ML20205B027

Audit for Mark I Containment Long-Term Program - Structural Analysis for Operating Reactors, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20205B027
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	06/21/1985
From:	Carfagno O, Con V, Le A CALSPAN CORP.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML17195A951	List: ML17195A950 ML17195A952 ML17195A953 ML20204G817 ML20205B027
References
CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 TER-C5506-324, NUDOCS 8506250478
Download: ML20205B027 (48)

Text

_ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _

l l

l l

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT [

NRC DOCKET NO. 50-237, 50-249 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO. -- FRC ASSIGNMENT 12 7 NRC CONTR ACT NO. N RC-03-81-130 FRC TASK 324

[ AUDIT FOR MARK I CONTAINMENT LONG-TERM PROGRAM -

1 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FOR OPERATING REACTORS 5 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY k DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 y TER-C5506-324 I

., Prepared for j Nuclear Regulatory Commission FRC Group Leader: V. N. Con ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC Lead Engineer: H. Shaw I

- June 21, 1985

.1 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States 7 Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or

{ responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, cf any information, appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by:

c A E . lt lL M (4 Af ~& l

, Principal Author Group Leader 'Departmentfire r Date: 6 o30- B5 Date: I MS Date: e. fs

~

$ FRANKUN RESEARCH CENTER g cgo. Ol d DIVISION OF ARVIN/CALSPAN wm . ..a imm.~umm., moi m

TER-C5506-324 A. -

CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 i 2 AUDIT FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 6 g 4 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX A - AUDIT DETAILS 4

l APPENDIX B - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED i

} APPENDIX C - TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE USE OF THE CMDOF PROGRAM IN THE MARK I TORUS ATTACHED l1 1

PIPING ANALYSIS

1 k

q-F O

em D

ed iii

TER-C5506-324 c-FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center h

, . 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 conductea in accordance with criteria established by 1 the NBC.

1 1

f a

M g

9 I .

4 q .

e 1

m 6

9d V

l l

i TE R-C5506-324 I

1. INTRODUCTION -

r W

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 +

k into a short-term program and a long-term program.

-e Based on the results of the short-term program, which verified that each Mark I containment would maintain its integrity and functional capability when y subjected to the loads induced by a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), the NRC staff granted an exemption relating to the structural factor of safety requirements of 10CFR50, 55 (a) .

,W

.?

E The objective of the long-term program was to restore the margins of safety in the Mark I containment structures to the originally intended

,t j 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 stancards.

The objective of this report is to present the results of an aucit of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3 plant-unique analysis (PUA) report ~

with regard to structural analysis. The audit was performed using a moderately detailed audit procedure developed earlier [2] and attachea to this ,

~ ~ ~

report as Appendix A. The key items of the audit procedure are obtained from .

" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique

? Analysis Application Guide" [3], which meets the criteria of Reference 1.-

I O

6 e m.

TE R-C5506-324

2. AUDIT FINDINGS -

I g.

A detailed presentation of the audit for Dresden Units 2 and 3 is

! provided in Appendix A, which contains information with regard to several key items outlined in the audit procedure (2]. Based on this detailed audit, it

.b was concluded earlier that certain items in the Dresden Units 2 ano 3 PUA

! report (4) indicated noncompliance with the requirements of the criteria [3]

' and that several aspects of the analysis required further information. Based on this conclusion, the Licensee was requested to provide information with 1

g regard to the items contained in Appendix B of this report.

, During the course of reviewing the analytical techniques for stress calculations of the torus attached piping systems, Franklin Research Center (FRC) staff raised concerns regarding the verification of the computer program

-T CMDOF (Coupling of Multiple Degrees of Freedom), which was used by the NUTECH

,d technical staff to qualify the Mark I torus attached piping systems in a

} number of nuclear power plants. Meetings were held with NUTECH technical I staff and representatives of affected utilities to discuss and resolve concerns associated with this program. In accorcance with an FRC request for J

l additional study to verify the program, the Monticello plant used some in-plant safety relief valve tests performed in 1980 for verification purposes, and the results of this study were found acceptable. This assessment is also ap'plicable to Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3. -

t Appendix C of this report provides the background and assessments relating to -

this program. The Licensee has responded (5) to all the items containeo in I the request for additional information (Appendix B); a brief review of each t

response is provided below. .

Request Item 1 In this response, the Licensee summarized the analysis of the wetwell-

~

to-drywell vacuum breaker header pipe, the header pipe supports, and the

, suppression chamber in the vicinity of the support attachments. A transient analysis of the vacuum breaker header was performed using a finite element mocel. The acceleration time histories from the suppression chamber analysis ere input into the model at the header support location on the suppression

, , - r .- , .- - -

r ,, ,, , .-e,-,,

TER-C5506-324 chamber to determine the state of stress in the header from these suppression chamber motions. These stresses were combined with the stresses fr g static r

loads to calculate total stress in the header. The Licensee also indicated that the wetwell-to-drywell vacuum breakers were modified and evaluated according to ASME Code Class 2 criteria and that an overview of this analysis L has been submitted to the NRC. Regarding safety relief valve (SRV) discharge line vacuum breakers, the Licensee indicated that they were replaced with

[. valves qualified in accordance with the ASME Code Section III, Subsection NC, 1977. Therefore, the Licensee's response is satisfactory. Since the criteria for vacuum breaker modifications are not addressed in Reference 3, the vacuum breaker evaluations are outside the scope of this technical evaluation report (TER). This issue will be examined as part of the Mark I Long-Term Program and will be addressed in a separate TER.

v Request Item 2 In response to this item, the Licensee confirmed that all large bore ar.d small bore piping systems addressed in the Dresden PUA report were classified as essential. The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.

Request Item 3 In this response, the Licensee indicated that a 360' model was used in the analysis of the torus for lateral loads. " Upper bound" values were 3- ~

) defined for each lateral load and applied in directions yielding maximum stresses which were then added absolutely, independent of time. Also, the Licensee stated that these results envelop those that would have been obtained h

had a 180* model been used for loads such as chugging and SRV discharge. The Licensee's approach is satisfactory.

Request Item 4 In this response, the Licensee showed that the AISC specification was

" more conservative than the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Subsection NF with respect to the analysis of the SRV discharge line supports by providing a

,_ comparison of allowable stresses derived from each. The comparison indicated

i i

i .

e TER-C5506-324

?

, that the ASME Subsection NF allowable stresses were 68% higher than.the AISC

^

allowable stresses. The Licensee's response is satisfactory. [,

Request Item 5 i In this response, the Licensee provided a summary of the method for t

L applying the 10% rule that exempted some small bore pipes from analysist the y summary is listed below.

l~ o At the small bore piping attachment point, the stresses in the large

, bore piping due to combined Mark I loads were calculated.

o The large bore piping stress combinations for Levels B, C, and D were compared.against 10% of the respective allowables. Stress j intensification factor values were also included where applicable.

o Any small bore piping connected to large bore piping that met the 10%

rule at the attachment point was then exempted from further Mark I evaluation.

4 The Licensee has also provided a table showing the distance from the torus along each large bore line to the point at which the 10% rule comes into j effect. The Licensee's response indicates that sufficient calculations have l been made to ensure compliance with the 10% rule of Section 6.2d of the ,

criteria [3].

p_. Request Item 6 I

In response to this item, the Licensee asserted that despite the 7

proximity of certain stress results to allowable limits, the margins of safety I of the original design have been restored or increased. The following reasons

~ were givent the code allowable limits provide adequate factors of safety;

~

, stress results represent peak values which occur over a very small area of the structure; loads are conservatively defined based on test results; and conservative load combinations are used, in which peak responses are assumed i to occur simultaneously. The Licensee's response is technically adequate.

U O d

, ~4-i i

, - - - - . . . _ - _._,. ., , . . - . ,_ - . - - - . .. , _ , , . . , . - e.,- ,

TER-C5506-324

3. CONCLUSIONS ,

w Based on the audit of the Dresden Units 2 and 3 plant-unique analysis report, it was concluded earlier that certain aspects required additional information. Based on the Licensee's responses [5] to the request for

'k additional information, it is concluded that the Licensee's structural analyses with regard to major plant modifications and the torus-attached

.m piping conform to the criteria requirements. With reference to the verification of the computer program CMDOF used to qualify the torus attached T

piping systems, the results of a verification study (based on the Monticello

'n}

in-plant safety relief valve tests) performed by NUTECH technical staff were

,% found acceptable as documented in Appendix C of this report. The Licensee's d approach to the evaluation of piping fatigue conforms to the approach F recommended by the Mark I Owner's Group, which has been accepted by the NRC.

'?

I The evaluation criteria of the containment vacuum breaker modifications are not addressed in Reference 3 and are therefore outside the scope of this TER; j however, this issue will still be examined as part of the Mark I Long-Term Program.

d M.-

r r .

O m e.

I . __

.i

TER-C5506-324

4. REFERENCES -

v

1. NUREG-0661

" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation USNBC July 1980 j 2. Technical Evaluation Report Audit Procedure for Mark I Containment Long-Term Program - Structural Analysis

} Franklin Research Center, Philadelphia, PA June 1982, TER-C5506-308 1

3 3. NEDO-24583-1 j " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA October 1979 s

4. Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3

? Plant Unique Analysis Report at Volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 - Revision 0 Commonwealth Edison Company

~ May 1983

- 5. B. Rybak .

Lt.tter to H. R. Denton (NRC) with attachment

Subject:

Response to Questions Concerning Mark I Containment Plant-Unique Analysis Commonwealth Edison Company

@~~ March 1984 .

i r

~

N l 0

o oo O

OW

~

p l

c-APPENDIX A k

' AUDIT DETAILS Y

<r d

4 I

1 1

1 N

_ j FRANKUN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISION OF ARVIN/ CAL 5 PAN 20tt1 & RACE STREETS. PHILADELPHIA,PA 19103 l

! TER-C5506-324

1. INTRODUCTION i r c-I The key items 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 L Analysis Application Guide" [2] are contained in Table 2-1. This audit 1

in procedure is applicable to all Mark I containments, except the Brunswick

. containments, which have a concrete torus.

i For each requirement listed in Table 2-1, several options are possible.

d Ideally, the requirement is met by the Licensee, but if the requirement is not f met, an alternative approach could have been used. This alternative approach l} 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 3

ly column indicating " Additional Information Required" will be used when the

) information provided by the Licensee is inadequate to make an assessment.

4 lj A few remarks concerning Tables 2-1 and 2-2 will facilitate their future

use:

il

]d o A summary of the audit as detailed in Table 2-1 is provided in Table l 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

b. ._ .

t that explains the reasons behind the decision. Where the criterion is -

satisfied, a check mark will be used to indicate compliance.

I o When a particular requirement is not met, the specific reasons for I noncompliance will be given.

t r.

11 _ _ .

i' i

lJ-  : I.

w. , . - - . _ _ . . - , _ . ,.--,-c.,.m e,,.__-- ,,.. - --..--,-_ -.-- ,_, ..--,.,,,m. , _ _ . , . - . c.,

A 3* NRC C ntract N 3. N RC-03-81 130 '

br:nklin R:seirch Centir FRC Pr: ject No. C5506 Pcg9 l A Dms on of T1u Franihn Institut2 FRC Assignment No. / 2. m j 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. M 4 ,

. t- 1 Plant Name D E M-.CE!J U'] I~5 -.:. 3 D '

1 Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program i

Licensee Uses Section Keyitms Considered Criteria Addt!. Alternate Acoroach Ns.[2] Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Consor. Unconser-vative vative g 1.2 All structural elements of the vent system and suppres-sion chamber must be considered in the review.

, ' Die following pressure a retaining elements (and A their supports) must be considered in the reviews o teus shell with associ-ated penetrations,

.Y reinforcing rings, and

'[ support attachments

,?

, o trus shell supports to the containment structure

/

o Vents between the drywell and the vent ring header

/

( (including penetrations

~

therein) o Region of drywell local to vent penetrations t o Bellows between vents and ~

torus shell (internal or

, external to torus)

'e I o Vent ring header and the downcomers attached to it

/ ,

o Vent ring header supports to the torus

/ ,

t tCEA)$ETE.S

< I o Vacuum breaker valves / SEE Egsrou. .E # '

attadted to vent penetra- # ,755 % VED ~ 6 l

tions within the torus [ c.o/ NE/' / J l* (where applicable)

/_ 'f'.,=.. Y' l / -[ [2 ,,

,' o vacuum breaker piping [ #

f

~'

.- systems, including vacuum f

breaker valves attached to torus shell penetra-

_. . . . _ _ _ _ _ _, __ . _ - - _ = , _ _ _ . - - - _ , , . _ _ . - _ _

.. . .. . - -_=

ne NRC C:ntract N3. NRC-03-81 130

[0WU Frznklin R:setrch Cantir FRC Priject Ns. C5506 FRC Assignm:nt N1 /2 pgg3 A Divisson of Th.2 Frtnthn Instituts 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRCTask No. 3N - _ 2 4 Plant Name DCf:5 0 #/ J 9 / J.~ S C7.-

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Section Criteda Licensee Uses Keyitems Considered dtl. Alternste Approach No-[2] in the Audit Not - NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vative vative g 1.2 (Cont.)

,, tions and to vent penetrations external to i~ the torus (where 7,

applicable) id o Piping systems, including f pumps and valves,. internal

]m to the torus, attached to i3 the torus shell and/or vent penetrations

o All main steam system safety relief valve

[

(SRV) piping

,q d o Applicable portions of /

the following piping iF systems:

,d '

- Active containment -

5 system piping systems

,f (e.g. , emergency core cooling system (5CCS) and g_. other piping required to maintain core cooling -

af ter loss-of-coolant

, accident (IDCA))

b - Piping systems which provide a drywell-to-

'F wetwell pressure dif-l forential (to alleviate pool swell effects) ,

Il ig - Other piping systems, _.

4 including vent drains 1*

I o supports of piping systems /

mentioned in previous item 4' '

t ,. .o Vent header deflectors [

j, including associated hardware l

1 ,

l

- '.;.- _ : c.o. N RC-03-81-130 nklin Rasenen C m:.r enu .hoget N o. C5506 pegg FRC Antignm:nt N / ?.-

A Diwson of The Frankhn Institute FRC Task No. 32 .

j 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa- 19103 (215) 448-1000 Piant Name DRESCEt) J'J '~$ C '? _2 Tabl32-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Criteria Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered dtl. Alternate Approach ~

N D. [2] in the Audit Not .

p Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser. Unconser-vative vative b 1.2 (Cont.)

i o Internal structural elements (e.g. , monorails, catwalks, their supports) 7 whose failure might impair ,

{ the containment function LicEAJ5EES g e~ ggs.~csJ At? T.

1.3 a.1he structural //OT CSdOWET' " ';

acceptance critsria 4 20AJa.Er/ J for existing Mark I containment systems T are contained in the 1 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 1 (ASIS) Boiler and j Pressura Vessel (B&PV) Code,Section III, Division 1 (1977 Edition) , with .

addenda through the ,

Summer 1977 Addenda

[3] to be referred

} herein as the Code. The alternatives to this

]-

t criteria provided in Reference 2 are also acceptable.

.I I

b. When complete appli-cation of the criteria

/ gg //

pjary (item 1.3a) results in hardships or ~ 4 unusual difficulties without a compensa- ,

ting increase in level of quality and safety, --.

other structural

, acceptance criteria may be used after approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I

• % NRC Cuatract Nc!NRC-03-81-130

[h00 r:nklinResearchCant:r A D6vmon of W Frenkhn Inintuis FRC Prclect No.CS506 -

FRC A:signment No. / A Pag 3 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. .FE. #

PlantName DRs=5cEtJ :/N!,#$ _~ .2 ,y *

, 3 Tabl32-1. Audit Procedure for Structura) Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program 1.lconsee Uses f

Secti

n KeyIt a na ered Criteria Addti- Alternate Approach ~

No. {2) Not Info. NA Remarks

{

Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-yotive vative b 2.1 a. Identify the code or other classification 3 of the structural element

b. Prepare specific dimensional boundary

[

1 definition for the I specific Mark I contain-ment systems (Notes l{ Welds connecti k piping I to a nossle are piping welds, not Class MC 1 welds) 2.2 Guidelines for classification

, of structural elements and 4

boundary definition are as follows:

(Refer to Table 2-3 and

J Table 2-4 for non-piping and I piping structural elements, respectively, and to item 5

, in this table for row

designations used for

q -

defining limits of boundaries) i

a. Torus shell (Row 1) -

/

The torus membrane I in combination with '

reinforcing rings, penetration elements within the NE-3334 [3] '

lia.it of reinforce- ,

ment normal to the torus shell, and __

attachment welds to the inner or outer surface of the above members but not to nossles, is a Class MC (3] vessel.

l I

i i NRC C4ntr:ct N3. N RC-03-81-130 nklin Riseirch Center FRC Pr: Ject N3. C5506 prg3 A Dwmon of The Franklin Insutut2 FRC Assignment N3. /1

• FRCTask No. E 1 20th and Race $rreets. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 i Plant Name >R=""5 E/J *Jt).* ~5 C &_

~

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark i Containment Long-Term Program t.icensee Uses Secti:n KeyItws Considered Criteria Addtl. Alternate Approach _

N3. [ ) Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser. Unconser-vative vative t 2.2 (Cont.)

b. Tbrus shell supports (Bow 1) - Subsection NF

[3] support structures

-, between the torus shell

] and the building structure, exclusive

, of the attachse,nt welds

-} to the torus shell; E welded or mechanical 1 attachments to the building structures 3

}

a (excluding embedments);

. and seismic constraints i 7 between the torus shell j and the building atructure are Class MC q [3] supports.

l3

c. asternal vents and vent-to-torus bellows

/ _

1 (now 1) - The external 1

5 vents (between the attachment weld-to the 9 drywell and the ~

f attachment weld to the bellows) including:

vent penetrations

f within the NE-3334 [3]

limit of reinforcement .

normal to the vent, .

internal or externkl attachment welds to the  !

external vent but not -

I to nossles, and the t

vent-to-torus bellows ---

} (including attachment

, welds to the torus i shell and to the i external vents) are Class MC [3] vessels.

1 a

NRC Cantrrct N3. NRC-03-81 130 l nklin R:serrch Canta FRC Prclect No. C5506 p gg A Diumon of The FrankhnInstnute FRC Assignm:nt No. / 2. '

20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. ~3 M ,

Plant Name .C'P2XtJ */tJ!TS .~ '. .;* $

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl. Alternate Approach _

No.[2] Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Consor. Unconser-Reed.

vative vative Ib 2.2 (Cont.)

d. Drywell-vent connection region (Ibw 1) - Vent j^ welded connections to

, the drywell (the drywell j and the drywell region C of interest for this program is up to the 3 NE-3334 (3] liiilt of

=5 reinforcement on the drywell shell) are T Class MC [3] vessels.

.I

e. Internal vents (Ibws 2 /

,, and 3) - Are the continuation of the vents internal to the

,, torus shell from the vent-bellows welds and .

.I includes the ,

cylindrical shell, the

! closure head, o penetrations in the 4

cylindrical shell or

)q -

closure head within the ,

~

NE-3334 [3] limit of reinforcement normal to

- the vent, and attachment l welds to inner or outer surface of the vent but not to nozzles.

f. Vent ring header (Bows 4 and 5) and downconers ,

(Row 6) - Vent ring header including the --

downconers and internal

! or external attachment welds to the ring header and the

, attachment welds to the downcomers are Class MC (3] vessels. .

- - - - - - - - - - - - ,, - e

N RC C;ntr:ct N 3. N RC-03-81-130 nklin Res: arch C:nta FRC Pr: Ject NO. C5506 Paga A Dnnsson of The Frankim Institute FRC Assignm:nt N 3. / 2-FRC Task No. .~$24 , O 20th and Race Streets. Phita.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 "

Ptant Name DCE5:EtJ *//) ~$

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure forStructural Acceptance Criteria of MarkiContainment Long-Term Program Criteria Licensee Uses Section Key items Cons. ared Addtl. Alternate Approach N2.[2] Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser. Unconser-vative vative 4 2.2 (Cont.)

- The portion of the

^

downcomer within the NE-3334 [3] limit of

, reinforcement normal to j the vent ring header and portion of the vent ring header within

}a NE-3334 limit i:if reinforcement are considered under Ibw 5.

t -

1 g. Vent ring header supports (Row 7) -

[

7 Subsection NF [3]

j supports, exclusive of the attachment welds to

, the vent ring header t, and to the torus shell, are Class MC [3] _

supports. ,

L,.ICSNSEE $

h. Essential (Ibws SM EE4 ~ '// E 10 and 11) and - DM CEhWC ~~S N,

non-essential (Hows b Of%60J 12 and 13) piping systems - A piping system or a portion g, of it is essential if the system is necessary to assure the integrity of -

the reactor coolant pressure boundary, ,

the capability to shut down the - - -

reactor and maintain

, it in a shutdown condition, or the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of I

NRC C ntract N3. NRC-03-81-130

Fr

nklin R:se:rch Ccnter FRC Project ND.C5506 p g3 i A Dwinson of Th3 Frankhn Insutute FRC Ae_L'gnment N2. / 2.-

20th and Race Streets. Phda . Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. 32 4 .

" * , f Pfant Name CR5.8 )

• J/J S , -3 }

Tabla 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program t

toda Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered ti. Alternate Approach No. {2) in the Audit Not . NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser. Unconser-vative vative i

i

!k 2.2 (Cont.)

, accidents which could result in potential off site j exposures comparable to

'y g the guideline exposure j* of 10CFR100 (4]. Piping should be considered j essential if iti A performs a safety-related role at a later T time during the event ij combination being

, considered or during

!, any subsequent event i1 combination.

A

!, i. Active and inactive /

i[ component (Rows d 10-13) - Active ~

! component is a pump or valve in an

,;h essential piping system which is-e -

required to perform

a mechanical motion ~

during the course i of accomplishing a

'i_ system safety I function.

• LIC EAjs EE'S

j. Containment vacuum- /. 25 WT FT// ?/ / #T *  !

breakers (Ibw 2) -

?c U

. E / N ;

I Vacuum breakera valves ,l

,7f.;c ggj mounted on the vent i internal to the torus ._

l or on piping associated

t. with the torus are l* Class 2 [3] components.

I

_u._

1. h NRC C:ntrcet No. N RC-03-81-130 Uhh rinklin R:setrch Csnter FRC Proj ct No.C5506 , pcga

• A Divmon of Tha Franihn Instituti FRC A',cignm:nt N3. I -

20th and Race Streets. Phila . Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 3 M

. _ /C Plant Name .m:.LESCt=1J ')/ / * ~  : .-~~

, - Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program t.lconsee Uses Section Keyltes nsidered

• N3.[2] o f,,* NA "

Remarks Met Met Reqd.

vative vative 4

, 2.2 (Cont.)

js k. External piping and

!' supports (Rows 10-13): /,

- No Class 1 piping

} - Piping external to 1 and penetrating the torus or the external vents, includirig the I attachment weld to the torus or vent nossle is

, Class 2 [3] piping. Se

j' other terminal end of such external piping should be determined

}2 based on its function and isolation capability.

T - Subsection NF [3] /

,i support for such *

{ external piping -

including welded or

anchanical attachment to I

structurer excluding any lq attachment welds to the piping or other pressure -

i retaining component are

! Class 2 [3] supports.

.i r 1. Internal piping and /

supports (Rows 10-13) - Are Class 2 or class 3 piping and' Class 2 or Class 3 component supports.

5

, n. Internal structures (Row 8) - Non-safety-

/ ~

e related elements which are not pressure retaining, exclusive of attachment welds to any pressure retaining l

- - . - . - - .-,..,m-.., ,.,------------.---,w w. r, - , . .-m

4N N RC Contract N D. NRC-03-81-130 000U Frcn t Jin Research Ccnter FRC Project ND. C5506 Pago

^ '

A D'osson of The Fenidin Instnuti FRC A signment Ni / 2-

• 20t' . and Race Streers. Phda . Pa- 19103 (215) 448-1000 FRCTask No. 32M PtantName CAWMJ WE3 1!5 Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Section Criteria Licensee uses KeYitems Considered Addtl. Alternate Approach No. {2] e Audit Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Consor. Unconser-vative vative g 2.2 (Cont.)

p. member (e.g. ,

monorails. ladders,

~

catwalks, and their supports) .

n. Vent deflectors (Bow 9)

- Vent header flow

} deflectors and" j associated hardware (not including attachsent

, welds to Class MC t

d vessels) are internal s tructures.

$ 3.2 Icad terminology used J should be based on Final Safety Analysis Report

?, (FSAR) for the unit or the I Icad Definition Report (LDR) (S]. In case of ~

q conflict, the ER loads f shall be used.

q- 3.3 Consideration of alh. load

combinations defined in ~

Section 3 of the MR [5]

shall be provided.

I 4.3 a. No reevaluation for '

limits set for design pressure and design temperature values is needed for present ,

structural elements.

b. Design limit [

requirements used for i

b initial construction

! following normal practice with respect

,. to load definition and allowable stress shall be used for systems or

E NRC C:ntract No. NRC-03-41-130 Fr:nkhn Riserrch Canter FRC Project No. C5506 p;g3 A Divoon of The Frankhn Insutute

/1 FRC Assignment No. 32N24 2Cah and Race Streets. Phda . Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRCTask Ptant Name CA?t~5C9J ut.AS ~ * ,3

/2

,' Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program i* ,

Licensee Uses -.

Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl. Alternate Approach No.12] I" ** ^# Not info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Consor. Unconser- vative vative b 4.3 (Cont.)

) portions of systems that are replaced and

^

for new systems. .

4.4 Service Limits and See definition Design Procedures shall for Service be based on the Limits in B&PV Code,Section III, Section 4 of j '

Division 1 including Reference 2.

addenda up to Summer 1977

'l Addenda (3), specifically:

a. Class MC 3 contairunent

!) vessels: Article ME-3000 (3]

V SES l.J d N S E 'S

k. Linear-type g~c.:, .-.  : c- "A ,

l component (Class 2 d'g~ ,.. );y.).syB, m * "

and 3) support - yr j ; g f. t j

] with three

modifications to l the Codes -

2 q .

~

? - For bolted connections, the ,

. -. requirements of

'f Service Limits A F and B shall be applied to Service Limits C and D -

without increase in the allowables ,

above those applicable to .

Service Invels A and B; e

l - NF-3231.1 (a) 1 (3] is for primary i

plus secondary i

stress ranger 6

NRC C:ntract ND. NRC-03-81-130 nklin R:se rch Ccnter FRC Pr: lect No. C5506 p g3

~

A Divmon of The Franian Instaute FRC Assignm:nt N3 /2-FRC Task No. M4 3 20th and Race Streets. Phila.. Pa 191031215) 448 1000 Plant Name C2%.C2M ')? J !$ . C85 Tabl32-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program 1.lconsee Uses Section Keyit a nsidered Criteria Addtl. Alternate Approach No. (2) Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vative vative

)L - All increases in allowable stress 3 permitted by Subsection NF [3] are limited by 1 ~

Appendix XVII-2110(b)

(3] when buckling is a consideration.

c. Class 2 and 3 piping, /

,y pumps, valves,"and iA internal structures (also Class MC) 1y

, 5.3 The components, component loadings, and service level

,, assignments for Class MC

/ (3] components and internal

.d structures shall be as defined in Thble 5-1 of Heforence 2.

ij 5.4 Se components, component  ! ~

4

! loadings, and service level t; assignments for Class 2 and Class 3 piping systems

n-. shall be defined in Table

(! 5-2 of Reference 2. ~

i

- 5.5 The definition of

8

operability is the ability l to perform required

, mechanical motion and i functionality is the .

ability to pass rated flow.

1 I

a. Active components [

shall be proven _.

l operable. Active components shall be considered operable j if service Limits A or B or more conservative limits

]

(if the original l design criteria required it) are met.

'l _

N NRC C:ntract N 2. NRC-03-81-130 Fr:nklin R:sench Center FRC Pr; ject N2. C5506 _ p;g3 A Divmon of Ths Franklin Institute FRC Assignment N3. /4'-

20th and Race Streets. Phda . Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 5*2d .

/f Plant Name CA?lC~CE%) *)/J.' % 2 25

, . Table 2-1. Audit Procedure forStructural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Terra Program Criteria Ucensee Uses Section Keyitems na ered Addtl. Alternate Approach No. [2] Not Info. NA~ Remarks Met Met Reqd. Consef. Unconsor.

vative Vative g 5.5 (Cont.)

b. Piping components shall /

be proven functional in

- a manner consistent with the original design criteria.

6.1 Analysis guidelines i.

Provided hereiii shall i apply to all structural elements identified in item 1.2 of this table.

1. a. All loadings defined in / See Section 3.3 i subsection 3.2 of of this table.

']A Reference 2 shall be considered. ,

t Lic.5tJ5ff 3

)fl' b. A aunmary tochnical / TISO #JM '

J report on the analysis Cf CTI2' " * ~ ~

shall be submitted to  ! I 27 J.J.ti CIJ-4 i the NRC.

1 i

6.2 The following general q ,_ _ guidelines shall be applied g to all structural elements -

analyzed:

5: a. Perform analysis i according to guideline

~

defined herein for all loads defined in LOR

[5]. (For loads l[ considered in original ,

, , design, but not redefined by LDR, ~

I previous analyses or new analyses may be

.h, used.)

b. Only limiting load combination events need

[

be considered.

1

1. NRC Csntract N2. NRC-03-81-130

[b, bud Fr:nklin R se2rch Csnter FRC Project N2. C5506 p;g3 A Dwoon d The Frankim lnstnuta FRC Assignment No. /_A 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRCTask No. 3 M /5 PlantName CRFSCSA/ UA//I.5 2 >. _,.$

Tabla 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Secan Criteria Addtl. Alternate Approach No. [2] x o-l;,%ag 'g Not in .

uncon.e,.

NA Remarks Con e,.

Met Met Reqd. yative vative h 6.2 (Cont.)

c. Fatigue effects of all -

g.

operational cycles ,,.__Q' .,. .-

shall be considered. "~

i LICEA/SEE 5

d. No further evaluation

/- Rf0PO#d6 3 #^$

"I of structural elements -

R F6'J W FC 7 IS for which combined Of%f#JJ

}g effect of loads' defined in LDR [5] produces stresses less than 10%

a of allowable is j required. Calculations demons trating

- conformance with the lot rule shall be provided.

f

=>

e. Desping values used in dynamic analyses shall

[

be in accordance with

~

y NRC Regulatory Glide

[ 1.61 [6).

" -6.3 Structural responses for

~

. loads resulting from the

! combination of two dynamic phenomena shall be obtained I

in the following manner:

!l

. a. Absolute sum of stress /

l{ components, or -

t, -

b. Cumulative distribution function method if

/ ,

absolute sum of stress

~

components does not ig satisfy the acceptance

,j criteria.

I i 6.4 Torus analysis shall

'l . -consist of

( NRC Cintract N3. NRC-03-81-130

,l!d Franklin Rsserreh Carntir FRC Prrlect N3. C5506 p gg A Division of The Frankhn Institute FRC Assignm':nt No. /[_

FRC Task No. 3 24 ,, s 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 ,

Pfant Name C>f2C&J pjt~~$ 2 $ 5 Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program 1.icensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria A dtl. Alternate Approach N3.[2] in the Audit Not .

NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser Unconser-i vative vative l

L 6.4 (Cont.) s LICED.JSEE S

a. Finite element analysis Y-

~l in g 4 for hydrodynamic loads CES## '

~

(time history analysis) 4 y and normal and other

g loads (static analysis) making up the load 1 combinations shall be il performed for be most

a highly loaded segment of the torus, including 4

7 the shell, ring,

,j girders, and support.

i .,cf :e

)y b. Evaluation of overall /. 666 gc 5 q effects of seismic and W ~

~.']_ Z-]. g.g g,,jg fj

-. _=. Y j;

j other nonsymmetric loads shall be provided 3,ggg f y 1 using beam models (of I at least 180* of the

~

torus including columns

~

and seismic restraints) by use of either 1 dynamic load factors or j time history analysis.

! 3 l c. Provide a non-linear

,f

- time history analysis, E using a spring mass I

model of torus an1

. support if not tensile

i forces are produced in columns due to upward phase of loading. ,

d. Bijlaard formulas shall be used in analyzing

/ - - -

i each torus nozzle for l

effect of reactions produced by attached j, piping. If Bijlaard

1 . formulas are not l

{ -

jl 1

,, ,- -w NRC C:ntract N D. NRC-03-81-130

[UdU Franklin R:se rch Ccnt:r FRC Pr ject No. C5506 FRC Aasignment * / 2-Pago A Demon of Ths Fernkhn Institut2 20th and Race Streets. Phila . Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRCTask No. 3 .

'? 3' 3 /[

PlantName DRESOE~^J UtJB Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of MarkiContainment Long-Term Program Criteria Licensee Uses Section Key items Considered Addtl. Alternate Approach No. {2) in tM Audit Not Info. NA' Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vative vative g 6.4 wt. )

,, applicable for any nozzle, finite element analysis shall be performed.

$ 6.5 In analysis of the vent system (including vent T penetration in drywell,

,{

vent pipes, ring header, downcomers and their T

intersections, vent column d

e supports, vent-torus a

bellows, vacuum breaker penetration, and the vent deflectors), the following guidelines shall be followed:

7 h a. Finite element model shall represent the -

most highly loaded portion of ring header shell in the "non-vent"

__ bay with the downcomers

, attached . -

b. Finite element analysis shall be performed to I evaluate local effects in the ring header shell and downcomer intersections. Use time history analysis for pool swell transient and

~

equivalent static analysis for downcomer

• lateral loads.

( .

, r

fn ?f RC C:ntract . .:. ~1..:. ..

Nhr:nklin R:se:rch Centir FRC Mpc' ?!o. C-~; - - Page A Dmsson of Tha Frankhn Instituts FRC Asaignm: miso. /4-20th and Race Streets. Phila . Pa 19103 1215) 448-1000 FRC Task No. 3 ~~.J-

. , . , /$

Plant Name CRE.SCE"!.) 'J/J/ 'S . O@ >

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program

~

Criteria Licensee uses Section Keyitems Considered Addtl. Alternate Approach

t. N3.[2] Not info. NA' Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- yative Unconser-vative

g 6.5 (Cont.)

. c. Evaluation of overall effects of seismic and other nonsymmetrical loads shall be provided using beam models (of k at least 180' of the vent system including

{ vent pipes, ring header 1 and column supports) by the use of either T

'Y"**** * ** **** '

g time history analysis.

d. Use, beam models in

/

analysis of vent deflectors.

ggc g

'q= e. Consider appropriate 15 IWL-U D E D s' superposition of jg g g , ,_ .

g g, reactions from the vent ,

ig deflectors and ring

[ headers in evaluating the vent support

_ _ _ columns for pool swell.

6.6 a. Analysis of torus internals shall include I the catwalks with I supports, monorails, and miscellaneous internal piping. -

b. It shall be based on ,

l hand calculations or simple beam models and _.

dynamic load factors and equivalent static analysis.

4

1. NRC Contract N3. NRC-03-81 130 l Uhh nklin R: search Ccnter FRC Project N3. C5506 Pagn A Dimeon of The Frankim lnsatut2 FRC A signm:nt N2j/Z /gi 20th and Race Streets. Phila . Pa 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 3 Zw ._

i Plant Name D465CEA) * ) ///3 E..? 3 Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Accootance Criteria of Mark iContainment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl. Alternate Approach N3.[2] Not Info. NA ' Remarks Met Pat Reqd. Consor. Unconsor.

vative vative 6.6 (Cont.)

g

c. It shall consider

/

l. Service 14 vel D or E when specified by the structural acceptance criteria using a i simplified nonlinear analysis technique p (e.g. , Bigg 's Me thod) . .

6.7 Analysis of the torus y attached piping shall be performed as follows: , gggg 'S

a. Designate in the

/ SEE REGP21 JST W VOT'E p; .gg g* L' S y summary technical g ,

,a report submitted all

' ~

piping systems as "g' essential or J non-essential for each load combination. -

b. Analytical model shall represent piping and

, _. supports from torus to first rigid anchor (or -

where effect of torus motion is insignificant) .

c. Use response spectrum or time history .

analysis for dynamic effect of torus motion '

I at the attachment  !

point, except for ~

piping systems less

, than 6" in diameter, k;

for which equivalent l

l static analysis (using appropriate j

amplification factor) i may be performed.

I

1. A N RC Ccntract N 3. N RC-03-81-130 d

I bu Fr:nklin Ecse:rch Ccnter FRC Pr ject N3. C5506 Pags A Division of Th2 Frankhn Instruti FBC As:lgnm:nt N3 20th and Race Streets. Phda . Pa 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. SM. */ -/J' ,

JS Plant Name ['l~ E" CE! .J ) K ,,, ! ?

Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program

' t.icensee Uses Section Keyltems Considered Crne a d. Altern e Ap on ~

No. [2] _

NA Remarks Met Met Reqd.

. vative vative g 6.7 (Cont.)

,, d. Ef fact of anchor displacement due to torus motion may be neglected from Equation

} 9 of NC or ND-3652.2 [3]

1 if considered in Equations 10 and 11 of NC or ND-3652.3 [3].

G.8 Safety relief valve 8 g g c p % ._ 3 discharge piping shall be -

gg%gg p,c,3 j analyzed as follows: 4 Rgg.jg c, -w i 3

a. Analyze each discharge v

/ CO W Ext.)

3 line.

J

b. Model shall represent i piping and supports, E from nozzle at main ~

steam line to discharge g in suppression pool, j and include discharge device and its supports.

c. For discharge thrust loads, use time history analysis.

d. Use spectrum analysis or dynamic load factors

/

l for other dynamic loads.

0 i

l 1

L

!, . l l

i I

i

NRC Contract N2. NRC-03-81-130 FRC Project N3. C5506 808 d U Fr nklin R:se rch Center A DMaon of The Franadin Insneuse

• • U" * "I -.

1 20th and Race Seests. Phde.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 p " ," , ,. g , 3 - .p 3 l Table 2-2. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long Term Program i

Analysis Requirements RNINnts {

Structural Element [ III Remarks 5

$M s$ E z- <n$a i a b

3. 'Dorus shell with associated penetrations, reinforcing I rings, and support

. attachments jT b. 'Dorus shell supports to l/ /'/ // l ii the building structure i

4

c. Ventsbetweenthedrhell [ [

and the vent ring header (including penetrations therein) -

l f / / /

d. Region of drywell local to vent penetrations A

5

3. Bellows between vents and [ [ [ [

torus shell (internal or external to torus) - y

/ / / / /-

f. Vent ring header and the 7 / /

downcomers attached to it

/ / l

g. Vent ring neader supports / 7 f f f

_ _ to the torus shell

h. Vacuum breaker valves MA % MA MA MA NA MA NA attached to vent penetra-J tions within the torus I (where applicable) ggg

1. Vacuum breaker piping ,

/ / / f l /AL,VGS /R="g ,,,,,,

systems, including vacuum C W C5 ' ' - '

breaker valves attached '

SCOPF F MI' to torus shell penetrations "fE and to vent penetrations external to the torus *

(where applicable) ,

J. Piping systems, including / / / / /

pumps and valves internal

,to the torus, attached to the torus shell and/or vent penetrations

--_ - --- - _ _ --------- - - - ,, , , , - , _ . - . - . ----.------e ,-..-------..,-.,_-en, ,--,or, y , , _ - ~ , , w- , - , , . , -

NF.C Contmet N3. NRC-03-81-130

! *A FRC Prcject N3. CS506 P ga

' .P. ;. Win Resetrch Ccnter A DMason of The Frankhn Insuruse FRusWee. C g g,.

20th and Race Seests. Phde.. Pa.19103 (21H 4481000 p ' 4

• p gyj y3 3 Table 2-2. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark i Containment Long-Term Program

. Re ONnts Analysis Requirements Structural Element . [ '6I3 Remarks all i li Ll ii! !! 1111

n. All main steam system safety  !

relief valve (SRV) piping I

7 f / / / /

. 1. Applicable portions of the following piping systems:

3 1 (1) Active containment system piping systems v (e.g. , emergency core j cooling system (ECCS) suction piping and

, other piping required 4 to maintain core A cooling after loss-of-coolant i accident (LOCA))

(2) Piping systems which g provide a drywell-to- I g wetwell pressure dif- '

forential (to alleviate -

pool swell effects)

(3) Other piping systems,

~

including vent diains

. c. Supports of piping systems /

/ / / / / / -

mentioned in previous item .

'r I

n. Vent header deflectors / f / / [ .

)

including associated hardware

o. Internal structural [ / / / l l l-

.. elements (e.g., monorails, catwalks, their supports)

' whose failure might impair -

~~

, the containment function

,g-p was8 l

. . _ ,.. , ._ _ __.._ _l

TER-C5506-324 Table 2-3. Non-Piping Structural Elements .

c-STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ROW External Class MC g

Torus, Bellows, 1 External Vent Pipe, Drywell (at Vent),

^*

Attachment Welds,

- Torus Supports, Seismic Restraints T

Internals Vent Pipe General and 2 Attachment Welds

, At Penetration 3

% (e.g., Header) a Vent Ring Header General and 4 Attachment Welds At Penetrations 5 (e.g., Downcomers)

Downcomers

~

~'

' General and 6 -

Attachment Welds .

Internals Supports 7 i

h Internals Structures

g. General 8 Vent Deflector 9 I

1. __

L I

.c

a .

TER-C5506-324 Table 2-4. Piping Structural Elements r

L-STRUCTURAL ELEMENP ROW Essential Piping Systems

( With IBA/DBA 10 g With SBA 11

~

Nonessential Piping Systems IS With IBA/DBA 12 i5 With SBA 13

3 A

id

a 5 .

'S$

I f .

\V -

O em 4

b il ii

. ~24-

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

I l

l' TER-C5506-324 NorES RELATED TO TABLES 2-1 AND 2-2 i

g.

NOTE 1: The Licensee has not provided information on the analysis of the vacuum breaker piping systems and the vacuum breaker valves attached to vent penetrations within the torus, and has not indicated that these are Class 2 components. (The Licensee's response has resolved ,

L this concern.)  !

,j NOTE 2: The Licensee has not provided information indicating whether the

~

piping and its supports have been classified as essential or nonessential piping systems. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

3 d NorE 3: The Licensee should justify the reasons for not considering a 180*

beam model of the torus including columns, saddles, and seismic restraints in order to determine the effects of nonsymmetric loads I such as SRV and chugging for Dresden Units 2 and 3. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

'P NOTE 4: In Sections 5-3.3 and 5-4.3 of the PUA report [8], the Licensee has used the AISC code in place of ASME Section III, Division I, Subsection NF for Class 2 or 3 SRVDL vent line supports. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

) NOTE 5: The Licensee has not provided calculations demonstrating conformance to the 10% rule of Section 6-3.1 [2] for piping systems in Dresden '

Units 2 and 3 that were exempted from analysis because of the 10%

rule. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

< NOTE 6: Table 2-2.5-3 of Reference 8 indicates that the calculated values of certain stresses are close to the respective allowables. The i

m. Licensee should indicate the conservatisms in the analysis to show that these calculated values would not be exceeded if a different -

," analytical approach were to be used. (The Licensee's response has

_ resolved this concern.)

is t

O

<e 4

l l

i f l , _ . . . . . _ . . _ - . . __

TER-C550 6-324

3. REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A -

w

1. NUREG-0661

" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

[ USNRC July 1980

2. NEDO-24583-1

" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co. , San Jose, CA

d October 1979

-] 3. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1 1

" Nuclear Power Plant Components" t New York: 1977 Edition and Addenda up to Summer 1977 f

4. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

~I 5. NEDO-21888 Revision 2

" Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" General Electric Co. , San Jose, CA

.T November 1981 1 -

6. NRC -

g " Damping values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants"

-Q Cctober 1973 Regulatory Guicle 1.61

' r, . - .

'I 7. P. M. Kasik -

I Mark I Piping Fatigue, " Presentation at the NRC meeting, Bethesda, MD September 10, 1982 f 8. Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3 Plant Unique Analysis Report volumes 1, 2, 3, 4,'5, 6, and 7 - Revision 0 Commonwealth Edison Company May 1983 ,

i O #

J ._

a-APPENDIX B k

r: ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 4

4 r

IT I

r. ,:

.L 3

4 r! '

l I1_ . -

a r

r- .

f l, _.

L

-1 I ~ '

FRANKUN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISION OF ARVIN/CALSPAN 20th & RACE STREETS, PHILADELPHIA,PA 19103 f

.i

- TER-C5506-324 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

. r L-Item 1: Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to the vacuum breaker piping systems and the vacuum breaker valves; indicate whether they are considered Class 2 components as required by the criteria [1] .

k Item 2: Provide a list indicating whether all the piping systems and their supports have been classified as essential or non-essential piping

systems.

A Item 3: Provide and justify the reasons for not considering a 180* beam model

'y of the torus including columns, saddles, and seismic restraints in

order to determine the effects of nonsymmetric loads such as SRV and a chugging for Dresden Units 2 and 3.

I Item 4: With respect to Sections 5-3.3 and 5-4.3 of the PUA report [2], show I that SRV discharge line support stresses due to extreme environmental and emergency conditions do not exceed the Service Level C and D 7 Limits specified in the ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Division I, j Subsection NF for Class 2 or 3 linear supports.

Item 5: Provide calculations demonstrating conformance to the 10% rule of Section 6-3.1 [1] for piping systems in Dresden Units 2 and 3 that were exempted from analysis because of the 10% rule.

}a Item 6: Tables 2-2.5-3 of Reference 2 indicates that the calculated values of certain stresses are close to the respective allowables. Indicate conservatisms in the analysis to show that these calculated values -

would not be exceeded if a different analytical approach were to be used.

~

hm

• 1

, F l

~

1 owe l

1

TER-C5506-324 i REFERENCES l, c-

~

1. NEDO-24583-1

" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide

• General Electric Co., San Jose, CA L October 1979 3 2. Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3

." Plant Unique Analysis Report Volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 - Revision 0

, Commonwealth Edison Company

• May 1983 1

1 I .

T r

1 e Y l .

3.

a a O

I e

i O we M WP

't

- - - n -- -

m o

a.-

6 APPENDIX C g

- TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE USE OF THE CMDOF PROGRAM IN THE MARK I TORUS ATTACHED PIPING ANALYSIS Y

L A

T T

1 Y

k o

3. . .

r

'I O

9 6

m-F FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER DIVISION OF ARVIN/CALSPAN 20th & RACE STREETS. PHILADELPHIA.PA 19103

c-l 1

b J

F TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE USE OF THE CMDOF PRCGRAM IN THE MARK I TORUS ATTACHED PIPING ANALYSIS l

L, 1

1*

BY I

V. N. Con A. A. Okaily I

1 -

FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19103

.e__

April 1985 t

f O

6 k

i

\ -

1 f

+ - , , , , - - . . ~ .

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

r +

L e t

1. Background Information The purpose of this report is to ' provide assessments and to document if activities associated with the computer program CMDOF (Coupling of fultiple Degrees of Freedom) which was used by the NUTECH technical staff to-qualify the Mark I torus attached piping systems in a number of nuclear power plants.

This program was originally developed by Dr. R. P. Kennedy [1] of Structural

!! Mechanics Associates and modified by NUTECH technical staf f to establish the

'k stress level of the torus attached piping under various hydrodynamic loading p conditions associated with the Mark I structural evaluation program. In the lo course of reviewing the analytical procedures for stress calculations of the torus attached piping systems, Franklin Research Center (FRC) staff raised

{ concerns associated with the verification of this program, which will be summarizec in the next section ot this report. A meeting was held with the NUTECH technical staff and a number of affected utilities on August 9 anc 10, 1984 to discuss a number of technical issues related to this program. As a

'I result of this meeting, a number of action items were requestec from the

~

affectec utilities, to which the NUTECH technical staff responded (2). The

.i reviews of NUTECH responses indicated that the main concern, which is the i validation of the program, remained unresolved. A report was then prepared and submitted to the NRC by FRC [3] to provide the review status of this i

program and highlight areas of concern associated with the use of this

! program.

A subsequent meeting was held on Jacuary 4, 1985 with the NUTECH

._. technical staff, Dr. R. P. Kennedy of Struccaral Mechanics Associates, and i representatives of the Mark I owner group and a number of utility companies.

In this meeting, Dr. Kennedy provided an overview of the technical background 7

of this program. It was also learned that the Bechtel Power Corporation attempted to verify the program by comparing' the results obtained by the program with those obtaihed from a combined . torus / piping model. However, oue to numerical instabilities of the combined, torus / piping model, this attempt was not successful. At the end of this meeting, it was obvious that FRC's

~~

concerns were not resolved and the affected licensees expressed their

opposition to perform further investigations regarding the program e

• J C-1

-tr+ m m-gr-- w - > y -,-.m- e p- - > e - --pr -y-y +wv- - - W-*- - -

• -w----w

- e verification. However, it was learned later that the Monticello plant selected some in-plant test data (SRV ,in-plant test data) to verify the program. The results of this study were submitted for review [4). .FRC review of this latest document is given in Section 4 of this report. [.

2. Technical Background of the CMDOF Program The standard practice for performing dynamic analysis of the torus ano attached piping systems is to perform independent uncoupled dynamic analysis of the torus and of the attached piping. First, the torus model is developeo

. and a dynamic analysis of the torus subjected to the postulated hydrodynamic load is performed using this uncouplea model. The response time nistory at j the penetration point of the attached piping is obtained. Then this response time history is used in conjunction with the uncoupled cynamic model of the y

g attached piping to calculate piping responses. h is approach is known as an uncoupled analysis because the dynamic model of the torus and the attached piping are never directly coupleo. It has been recognized that this approach results in a conservative estimate of the piping responses.

The other acceptable approach is to carry out a coupled analysis in which the torus and associated piping are combined in a single coupled model. The model is fairly complicated and also results in high computational cost, ,

especially when a significant number of loacing time histories have to be .

considered. Derefore, this coupled analysis does not represent an attractive I alternative. In fact, none of the Mark I facility resorts to this approach.

}~~

The CMDOF program was developed to take into account the coupling ef fects ,

without carrying out the coupled analysis described above. Essentially, this program is used to modify the response time history obtained from the 7

I uncoupled torus model at the penetration point of the attached piping ano this modified time history is then used to obtain the piping response of the uncoupled piping model. In order to use this program, the modal response characteristics of the torus and attached piping have to be established first by applying an unit force at the attachment location. These modal r,esponse characteristics along with the uncoupled response time history of the torus at

• the penetration point will be input into the CMDOF program, which will produce l

l

{

C-2

a modified response time history to be used in obtaining the piping response.

This program, in principle, is supposed to remove the conservatism associated with the uncoupled analysis.

3. Concerns Associated with the CMDOF Program

Based on the review of pipe stresses obtained via this program and other information relating to this program, FRC staff raised a number of questions in connection with the validation of this program [3] . A program of this r nature requires a substantial validation effort in order to use it in a i production mode. Also, this program is relatively new and the originator of the program cautioned:

7 1 "It has been carefully programmed and checked against a number of test cases by comparing its results for coupled response with those obtained from coupled structure and equipment analyses. However, it has not been I used to date (April,1980) by other than the authors. It is not a production program which can be used as a " black box". Users shoulo y independently verify their own use of the program and understand its

{ basis and applicability before using it in a production mode." [1]

FRC's concerns are briefly summarized below:

o The verification problems provided were extremely simple compared with the problem of the torus and attached piping. Basically, the

verification problem consists of a spring-mass system with a few degrees of f reedom.

o The parameters (mass and stiffness) given in the verification .

problems did not resemble a wide range of values (mass and stiffness) encountered in the actual problem.

5 o Based on some study by NUTECH [4 ) , it was observed that the CMDOF 3~~ could reduce the input loading to the attached piping by as much as 3 ,

or 4 times when compared with a standard uncoupled analysis.

_[ o Calculated stresses of the affected piping systems in a number of plants in some cases were closed or equal to the stress allowables.

E

4. Review of CMDOF Ver ffication In-plant SRV tests performed at the Monticello plant in 1980 were used as a basis for verification of the CMDOF program. Test data f rom five, tests were selected for comparison. Specifically, data from strain gauges located on the i,

9 #

l C-3 l

)

- e i

RCIC turbine exhaust line (RS3-8 in-HE) approximately 1 foot and 20 feet f rom i the torus penetration, as shown in Figure 1, were used for comparison. The tests were conducted by actuating one safety relief valve under cold pipe and

~

normal water leg conditions with a reactor power level of 80%. Pldhsof strain time histories were recorded during each test and were compared directly with the predicted values obtained by the CMODF program.

With regard to load development, two programs (GE computer codes RVFORO4 k

and QBUBSO3) were used to develop the SRV torus shell pressure time histories 4 corresponding to the test case conditions (i.e., cold pipe, normal water leg, a reactor at 80% rated power). With respect to the torus and piping structural

, models, the Licensee indicated that these models were developed to reflect the as-tested condition.

The CMDOF program was used in conjunction with the modal characteristics I of the torus and attached piping to obtain the modified responses at the

, attachment location to the test SRV loacings. Displacement, velocity, and S

} acceleration responses were developed at all piping degrees of freedom coupled to the torus. From these responses, a modal superposition was employed in 1

j conjunction with transfer junction methodology to obtain stress time histories at the strain gauge locations of interest for comparison with the test results.

T j The Monticello SRV test strain gauge data (converted to stress) were compared with the predicted stresses obtained by the CMDOF program. The responses on the time domain and frequency domain (by Fourier transformation) 6t strain gauge locations were compared with those obtained by the analysis.

In addition, the maximum stress values were used in the comparison. The

}~~

results indicated that a factor of conservatism is excess of 3 was observec in the analysis.

7 I

Based on FRC's review of various stress- time histories and the maximum stress level of the test-data and analysis, it is observed that there is conservatism associated with the analytical procedures. This conservatism could be attributed to the following sources: methodology by which loads were generated, low damping values used in the analysis, possible nonlindarity resulting from pipe supports. The comparison between the test and predicted O #

C-4 s

l e

9 TORW% %Mst.L PENETRATICN X-112 i \

s Ap ptptus Moost. CoutwuGD L> To Pup 4O L AY *

!  % 2'lic m .) -

T \

1 LaaEwe T

j =

4 TRAIN deMireE. L.CCATichi T

} I i a 5

av[ it ila -

," ! 'll i S(n 25 "?"I k"(TYP.)

• T g

l "I#

l g.28 ~

f%40 4(n-27 STRMN (mAU(mE% S(s Si ,

4 McES EG.-SPAC.E.D SE.CTION A-A secTioN s.6 t

I Figure 1. Strain Gauge Locations on ICIC Turbine Exnaust Line e

I e .*

C-5 i

l

I *

! A l'

values incicated that there is conservatism associated with the analytical

{

procedures, which provides a basis for, alleviating the concerns related to some calculated stress values presented in the Licensee's original submittals,

i.  :-

w REFERENCES

1. Kennedy, R. P. and Kincaid, R. H., "CMDOF - A Computer Program to Couple k the Response of Structures and Supported Equipment for Multiple Degrees of Coupling Using the Results from Uncoupled Structure and Equipment y Analysis," SMA 12101.03, Structural Mechanics Associates, Inc. , Newport

Beach, California, November 1980 g 2. R. W. M&,aughy (Iowa Electric Light and Power Company)

Letter with Attachments to H. Denton (NIC)

Subject:

Clarifications Regarding the Duane Arnold Energy Center Plant Unique Analysis Report, Mark I Containment Program, NG-84-3937 i September 17, 1984

.1

3. Con, V. N., " Review of the Computer Code CMDOF (Coupling of Multiple rf Degrees cf Freedom," Franklin Research Center, October 1984

!?

u

4. D. Musolf (Northern States Power Company)

Letter with Attachments to H. Denton (NIC)

Subject:

Accitional Information Related to Computer Program CMDOF u February 25, 1985 E

7 __ _

• t r

5W 8

==

I e .mo C-6

_,