure is 10.6 psid, a value substantially greater than the peak observed value. Extrapolation of this pressure to design conditions implies a design pressure of about 17 psid.
This exceeds the value'used by the applicant (12.6 psid), but is well below the value that can be accomodated by the structure according to the information supplied i
to us in Reference 7.
On this basis we find the prop'osed design acceptable.
4.
CONCLUSIONS A post-implementation pool dynamic load audit of the Pilgrim I PUAR has been completed to verify compliance with the generic acceptance criteria of J
i l.
NUREG-0661. Five major differences were identified between the PUAR and the generic acceptance criteria. Based on additional information supplied by the applicant as detailed in the previous section all of these issues were resolved. The review of the Pilgrim I PUAR Torus suppression chamber has been complited with no issues or concerns outstanding.
f l
e t
0 i
O 18-1
,,-_,e-ew n
-,-e-g-
-, +
s n-,
5.
REFERENCES References cited in this report are available as follows:
Those items marked with one asterisk (*) are available in the NRC Public Document Room for inspection; they may be copied for a fee.
~
-Material marked with two asterisks (**) is not publicly available because it contains proprietary information; however, a nonproprietary ; version is available in the NRC Public Document Room for inspection and may be copied for a fee.
~
i Those reference items marked with three asterisks (***) are available for purchase from the NRC/GPO Sales Program, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555, and/or the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
All other material referenced is in the open literature and is available through public technical libraries.
(1)' " Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Long Term Program, Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7",,NUREG-0661, July 1980.***
(2) " Mark I Containment Short-Term Program Safety Evaluation Report",
NUREG-0408, December 1977.***
(3) Gen,eral Electric Company, " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report", General Electric Topical Report NEDO-21888, Revision 2, November 1981.*
(4)
Mark I Owners Group, " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant-Unique Analysis Applications Guide, Task Number 3.1.3",
General Electric Topical Report NEDO-24583, Revision 1, July 1979.*
(5)
" Plant-Unique Analysis Report of the Torus Suppression Chamber for Pilgrim Station Unit 1 Nuclear Power Plant", Technical Report TR-5310-1 Teledyne Engineering Services, October 27, 1982.*
(6)
Letter from J. R. Lehner, BNL, to F. Eltawila, NRC, dated June 8,1984.
l
Subject:
Request for Information Regarding Pilgrim I PUAR.*
(7)
" Mark I Torus Program:
Review of Plant-Unique Analysis Report for Pilgrim I Nuclear Power Plant"., Teledyne Response to BNL Questions, August 23,-
1984.*
(8) " Mark I Containment Program Evaluation of Harmonic Phasing for Mark I Torus Shell Condensation Oscillation Loads", NEDE-24840, prepared by Structural Mechanics Associates for General Electric Company, October 1980.*
(9)
Kennedy, R. P., " Response Factors Appropriate for 'Use with C0 Harmonic Response Combination Design Rules", SMA 12101.04-R002D, prepared by Structural Mechanics Associates for General Electric Company, March 1982.*,
1
-, - ~.,
(10) Kennedy, R. P.,."A Statistical Basis for Load Factors Appropriate for Use with C0 Harmonic Response Combination Design Rules", SMA 12101.04-R003D, prepared by Structural Mechanics Associates for General Electric Company, March 1982.*
(11) Bienkowski, G., " Review of the Validity of Random Phasing Rules as Applied to C0 Torus Loads" Internal BNL Memo, August 1983.
b' j
i g.
d 3
J a
i,
b 7
_