ML20204F242
| ML20204F242 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1983 |
| From: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Morisi A BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304290227 | |
| Download: ML20204F242 (7) | |
Text
,
a Docket No. 50-293 Nr. A. Victor f?orisi II %
Nanager, Nuclear Operations Support Department Boston Edison Company 25 Rraintree Hill Pt:rk Rockdale Street Braintree, MA 02184
Dear Hr. Morisi:
SUBJECT:
f1 ARK I CONTA!hEEnf L0 fig TERH PROGRAM - PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT STRUCTW AL EVALUATI0ff Re:
Pilgrin fluclear Power Station The flRC staff and its consultant Franklin Research Center (FRC) are reviewing the structural aspects of your plant unique analysis report. As a result of our review to date we have prepared the enclosed request for additional informtion.
It is requested that you provide a response within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
If you detemine there is a need to neet with or to have a conference call with the staff and FRC to discuss this request prior to responding, please co.: tact your project nanager.
In addition, if you cannot neet this response date, please notify your project manager within seven deys of receipt of this letter.
This request for infomation was approved by the Office of Management and Budget under clearance nunber 3150-0D91 which expires October 31, 1985.
Sincerely, OdginalSIP80I g.B.Vasseh Doacnic R. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclnsure See next page DIST:
Docket File NRC PDR LPDR SNorris DEisenhut BSiegel OELD ACRS-10 ASLAB Gray ORB #2 Rdg JHeltemes, AE00 ELJordan JMTavlor HShaw KEccleston 8304290227 830414 PDR ADOCK 05000 P
s
. ~,
OL:
s DL:0RB#2 DL:(
B#2 DLf3R'B#2
~
e
!>:P-22-- DVas a.l.lo.- ~~ ~
orrece ENo + s - ~ ~~.
.KE<ol.eston.
~... -...
sua-e V/1 183.......... 41./q/.83....... 3
................ A / / 183............
...../........
om,......................
nac ro.w sis tio-ao> uaca ouo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom ini_m.,eo
- Mr. A. Victor Morisi Boston Edison Company cc:
Mr. Charles J. Mathis, Sta. Mgr.
U. S. Environmental Protection Boston Edison Company Agency RFD #1, Rocky Hill Road Region I Office Plymouth, MA 02360 Reaional Radiation Representative JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Resident Inspector c/o U.S. NRC P.O. Box 867 Ronald C. Haynes Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue Henry Herrmann, Esquire Massachusetts Wildlife Federation King of Prussia, PA 19406 151 Treront Street Boston, Massachusetts 02ill Massachusetts Department of Public Health ATTN:
Commissioner of Public Health 600 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02111 Water Quality & Environmental Commissioner Department of Environmental Quality Engineering 100 Cambridge Street Boston, Massachusetts 02202 Mr. David F. Tarantino Chairman, Board of Selectmen 11 Lincoln Street Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 Office of the Attorney General 1 Ashburton Place 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 l
e
~
TER-C550 6-328 i
l REQUEST FOR INFORMATION PILGRIM NUCLEAR F0WER STATION i
l Item 1:
Provido a summary of the analysis with regard to the vacuum breaker piping systems and the vacuum breaker valves; indicate whether they j
are considered Class 2 components as required by the criteria [1].
1 l
Item 2:
Provide a summary of the analysis of torus.2ttached piping systems consisting of analytical models which represent piping and supports from torus to first rigid anchor (or where the effect of torus motion is insignificant), and classification of piping systems as essential 4
or non-essential for each load combination. Also, indicate whether a response spectrum or time history analysis for dynamic effect of torus motion at the attachment points has been considered.
f Item 3: Provide a summary of the analysis for each safety relief valve (SRV)
{
discharge piping which should include the analytical model with
}
piping and supports, from the nozzle at the main steam line to discharge in the suppression pool, and the discharge device and its supports. Also, the information should indicate that time history has been used for discharge thrust loads, and spectrum analysis or dynamic load factors for other loads. Justification should be i
provided if the above criteria are not met.
Item 4:
Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to the active containment system piping systems, piping systems which provide a drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential, and other. internal piping systems.
i Item 5: Provide a list indicating whether all the piping systems and their l
supports have been classified as Class 2 or Class 3 piping, or j
essential or non-essential piping systems, and whether a pump or l
valve associated with the piping is art active or inactive component, j
and is considered operable.
l Item 6: Provide justification for determining the load combinations indicats<l j
throughout the PUA report [2] to be the goverr.ing load combinations.
4 Item 7: Indicate whether the fatigue usage factors for the SRV piping and the torus attached piping are sufficiently small that a plant-unique fatigue analysis is not warranted for piping.
The NBC is expected to review the conclusions of a generic presentation [3] and deterraine j
whether it is sufficient for each plant-unique analysis to < stablish that the expectea usage iactors for piping are small enough to obviate a plant-unique fatigue analysis of the piping.
a i
1
- 000U Franidin Research Center g
A Dhaman of The FrenWm insamme 1
1 i
I TER-C550 6-328 Item 8:
With regard to the finite element model of the tores, including the s
shell, ring girders, and supports, it is not clear whether the saddle I
webs and the torus columns were welded together as shown in Figures 2-5, 2-11, 2-12, 3.1, and 3.2 [2]. Provide information showing the as-built configuratiors of the torus and its supports.
Item 9:
With regard to the 360' torus beam model, provide information showing the finite element model actually used in the analysis, which should not have missing members as shown in Figure 3.4 in the PUA report [2].
Item 10: With regard to the ring girder model, the dimensions shown in Figure 3.3 [2] seem inconsistent with the dimensions shown in Figure 5-2 b
[2].
Provide information showing the dimensiona of the ring girder.
Item 11: 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 12: Provide and justify the reasons for not considering a 180' segment of the vent system in order to determine the effects of seismic and other nonsymmetric loads as required by the criteria [1].
Item 13: Provide and justify the reasons for not considering the superposition of reactions from the vent deflectors and ring headers in evaluating the vent support columns for pool swell.
Item 14: With reference to the computer model for the 1/32 segment of the 1
torus shown in Figure 3-1 of Reference 2 and the analysis performed using only symmetric boundary conditions, provide justification for not considering skew symmetric boundary conditions in order to l
evaluate the effect of the resulting modes.
Item 15: Confirm that structural responses from any two dynamic phenomena have been combined using either their absolbte sum or the cumulative distribution function method and provide justification for using any alternative methods to combine responses.
Item 16: Indicate the present status of the proposed study of plant procedures l
to ensure that the operator would depressurize the system within 15 minutes after chugging begins, since this is assumed for fatigue i
analysis with regard to chugging.
Item 17: With reference to page 70 of Reference 2, provide justification for not considering stresses due to seismic and thermal response of the.
drywell in analyzing the main vent drywell intersection.
2-nklin Research Center A Dhamon of The Freneeninsamme -
y,, - - - -
__.m 9
Jy
-,.yc.~,
e,--m,e-m,,,,
~---g+-*,,y%q-y-m
,w-
.. - -. -v
-y+-
y
TER-C5506-328 Item 18: With reference to the 1/16 model used for the ring girder analysis, provide more details to justify the assumption that the dimensions of the torus at the Pilgrim plant are similar to the dimensions of the torus at the plant which was actually analyzed. Compare the boundary conditions and the support systems of these torus structures.
Item 19: Justify the assumption, with regard to drag loads, that the columns, column gussets, and saddle wculd make the ring girder very stiff and prevent frequency interaction with dynamic loads.
Item 20: With reference to the high values of actual loads in the ring girder-shell welds in the outer column and saddle regions, indicate any conservatism in the analysis which would ensure that the allowables will not be exceeded.
Item 21: Provide the fatigue evaluation of the bellows.
Item 22: The ASME Code provides an acceptance procedure for computing fatigue usage when a member is subject to cyclic loadings of random occurrence, such as might be generated by excitations from more than one type of event (SSE and SRV discharge, for example). This procedure requires correction of the stress-range amplitudes l
considered and of the associated nuntier of cycles in order to account for the interspersion of stress cycles of unlike character.
State whether or not the reported usages reflect use of this method.
If not, indicate the effect on report,ed results.
1 i
UO0d Franklin Research Center A Cheuen of The Frenten insamme
ranklin Research C:nter FRC Project N3. C5506 p"A
.a A Dnnsion of The Frana, n insatute FRC Assignm:nt Nr. /2 20th and Race Sreets. PMe. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task N3*
.J48 I
p
)
ggg g7j Tcble 1. Structural Loading (frorn Reference 5) otnerwetwen Interior Structures Structures E
E
$5 i
33i 2 e
3 E 3 s.
g
[
8 E
333 3 5 e.
s a
E S
o o 3 Loads 3
e mg o
i 8
p j_
a m
j3 g
g j
fl jEh j$
2 c
e
-c a <82 mo
- 1. Containment Pressure and Temperature X
X X
X X
X X
X X
i
- 2. Vent System Thrust Loads
- 3. PoolSwell X
X X
l 3.1 Torus Net Vertical Loads X
X 3.2 Torus ShellPressure Histories X
X 3.3 Vent System impactand Drag X
X X
3.4 Impact and Drag on Other Structures 3.5 Frothlmpingement X
X X
3.6 PoolFallback
~X X
X X
X lX X
X X
3.7 LOCAJet 3.8 LOCA Bubble Drag X
- 4. Condensation Oscillation X
X X
4.1 Torus Shell Loads X
X 4.2 LoadonSubmergedStructures 4.3 LateralLoads on Downcomers X
X X
4.4 VentSystem Loads X
X
- 5. Chugging X
X 1
5.1 TorusShallLoads X'
X 5.2 LoadsonSubmergedStructures 5.3 Lateral Loads on Downcomers X
X X
5.4 Vent System Loads X
X
- 6. T-Ouencher Loads X
X 6.1 Discharge Line Clearing 6.2 Torus ShellPressures X
X X
6.4 Jet Loads on Submerged Structures 6.5 Air Bubble orao X
X X
X 6.6 Thrust Loads on T-Quencher Arms X
X X
X 6.7 S/RVDL EnvironmentalTemperature X
- 7. Ramshead Loads X
7.1 Discharge Line Clearing 7.2 Torus Shell Pressures g
q g
7.4 Jet Loads on Submerged Structures 7.5 AirBubble Drag 7.6 S/RVOL Environmental Tempera:ure Loads required by NUREG-0661 [4]
b Notapplicable.
-e l
f TER-C550 6-328 REFERENCES 1.
" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA October 1979 2.
Pilgrim Station Unit 1 Plant-Unique Analysis Report of the Suppression Chamber Mark I Containment Iong-Term Program Technical Report TR-5310-1 Boston Edison Company October 27, 1982 3.
P. M. Kasik
" Mark I Piping Fatigue," Presentation at the NRC meeting, Bethesda, MD September 10, 1982 4.
NUMEG-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 Inad Definition Report" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA November 1981 O
,_ _ f b b