ML20198P647
| ML20198P647 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1982 |
| From: | Darwish M, Subramonian N, Le A Franklin Research Ctr, Franklin Institute |
| To: | Shaw H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151H203 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130, FOIA-86-26 TER-C5506-319, NUDOCS 8606060365 | |
| Download: ML20198P647 (24) | |
Text
,
P INTERIM TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
?
! AUDIT FOR MARK I CONTAINMENT
! LONG-TERM PROGRAM - STRUCTURAL
' AN LYSIS FOR OPERATING REACTORS A
1 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES f
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION I NRCCONTRACTNO.N NRC DOCKET NO. 50-219 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO.
FRC ASSIGNMENT 12 FRC TASK 319 Prepared by Franklin Research Center Author: A. K. Le, N. Subramonian, 20th and Race Streets M. Darvish, T. Stilwell Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader:
N. Subramonian Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer:
H. Shaw November 29, 1982 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Governmant. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liacility or responsioility for any third party's use. or the results of such use, of any information, appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rignts.
A
_ Franklin Research Center
$g60gggp 8603W 20th and Race Streets, Phila., Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 PATTERSO86-26 PDR
P i.
TER-C5506-319 CONTENTS 4
1 Section Title Page 1
INTRODUCTION 1
2 AUDIT FINDINGS.
2 1
3 cONet.uSIONS.
3 4
REFERENCES.
4 APPENDIX A - AUDIT DETAILS a
i APPENDIX B - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED i
i a
i l
i t
1 i
l iii
- A 0000 Franklin Research Center A D= mon of The Fem inme
TER-C5506-319 FORS40RD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the NRC.
4 t
J e
/N v
UOb ranklin Research Center
+ - n,.r,. ~
n.
TER-C550 6-319 1.
INTRODUCTION
~
The capability of the boiling water reactor (BWR) Mark I containment suppression chamber to withstand hydrodynamic loads was not considered in the original design of the structures. The resolution of this issue was divided into a short-term program and a long-term program.
Based on the results of the short-term program, which verified that each Mark I containment would maintain its integrity and functional capability when subjected to the loads induced by a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident
( LOCA), the NRC staf f granted an exemption relating to the structural factor of safety requirements of 10CFR50, 55(a).
The objective of the long-term program was to restore the margins of safety in the Mark I containment structures to the originally intended margins.
The results of the long-term program are contained in NUREG-0661
[1], which describes the generic hydrodynamic load definition and structural acceptance criteria consistent with the requirements of the applicable codes and standards.
The objective of this report is to present the results of an audit of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station plant-unique analysis (PUA) report with regard to structural analysis.
The audit was performed using a moderately detailed audit procedure developed earlier [2] and attached to this report as Appendix A.
The key items of the audit procedure are obtained from
" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique j
Analysis Application Guide" [3], which meets the criteria of Reference 1.
l d%
UdJd Franklin Research Center A De of The Frannha enstMe
TER-C5506-319 3.
CONCLUSIONS From the audit of the structural analysis presented in the plant unique analysis report of the oyster Creek plant, it is concluded that, in general, the Licensee's analysis indicates conformance with the criteria requirements.
However, a few aspects require additional information from the Licensee before a final technical evaluation report can be prepared. The Licensee's response is sought for the questions included in Appendix B of this report.
d
)
i
~~
gd Franklin Research Center h
ao m orw re - au,
I APPENDIX A AUDIT DETAILS O
or UL
_ Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Beniamin Franden Park.ay, Phila. Pa 19103(215)448 1000
TER-C5506-319 1.
INTRODUCTION 1
The key T ems used to evaluate the Licensee's general compliance with the requirements of NUREG-0661 (1] and specific compliance with the requirements of " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" [2] are contained in Table 2-1.
This audit procedure is applicable to all Mark I containments, except the Brunswick containments, which have a concrete torus.
For each requirement listed in Table 2-1, several options are possible.
Ideally, the requirement is met by the Licensee, but if the requirement is not met, an alternative approach could have been used. This alternative approach will be reviewed and compared with the audit requirement. An explanation of l
why the approach was found conservative or unconservative will be provided. A column indicating " Additional Information Required" will be used when the information provided by the Licensee is inadequate to make an assessment.
A few remarks concerning Tables 2-1 and 2-2 will facilitate their future use:
o A summary of the audit as detailed in Table 2-1 is provided in Table 2-2, highlighting major concerns. When deviations are identified, reference to appropriate notes are listed in Table 2-1.
o Notes will be used extensively in both tables under the various columns when the actual audits are conducted, to provide a reference that explains the reasons behind the decision. Where the criterion is satisfied, a check mark will be used to indicate compliance.
o When a particular requirement is not met, the specific reasons for noncompliance will be given.
1 1
i i,
x Obranklin Research Center A Dnas.on d The Frerwuen ansegute
- fA NRC Contr:ct N;. NRC-03-81-130 0000 Fr nklin Rsserrch Csnter FRC Project NO. C5506 p;gg A Diwson of Th2 Frtnklin Institut, FRC Amignment N2.. '.
20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRCTask No.
J,.i
,2 Plant Name
" >. ".~2.C : f: *'i. "
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark lContainment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Secti:n Key items Considered Criteria Addt!.
Alternate Approach N312) irrthe Audit No NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 1.2 (Cont.)
tions and to vent pene trations external to the torus (where applicable) o Piping systems, including v'
pumps and valves internal to the torus, attached to the torus shell and/or vent penetrations o All main steam system
/
safety relief valve (SRV) piping o Applicable portions of the following piping systems:
1
- Active containment V
system piping systems (e.g., emergency core cooling system (ECCS) and other piping required to maintain core cooling af ter loss-of-coolant accident (IDCA))
- Piping systems which provide a drywell-to-wetwell pressure dif-ferential (to alleviate pool swell effects)
- Other piping systems, v
including vent drains o Supports of piping systems
.+
mentioned in previous item TM u crat o Vent header deflectors
' including associated hardware
NRC Crntr:ct N r. N RC-03-81-130 4{!hilll Funklin R: search Centir FRC Project No.C5506 p gg A Dwesion cf N Fr;n! din Instauri FRC AIslgnm:nt N.
,C 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
.,.?
g Plant Name a,. *,,5
_J,Ni c Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Marki Containment Long-Term Program
)
Licensee Uses Section Key items Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach N o. [2]
intite Audit Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser-Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 2.1 a.
Identify the code 7
or other classification of the structural element b.
Prepare specific dimensional boundary definition for the specific Mark I contain-t ment systems (Ibte:
welds connecting piping l
to a nozzle are piping welds, not Class MC
)
welds) 2.2 Guidelines for classification of structural elements and boundary definition are as follows:
(Refer to Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 for non-piping and piping structural elements, I
respectively, and to item 5 l
in this table for row designations used for defining limits of boundaries) l a.
Ibrus shell (Row 1) -
7he torus membrane in combination with reinforcing rings, penetration elements within the NE-3334 [3]
limit of reinforce-ment normal to the torus shell, and attachment welds to the inner or outer surface of the above members but not to nozzles, is a Class MC [3] vessel.
p NRC C ntract N s. NRC-03-8id '
Uuu!J Fr nklin R:setrch Csnt:r FRC Project Ns. C5506 p;g3 A Desen c f Ths Frinan Institus, FRC AIsignm:nt NO. /,
20th and Race Strecs. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No..;,,
-r
~455 '
Plant Name
' i. i~.F-TLble 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Sectlin Key Ite Considered Criteria Addt!.
Alternate Approach N212)
NA Remarks Met Met Reqd*
vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)
d.
Drywell-vent connection region (Bow 1) - Vent welded connections to the drywell (the drywell and the drywell region of interest for this program is up to the NE-3334 (3) limit of reinforcement on the drywell shell) are Class MC (3] vessels.
e.
Internal vents (Hows 2 and 3) - Are the continuation of the vents internal to the torus shell from the vent-bellows welds and include:
the cylindrical shell, the closure head, penetrations in the cylindrical shell or closure head within the NE-3334 (3) limit of reinforcement normal to the vent, and attachment welds to inner or outer surface of the vent but not to no::les.
f.
Vent ring header (Rows L'
4 and 5) and downcomers (Row 6) - Vent ring header including the downcomers and internal or external attachment welds to the ring header and the attachment welds to the downcomers are Class MC (3) vessels.
A' NRC Contract N 2. N RC-03-81-130 O
rinklin Rtsnrch Canter FRC Project Nr. C5506 p;gg A Divmon of The Fe nkhn Institus, FRC Assignment N2.
20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
e, a. '. ~4..,
.=.%.
Plant Name Tc ble 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Secti:n Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach N:.[2]
inIfie Audit Not Info.
NA Remarks Conser-Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)
accidents which could result in potential off site exposures comparable to the guideline exposure of 10CFR100 [4]. Piping should be considered essential if it performs a safety-related role at a later time -during the event combination being considered or during any subsequent event combination.
- i. Active and inactive v
component (Rows 10-13) - Active component is a pump or valve in an essential piping system which is required to perform a mechanical motion during the course of accomplishing a system safety function.
- j. Containment vacuum
- Y breakers (Bow 2)
SE'S Vacuum breakers valves M r.9 mounted on the vent internal to the torus or on piping associated with the torus are Class 2 [3] components.
NRC Contr:ct N 2. N RC-03-81-130 M,hU Fr:nklin R:se rch Cint:r UU FRC Project ND. C5506 p;gg A Dw6sen of Ths Fr:nk.lin Institut:,
FRC Arsignment NO.
20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
Plant Name
=i,.
- a:.~. 5.i..
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach Nr.[2]
irfthsAudit Not Info.
NA Remarks Consen Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)
member (e. g.,
monorails. ladders, catwalks, and their supports).
n.
Vent deflectors (Row 9)
- Vent header flow deflectors and associated hardware (no t i
including attachment welds to Class MC vessels) are internal s tructures.
3.2 Ioad terminology used v
should be based on Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the unit or the i
Icad Definition Report
]
(LDR) [5].
In case of conflict, the LDR loads shall be used.
3.3 Consideration of all load r-combinations defined in
. '/ '
Section 3 of the LDR [5]
" "'?
shall be provided.
4.3 a.
No reevaluation for s
limits set for design pressure and design temperature values is needed for present a tructural elements, b.
Design limit requirements used for initial construction following normal practice with respect to load definition and allowable stress shall be used for systems or
&{!bhkr:nklin Rese:rch Cznur
. NRC Contr'ct N 3. NRC 03-81-130 FRC Project NO.C5506,
py A Dmsson el The FrInit.n Instirue, FRC Assignm:ntN.'
- y 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No.
I
~
Plant Name SI.
J..Ef,.-
Tcble 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Lon0-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Key items Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach N3.[2]
IW trie Audit Not info.
NA Remarks Conser-Unconsee Met Met Reqd.
vative vative J
- All increases in allowable stress permitted by Subsection NF [3] are limited by Appendix XVII-2110 (b)
[3] when buckling is a consideration.
l c.
Class 2 and 3 piping, l
pumps, valves, and internal structures (also Class MC) 5.3 The components, component loadings, and service level assignments for Class MC
[3] components and internal structures shall be as e
defined in Table 5-1 of Re ference 2.
5.4
' Die components, component loadings, and service level assignments for Class 2 and Class 3 piping systems shall be defined in Table 5-2 of Re ference 2.
5.5 The definition of operability is the ability to perform required mechanical motion and functionality is the ability to pass rated flow.
a.
Active components shall be proven operable.
Active components shall be considered operable if Service Limits A or B or more conservative limits (if the original design criteria required it) are met.
NRC Contract N 2. NRC-03-81-130
.,~
UUUU Fr:nklin Risetrch Cant:r FRC Project No. C5506 -
p;g3 A Dmsson of The Frankhn Insneur, FRC Assignment N3.
FRC Task No.. ;.., '
,/f I
20th and Race Streets. Phile.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 Plant Name
.. '. i '. 37,"^, FM -
e Tcble 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Key it s Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach N3.[2]
g,,
NA Remarks Met Met Reqd.
vat!ve vative 6.2 (Cont.)
I c.
Fatigue effects of all
-i operational cycles E"
shall be considered.
~,' d j
d.
No further evaluation of structural elements for which combined effect of loads defined in LDR [5] produces stresses less than 10%
of allowable is required. Calculations demons trating i
conformance with the i
10% rule shall be provided.
e.
Damping values used in i
dynamic analyses shall
[
be in accordance with j
NRC Regulatory Guide l.61 [6 }.
I 6.3 Structural responses for loads resulting from the combination of two dynamic phenomena shall be obtained in the following manner s I
a.
Absolute sum of stress components, or b.
Cumulative distribution function method if s
absolute sum of stress components does not satisfy the acceptance i
criteria.
6.4
'1brus analysis shall consist of:
1
4 N RC C:ntrret N2. NRC-03-81-130
,0!!U Fr:nklin Rssex reh Cintir 0
FRC Pr: Ject N2. C5506 prgg A Dmuon of The Fernkl.n Institut2 FRC AstignmInt N2.
20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No..,,-
Plant Name
- =. :
- .
- T i.
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Secti:n Key items Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach No.12)
~
dit Not ingo.
NA Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 6.4 (Cont.)
applicable for any nozzle, finite element analysis shall be performed.
t 6.5 In analysis of the vent system (including vent penetration in drywell, vent pipes, ring header, downcomers and their intersections, vent column supports, vent-torus bellcws, vacuum breaker penetration, and the vent deflector s), the following guidelines shall be followed:
l a.
Finite element model
~
i shall represent the most highly loaded portion of ring header shell in the "non-vent" bay with the downcomers e ta ched.
i b.
shall be performed to evaluate.ocal effects in the ring header shell and downcomer intersections.
Use time history analysis for pool swell transient and equivalent static analysis for downcomer lateral loads.
I I
i
NRC Crntr:ct N. NRC-03-81-130
)N' %
ll Fr:nklin Riserrch Csnter FRC Project NO. C5506 P!g2 A Dmson cf Ths Frrnkhn Instauti FRC A signm:nt N2.
y 20th and Race Streets. Phda. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No.
Plant Name
,. :7 7, *
- ,-
- - ~~.
Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark lContainment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Key ltems Considered Criteria Addtl.
Alternate Approach N3. [2]
ffitfie Audit Not Info.
NA
' Remarks Conser. Unconser-Met Met Reqd.
vative vative 6.6 (Cont.)
c.
It shall consider Service I4 vel D or E when specified by the structural acceptance criteria using a simplified nonlinear analysis technique (e.g., Bigg 's Me thod).
6.7 Analysis of the torus attached piping shall be performed as follows:
a.
Designate in the v*
summary technical report submitted all piping systems as essential or non-essential for each load combination.
b.
Analytical model shall a
represent piping and supports from torus to i
first rigid anchor (or l
where effect of torus I
motion is I
insignificant).
c.
Use response spectrum
~
j or time history j
analysis for dynamic 4
effect of torus motion I
at the attachment point, except for piping systems less j
than 6" in diameter, t
for which equivalent static analysis (using appropriate j
amplification f actor) l may be performed.
j O
I
NRC Contract ND. N RC-03-81-130 0.l,l Frankhn Reserrch Canter FRC Prrject N3. C5506 Paga A Division of The Franklin Insutute FRC AstignmInt No.,
FRC Task No' Plant Name 20th and Race Streets. Phi!a.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000
-e..=.=.,.
Table 2-2. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark i Containment Long-Term Program General Requirements Analysis Requirements 3
.=s Remarks
=
Structural Element g g o
- 3. El e.2 Es{
- 8 2
E 3 =3 3 E.=1._2 sa; se
=
s s*e.
E z
o.
s o <c=o0 w =w 20m e
ooc a ma
<s R.
'lbrus shell with associated V' M5 V'
',f,#
- ,
- :e.u,:
penetrations, reinforcing rings, and support
-,r-I attachments i
v'
~d2 I
b.
'Ibrus shell supports to I
the building structure
{,..'
"j.
c.
Vents between the drywell
^
,, N and the vent ring header (including penetrations
~ ~ -
therein) d.
Region of drywell local to
'I' j',~
vent penetrations a a 3.
Bellows between vents and
/
v' 4
torus shell (internal or external to torus) f.
Vent ring header and the
~-
downcomers attached to it g.
Vent ring hu v ar supports
~
l, J,h to the torus shell h.
Vacuum breaker valves Mi SEE u'EE '.'5I.,. ~..:
E
' ~
.'. ?,*! a ~o
., - =
attached to vent penetra-4-,.-
tions within the torus
}
(where applicable) i i.
Vacuum breaker piping
'#/
.f 75 v
v systems, including vacuum
'3
. N '-
~
breaker valves attached E
7 l
to torus shell penetrations and to vent penetrations external to the torus (where applicable) j.
Piping systems, including V
pumps and valves internal to the torus, attached to the torus shell and/or vent
{
TER-C5506-319 Table 2-3.
Non-Piping Structural Elements
~~
STRUCTURAL ELD'.ENT ROW External Class MC Torus, Bellows, 1
External Vent Pipe, Drywell (at Vent),
Attachment Welds, Torus Supports, Seismic Restraints Internals Vent Pipe General and 2
Attachment Welds At Penetration 3
(e.g., Header)
Vent Ring Header General and 4
Attachment Welds At Penetrations 5
(e.g., Downcomers)
Downcomers General and 6
Attachment Welds Internals Supoorts 7
Internals Structures General 8
Vent Deflector 9 #AN Ob00 Franklin Research Center A Dews.cn of The Famn hooMe
l TER-C550 6-319 NOTES RELATED TO TABLES 2-1 AND 2-2 NOTE 1:
The' Licensee has not provided information on the analysis of the vacuum breaker valves attached to vent penetrations within the torus, and has not indicated that these are Class 2 components.
1 NOTE 2: With reference to Section 6.6 (8], the Licensee should provide information on the analysis of the modified SRV piping supports designated as S1, S2, S3 and SS.
l NOTE 3: With reference to Sectic
',6
[8], the Licensee has not provided information on the analy of Class 1 piping connections which connect the SRVs to the main steam piping in the drywell region.
NOTE 4 : The Licensee has not provided adequate justification for determining the load combinations indicated in Table 6.0-1 (7] to be the limiting (governing) load combinations.
NOTE 5: The Licensee should indicate whether each of the safety relief valve discharge lines has been analyzed as required by the criteria [2].
Also, justification should be provided for not considering all of the lines.
NOTE 6: With reference to Table 1 of Appendix B, the Licensee should indicate if all loads have been considered in the analysis and/or should provide justification if any load had been neglected.
NOTE 7: The Licensee should provide details as to how the vent system modal mass and stiffness terms were synthesized into the explicit torus shell model to derive the coupled torus / vent system model.
l NOTE 8 : With reference to Sectin 6.1.1.2 [7], the Licensee should provide information on the analysis of the torus for SRV loads on the ring girders.
]
NOTE 9 : The Licensee has not provided adequate information on the buckling analysis of the torus.
NOTE 10 : The Licensee should justify the reasons for not considering a 180*
segment of the torus including columns, saddles, seismic restraints, and sway braces in order to determine the effects of seismic and other nonsymmetric loads, and should also confirm whether the overall behavior has been considered for calculating the fundamental frequency of 19 Hz given in Section 4.6.2.1 [7].
NOTE 11: The Licensee should justify the reasons for not considering a 180' segment of the vent system in order to determine the ef fects of seismic and other nonsymmetric loads.
/%
bl5 Franklin Research C,ue enter Aom onorn. n.n.a.am.
TER-C550 6-319 GENERAL NOTES NOTE Gl: Thn_ Licensee should indicate whether condensation oscillation or chugging loads has been used for the limiting load combinations for PUAAG [2] load cases 14, 15, 20, and 27 in Table 6.0-1 [7].
NOTE G2: The Licensee should provide more specific information on the conservatisms used as a basis for accepting the overstresses at various locations in the torus, vent system, and piping systems.
NOTE G3: The Licensee should confirm whether the hanger on the reactor building-to-torus vacuum relief piping which failed to meet the criteria [2] as indicated in Section 6.1 [8] has been modified.
NOTE G4 : The Licensee should confirm whether the two supports for the core spray test run piping which failed to meet the criteria as indicated in Section 6.4 [8] have been modified or-replaced.
5 NOTE G5: The Licensee should confirm whether the one support for the domineralizer relief valve discharge piping which failed to meet the criteria as indicated in Section 6.2 [8] has been modified.
NOTE G6 : The Licensee should confirm whether the torus containment spray header supports have been replaced and whether the one support on the loop at assembly G has been modified or replaced as indicated in Section 6.3 [8].
NOTE G7 : With reference to fatigue evaluation in Section 7.0 [7], the Licensee should confirm whether the provisions indicated in the footnote of page 58 of ASME Code Subsection NE-3221.5 have been applied. MJ Frankhn Research Center a o.m. or the re.ww,
I l
s y
1 n..-
APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED
'\\
b]_J Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Insutute ne 8,n,.m,n r,.nm),n p.,=..y. pna.. p. i9:03 <2 : si 44 8. ioco
t TER-C5506-319 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
'IORUS, VENT SYSTEM, AND PIPING SYSTEMS Item 1: Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to the vacuum breaker valves; indicate whether they are considered Class 2 components as required by the criteria [1].
Item 2: Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to the modified safety relief valve piping supports designated as S1, S2, S3, and SS.
Item 3: Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to Class 1 piping connections which connect the safety relief valve to the main steam piping in the drywell region.
Item 4: Provide justification for determining the load combinations indicated in Table 6.0-1 (2) to be the limiting load combinations.
Item 5: Indicate whether each of the safety relief valve discharge lines has been analyzed as required by the criteria [1].
Also, provide justification for not considering all the lines.
Item 6: With reference to Table 1 of Appendix B, indicate whether all loads have been considered in the analysis and/or provide justification if any load has been neglected.
Item 7: Indicate, in detail, how the vent system modal mass and stiffness terms were synthesized into the explicit torus shell model to derive the coupled torus / vent system model.
Item 8: Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to the torus for safety relief valve loads on the ring girders.
Item 9:
Provide a summary of the buckling analysis of the torus.
Item 10: Provide and justify the reasons for not considering a 180' segment of the torus including columns, saddles, seismic restraints, and sway braces in order to determine the effects of seismic and other l
nonsymmetric loads.
Confirm whether the overall behavior has been considered for calculating the fundameat21 frequency of 19 Hz given in Section 4.6.2.1 [2].
Item 11: Provide and justify the reasons for not considering a 180* segment of the vent system in order to determine the effects of seismic and other nonsymmetric loads.
. gblFrankhn Research Center h
1.
a w.,an a n,e vuenu n m.a.,e u
-~-
v TER-C5506-319 GENERAL Item Gl:
Indicate whether condensation oscillation or chugging loads had been ungd.in the limiting load combinations for load cases 14, 15, 20, and 27 in Table 6.0-1 [2].
Item G2: Provide more specific information on the conservatism used as the basis for accepting the overstresses at various locations in the torus, the vent system, and the piping systems.
Item G3: Confirm whether the hanger on the reactor building-to-torus vacuum relief piping which failed to meet the criteria [1] as indicated in Section 6.1 [2] has been modified.
Item G4: Confirm whether the twc supports for the core spray test run piping which failed to meet the criteria as indicated in Section 6.4 [3]
have been modified or replaced.
Item GS: Confirm whether the one support for the demineralizer relief valve discharge piping which failed to meet the criteria as indicated in Section 6.2 [3] has been modified.
Item G6 : Confirm whether the torus containment spray header supports have been replaced and whether the one support on the loop at assembly G has been modified or replaced as indicated in Section 6.3 [3].
Item G7:
Confirm whether the provisions indicated in the footnote on page 58 of ASME Code Subsection NE-3221.5 have been applied for fatigue evaluation in Section 7.0 [2]..kr nklin Rese_ arch Center
-~
TER-C5506-319 REFERENCES 1.
" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA October 1979 2.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Plant Unique Analysis Report, Suppression Chamber and Vent System, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program MPR-733 General Public Utilities Nuclear August 1982 3.
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Plant Unique Analysis Report, Torus Attached Piping, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program MPR-734 General Public Utilities Nuclear August 1982 4.
NUREG-0 661
" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation July 1980 5.
NEDO-21888 Revision 2
" Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA November 1981 1 ts s U p) Franklin Research Center u
rt.
.