ML20196J543

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Summary of 880229 Meeting W/Tva,S&W & Eqe Re Overall Civil/ Seismic Program at Plant.List of Attendees,Viewgraphs & Addl Info Encl
ML20196J543
Person / Time
Site: Browns Ferry  Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 03/04/1988
From: Gears G
NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:
NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
References
IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, TAC-60867, TAC-62259, NUDOCS 8803140374
Download: ML20196J543 (111)
v • d • e


Text

(,_ )

. v? "% UNITED STATES OF 3%

j ' ikg

-.NUGLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 w *l

  • N-*"**. ,[ i March 4, 1988 Docket fics. 50-259/260/296 APPLICANT: Tennessee Valley Authority FACILITY: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plarit, Units 1, 2 and 3

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MEETING ON FEBRUARY 29, 1988-BROWNS FERRY OVERALL CIVIL PROGRAM AND IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN PROGRAMS REQUIRING NRC APPROVAL ("CRITERIA MEETING") TAC # 60867/62259 On February 29, 1988 representatives of the NRC staff and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA/the licensee) met to discuss the overall civil / seismic program at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN). The main purpose of the meeting was to identify those programs which require NRC approval of interim qualifications and/or interin operability criteria. A copy of the meeting notice and list of attendees is provided in Enclosure 1.

The licensee and NRC staff discussed the following prograns:

- Torus Integrity

- I AE Bulletins 79-02 and 79-14

- Cable Tray Supports

- Conduit Supports

- PVAC

- Control Rod Drive (CPD) Piping

- Smell Bore Pipina

- Drywell Steel Platforms

- Miscellaneous Steel

~

- II over I

- Seconderv Containment Penetrations

- Equip. S'eismic Qualification (A-46)

- Instrunent Tubing

- IGSCC The licensee's details slides en its program is provided in Enclosure 2. NRC Safety ~ valuations have been provided for Torus Integrity and Cable Tray Supports. TVA indicated that the issue of Seismic Qualification of Equipment was to be part of the overall A-46 program currently under review by the NRC and the utilities' owners group (SQUG). In addition, actions involving IGSCC and Instrument Tubing issues have been completed and require either no formal NRC action (Instrument Tubing) or review is currently being covered under a separate Restart item by the NRC/OSP staff.

Since a large number of issues were discussed and additional TVA and NRC staff time is needed based upon issues identified at this meeting, resolution on the acceptability of the proposed BFN civil criteria and interim operability acceptance criteria was targeted for a follow-up meeting scheduled for the week of March 14, 1988 (target date March 14,1988). Additional information was also provided by TVA at the meeting in response to staff questions. This inforration is provided in Enclosure 3. The NRC staff committed to review this infomation prior to the March 14, 1988 meeting.

lh0NDO P

[

s

\

The t,RC staff aise indicated that TVA should be prepared to discuss on March la, 1986 all pctential BFN Unit 2 options / impacts if the proposed interim operability recuirements identified in the Sumary Table (Enclosure 3) are found to be unacceptable to the NRC staff. In addition, where interim operability criteria have been proposed, TVA should be prepared to address, during the next meeting, applicable compensatory actions, where applicable.

TVA also irdicated that the remaining civil programs subnittals requiring NRC approval wculd be forthcoming by the end of March.

WSMW G ral E. Gears, ct Manager Brown Ferry, Units 1, 2 and 3 TVh roject Division Office of Special Pro,iects

Enclosures:

1. f'eeting Notice and List of Attendees
2. TVA Slides Used in Presentatior
3. Additional Infernation provided by TVA (Civil Pencrars-Summary Table; Interim Operet,ility Criteria - CEP-C! 21.00 and Structural Accepterce of Drywell Steel) cc w/erclesures:

See int raon l

l l

r i

?

J ts .

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3

/

cc:

General Counsel Regional Mninistrator, Region 11 Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 400 West Sumit Hill Drive 101 Haristta Street, N.W.

E11 B33 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Resident inspector /Prowns Ferry N?

Mr. R. L. Gridley U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Tennessee Valley Authority Route 12. Box 637 SN 157B Lookout Place Rhens, Alabwa 35611 \

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 Mr. Richard King , -:

/

Mr. H. P. Porrehn c/o U.S. GA0 Tennessee Valley Authority 1111 North Shore Drive ' 4 {

Brewns Ferry Nuclear Plant Suite 225, Box 194 P.O. Box 2000 Knoxville, Tennessee 37919 Decatur, Alabara 35f.02 Dr. Henry Myers, Science Advisor Mr. M. J. May Comittee on Interior Tennessee Valley Authority and Insular Affairs Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant U.S. House of Rcpresentatives s P.O. Box 2000 Washington, D.C. '053.

Decatur, Alabare 35602 Mr. S. A. White Mr. D. L. Williarts tianager of Nucle &r Power Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley' Authority 400 Uest Sumit Hill Drive 6N 38A Lookout Place K10 B85 1101 Market Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 <

l Chairman, Lirestone County Comission P.O. Eox 188 Athens, Alabara 35611 Claude Earl Fox, M.D.

State Health Officer State Departrent of Public Health State Office Building Montgomery, Alabara 36130 l

i f

I e

ENCLOSURE 1 MECTING LIST s, LIST OF ATTENDEES Name Organiza tion A. Chan Sh7.C A. Barerjee SWEC s b'. Durka SiCC J. Rupert TVA R. Kroon TVA D. Derton TVA S. Eder E0E R. Cutsincer TVA c 5. Harris E0E V. Crouch TVA E. Theras TVA T. Ippolito TVA G. Gears NRC/0SP T. Chenc NRC/0SP B. D. Liau NRC/0SP

J. Fair NRC/0SP P. May TVA .

R. Ferr. ann NRC/OSP jll J. McCali TVA l P. Speidel TVA

- C. Pasen TVA

) C. Crocker SWEC 8

I /

I

'4

\

a

(

(

/

r I

.y. .

-1

'y.

q .; g

'^

4, k I,

)

7

/

i e

iI k

s' e o

,f k.

\ ENCLO3URE 2

\

f b

0

'r

(

f ,

}

. ,/

,j e 1

' \ s.

k a

'I i .

J l

.i j

'}

i I

d 1 .

d i i.

'Y l

I I

4 wr - , --. . ,--r---....rr,re-., ,_..w.'-

,%.,,,-w. ,,'en.__a,.er, e,

1 l

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 l OVERALL CIVIL PROGRAM I

i

! MEETING OBJECTIVES I

  • REVIEW NUCLEAR PERFORMANCE PLAN

! VOL. 3 COMMITMENTS -

i

! e DESCRIBE OVERALL CIVIL PROGRAM

- BASELINE PROGRAM

- SEISMIC DESIGN PROGRAMS

- CIVIL CALCULATIONS e IDENTIFY SEISMIC DESIGN PROGRAMS I WHICH REQUIRE NRC ACTION j -INTERIM QUALIFICATION

- OPERAB.lLITY CRITERIA

!j i

i l i l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2

. OVERALL CIVIL PROGRAM I NUCLEAR PERFORMANCE PLAN VOL. 3 COMMITMENTS

  • BASELINE PROGRAM SECTION 111.2.2
  • SEISMIC DESIGN PROGRAMS SECTION ll1.3.0 i

l e civil CALCULATIONS SECTION 111.4.4 l

t

.1 1

(

l l

l

! BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 '

OVERALL CIVIL PROGRAM l

i l

4 DESIGN BASELINE VERIFICATION PROGRAM -

i NPP VOL. 3 SECTION ll1.2.2 l

j e IDENTIFY SYSTEMS REQUIRED FOR SAFE SHUTDOWN i

e ASSURES DESIGN CRITERIA CONSISTENT WITH i I LICENSING COMMITMENTS i

l l

l

I l

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 OVERALL CIVIL PROGRAM l SEISMIC DESIGN PROGRAMS

. NPP VOL. 3 SECTION ll1.3.0 e TORUS INTEGRITY e 79-14/79-02 e CABLE TRAYS SUPPORTS e CONDUIT SUPPORTS eHVAC e CRD PIPING

e SMALL BORE PIPING e DRYWELL STEEL PLATFORMS i

e MISCELLANEOUS STEEL l e ll OVER I 4

e SECONDARY CONT. PENETRATIONS e EQUIP. SEISMIC QUAL. (USI-A46) e INSTRUMENT TUBING

eIGSCC*
  • lll.7.0

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 OVERALL civil PROGRAMS i

CIVIL CALCULATIONS l NPP VOL. 3 SECTION ll1.4.4 j e CALCULATIONS ADDRESSED BY SEISMIC DESIGN l PROGRAMS WILL BE COMPLETED AS SCHEDULED BY j THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ASSOCIATED PROGRAM I e REMAINING CALCULATIONS (NOT COVERED BY SEISMIC DESIGN PROGRAMS) WILL BE TECHNICALLY JUSTIFIED PRIOR TO RESTART --

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 OVERALL CIVIL PROGRAM SCOPE OF WORK e SUSPENDED SYSTEMS eSTRUCTURES e EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION e GEOTECHNICAL e SPECIAL CIVIL TOPICS

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 OVERALL CIVIL PROGRAM TYPES OF CIVIL CALCULATIONS-SUSPENDED SYSTEMS

  • LARGE BORE PIPING e RECIRC PIPING
  • CRO PIPING
  • TORUS PIPING e SMALL BORE PIPING
  • INSTRUMENT TUBING
  • CABLE TRAYS
  • CONDUlTS
  • HVAC STRUCTURES
  • DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
  • CONCRETE STRUCTURES
  • STEEL STRUCTURES
  • TORUS
  • DRYWELL PLATFORMS l
  • MISCELLANEOUS STEEL
  • MASONRY WALLS
  • EMBEDMENTS EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION l
  • MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT l
  • ELECTRICAL EOUlPMENT
  • TANKS AND HEAT EXCHANGERS GEOTECHNICAL
  • SEISMIC GROUND MOTIONS
  • SOIL AND ROCK ANALYSIS
  • SETTLEMENT AND SLOPE STABILITY
  • PILES AND FOUNDATIONS
  • BURIED STRUCTURES SPECIAL CIVIL TOPICS
  • PIPE RUPTURE
  • ll OVER I
  • TORNADO EVALUATIONS
  • HEAVY LOADS EVALUATICN
  • SECONDARY CONT. PENET.
  • FLOODING

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 OVERALL civil PROGRAM CIVIL SEISMIC DESIGN CALCULATION PROGRAM REVIEWS

[ SUSPENDED SYSTEMS LARGE BORE PIPING RECIRC PIPING-CRD PIPING TORUS PIPING SMALL BORE PIPING INSTRUMENT TUBING CABLE TR AYS ELECTRICAL CONDUli HVAC STRUCTURES D_YNAMIC ANALYSIS DRYWELL PLATFORMS CONCRETE STRUCTURES MISCELLANEOUS STEEL STEEL STRUCTURES TORUS PRIMARY CONTAINMENT MASONRY WALLS EMBEDMENTS EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION TANKS & HEAT EXCHANGERS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT GEOTECHNICAL SEISMIC GROUND MOTIONS SOIL & ROCK ANALYSIS SETTLEME'4T & SLOPE STABILITY PILES a FOUNDATIONS BURlL J STRUCTURES SPECIAL civil TOPICS PIPE RUPTURE __

ll O V E R l TORNADO EVALUATIONS SECONDARY CONTA'.NMENT PENET.

HEAVY LOADS EVALUATIONS FLOODING j ( j

i BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 OVERALL civil PROGRAM ,

CIVIL CALCULATION SCOPE i BALANCE civil CALCULATIONS .

SEISMIC DESIGN PROGRAMS L

i i

l l NUMBERS OF CALCULATIONS

OVERALL C Vil PROGRAM

4 l SEISMIC DESIGN PROGRAMS WHICH  ;

DO NOT REQUIRE NRC ACTION

~

! PROGRAM DESIGN STATUS 1-l e TORUS INTEGRITY COMPLETE (SER) i e CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS COMPLETE (SER)

L e EQUIP SEISMIC QUAL. A-46

e INSTRUMENT TUBING COMPLETE j eIGSCC COMPLETE

)

i

\

j .-

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 l OVERALL CIVIL PROGRAM l

i i

SEISMIC DESIGN PROGRAMS WHICH REQUIRE NRC ACTION l

l .

e 79-14/79-02 eHVAC -

l e SMALL BORE PIPING l e CRD PIPING

!

  • DRYWELL STEEL PLATFORMS l e MISCELLANEOUS STEEL

)

e CONDUIT SUPPORTS

e !! OVER I e SECONDARY. CONTAINMENT PENETRATIONS

l j BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 l OVERALL CIVIL PROGRAM l

SUMMARY

l e THE OVERALL CIVIL PROGRAM PROVIDES A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE CIVIL SCOPE OF WORK i

e ALL CiVilCALCULATIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY EITHER l THE SEISMIC DESIGN PROGRAMS OR THE CIVIL l CALCULATION REVIEWS -

e FSAR CHANGES ARE NOT REQUIRED l e THE TECHNICAL ADEQUACY OF THE ENTIRE l CIVIL SCOPE IS ASSURED -.-

j l

s. .

-Q

.  ?"

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 1 79-14/79-02 PROGRAM '

SCOPE <

  • NRC BULLETIN 79-02  ;
  • NRC BULLETIN 79-14 e I
  • APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES '

30 SYSTEMS 240 STRESS PROBLEMS 4000 SUPPORTS

  • COMPLETED TORUS AND CRD j 20 STRESS PROBLEMS ,

500 SUPPORTS  :

4

  • REMAINING 79-14 PROGRAM 2 220 STRESS PROBLEMS ,f 3500 SUPPORTS .

d b

_ _ _ _ _ ti

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 79-14/79-02 PROGRAM l

REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

e 3-PHASE PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF 79-14/79-02 PROGRAM e USE OF SEQUOYAH OPERABILITY CRITERIA FOR PHASE 11 MODIFICATIONS ..

o

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 79-14/79-02 PROGRAM PROGRAM

SUMMARY

INITIAL WALKDOWNS NO DISCREPANCY

?

YES PHASEI EVALUATE DISCREPANCY ISSUE MODS m . . . . sm . am em . . . . . sm . . . . ms am . m m . . sm sm em as se . . sm . . se . . . ms nm . . sm . am es . m 9 F VERIFICATION INSTALL WALKDOWNS MOD 3 PHASE ll STRESS AND SUPPORT RESTART ANALYSIS UNIT 2 ISSUE MODS

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

INSTALL MODS PHASEIll FINAL REPORT

  • 6

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 79-14/79-02 PROGRAM MODIFICATION PRIORITIZATION 79 02/79 14 PHASE 11 CALCULATION IS A NO COMPLETE MODIFICATION DESIGN BASIS REQUIRED? CALCULATION YES SYSTEM l OPERABILITY j CRITERIA DOES THE MOD NEED TO

" NEXT BEINSTALLED OUTAGE NOW

?

YES EVALUATE INSTALL MOD PRIOR GENERIC (un e TO RESTART OR DURING IMPLICATIONS OPERATION

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 79-14/79-02 PROGRAM STATUS PHASEI e COMPLETED WALKDOWNS

  • DEVELOPED DATA BASE OF SUPPORTS
  • ASSEMBLED DATA PACKAGES
  • IDENTIFIED APPROX 600 DISCREPANCIES (3 UNITS)

- 510 ACCEPTABLE OR MINOR 90 MODIFICATIONS e RESOLVING AUDIT FINDINGS P H A S E 11

  • INITIATED VERIFICATION WALKDOWNS e INITIATED ANALYSIS
  • CONTINUING DATA BASE ACTIVITIES . _ . -

t

?

r s

d BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 79-14/79-02 PROGRAM  ;

g 1988 1989 OCT JAN

  • APR JUL OCT JAN APR JUL OCT JAN APR JUL OCT JAN ,j i iaj isi iiiiiiiI lt i i i l I i i ei ilt i I i i i I i i i i I  ;

E UNIT 2  ! E UNIT 2

- RESTART j OUTAGE l l """""""

UNIT 2  !  ! l l I  : s OPERAT!ON l PHASE I

  • COMPLETE  !

l 88 ii I

l PHASEI1 i

i

""""""""I:l  :

E i

!  ! I  ;

!  ! IIPHASEIl INITIALI  ! 20% COMP  ! 50% COMP 80% COMP  ! COMPLETE E i PHASEII1 O b O PHASE Ill 4 COMPLETE CALCS l! C l' j Ill COMPLETE , gg I

. 1

. I. y

~~~

P H A S E Ill l*  !

INSTALL  ! I I I I -'

MODS i

SN' u___.__

l i

i BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 79-14/79-02 PROGRAM I

i

SUMMARY

l \

REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

  • 3-PHASE PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF '

l 1

79-14/79-02 PROGRAM

  • USE OF SEQUOYAH OPERABILITY CRITERIA 1 FOR PHASE 11 MODIFICATIONS i,

i I

I BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 HVAC SCOPE

  • CLASS 1 DUCTWORK/ SUPPORTS l

i

e DUCTWORK PENETRATING SECONDARY 4

CONTAINMENT e 9500 FEET

)

e 1000 SUPPORTS '

~

y 58 BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 .x HVAC :Y, W

i!

3a l

REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF: j OPERABILITY CRITERIA y eSUPPORTS i e SEQUOYAH CRITERIA 1.2sy I- 0.7Su FS = 2 FOR ANCHORS EDUCT 1.5 X SMACNA -.2..

1 . __ _

1 BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 HVAC 1

TECHNICAL ISSUES e DUCT WEIGHT

  • NATURAL FREQUENCY e INSTALLATIONS DIFFER FROM DRAWINGS RESOLUTION PROGRAMS l e WALKDOWN FOR AS-BUILT SKETCHES
  • QUALIFY TO DESIGN CRITERIA

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 HVAC HVAC DESIGN CRITERIA EVALUATION IS A COMPLETE MODIFICATION NO DESIGN BASIS REQUIRED? CALCULATION l

YES OPERABILITY CRITERIA DOES THE MOD NEED TO NO NEXT BEINSTALLED OUTAGE NOW 7

YES INSTALL MOD PRIOR TO RESTART 6 9

O e

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 HVAC 1

STATUS SUPPORTS WALKED 225 EVALUATED 130 MEETS DESIGN 120 CRITERIA MEETS OPERABILITY 6 CRITERIA PENDING 4

.~

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 HVAC QUALIFICATION PROGRAM SCHEDULE i 1987 1988 1989 1990 OCT JAN APR JUL OCT JAN APR JUL OCT JAN APR JUL i i 1 i i i i i a a i i i ie i i i i i i a 6 i i i i i i i i I

l UNIT 2 g UNIT 2 i RESTART l OUTAGE 1 I i

' I I WALKDOWN I

COMPLETE g i l I i

UNIT 2 1 EVALUATION OF WALKDOWN l OPERATION l DATA COMPLETE l i

l i cj

,,g^9;>g",,,, x ,OST- RESTART MODiF CAuONS  :

FINAL INSPECTION i

I I REPORT ISSUED I I , i I l I INSTALL MODS l

, I , ..

\ . .

l l .

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 l HVAC l

SUMMARY

l REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

e USE OF OPERABILITY CRITERIA

! JUSTIFICATION '

j e SEQUOYAH INTERIM CRITERIA FOR .

l SUPPORTS

! e SUPPORTS / DUCTS ARE STRUCTURALLY l ADEQUATE

e SYSTEM FUNCTIONALITY IS MAINTAINED t

]

i

r.

A BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2  :

SMALL BORE SCOPE o 21NCH NPS & UNDER e NOT RIGOROUSLY ANALYZED e 16,000 FT e 720 SUPPORTS < . _ . .

~

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 L SMALL BORE l

REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

o OPERABILITY CRITERIA e SEQUOYAH CRITERIA j' PIPING 2.0 Sy SUPPORTS 1.2 Sy 0.7 Su ANCHORS FS = 2 o ,.. ,4, i

l

a BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 SMALL BORE TECHNICAL ISSUES e SCH 160 PIPING e ATTACHMENT DETAILS RESOLUTION e WALKDOWN FOR AS-BUILT SKETCHES e QUALIFY REPRESENTATIVE PROBLEMS TO DESIGN CRITERIA e INSTALL MODS TO MEET OPERABILITY CRITERIA

  • EVALUATE FOR GENERIC IMPLICATIONS

, o PERFORM 100% REVIEW BASED ON GENERIC CONCERNS < _ . . . ,

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 SMALL BORE SMALL BORE DESIGN CRITERIA EVALUATION 1 I IS A COMPLETE MODIFICATION NO DESIGN BASIS REQUIRED? CALCULATION YES l OPERABILITY CRITERIA l

I l

DOES THE MOD NEED TO NO NEXT BEINSTALLED OUTAGE NOW

?

YES

^ ^ INSTALL MOD PRIOR GENER1C IMPLICATIONS km TO RESTART 100% REVIEW OF GENERIC CONCERNS Cute 335 e e

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 SMALL BORE PIPING ASSESSMENT 1987 1986 NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I i I I i l i i i I i I I I i 11/1 3/8 WALKDOWNS 1/11 PIPING & SUPPORT 62 C

EVALUATIONS \

IMPLEMENT 10/5

{

5/30 i MODS l

GENERIC I 3/1C 04/4 I EVALUATIONS l l

4/ 100% SCOPE 6/30 EVALUATION co n,

I .

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 l SMALL BORE .

l l

SUMMARY

REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

L e OPERABILITY CRITERIA

[ JUSTIFICATION e SEQUOYAH OPERABILITY CRITERIA e SUPPORTS / PIPING STRUCTURALLY ADEQUATE e GENERIC CONCERNS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR THE

. ENTIRE SCOPE e SYSTEMS WILL BE FUNCTIONAL _ , , ,

~

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2

DRYWELL PLATFORMS i

l SCOPE i

e STEEL PLATFORMS AT EL. 563'-11" (ANNULUS AREA) l-EL. 584'-2" (ANNULUS AREA)

EL. 604' EL. 616' EL. 628' CH88 279

I

! BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 DRYWELL PLATFORMS l

I REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

.e OPERABILITY CRITERIA FOR DRYWELL PLATFORMS l e SRP CRITERIA <.....

l 1

~

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2

DRYWELL PLATFORMS i

i TECHNICAL ISSUE e ADDED ATTACHMENTS e SRV LOADS

e INSTALLATION RESOLUTION PROGRAM e 100% WALKDOWN FOR AS-BUILT DATA e ANALYTICAL QUALIFICATION e MODIFICATIONS TO MEET OPERABILITY CRITERIA e ON-GOING EFFORT FOR FUTURE ATTACHMENTS . - -

I

~

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 DRYWELL PLATFORMS l

l l

l l STATUS i

  • QUALIFICATIONS / EVALUATIONS -

]

90% COMPLETE e EVALUATION FOR STIFFENERS ON-GOING

[ e MODIFICATIONS ON-GOING -.....

l

~

l l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 l DRYWELL PLATFORMS l

i l

SUMMARY

! REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

l; e USE OF OPERABlif"Y CRITERIA i-

! JUSTIFICATION

  • 100% EVALUATION e USING SRP ALLOWABLES e STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY IS MAINTAINED e SUPPORTED SYSTEMS WILL BE FUNCTIONAL . . , . .

u.

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 CRDH SCOPE e CONTROL ROD DRIVE HYDRAULIC PIPING e 185 - 1"$ INSERT LINES e 185 - 3/4"9 WITHDRAWAL LINES e 20 SUPPORT FRAMES c . . . ,.

I .

l l

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 ,

. CRDH REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

-OPERABILITY CRITERIA l SEQUOYAH CRITERIA PIPING 2.0 Sy l SUPPORTS 1.2 Sy

.7 Su ANCHORS F.S. 2 NOTE: WILL WITHDRAW PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL - 5% DAMPING

.l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 CRDH TECHNICAL ISSUE e SEISMIC QUALIFICATION DOCUMENTATION

  • INSTALLATION DIFFERS FROM DRAWINGS RESOLUTION
  • WALKDOWNS FOR AS-BUILT DRAWINGS e RIGOROUS PIPING ANALYSIS e INSTALL MODS TO MEET OPERABILITY CRITERIA ..,

l l

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 l CRDH l

l STATUS / SCHEDULE

  • ALL DESIGN MODS TO 5% DAMPING ARE COMPLETE e RE-EVALUATION COMPLETE 7/88 I

l l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 l CRDH t

SUMMARY

! REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

e OPERABILITY CRITERIA JUSTIFICATION e SEQUOYAH OPERABILITY CRITERIA c

e PIPING / SUPPORT FRAMES STRUCTURALLY

ADEQUATE e PROGRAM PROVIDES FOR 100% EVALUATION

! e SYSTEM WILL BE FUNCTIONAL . - . . ,

4 7

~

i 3

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 MISCELLANEOUS STEEL i

l L

I 1

SCOPE l e INTERVENING STEEL FROM PIPE SUPPORTS l- TO STRUCTURE e 350 FRAMES < . . , ,

\

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 CRDH I

l l

l REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

i

-OPERABILITY CRITERIA l SEQUOYAH CRITERIA PIPING 2.0 Sy SUPPORTS 1.2 Sy

.7 Su ANCHORS F.S. 2 NOTE: WILL WITHDRAW PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL - 5% DAMPING

( HMN l'. I

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 CRDH TECHNICAL ISSUE e SEISMIC QUALIFICATION DOCUMENTATION e INSTALLATION DIFFERS FROM DRAWINGS

! RESOLUTION l e WALKDOWNS FOR AS-BUILT DRAWINGS e RIGOROUS PIPING ANALYSIS e INSTALL MODS TO MEET OPERABILITY CRITERIA . . , , ,

l

}

! BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 l MISCELLANEOUS STEEL l

l i

i TECHNICAL ISSUE l e TYPICAL DETAILS

! RESOLUTION PROGRAM l e EVALUATE IMPACT FROM 79-14 (OTHERS) l - WALKDOWN j - EVALUATE TO DESIGN CRITERIA

-INSTALL MODS TO MEET OPERABILITY CRITERIA l

e RESTART EVALUATIONS

)

- SCOPE: TORUS

- WALKDOWN

- EVALUATE TO DESIGN CRITERIA

): - PERFORM MODS

- EVALUATE FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS < - . . , , ,

l

l l

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 i MISCELLANEOUS STEEL  ;

DESIGN CRITERIA EVALUATION 1 F IS A NO COMPLETE MODIFICATION DESIGN BASIS REQUIRED CALCULATION

?

YES OPERABILITY CRITERIA i f DOES THE NO MOD NEED TO L NEXT F OUTAGE BE INSTALLED NOW?

YES 1 P EVALUATE GENERIC 2 INSTALL MOD PRIOR

' TO RESTART IMPLICATIONS 8 4

l l

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 MISCELLANEOUS STEEL i

I STATUS / SCHEDULE

e CRITICAL CASES COMPLETE 3/88
  • GENERAL CONCERNS EVALUATION COMPLETE 8/88 cHas arr i

l 1

~

j .

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 MISCELLANEOUS STEEL l

l REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

l e OPERABILITY CRITERIA JUSTIFICATION

! e PIPE SUPPORT INTERIM CRITERIA (SEQUOYAH) e STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY MAINTAINED e SUPPORTED SYSTEMS WILL BE FUNCTIONAL e ADEQUATE RESTART EVALUATION TO DEFINE GENERIC CONCERNS e GENERIC CONCERNS WILL BE ADDRESSED FOR ENTIRE SCOPE < _ , , .

~

r.

~

i BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 CONDUlT l SCOPE e 100 MILES OF CONDUlT e 20,000 SUPPORTS CHPS 315

1 l

l l

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 CONDUlT

! REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

e USE OF EXPERIENCE INFORMATION FOR INTERIM l e LONG-TERM QUALIFICATION UNDER USI A-46 cHas zu I

l I - -. _ - . _ -

~

i .

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2

!, CONDUIT l TECHNICAL ISSUE e INSTALLATION NOT PERFORMED TO i CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS RESOLUTION

! e PERFORMED DYNAMIC TEST i

e DEVELOPED CRITERIA BASED ON TEST l e WALKDOWN TO EVALUATE CONDUIT AGAINST

] ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS (92% ACCEPTABLE) e EXPERIENCE DATA USED TO EVALUATE 8%

l e PERFORMED MODIFICATIONS _ . . .

I l

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 CONDUlT RESOLUTION LOGIC PERFORM '

DESIGN F

TEST CRITERIA WALKDOWN &

EVALUATE AGAINST CRITERIA MEET YES

[

r CRITERIA NO EVALUATE AGAINST EXPERIENCE DATA MEET YES EXPERIENCE 7 FILE DATA NO DESIGN &

INSTALL l MODIFICATIONS ,,,,,

1

- 9

I BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 CONDUIT STATUS / SCHEDULE  !

e DESIGN - COMPLETE e MODIFICATIONS-95% COMPLETE e MODIFICATIONS' COMPLETE 5/88

{

~

i i

l l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 '

! CONDUlT '

SUMMARY

l e. REQUEST NRC APPROVAL

! - TO USE EXPERIENCE DATA l LONG - TERM QUALIFICATION BY USI A-46 JUSTIFICATION e PROGRAM WAS 100% WALKDOWN/ EVALUATION i

e TEST DATA DEMONSTRATES ADEQUATE MARGINS e USE OF EXPERIENCE DATA RECOGNIZED AS

VIABLE APPROACH IN NUREG 1030 < . . -

1 i

l 1

  • .em. ~

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 .

l il/l i

1 i

SCOPE

! e PRECLUSION OF ADVERSE INTERACTIONS i

BETWEEN CLASS I AND CLASS 11 ITEMS IN U2

.AND COMMON CLASS I STRUCTURES - -.

s h

, y -. -,e _ m"'en- " ' w- - ~ ~ " " - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - - . - - - - - - - - -

I l

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 11 / 1 i

REQUEST FOR NRC APPROVAL:

l e DEFER SPATIAL INTERACTION TO POST RESTART-RESOLUTION OF USI A-46 l

e EVALUATION CRITERIA BASED IN PART ON SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA --

I l

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 II/l l TECHNICAL ISSUE l e NON CLASS I COMPONENTS INSTALLED BY FIELD l ROUTING WITH COMMERCIAL GRADE HARDWARE, AS TYPICAL OF BFN VINTAGE PLANTS (NO SEISMIC DESIGN) e ELECTRICAL ITEMS WERE ORIGINALLY EVALUATED FOR WATER SPRAY (1973-74) BUT ADDITIONS WERE NOT RESOLUTION

[

  • WATER SPRAY SEISMIC INTERACTION PROGRAM TO BE 1

COMPLETED PRIOR TO RESTART

-EVALUATION CRITERIA BASED ON ANALYSIS, TESTING, AND l' SElSMIC EXPERIENCE DATA l - 100% WALKDOWN l - MC' Sd INSTALLED PRIOR TO RESTART i

e SPATIAL SEISMIC INTERACTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN j USl A-46 SCOPE

-- EVALUATIONS TO BE CONDUCTED IN TIME FRAME CONSISTENT WITH SOUG MEMBER UTILITIES

~~

l 1

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 II/I PROGRAM FLOW CHART i

DEFINE WATER SPRAY SCOPE EVALUATION CRITERIA

l WALKDOWN

{""" U2 & COMMON I

I l .

1 I EVALUATE MEETS OUTLIERS CRITERIA l

I I

l RECOMMEND I MODS I

I

' DESIGN AND 6---

INSTALL MODS I

a DOCUMENT ACCEPTABILITY I

OEVELOP LONG TERM PROGRAM FOR WATER SPRAY DEFER RESOLUTION OF ll/l AND SPATIAL RESTART INTERACTIONS TO i POST RESTART I

-- i

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 II/I

. II/l RESOLUTION LOGIC ACCEPTANCE 2 EXPERIENCE DATA CRITERIA 7 ANALYSIS TESTING WALKDOWN USING CRITERIA MEETS E DOCUMENT R

NO IMPLEMENT MODIFICATIONS c.....

e e

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 II/I

SUMMARY

REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

e DEFERRING SPATIAL INTERACTION UNTIL USI A-46 RESOLUTION

  • EVALUATION CRITERIA BASED IN PART ON SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA l

JUSTIFICATION e SPATIAL INTERACTIONS INCLUDED IN USI A-46 SCOPE e WATER SPRAY PROGRAM TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE RESTART -

e SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA TO BE SUPPORTED BY TEST DATA AND ANALYSIS - - -

i s

- i j #d ,

l .

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 l SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PROGRAM BACKGROUND i

! e REACTOR BUILDING INCLUDING REFUELING FLOOR l e COMMON TO ALL 3 UNITS e STANDBY GAS TREATMENT SYSTEM (SGTS) e 1/4 INCH WATER PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL

! e DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE . _ . , . ,

l

-., - ,,,, , -- ,+ -,, -. .. v . . . - - _ _ - - - - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _

BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PROGRAM i

SCOPE l 300 - PIPING PENETRATIONS l

l 50 - HVAC DUCTS 500 - CONDUlTS 50 - CABLE TRAYS - . . _

,,---..4 e . 4 ,. - - . . - - - - . , - , - . . . - ~ ~ - - . - . - ___. -- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - -

\ -

l .

l '

i l

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 i SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PROGRAM l

l I

F REQUEST NRC APPROVAL OF:

I

! e INTERIM ACCEPTANCE FOR FUEL

[ MOVEMENT .-.._.

i i

l BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 l SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PROGRAM TECHNICAL ISSUES l e SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF PENETRATIONS l

RESOLUTION l e SEAL PENETRATIONS WITH EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN l e DEMONSTRATE (TEST) THE POST-DBE l PERFORMANCE OF THE FLEXIBLE FOAM SEAL DESIGN

  • SEISMICALLY QUALIFY ELECTRICAL CONDUITS, CABLE TRAYS, HVAC & CLASS I PIPING ,

l

  • REVISE FSAR TO CLARIFY COMMITMENT < . . . . .

1 I  ;

I BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT l

SECONDARY CONTAINMENT RESOLUTION l

WALKDOWN TO kYES ' NO FURTHER ACCEPTANCE '

r ACTION CRITERIA NO QUALIFIED YES g ACTION BY BY OTHER r APPROPRIATE SEISMIC PROGRAMS PROGRAM 4

Y NO PENETRATIONS SEALED YES ACTION BY BY APPENDIX R 7 APPENDIX R PROGRAM PROGRAM NO __

PENETRATIONS SEALED BY SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PROGRAM c-.. ,..

1 i

.- .n--.~- , , - - - - --... - --.-- ._..,,-----_n-,--,,-- -- ----. -

s .

{ -

i  ;

! BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PROGRAM l

l SCHEDULE ,

I 1

1 2/17 WALKDOWN & DESIGN 6/13 l f REQUIRED MODS  ;

1 3/7 4/15 PERFORM TEST & '

WRITE TEST REPORT f i 4/5 INSTALL MODS 8/7 i

CMea ist ,

) .!

4 BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2  ;

SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PROGRAM I i l

SUMMARY

REQUEST NRC CONCURRENCE WITH:

l e INTERIM ACCEPTANCE FOR FUEL MOVEMENT

! JUSTIFICATION ,

j e FUEL RECONSTITUTION ACCIDENT SCENARIO, I OFFSITE DOSE LIMIT IS SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW l NUREG 800 REQUIREMENTS ( <10% OF 10CFR100) l . . . . ,

l l l

ENCL 0st'RE 3 d

.l l

i a

1

- s, ___,.

4 i

l i

--,u -- . .--, - , , , -.m. , - - - , _,,-,,---,w .-,,----v,--- - , , - , , _ e,-vne-,--mmre,--a --c - - - - , - - - , - ---,-w,,- --

m

BROWNS FERRY CIVIL PROGRAMS February 29, 1988 INTF. RIM ISSUE OPERABILI'lY LONG-TERM CRITERIA CRITERIA Large Bore Piping (79-14/02) Submitted to NRC 12/87 FSAR Small Bore Piping Same as for large bore FSAR HVAC Submitted at 2/29/88 meeting FSAR Misc Steel Similar to large bore supports FSAR Drywell Floor Steel Submitted at 2/29/88 meeting FSAR CRDH Piping Same as large bore piping FSAR Conduit Experience data 615% damping USI A-46 for aluminum conduits II/I None USI-A-46 (spatial interaction)

Experience Data (spray protection)

Secondary Containment None FSAR-Supported by Penetrations experience data x

CA 22cd

( ~ TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY DMonon of Nuclear Engineering

{

l j

B41 .'88 0225 001 CIVII. ESCISEERISC BRANCH INSTRUCTICN CES-CI 21,100 YlTLE. EFS CLASS I HVAC DUCT AND DUCT SUPPORT SEISMIC Ol'ALIFICATin INTERIM OPERABILITY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

\

l REVISN)N RO R1 R2 R3 i R4 R5 l ISSUE DATE l EB 2 5 IS6e l{, -

REVIEWED g ((4

{ APPROVED t

[ _

JH TM

~

t,UUMUINATION L%

N3 CEB-CI n.100 BFS CLASS I HVAC DU'.T AND DUCT SUPPORT SEISMIC QUALIFICATION Ttie. INTERIM OPERABILITY ACCEPTANCE CRTTERIA 0 R- In Rmlion: A-Denotes aooroval C BRANCH (CEB) INSTRUCTIONS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES (E&TS)

CEB EEB- MES NEB ECB "s "$$n**

R A R A R A R A R A R A R A R A 104 Ocw ML EHJ And 2:0 Ai!D PROJECT ENGINEERING (PR ENG) 8FEP BLEP SOEP WBEP WP PSB R A R A R. A R A R A R A R A R A I

ENGINE $ RING ASSUR ANCE (EA) DNOA OPER ION ENGINE RING SYS& EVAL  :

SVS ADM PMS El&C MS8 RAM R A R A R A R A R A R A R A R A STAFFS OTHER ORGANIZATIONS BACS E RIS PSS R A R A R A R A R A R A R A R A h I

L '

l

BTN CLASS I HVAC DUCT AND DUCT SU7 PORT SEISMIC QUALIFICATICS REVISION LOC T,,i, : ISTERIM OPERA 31Ll?i ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CE3-CI li,i:0 C a .. ; .a s,.

DESCRIPTION OF REVISION '"

,:: o.e 0 o 1;;ina; 73,ug i

I I

i

(

e e

i f

l 1

L fvAtellsgg% egg 4pg,

- _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ - - - - - - - - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

BFN CLASS 8 HVAC DUCT AND DUCT SUPPORT SE8SM8C QUAL 8F8 CAT 20 2NTERTM OPERABTL2TY ACCEPTANCE CRITERI A CEB-CI 21.100 TABLE OF CONTENTS t

Page 1.0 PURPOSE. .... . ... ......... . .... .... . ........... .

1 2.0 SCOPE. ..... .. .. .. ... .......... .

1 3.0 POLICY. .

1 4.0 INTERIM ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA. .. . .. .

....... ......... 1 5.0 EXCEPTIONS. .

2 6.0 DOCUMENTATION.. .. ..... . ..... ...........

. ....... 2

7.0 REFERENCES

.. . ....... ...... . .. 2 i

TvA 1053 5 (EN SE5- 7-77)

MI

. . I

}

BFN CLASS I HVAC DUCT AND DUCT SUPPORT SEISMIC QUALIFICATION INTERIM OPERABILITY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CEB-CI 21.100 1.0 P_URPOSE The purpose of this criteria is to provide a basis for interim acceptance of existing Class I HVAC ducts and duct supports which do not meet long-term design basis requirements. Ductwork and supports meeting requirements of this criteria shall be considered suitable for interim plant operation until physical modifications can be made.

2.0 SCOPE This criteria applies to all existing BFN Class I HVAC ducts and duct supports which will require physical ecdification to meet the long-term design basis requirements given by Design Criteria BFN-50-C-7104, Attachment B.

3.0 POLICY In general, Class I HVAC ductwork and duct supports shall be evaluated to requirements of*Section 4.0 herein for interim acceptance. Specific exceptions may be approved on a case-by-case basis if thoroughly justified and documented by issued supporting calculations in accordance with NEP-3.1. Approved exceptions shall be recorded in Section 5.0 of this document. Each exception shall be assigned a subsection number (e.g., 5.1, 5.2, etc.) along with a brief descriptive title for the

( specific case to which it applies. Following this shall be a trief

( explanation of the rationale for al10 wing the exception, a statement of the specific requirements that vary from Cection 4.0, and a reference to supporting calculaticns for the varied requirements. Issuance of exceptions shall be by revisions or CEB Interim Orders to this instructicn in acco.-dance with Civil Engineering Branch Instructien 21-Cl 21.02.

Class ! ductwork and duct supporcs which meet the interim acceptance criteria (including approved exceptions) shall be acceptable for interir plant operation; however, mcdifications to meet the long-term design basis possible.

requirements shall te scheduled and made as expeditiously as Class I ductwork and duct supports failing to meet the interim acceptance requirements herein (including approved exceptions) shall not be allowed for plant operation until modifications are Tade to reet the long-term design basis requirez.ents.

4.0 INTERIM ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Requirements of this section and/or Section 5.0 shall be ret as the basis for interim acceptance o.' existing Class I HVAC ducts and duct supports.

Figuce 1 provides a logic diagram for applying this criteria.

a.1 DESIGN LCADS Design loads shall be determined in accordance with requirerents cf

  • ~ Design Criteria BFN-50-C-7104, Attachment B; however, allowable stresses shall be as given telca in subsection a.2.

CNE4 - 3581M TVA 10535 ( EN OES- 7-7 7 )

e .

EFN CLASS I HVAC DUCT AND DUCT SUPPORT SEISMIC QUALIFICA!!ON INTERIM OPERABILITY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CEB-CI 21.100 4.2 ALLOWABLE STRESSES 4.2.1 Duetwork, The maximum allowable stress in a duct section for lead combinations involving the DBE seismic event shall be as follows (Reference 7.1):

o Rectangular duct section stress g 12,000 psi, o

Circular duct section stress s 15.000 psi 4.2.2 Support Members and Connections The support member stresses shall not exceed the lesser of 1.2 Fy or 0.7 Fu for tensile and flexural stresses and 90 percent of the critical buckling stress as defined in A!SC Specifications (Reference 7.2) for axial compression and compression in a flange due to bending. Shear stresses shall not exceed 60 percent of the allowable stresses for tension and flexure.

The stress allowables for bolting shall be the greater of 70 percent of the ultimate steength or the minimum specified yield stress of the bolt material.

4.2.3 Concreta Expansien Anchors Anchorages to concrete shall b= evaluated in accordance with incerim allewables of Civil Design Standard DS-C1.7.1 where the mini.um factor of safety shall be 2.0 for shell and wedge bolt type anchers.

5.0 EXCEPTIONS No exceptions to the requirenents of Section 4.0 have been taken as of the RO issue date.

6.0 DOCUMENTATION Enginsering evaluations performed to deternine acceptability for interim operation shall be documented by calculations in accordance NEP-3.1.

Modifications which may be postponed to after restart shall be tracked by marking "Post-Restart Modification Required" on the calculation cover sheet and on the calculation log.

7.0 REFERENCES

7.1 SWEC calculation No. CD-Q0000-871818, backup calculaticn for

, PFN-50-C-7104, RIMS No. 5228802C4123 7.2 AISC, Manaual of Steel construction, 8th Edition DNE4 - 35SIM TVa IC$3S ([N C[$- 7-77) i

. d s

e ng 4- ga s9 ol'06O

,- # I 8 Cik eee P.%

_ R sc O ea P I', P

. e g

a ea n i uk o r s c i

e sa t

a t

i iP r r e C =

po 8 Ot n g

t si sd s oe e g

- PnD n

g n, Cig

_ R sc O ea PDp y

t i

i i

f i f K K l

A O a R . O r N m e I e m p R t e O P s t y s r C y o S S e A f g

V ea I II uk 'l.

sc H s I saP l' 0 s D 1

o Nn
l. ,

oi d

i F

4 k

A . ~

Nn I

oi mK o t r eO mK e t t

eO nt st n y t

oi y o o t e st y o l s

ir SN i i c SN u a

en t C n t wa i

e n t.

w.ts I

n :. nna o s. n 1 ai

s. I, ud r g I

s

. oa n d r rap e i l t r l

nsr i i l k oi i

gee aif s l k oer et iDt v s. ne a. l f t eci v aa iu pcr s i EWI D EWl l e OAC eor Dt C n

o

. le a

t i e,

88 t s

( wen ok g dSi l l l

d a ac o i W aC

<{

, );  :] ;l

i

. i i

i N

BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT ,

DETAILED

.Z N~ Ta=es M & 9 5 4 4 8 /t.t r f

,s eeewrwtE~ ..

For

' - ' _ enrwe.

STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE OF DYAWELL ACCESS PLATFORMS i

f 4 && 6 5 4hw - - - - = ,

4 5 5 b %F & fv%wb y .-

??"-$0 '80 h'?. O I

l 4

, _ - , - - - , - - ~ , -

~

j BFN-50-C-1100 Attachment F TABLE OF COWTENTS

?.ALL 1.0 IrrRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . ....... ... . . . . . ... '

1 1.1 og,scriotion . .. . . ........... . . . . .... 1 1.2 Puroose . . . . . . . ..... .............. 1 1.3 Sc221 * * * * * * * * * ****** ****** * * **** 1 2.0 DESICW SPECIFICATIONS . . . ....... ..... .. . .... 2 3.0 LOADS AND LOADIWC COMBINATIONS . ...... ... . .... . .. 2 3.1 Leadinn Definitions . . .... ...... . . . . .... 2 3.2 Loadinn Combinations . . .... ... .... .. . .... 5 4.0 DESICW AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES . ,, . . . .. .. . .. . . .... 5

5.0 REFERENCES

t 5

Figute 3.1.7 Combination of Dynamic Reactions froe Attached Systems l TABLES:

Table 3.2.1 Loading Comeinat.)ns For Stress Evaluations '

Table 3.2.2 Loading Coerications For Up1 Lit Evaluations i.

i i

c F

h s

I I

{

m i

I

BFN-50-c-7100 ATTACHMENT F

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Description The dryvell access platforms include two main platforms, one at elevatten 584 feet 11 inches, and one at elevation 563 feet 2 inches. The flooring is standard grating, with 1-1/2-inch by 3/16-inch load bars. The grating and support steel extend from the rea: tor pedestal to the dryvell sheil at nlevation 563 feet 2 inches and from the sacrificial shield wall to the dryvell shell at elevation 584 feet 11 inches.

The platforms are supported by 24-inch-deep, wide-flange beams radiating from the reactor pedestal and sacrificial shield wall to the dryvell shell. The radial support beams for elevation 584 feet 11 inches are field-welded to header beams in the sacrificial shield wall. The radial support beams for elevation 563 feet 2 inches are ficid-bolted to embedded plates in the outside face of the reactor pedestal. All radial beams are supported by beam seats welded to the dryvell shell. 1,ubri t e pads under the radial beams allow dryvell shell expansion. Shear bars welded to the bottom flange of the radial beams on both sides of the beam seat prennt lateral movement of the beses. Intermediate grating support beams at 6 feet 6 inches maximum spacing are framed between the radial beams. Additional support beams are framed between both the radial and grating support beams for equipment. HVAC, cable tray, and piping system load attachments.

1.2 Purpose The putpose at this criteria is to establish the requi". aments for the designer to assure uniformity in design during the evaluation of the dryvell access platforms and to obtain a safe and complete design considering all appropriate loading combinations. This criteria defines

, the loads and load combinations for use in this evaluation and also th; asso:iated allowable stresses and uplift evaluation requirements.

1.3 Scope 1.3.1 The requirements of this document shall apply only to the structural steel inside the dryvell at elevation 584 feet 11 inches and elevation 563 feet 2 inches as denoted on TVA drawings 48N442 and 48N443, including miscellaneous steel for these elevations as denoted on TVA drawings 48N1015-series, 48N1016-series, and 48N1028.

1.3.2 In the event of conflicting requirements between this document and any reference material, this document shall govern. However, the civil project, engineer shall be notified of the difference.

L F-1

l . .

I' BFN-50-C-7100 _,

ATTACKMENT F f

2.0 DES!CN SPECIFICATIONS For this structural design or reevaluation, the 1978 AISC Specification for the Design. Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings shall be used.

3.0 LOADS AND LOADINC COMBINATIONS 3.1 Leading Definitiers 3.1.1 D - Deadlead, including structural steel, permanent equipment, and attached systems, e.g., piping, NVAC, cable trays, etc. shall be a minimum of 40 psf.

3.1.2 to - Outage and maintenance loads, including any moveable equipment loads and other loads which vary with intensity and cccurrence during an outage, i.e., these loads will not be present while the plant is operating. An Le of 100 psf applied to the loadable open areas shall be evaluated as a baseline outage and maintenance live load for the initial analysis using this criteria. As concentrated live loads due to outage or maintenance procedures are identified, these loads shall be evaluated against the baseline case. If the results of the concentrated loads exceed the baseline case, the concentrated loads must be evaluated per this criteria. The cooler li<e load T shall be 1.5 kips per foot of beamt where applicable. )

3.1.3 L - Live loads while the plant is 3perating, includinr, any loads which vary with intensity and occurrence and tre not otherwise accounted for. For the purpose of the initial evaluatier : wing this criteria L will be assumed aero.

3.1.4 E - Loads due to ef fects of OBE on structural steel and permanent floor-mounted equipment. This emeludes support loads from attached piping KVAC ducts, and cable trays (these loads are defined in Section 3.1.8).

3.1.5 E' - Loads due to effects of SSE on structural steel and permanent floor-sounted equipment. This excludes support loads from attached piping, KVAC ducts, and cable trays (these loads are defined in Section 3.1.8).

3.1.6 Yr - Equivalent static load on the structural due to a pipe whip reaction from existing pipe rupture restraints attached to the drywell steel.

Note! The application of pipe rupture loads only at those locations where aitigation esists is consistent with the baseline approach to pipe rupture design inside the drywell. Only these locations where CE and/or TVA negotiated pipe rupture mitigation as part of the *riginal )

design need be considered. '

F-2

-( .,

l F BFN-50-C-7100

, ATTACHMENT F y' 3.1.7 RFE - Restraint of f ree end displacerrent lesdd, e.g., thermal reactions from attached piping systems based on the most critics 1 condition.* RFE loads can be subdivided as follows:

3.1.7.1 RFEul - RFE reactions which contribute to uplift.

3.1.7.2 RFEs - All other RFE reactions, i.e., reacticas which do not contribute to uplift. ,

  • If reduced conservatise is needed RFE loads may'fe divided into upset, emergency, and faulted conditions correspitending to the associated dynamic loading conditions. -

3.1.8 DYWB, DYWC, and DYND - Reaction of attached systems, e.g.,

piping, HVAC, cable trays, etc., due to upset (service level t),-

emergency (service level C), and faulted (service level D) '

dynamic events, respectively. Note Not all attached systems 3

are analyzed for the f aulted conditions therefore, some reaction points on the floor steel will only have upset ar.d emergency loading. c'

- i 3.1.8.1 Dynamic Reaction Phasion 'a

$r Dynamic reactions froo at.tached systems are e.ransmitted

( to the floor steel through rigid restraints and snubbers. Based on the location and orientacion of these restraints, different assumptions can'be made ragarding the phasin;1 of these dynamic loadt. "These i

a assumptions can be grouped into three general categories as follows:

Croup A - Phasing Known When two or more dynamic restraints act together to restrain a particular motion c: mode of vtbration of an attached system, in phase reaction loads can be assumed. For example, reacttens resulting f rom a matched pair of vertical inubbers on a piping system -

would fall into this group. .

Croup B - Random Phasing When a dynamir, restraint arts independently to restrain a particular motion or_ mode of vibration of an attached system, this reactin 44a be considered randomly phased '

with other dynamic reactions. ,

a Group C - Worst Case Phasing Whra two or more dynamic restraints act to restrain a particular location of an attached system in more than L

F-3 f

> \

I \

1 3 3 1

(

+

a 3.ry.$o.C-7100

, 3 ATTACHMEWT F g ,i 7 .

one direction, a phasing relationship for these restraints cannot be assumed. For example, two snubbers which restrain essentially thet same point on a 2

piping system and whose lines of action are skewed to z each other would fall into this group. The results of

/ these reactions must be sununed absolutely to determine

/l y an enveloping condition.

t If further justification or additional analysis can show a pbsing relationship between group C restraint loat.s. t

( restrain (s.se t restraints can be treated as group A 3.1.8.2 Procedure f or Determining DYNB, DYNC, and DYND g

4 3.1.8.2.1 As a rainimum, the following procedure shat!

g be used to determine the dynamic reaction load cases.

A. Assign each dynamic reaction to one of the groups defined above. This will require engineering judgment.

Justification for these groupings

_ should be includ,d as part of the 7 analysis report as required by section 4.0'of this criteria.

8. Croup A reactions should be arranged into load sets per the phasing sssumed. Each load set should be evaluated separately with the results of each evaluati*on constitating a
dynamic load step.

C. Each group B reaction should be evaluated separately with the results

, of each evaluation constituting a

, dynamic load step.

,'. D. Group C reactions should be arranged into load sets per their potential for i

phasing. Each teaction in the load set should be evaluated separately.

The absolute summation of the results of each reaction in the load see will constitute a dynamic load step.

E. Combine all dynamic load steps using the aquart root of the sua of the e ' s squares (Sit 3!) method to f orm DYNR,

, DYWC, or D1WD.

F-4

, . t

)

t ,

0 i

P B?N-50-C-7100 s j

, < 'a r-2cWg,#NT'F e

j \

/ 3.1.8.2.2 Fi2ure 3.1.7 provides a sugary of this procedure. ,

) l, l.

t 3.1.9 DYBD - Larger of DYNB or DYND. To determine DYBD, screen'each DYNB load step against the corresponding DYND load step. (Fote t that in some instances no DYND load step exists. In these cases,

\ use the DYNB load ; step.) Combine the screened load steps using p

r, the SRSS method to ford DYBD.

z .A 3.1.10 DYCD - larger pf D C or DYND. Use the procedure 60tlined in 3.1.9abovesubstitgiagDYNCforDYNB.

3.1.11 To - Th.stmal effects and loads durir.g startup, normal operating, or ahutdown conditions, based on the but critical cr ypient or steady-state condition.

5:

'/ i

3.1.12, Ta - Thermal loads under thermal conditions's nerated by the '

ypostulated cipe break accident and including,To.

3.2 Loading Combinations 1

r /

As stated in section 1.Z All radial platform suppget tiea, ms are supported on one er.d by beam seat ).ielded to the drywell shell. ' Since the beam seats do not have holddown capability, the putential for lifting off the

( beam seatsjas well as th'e beam stress must be evaluated. Tables 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 detail the loading combinations which must be addressed in these two evaluations. ' <

4.0 DESICN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES '

1 y

The design and analysis procedures utilized for the dryell reeel struct we,s, including assumptions on boundary conditions and expected Maavior under Sssds, shall be is accordance with the AISC "Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," 8th Edition.

A suar ary of analysis proc,edures as well as justification for assumptions shouid be documented in the form of an analysis report. This ana'n ais report.

should be issued as an OT calculation.

5.0 REFERENCES

i 5.1 Design Criteria BFN-50-0707, Revision 2, Analyris of As-Built Piping Systems.

! 5.2 Design criteria BT'd-50-D706, Revision 1, The Torus IntegritysLong-Term Program. ,

5.3 TvA 1 awings 48N442, 48N443, 48N1015-series, 4,8N1016-series, and 48N1028.

1

/ F-5 t '

/ -) ,

h I , , o

BFN-50-C-7100 ATTACHMENT F N

.m l GROUF A lKi+K2 lK3+Kg l KN + KN+1 CROUP 3

, DYNB l Rg SESS DYNC i

lR2 r-I nN l

g. CROUP C

+

l U1 U2 l

+ U4 U3 l lU N +

UN+1 Ki = Individual group A reaction Ri = Individual group B reaction Ui = Individus1 group C reaction l Figure 3.1.7 l

Combination of Dynamic Reactions f ree Attached Systems l '

l F-6 l

l

o a-BFN-50-C-7100 ATTACHMENT F

,,_ TABLE 3.2.1 LOADINC COMBINATIONS FOR STRESS EVALUATION Combination Allowable Strers(l)

A. D+L o 1.0 S B. D + L + E + DYNB 1.0 S C. D + Lo + E + DYNB 1,.0 S D. D + L + E + DYNB + To + RFE, 1.5 S E. D+Lo + E' + DYNC 1.6 S

k. D + L + E' + DYNC + To + RFE, 1.6 S C. D + L + DYND + T, + RFE3 1.6 S H. D + L + E + DYBD + T, + RFEs+Y( r ) 1.6 S I. D + L + E' + DYCD + T, + RFE, + Y r ( ) 1.7 S

( Notes:

(1) S - For structural steel, 5 is the required section strength based on elastic design methods and the allowble stresses defined in Part 1 of the AISC "Specification for the Design and Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Eteel for Buildings."

The one-third increase in allowable stresses due to the seismic or wind loadings is not permitted.

(2) Only one pipe whip reaction should be considered at any given time; however, all postulated breaks for which pipe rupturc mitigation structures exist and are attached to dryvell steel must be considered.

e L

F-7

/

BFN-50-C-7100 ATTACHMENT F TABLE 3.2.2 LOADING COMBINATIONS FOR UPLIFT EVALUATION (1)

Combination Static Loading Dynamic Loading A

.9D + To + RFEul --

B .9D DYNB + E C DYNB + E

.9D + To + RFEul D .9D DYNC + E' E

.9D + To + RFEul DYNC + E' F .9D + T, + RFEul DYND + E + Y r G .9D + Ta + RFEul DYND + E' + Y r Note:

2 (1) In each combination, it must be shown that the magnitude of the beam seat reaction due to static loading is greater than the reaction due to dynamic loading, unless an adequate tiedown exists or the magnitude of uplift is within acceptable limits. Those acceptable uplif t '.imits will be_. defined on a case-by-case basis and included in this criteria if the need arises.

l p/*%

l l

F-8 1

() Sf302fd TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Division of Nucisar % gt B41 l88 0225 001 I

CIVIL ENGINEERING BRANCH INSTRUCTION CEB-CI 21.100 TITLE: BFN CLASS I HVAC DUCT AND DUCT SUPPORT SEISMIC Ol'ALIFICATION INTERIM OPERABILITY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA l

l I

REVISION RO R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 l ISSUE DATE 48 25 1968 PREPARED QQg /_ _ '

Reviewso g4

{ APPROVED 1

O

,,..-,.,_y _. . -

L.,UU M UIN A l lVN LUU CEB-CI 21.100 BFN CLASS I HVAC DU'.T AUD DUCT SUPPORT SEISMIC QUALIFICATION

-Title, IN ERIM OPERABILITY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Rev,s 0 R-Denotes rah A-Denotes approval ii on: -

BRANCH (CEB) INSTRUCTIONS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES (E&TS)

CEB EEB MEB NEB ECB $$$n**

R A R A R A R A R A R A R A R A 34 94 l

%%i BM AM l 1E0 A?D l

l PROJECT ENGINEERING (PR ENG)

BFEP BLEP SOEP WBEP WP PSB R A R A R. A R A R A R A R A R A l

ENGINE 5 RING ASSURANCE (EA) DNOA OPER IONS NGINE RING SYS & EVAL SVS ADM PMS El&C MSB RAM R A R A R A R A R A R A R 5 A R A l .

STAFFS OTHER ORG ANIZATIONS l BACS ERIS PSS l

A h

R R A R A R A R A R A R A R A D z

L

. . R '

' arN C1. ASS I HVAC DUCT AND DUCT SUPPORT SEISMIC QUALIFICAT101a Tine. I!;TERIM OPERABILITY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CEB-CI 21.100

" '[,'.' DESCRIPTION OF REVISION

  • 0 Original Issue O

6 1

TV A 105J4 (EN DES 4 78)

BFN CLASS I HVAC DUCT AND DUCT SUPPORT SE8SMIC QUALIFICATZON TNTERIM OPERAB1LTTY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CEB-CI 21.100 C

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 PURPOSE. . ..

........................................ 1 2.0 SCOPE... ...... ............ .. .......... ... ....... ... 1 3.0 POLICY.

1 4.0 INTERIM ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA. ... ..... . .. . .... . ..... 1 5.0 EXCEPTIONS.. . .. .. .. ...... ...... ............. 2 6.0 DOCUMENTATION. ..... . .. .. ... ...

.............. 2

7.0 REFERENCES

. .. ... . . .... ..... . ..... .... -.. 2 4

1 l

l l

l I

I l

l

(

i TVA 10535(EN DES- 7-77) l L

BFN CLASS I HVAC DUCT AND DUCT SUPPORT SEISMZC QUALIFICAT80N INTERIM OPERABIL1TY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CEB-CI 21.100 1,0 PURPOSE The purpose of this criteria is to provide a basis for interim acceptance of existing Class I HVAC ducts and duct supports which do not meet long-term design basis requirements. Ductwork and supports meeting requirements of this criteria shall be considered suitable for interim plant operation until physical modifications can be made.

2.0 SCOPE This criteria applies to all existing BFN Class I HVAC ducts and duct supports which will require physical modification to meet the long-term design basis requirements given by Desig'n Criteria BFN-50-C-7114, Attachment B.

3.0 POLICY In general, Class I HVAC ductwork and duct supports shall be evaluated to requirements of Section 4.0 herein for interim acceptance. Specific exceptions may be approved on a case-by-case basis if thoroughly justified and documented by issued supporting calculations in accordance with NEP-3.1. Approved exceptions shall be recorded in Section 5.0 of this document. Each exception shall be assigned a subsection number (e.g., 5.1, 5.2, etc.) along with a brief descriptive title for the

( specific case to which it applies. Following this shall be a brief

( explanation of the rationale for allowing the exception, a statement of the specific requirements that vary f rom Section 4.0, and a reference to supporting calculations for the varied requirements. Issuance of exceptions shall be by revisions or CEB Interim Orders to this instruction in accordance with Civil Engineering Branch Instruction 21-CI 21.C2.

Class I ductwork and duct supports which meet the interim acceptance criteria (including approved exceptions) shall be acceptable for interim plant operation; however, modifications to meet the long-term design basis requirements shall be scheduled and made as expeditiously as possible. Class I ductwork and duct supports failing to meet the interim acceptance requirements herein (including approved exceptions) shall not be allowed for plant operation until modifications are made to meet the long-term design basis requirements.

4.0 INTERIM ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Requirements of this section and/or Section 5.0 shall be met as the basis for interim acceptance of existing Class I HVAC ducts and duct supports.

Figure 1 provides a logic diagram for applying this criteria.

4.1 DESIGN LOADS

, Design loads shall be determined in accordance with requirements of t Design Criteria BFN-50-C-7104, Attachment B; however, allowable stresses shall be as given below in subsection 4.2.

DNE4 - 3581M TVA 10535 (EN DES- 7-7 7)

o .

BFN CLASS I HVAC DUCT AND DUCT SUPPORT SEISMIC QUALIFICATION l INTERIM OPERABILITY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CEB-CI 21.100 4.2 ALLOWABLE STRESSES 4.2.1 Ductwork The maximum allowable stress in a duct section for load combinations involving the DBE seismic event shall be as follows (Reference 7.1):

o Rectangular duct section stress i 12,000 psi, o Circular duct section stress s 15,000 psi 4.2.2 Support Members and Connections The support member stresses shall not exceed the lesser of 1.2 Fy or 0.7 F ufor tensile and flexural stressos and 90 percent of the critical buckling stress as defined in AISC Specifications (Reference 7.2) for axial compression and compression in a flange due to bending. Shear stresses shall not exceed 60 percent of the allowable stresses for tension and flexure.

The stress allowables for bolting shall be the greater of 70 percent of the ultimate strength or the minimum specified e

yield str'ss of the bolt material.

4. 2. 3 Conc rete Expansion Anchors Anchorages to concrete shall be evaluated in accordance with interim allowables of Civil Design Standard DS-C1.7.1 where the minimum factor of safety shall be 2.0 for shell and wedge bolt type anchors.

5.0 EXCEPTIONS No exceptions to the requirements of Section 4.0 have been taken as of the RO issue date.

6.0 DOCUMENTATION Engineering evaluations performed to determine acceptability for interim operation shall be documented by calculations in accordance NEP-3.1.

Modifications which may be postponed to after restart shall be tracked by marking "Post-Restart Modification Required" on the calculation cover sheet and on the calculation log.

7.0 REFERENCES

7.1 SWEC calculation No. CD-Q0000-871818, backup calculation for

, BFN-50-C-7104, RIMS No. B2288020412S 7.2 AISC, Manaual of Steel construction, 8th Edition DNEA - 3581M TVA 10535 (EN DES- 7-77)

.c.

( D. ~.

IJX;tC - IIVAC PROGRAM Walldown Evaluate rio and Sketch Walkdown S.ystem OL.

_ Nods _

Configuration Information to Design Criteria i

System Not OK

' t i

Evaluate Walkdown System OK 1 i

r Information to No for Operabilit y

{ interim Mods Post Operation -

i Operal>I i i t y Mods to i

Acceptance Design Criteria Criteria A

System Issue PORC Not OK + Package - Design Package Design Mods to Design I sue PORC 7

Criteria Package  : Design Package I

n E,

o lil GilR F. 1 "

sa 5

O.

S '%

A4 Ph9 m p 8%9 A B F9mt FA = -^ ^^

%d E14 5he 646W W5 V #W %d I 6W #

BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT DETAILED

.ZA~ /72"e/M 0P2448// / W x eewrwecu -; '- - : _ aiu reca .

For STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE OF DYRWELL ACCESS PLATFORMS i

NTE. Tu s e Ai L a d 2; 7. ; ii.su.yv. ^;^ ^-d

- 70,""^"

apu_59_399 p_.,, g 1

1

BFN-50-C-7100 Attachment'F

, _ . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Description . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 1 1.2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. I 1.3 Sco pe . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 DESICN SPECTFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 2 3.0 LOADS AND LOADING COMBINATIONS . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . 2 3.1 Leading Definitions . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . 2 3.2 Loading Combinations . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.0 DESICN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . 5

5.0 REFERENCES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 3.1.7 Combination of Dynamic Reactions from Attached Systems TABLES:

Tat'.e 3.2,1 Leading Co=oinat.ans For Stress Evaluations Table 3.2.2 Loading Combinations For Uplift Evaluations l

l l

I l

l

, i l

l l _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - .

4 BFN-50-C-7100 ATTACHMENT F

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Description The dryvell access platforms include two main platforms, one at elevation 584 feet 11 inches, and one at elevation 563 feet 2 inches. The flooring is standard grating, with 1-1/2-inch by 3/16-inch load bars. The grating and support steel extend from the reactot pedestal to the dryvell shell at elevation 563 feet 2 inches and from the sacrificist shield wall to the dryvell shell at elevation 584 feet 11 inches.

The platforms are supported by 24-inch-deep, wide-flange beams radiating from the reactor pedestal and sacrificial shield wall to the dryvell shell. The radial support beams for elevation 584 feet 11 inches are field-welded to header beams in the sacrificial shield wall. The radial support beams for elevation 563 feet 2 inches are field-bolted to embedded plates in the outside face of the reactor pedestal. All radial beams are supported by beam seats welded to the dryvell shell. Lubrite pads under the radial beams allow drywell shell expansion. Shear bars welded to the bottom flange of the radial beams on both sides of the beam seat prevent lateral movement of the beams. Intermediate grating support beams at 6 feet 6 inches maximum spacing are framed between the radial beams. Additional support beams are framed between both the radial and grating support beams for equipment, HVAC, cable tray, and piping system load attachments.

1.2 purpose The purpose at this criteria is to establish the requirements for the designer to assure uniformity in design during the evaluation of the drywell access platforms and to obtain.a safe and complete design considering all appropriate loading combinations. This criteria defines the loads and load combinations for use in this evaluation ;nd also the associated allowable stresses and uplift evaluation requirements.

1.3 Scope 1.3.1 The requirements of this document shall apply only to the structural steel inside the dryvell at elevation 584 feet 11 inches and elevation 563 feet 2 inches as denoted on TVA drawings l 48N442 and 48N443, including miscellaneous steel for these i elevations as denoted on TVA drawings 48N1015-series, l 48N1016-series, and 48N1028.

1.3.2 In the event of conflicting requirements between this document and any reference material, this document shall govern. However, the civil project engineer shall be notified of the difference.

L F-1 l

  • i s
  • BFN-50-C-7100 _

ATTACHMENT F .

f" )

2.0 DESICN SPECIFICATIONS For this structural design or reevaluation, the 1978 AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings shall be used.

3.0 LOADS AND LOADINC COMBINATIONS 3.1 Loading Definitions 3.1.1 D - Deadload, including structural steel, permanent equipment, and attached systems, e.g., piping, HVAC, cable trays, etc, shall be a minimum of 40 psf.

3.1.2 Lo - Outage and maintenance loads, including any moveable equipment loads and other loads which vary with intensity and occurrence during an outage, i.e., these loads will not be present while the plant is operating. An Lo of 100 psf applied to the loadable open areas'shall be evaluated as a baseline outage and maintenance live load for the initial analysis using this criteria. As concentrated live loads due to outage or maintenance procedures are identified, these loads shall be evaluated against the baseline case. If the results of the concentrated loads exceed the baseline case, the concentrated T

loads must be evaluated per this criteria. The cooler live load shall be 1.5 kips per foot of bess; where applicable. )

3.1.3 L - Live loads while the plant is operating, including any loads which vary with intensity and occurrence and are not otherwise accounted for. For the purpose of the initial evaluation using this criteria, L will be assumed zero.

3.1.4 E - Loads due to effects of OBE on structural steel and permanent floor-mounted equipment. This excludes support loads frem attached piping, HVAC ducts, and cable trays (these loads are defined in Section 3.1.8).

3.1.5 .E' - Loads due to ef f e:ts of SSE on structural steel and permanent floor-mounted equipment. This excludes support loads from attsched piping, HVAC ducts, and cable trays (these loads are defined in Section 3.1.8).

3.1.6 Yr - Equivalent static load on the structural due to a pipe whip reaction from existing pipe rupture restraints attached to the drywell steel.

Note: The application of pipe rupture loads only at those locations where mitigation exists is consistent with the baseline approach to pipe rupture design inside the f- drywell. Only those locations where CE and/or TVA negotiated pipe rupture mitigation as part of the original design need be considered.

F-2

e .

BFN-50-C-7100 ATTACHMENT F y' 3.1.7 RFE - Restraint of free end displacement loads, e.g., thermal reactions from attached piping systems based on the most critical

. condition.* RFE loads can be subdivided as follows:

3.1.7.1 RFEul - RFE reactions which contribute to uplift.

3.1.7.2 RFEs - All other RFE reactions, i.e., reactions which do not cont'ribute to uplift.

  • If reduced conservatism is needed, RFE loads may be divided into upset, emergency, and faulted conditions corresponding to the associated dynamic loading conditions.

3.1.8 DYNB, DYNC, and DYND - Reaction of attached systems, e.g.,

piping, HVAC, cable trays, etc., due to upset (service level S),

E caergency (service level C), and faulted (service level D) dynamic events, respectively. Note: Not all attached systems are analyzed for the faulted conditioni therefore, some reaction points on the floor steel will only have upset and emergency loading.

3.1.8.1 Dynamic Reaction Phasing Dynamic reactions from attached systems are transmitted

( to the floor steel through rigid restraints and snubbers. Based on the location and orientation of these restraints, different assumptions can be made ragarding the phasing of these dynamic loads. These assumptions can be grouped into three general categories as follows:

Croup A'- Phasing Known When two or more dynamic restraints act together to restrain a particular motion or mode of vibration of an attached system, in-phase reaction loads can be assumed. For example, reactions resulting from a matched pair of vertical snubbers on a piping system would fall into this group.

Group B - Random Phasing When a dynamic restraint acts independently to restrain a particular motion or mode of vibration of an attached system, this reaction can be considered randomly phased with other dynamic reactions.

Group C - Worst Case Phasing When two or more dynamic restraints act to restrain a particular location of an attached system in more than L

F-3

e .

BFN-50-C-7100 ATTACHMENT F

.g one direction, a phasing relationship for these restraints cannot be assumed. For example, two snubbers which restrain essentially the same point on a piping system and whose lines of action are skewed to each other would fall into this group. The results of these reactions must be surnmed absolutely to determine an enveloping condition.

If further justification or additional analysis can show a phasing relationship between group C restraint loads, these restraints can be treated as group A restraints.

3.1.8.2 Procedure for Determining DYNB, DYNC, and DYND

+

3.1.8.2.1 As a minimum, the following procedure shall be used to determine'the dynamic reaction load cases.

A. Assign each dynamic reaction to one of the groups defined above. This will require engineering judgment.

Justification for these groupings

_ should be included as part of the analysis report as required by T

section 4.0'of this criteria.

)

B. Group A reactions should be arranged into load sets per the phasing sssumed. Each load set should be evaluated separately with the results of each evaluati'on constituting a dynamic load step.

C. Each group B reaction should be evaluated separately with the results of each evaluation constituting a dynamic load step.

D. Group C reactions should be arranged into load sets per their potential for phasing. Each reaction in the load set should be evaluated separately.

The absolute sununation of the results of each reaction in the load set will constitute a dynamic load step.

E. Combine all dynamic load steps using the square root of the sum of the e squares (SRSS) method to form DYNB, DYNC, or DYND.

F-4

c.

BFN-50-C-7100

- ATTACHMENT F C Figure 3.1.7 provides a summa: / of this Q 3.1.8.2.2 procedure.

3.1.9 DYBD - Larger of DYNB or DYND. To determine DYBD, screen each DYNB load step against the corresponding DYND load step. (Note that in some instances no DYND load step exists. In these cases, use the DYNB load step.) Combine the screened load steps using the SRSS method to form DYBD.

3.1.10 DYCD - larger of DYNC or DYND. Use the procedure outlined in 3.1.9 above substituting DYNC for DYNB.

3.1.11 To - Thermal effects and loads during startup, normal operating, or ahutdown conditions, based on the most critical transient or steady-state condition.

3.1.12 T -a Thermal loads under thermal conditions generated by tht:-

postulated pipe break accident and including To .

3.2 Loadina combinations As stated in section 1.1, all radial platform support beams are supported on one end by beam seats welded to the drywell shell. Since the beam seats do not have holddown capability, the potential for lifting off the

. beam seats as well as the beam stress must be evaluated. Tables 3.2.1

( and 3.2.2 detail the loading combinations which must be addressed in these two evaluations.

4.0 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES The design and analysis procedures utilized for the drywell steel structures, including assumptions on boundary conditions and expected behavior under loads, shall be in accordance with the AISC "Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," 8th Edition.

A sumnary of analysis procedures as well as justification for assumptions should be documented in the form of an analysis report. This analysis report should be issued as an OE calculation.

5.0 REFERENCES

5.1 Design Criteria BFN-50-D707, Revision 2, Analysis of As-Built Piping Systems.

5.2 Design Crite:ria BFN-50-D706, Revision 1, The Torus Integrity Long-Term Program.

5.3 TVA drawings 48N442, 48N443, 48N10'15-series, 48N1016-series, and 48N1028.

L F-5

o '.

BFN-50-C-71oo ATTACHMENT F  %

E r

G10UF A Ki+K2 lK3+K4 l KN + KN+1 GROUP B

\\\

om

' SESS DYNC l Rg lR2 l lRN l

g. CRO'JP C

+

lU1 U2 I

+

lU3 U4 l l Ug +

UN+1 Ki = Individual group A reaction i

Ri = Individual group B reaction Ui = Individual group C reaction l

Figure 3.1.7 Combination of Dynamic Reactions f rom Attached Systems F-6

  • .. \

l BFN-50-C-7100 ATTACHMENT F

]

TABLE 3.2.1

.- l LOADING COMBINATIONS FOR STRESS EVALUATION Combination Allevable Stress (1)

A. D + Lo 1.0 S B. D + L + E + DYNB 1.0 S C. D+Lo + E + DYNB 1, . 0 S D. D + L + E + DYNB + To + RFE, 1.5 S E. D+Lo + E' + DYNC 1.6 S F. D + L + E' + DYNC + To + RFE, 1.6 S C. D + L + DYND + Ta + RFEs 1*6 S

8. D + L + E + DYBD + Ta + RFE, + Y r ( } I*6 S
1. D + L + E' + DYCD + Ta + RFEs+Y( r ) 1.7 S

( Notes:

(1) S - For structural steel, 3 is the required section strength based on elastic design methods and the allowbie stresses defined in Part 1 of the AISC "Specification for the Design and Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings."

The one-third increase in allowable stresses due to the seismic or wind loadings is not permitted.

(2) Only one pipe whip reaction should be considered at any given time; however, all postulated breaks for which pipe rupture mitigation structures exist and are attached to dryvell steel must be considered.

L F-7

.e .

ti BFN-50-C-7100 ATTACHMENT F I ^ >

TABLE 3.2.2 i

LOADING COMBINATIONS FOR UPLIFT EVALUATION (1)

Combination Static Loadina_ Dynamic Loadina A .9D + To + RFEul ~~

B .9D DYNB + E C .9D + To + RFEul DYNB + E D . 9D DYNC + E' E

.90 + To + RFEul DYNC + E' F .9D + T, + RFEul DYND + E + Y r C .9D + Ta + RFEul DYND + E' + Y r Note:

2 (1) In each combination, it must be shown that the magnitude of the beam seat reaction due to static loading is greater than the reaction due to dynamic loading, unless an adequate tiedown exists or the magnitude of uplift is within acceptable limits. Those acceptable uplift limits will be defined on a l case-by-case basis and included in this criteria if the need arises.

I l

F-8

a . l BFN-50-C-7100  !

Attachment F BFN 50-C 7100 DISCREPANCIES l

- 1. C/R CEB-JMH-1060 (JFG 1013) statement that building will be designed to remain elastic under DBE appears to conflict with Table 4.2 33 which permits strength design instead of working stress design.

2. FSAR Section 12.2.2.7.3 states in 2 locations (TLM 1205 and 1206) that the ASME B&PV Code, Section Ill, Class B Vessels,1968 edition was used, whereas Attachment D to 8FN-50 C-7100 specsfies the 1965 edition.
3. Source document for Section 3.1.1.0 of BFN-50 C 7100 Attachment F for dead load was i.ot consistent with FSAR Section 12.2.2.7.1; however, it was incorporated by G/C. Also source document for Attachment F, Section 3.1.2 did not address cooler live load as provided in FSAR Section 12.2.2.7.1. It has also been added by G/C.
4. Table 4.2-14 of C-7100 (formerly FSAR Table 12.2-16) conflicts with Table 3.2.1 of Attachment F. This must be resolved in Revision 1 of C-7100.
5. FSAR Section 12.2.2.7.1 (page 12.2 31) states that seismic load factors are applied to dead loads and live loads. Attachment F (source document BFN 50-709) implies seismic accelerations are only applied to dead loads.
6. Attachment F (formerly BFN 50 790) provides design criteria for uplift evaluations but makes no mention of tie down cofumns as referenced in FSAR Section 12.2.2.7.1 (p.12.2 31). This discrepancy is noted; however, the general

( design requirementsin Attachment F should be adequate without any refert,1ce to tie.down columns which may not even be required.

7. The one hour rainfall of 2.12 inches in Section 3.3 of C 7100 conflict;with the 14 inches cited in Attachment E, Section 4.2.5, for the Volume Reductior, and Sohdification Structure.
8. FSAR Section 12.2.4.2 states that anchor bars for the chimney foundabon shall consider ground saturated to El. 561.0 which corresponds to the maximum probable flood elevation. This conflicts with C/R CG-1023 which states that the MPF is El. 562-0.
9. The secondary containment internal positive design pressure of 7 inches of water as called out in GECRNR1055 (845860618882) and incorporated into Attachment D does not r. gree with FSAR 5ection 14.4.4.3 which specifies a value of 2 inches of water.

i L

F-9

, y-s

- l The NRC staff also indicated that TVA should be prepared to discuss on March 14, 1988 all potential BFN Unit 2 options /inpacts if the proposed interim operability requii'ements identified in the Sumary Table (Enclosure 3) are found to be unacceptable to the-NRC staff. In addition, where interim operability criteria have been proposed, TVA should be prepared to address, during the next meeting, applicable compensatory actions, where applicable.

TVA also indicated that the remaining civil programs submittals requiring NRC approval would be forthcoming by the end of March.

9 Original Signed by  !

Gerald E. Gears, Project Manager Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2 and 3 TVA Project Division Office of Special Projects

Enclosures:

~

1. Meeting Notice and List of Attendees
2. TVA Slides Used in Presentation
3. Additional Information provided by TVA (Civil Programs-Summary Table; Interim Operability Criteria - CEB-CI 21.00 and Structural Acceptance of Drywell Steel) cc w/ enclosures:

See next page DISTRIBUTION eDocket file, '

NRC PDR Local PDR Those on Attached List 8 '3 8

>

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20196J543&oldid=3343106"