Latest revision as of 03:33, 7 January 2025

Text

Forwards Response to 840726 Request for Addl Info Re Mark I Containment long-term Program plant-unique Analysis Rept
	ML18029A183
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	10/11/1984
From:	Mills L; TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:	Harold Denton; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	NUDOCS 8410240289
	Download: ML18029A183 (102)
	v • d • e

REGULATORY l rORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYS M (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR;8410240289 DOCiDATE! 84/10/11 NOTARIZED:

YES FACIL;50-259 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Stationi Unit ii. Tennessee 50 260 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Stationi Unit 2i Tennessee

'50 296 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Stationi Unit 3<

Tennessee AUTH'AME AUTHOR AFFILIATION MILLsiL,M, Tennessee Valley Authority RECIP ~ NAME'ECIPIENT AFFILIATION DENTONgH ~

RE

'ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulationp Director

SUBJECT:

Forwards response to 840726 request for addi info =re Mark I containm nt ion ter program plant-unique analysi-s r ept-,

DISTRIBUTION CO:

A02 'PIES RECEIVED!LTR f ENCL 3 SIZE:

TITLE:

OR Submi tal:

USI A"7 Mark I Containment NOTES:NMSS/FCAF 1cy ~ icy NMSS/FCAF/PM'Le06/26/73 NMSS/FCAF icy'cy NMSS/FCAF/PM'L:06/28/74 NMSS/FCAF,icy, 1cy NMSS/FCAF/PM'L:07/02/76 DOCKET tt 05000259 05000260 05000296 05000259 05000260 05000296 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME NRR ORB2 BC 01 INTERNALe ADM/LFMB ELD/HDS4 13 NRR. SIEGELIB NRR/DE/MTEB NRR/DL/TAPMG Q4 COPIES LTTR ENCL Q

1 0

5 5

1 1

REC IPIENT ID CODE/NAME EDO NRR DIR NRR/DE/MEB NRR/DL/ORAB 10 NRR/DS I/CSB 11 RGN2 COPIES LTTR ENCL-1 0

1 0

4 4

1 1

EXTERNAL; ACRS NRC PDR NTIs NDTEs:

12 10 3

02.

1 1

LPDR NSIC 03 05 1

1 1

'TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:'TTR 39 ENCL 24

n

~

I l(

TENNESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 87401 400 Chestnut Street Tower II October 11, 1984

~!

Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

In the Matter of the Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos. 50-259 50-260 50-296 By letter from D. B. Vassallo to H. G. Parris dated July 26,

1984, we received a request for additional information regarding the Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) for the Br owns Fevry Nuclear Plant.

In response to your request, meetings were conducted at TVA's offices in Knoxville, Tennessee, on September 5 and 13, 1984.

Enclosed are the responses to the request for additional information.

The enclosure reflects discussions that weve held with your staff after the.

meetings.

Based on discussions with your staff, we believe that the responses provided here are acceptable for resolution of your staff's concerns.

If you have any questions, please get in touch with us through the Browns Ferry Project Manager.

Very truly -yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY L. M. Mills, Ma ager Nuclear Licensing Subscribe sworn to fo e me 'this da o

1984.

otary Public My Commission Expires Enclosure cc:

See page 2

84i0240289 84iOii PDR ADGCK 05000259 P

PDR An Equal Opportunity Employer

c~q

'V Vj I

Cg (J

Mr. Harold R. Denton N

October 11, 1984 co (Enclosure):

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II ATTN:

James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. R. J. Clark Browns Ferry Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

~

~a 1

ENCLOSURE

RESPONSE

TO D. B. VASSALLO'S LETTER TO H. G.

PARRIS DATED JULY 26, 1984 MARK I CONTAINMENT LONG-TERM PROGRAM PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT LOADS EVALUATION BROMNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT Attachment 1 - Responses to Franklin Research Center Questions Attachment 2 - Responses to Brookhayen National Laboratory Questions

~ WP

~ '

ATTACHMENT I BFN PUAR FINAL T.VA RESPONSES IO NRC'ND'RANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER QUESTIONS.

Genera 1 Response to PUAR Ques t i ons BFN LTP analysis and design activity has proceeded on a

schedu l.e necessary to suppor t i'nsta 1 la t ion of a l,l mod i ficat ions dur iing the Cycle 4 and 5 refuel ing outages of each unit, as required by NRC.

The

..first BFN Cycle 4

refueling outage began in Apr i 1

1981, and most of.

the major mod i f icat:ion designs were complete by May 1981.

Remaining mod i f ica t ion designs, pr imari ly for torus at tached pip ing external supports were complete in, time to support installation during the Cycle 5 refueling outages.

In order to satisfy schedule commitments, it was necessary to make interpretations of LDR 'and NUREG 0661 requirements based upon the 'best available information ~at the time of analysis Most of the interpre.tat'ions ivere originally established in 1979 and early 1980.

A continuing effort to remove excessive conservatism from load definiitions and analysis method.

was made, particularly when that conservatism would result in unnecessary, impractical modifications.

When la ter analysis me prev'ious in for reanaly

.unconservat For example resulted fr oscillation in forma t iion on load de fin i t ions and assoc ia ted thods became available, it~ was compared to the ter pretations.

The later information was used s is and assoc ia ted des ign work if a s igni fican t ism in the previous interpretation was indicated.

the fina1 downcomer t iebar/v-brac ing mod i f ica t iion orn November 1981 changes in the DBA condensa't ion

'a tera 1

load de fin ii t ion.

Sometime:s, la ter information was used to remove excessive conserva t ism in rema in ing analysis and des ign work.

For

example, the:l.

1 SRSS load combination technique was permit ted for.torus at tached piip ing ana)lysis af ter NRC's final po:sit ion on this subject was def ined in April 1983 by PUAR Reference 58.

An absolute sutrsm<t ion combination technique was required pr ior to t,hat t irne.

Finally, when the later information showed the previous load definitions and analysis methods to be adequately (but not excessively) conservative, the original interpretations'ere retained.

In these siituations reanalysis utiliz'ing th'

'later information would have been unnecessary and costly,

and, in some

cases, would have resulted in delays in th' installation of modifiic'ations.

Many of the E>UAR questions der ive from:si t uat original inte rpretations stated in PUAR Sect i for analys is.

Justi f iicat ion for these interp provided in E~UAR Section 4,

Sec ti,on 5, and Ap Addi t ional technical

.just ifica t ion follows in to specific questions on these topics.

Other simply request additional information, whiich the respon,ses.

ions where the on 4 wer e

'used'etationswas pendix C.

the responses'UARques'tions is provide'd in GR-1 PUAR.04

I t is TVA's posi t ion that the BFN PUAR (Revis ion 1')

and our review quest ion responses demonstrate compliance with the intent of the Mark '1 Conta inment Long-Term Program and NUREG 0661

( i.e.,

to upgrade the containment system safety margins, for 'a 1 1 pos tu la ted hydrodynamic load i ng. cond i t ions, to those intended by the or iginal design speci f ica t ions).

On this

basis, we feel that all indicated safety concerns are fully and sa t is factor i ly addressed, and we respec t fu 1 ly r eques t a

favorab le final evaluat ion for the BFN LTP..

GR-2 PUAR.04

tTEM Provide a more deta i led'escr ip t ion of the vent,system ana lys is regard ing downc'orner 1'a tera 1 'loads (Sec t ioii 4.4.5 (5))

0

RESPONSE

As descr.ibed in tihe LDR, the condensation osci llation lateral load

'is simulated foreach downcomer pair by adding, a di fferent ia 1 pressure for one downcomer to t'e intern'al'ressure, tha t occurs, in both downcomer.,

thereby produ'cfog higher load in one downcomer than in t'e other,.

Thus, fr om Figure'.4'.3.4 of'he LDR,,

a darkened downcomer indicates that: thIe differential. and internal pressures are work ing s iniu 1 taneI~us ly, wherea.

the o ther downcome r only exper iences the in terna.l pressure.

A 45o beam model, Figure 6-2,,'ra0 uised to 'analyze both IBA CO and DBA CO.

Based on the primaryowncomer swing frequency extracted from a modal analysis of the system, sinusoidial

'orc ing functions were appl i ed 'o'he'owncomer pair s consider ing the load cases def iine'd by Figure 4.4 3-3 in the LDR.,Since the primary swing rood'e foII the BFN System occurs in the 8

Hz, range the 1st,

2nd, an8

!hard harmonics were addressed by sinusoidal functions in the 4, 8,

and 12 Hz

ranges, respectively.

An added c'on'servatism in the BFN analysis was the hppl ication of the first harmonic forces to the coincident

& Hz swing frequency.

The response of <<he system to this-single i'requency'oad enveloped responses from the sum of 'the three harmonics defined by the LDR.

Also, the first harmonic force.,ampl i tudes were applied with 16 and 24 Hz sinusoidal functions to verify that higher frequency responses do not in>pact tYie total CO respon'se.

In fact, 30 individual si~usoidal functions were applied for each load case to account, for poten t ia 1 harmonics a't the 1/2, 1, l-l/2.,

2, andI 2-1/2 ha rmon ics of the s ix d i sc ree t p r ima ry swing mode frequencies in the 8

to 9

Hz range.

The BFN vent system was analyze'd'foir the fou'r itn it ia1 d i fferen t ia I pressure ca,sea spec'i fi ed by a May 1981 dra'f t of LDR Section 4.4.3.

(See PUAR Figute 6-12.) Subsequently, four add'i t iona 1 mi r ror image ca'ses

>vet e in'eluded in the fical CO latera,!

load definit ion.

Evaluation of both the ir. it ia1 f'our cases and theiir four mirror images demonstrated FRC'-l PUAR.04

t tha t Load Case 1 is control.l i.ng and addi t ional r igorous analysis of the mirror images was unnecessary.

(See response to BNL Item 11 for further discuss ion. )

The DBA CO downcomer la tera 1

load ef fec ts were combined with DBA CQ fluid drag loads and other loads in the controlling load comb ina t ions and eva lua ted to the govern ing stress levels.

The chugging la tera 1

loads were calcu la ted in accordance with the LDR and NUREG 0661, us ing fr equenc ies from the modal analyses per formed'. on the 45 and 180 vent system beam models.

These loads were appl ied to s'ingle downcomer s chuggingexclus,ively and to mu 1 t ip le downcomers chugging synchronously.

The 45o beam model (PUAR Figure 6-2) was used for analysis of single downcomer chugging lateral'.

loads, and'he 180 beam model (PUAR Figure.6-3) was used for analysis of downcomer synchronous chugging la terai loads.

The r esu 1 t ing e ffec ts were then comb ined wi th other

loads, including chugging fluid drag loads on the tiebars and v-bracing for stress, and fatigue evaluation of the entire vent system.

Stresses were determined by applying appropriate intensi-fication factors at intersections and by direct application of loads to finite. element models shown on PUAR Figures 6-5, 6-7, and 6-11.

~ 1

'I

.I I

~ ~

k ~

FRC 1-2 PUAR.04

ITEM.. 2 I Provide. the Physical detafi ls of 'the sei'smic lugs. that restrain

.the. torus against hor izon tal seismic rrot ion yet

'a 1

1 ow therma 1

g row th;

RESPONSE

The er ec t ion drawing for. the seismic 'lu'gs's PDM-'E12.

,Fabrica t ion de ta i ls. foi the cohyon@n ts are shown on PIM drawing 41.

(Copies of the"draw~inps are avai lable for

.rev iew." )

FRC 2-jl'URR 04

ITEM 3:

Indicate how the ring girders were analyzed for loads from attached internal structures.

Any, dynamic load factors that may. have been used in the analysis must be provided and justified.

RESPONSE

The effects of the large'r systems on the ring girder and other portions of the torus were considered as follows:

header pool swell impact.were corisidered directly, as described in Sec'tion 5.4;2.7 of. the PUAR.

In addition, the vent system masses were included in the dynamic

'22-1/2o torus model, so tha.t the mass times acceleration

(rigid body) inertial effects were, developed for al,l dynamic loads.

'2.

ECCS Header:

The torus cradle stresses due to the react loads at the ECCS h'seder supports were added to the stress intensities i'n tha't region for the torus model, without exceeding,al lowables.

The mass of the ECCS was also included in the dynamic torus model.

Thus, the rigid 'body por.tion of the ECCS header support reactions were conservatively included twice.

3.

HPCI and RHR:

The masses of these systems were also included in the dynami'c

- torus model.

The other

'systems were judged not to a'f feet overal:1 torus

behavior, but to produce only local'ized.'f fects.

Suppor't connections to the ring. gird'er were heavi ly reinforced.

The line-of-action.of p'ipe bracing members was applied near the base of the ring.girder 'to el'iminate any signi fica'nt overturning tendency.

For example,

.see PUAR Appendix G

Plates 18 and 21.

Addi t.iona 1 ly, 'the support system for S/RV discharge lines and quenchers includes a 15-inch x 15-,inch box-beam which forms:a:continuous ring, inside the torus and

..preven,ts any possibi.'lity.of overturning

.each ring, girder in the region 'of,attachment.

The main suppor,t members for the

,catwa'lk perform a similar function at, each ring girder.

'See PUAR Plates 12, 13, 26, and 27.

Local accelerati'on response spectra for.each dynamic load were defined at, each ring girder attachment point.,'he attached piping systems and s'tructures were analyzed for these input.spectra and assoc.iated.

displacements.

FRC 3-1 PUARe04

Reactions were calculated from the piping analyses per Sections 7 and 8 of the PUAR',

and fior the catwalk per Section 9.

The local reinEorcement was designed for these r eact ion<<.

The lc>cal ized stresses transmi t ted to the r ing

'irder were. limited to 3 ksi.

Whlen combined with the general ring girder stresses, rio allowables were exceeded.

FRC 3-l?

PUAR. 0 4

Wi th respect to the 22-1/2o torus model ment ioned in Sect ion 5.4.1.1 of the PUAR (5),

the boundary condi t ions ar e based on the assump.t ion that al 1 loads are appl i ed equal ly to each of the 16 segments.

However, the saf'ety-relief valve and chugging loads are asynmetrical.

Justify the use of a 22-1/2 model to evaluate the torus for S/RV and chugging instead of the 180o model required by the criteria (1).

RESPONSE

The following, po.ints perta:in.:

1.

Synxnetric loading, for S/RV and chugging, is certainly bounding for cradle.

loads just from the point of view of the magnitude of the ne.t applied load.

2.

Shell'esponses are primarily a localized phenomenon.

They can be affec.ted by ring girder oval.ling, but this too is related to the, ne,t

load, and so would be more severe for syranetric loads.

3'.

The BFN: t.orus. support system, inhibits asymmetric response.

The development of asyrrmetric modes would t'equire 1'ongitudinal mot,ion, of the torus, which is prevented by the, se.ismi,c. lugs.

It would also require radial movement of the, ring girders which is prevented by the torus snubbers (PUAR Plate 1'),.

Friction at the cradle support pads, would, also, inhibit any tendency for asymme tr-ic response.

I f s igni ficant asymmetr ic response could develop, i t would have been present in the single-and mul't I-valve AS/RV tests, None. was egident, aqd analysis results based on. synmetrl'c.

1'oading boundary cond,itions were shown to be conservative (PUAR Appendix 'C).

Finally, if is important to recognize that Section' of the PUAAG (Refer nce (I) of the questions) is not a criteria.

It is

-a guideline for analysis methods.

FRC 4-1 PUAR. 04

ITEiE 5:

Figure 5-6 in the PtJAR (5),

whiichi depicts the 180o model of. the toius, shows only the lowe.r half of the torus shell.

lndica te whether

.the model inc Iludes the torus supp5)r ts.

II

RESPONSE

Figure '5 -6.of the PUAR depicts

.only the lowe;r. ha'1 f of the',

180o model for clarity.

The actual model includes the upper and lower halves.

Al,jl supports are included (i.e.,

the torus snubber s, seismIic

lugs, and, the suppor t'ad-t iedown sys tern).

FRC 5-1 P.VAR., 04 0

Since NRC Regula'tory 'Guide 'I.'6'I "(I4) deal's with dampi'ng values fo'r the.seismic design..of, structures, expla in how this. Regula'tory Gu.ide val'idates th'e use of 4 percent damping for the '0.'0 AP pool'well analysis of 'the torus:(S'ection

'5..4.2'.7 (5) ).

RESPONSE

The use of 'NRC Regu'I'a tory. 'Gu'i de I-.'61 damp i'ng was accep ted for ana:lys;i's, by Section 4.4.2 of NUREG 066;l.,

and the 0.'0 hP pool swel'I "case

'was designa'ted as a 'Servi'ce Level D

condi't ion by Sec:t'ion '4.3.3.1 of 'NUREG '0661.

Regulatory Guide '1.61 spec'i'f ies 4 percent damping.for 'welde'd steel

'structures, under.'SE;loadi'ng" which: is'ormal'ly associat'ed

.with Servi'ce Leve'ls C..and D condi't.ions.

'The:torus and vent

system'are

'welded steel s'tructures.

'Two perce'nt damp:ing was "conserva't.'ively used for BFN vent system '0.0. A'P 'pool -swe'I'I 'aInEa'I'ys'is.

'Fo'ur percent

.damping was used 'for the 'torus,.

Th'is "a's"sump't'ion i'n comb:i;n'a't'ion wi'th the overa I:In'a'I'ys is me'thod <produ'eed

'a r ea'sonab'ly conser vat ive dynami'c re'sponse

'.p'red'ic't i'o'n;:BNL I'tems 'I "th'rough 4 provide addi,t:i'ona:I informa.t'ion on 't'e BFN poo'I 'sw'e'll analysis

- me,thod.

Final I'y,

'i t 'is noteNoIrIthy t'h'at two per'cen't

'damp'i'ng was con'ser vat ively assumed:

fo'r.al I S'erv'i'ce Le'yel 'C I'oad

, comb:ination 'toru's a'nd. v'en't 'syem analyses, to 'reduce the

~

numb'er of c'ases:fo'r ana'lys'is;.

Fou> pere'ent damp i'ng, 'is cons'i'dere'd just i"fi'able for the.Service Lev'el

'C "a'nd D-load

~ 'combinati'ons on th'e basi's -'of Regulatory Gu 1'de I.61..

FRC 6-1 PUAR.04

Ni th respect to Section. 5.4.2.11 of the PUAR (5), provide the technical basis and just i fi'ca't ion for consider ing the forcing functions from 0

t~) 30 Hz ihstehd 'of the ful 1 0 to 50 Hz for post-,chug analysis of the torus.

RESPONSE

The intent of the discussion in. Section 5.4.2.11 of the PUAR was to emphas ize the fo1 lowing ma jor poin ts:

1.

There are signif'icant conservatisms in the BFN post-chug analysis method which offset 'th'e effects of not considering the harmonics in the 80't6 50 Hz range.

,2.

The 30 to

50. Hz harmonics dere kohsidered in th'e drag load analyses.

(See Sectidn D.1.2.4..1 of the PUAR.)

3., Pre-chug generally controls oliver post-chug for torus analysis.

The.

BFN pre-.chug analysis was performed in complete accordance with NUREG 0661 and the IDR, including additional conser'vatilsmk inherent in the method.

4.

Any remaining concern with 'te 'response of high frequency modes for torus attachments is offset by the high frequency content in the pool swell analySes.

Finally,

'a strong empirical indication (not a 'rigorous analytical proof) of the conservatism of the BIN chugging analyses (both pre-and post-chug) is seen in the attached table.

BFN shell* surface streSs

'an'd Support reactfor>

forces are presented, factored 'as nearly as possible to an FSTF-equivalent

basis, and Compared to 'measured and

~

calculated NEP values for the O'STF.

The conservat'ism of the BFN responses to post-chug 'an'alpsls results is due to the absolute sunmation of all 30 harmonics in the 0 to 30 Hz range.

(Note that the dominant BFN torus 'modes are in the 0 to 30 Hz range.)

PUAR Reference 20 recorrmends absolute suranation of 5 harmonics plus SRSS of remaining harmonics to achieve an 84 percent NEP.

FRCl 7-1 PUAR. 0 4

TRBLE FRC-7-1 COMPARISON OF FSTF AND BRONNS FERRY CHUQQINQ RESPONSES

RESPONSE

=BFN RESPONSES BFN FACTORED TO CALCULATED EQUIVALENT CHUG,.PER

.RESULTS

-FSTF REF 2P PRE-

'POST-PRE-POST-TABLE 5-1 50%

NEP FSTFs PER REF.2P TABLE 4-1 84%

NEP FSTFs

'PER REF.2P TABLE.4-1 OUE TO POST-CHUG ONLY BDC SURFACE STRESS INTENSITY 1.10,1,.12:1.31 1.33 (KSI) 0.90 0.88 0.98 INSIDE REACTION 1'02 100

-'57 (KIPS)

.56

-,31.2 17.0 19.,2 OUTSIDE REACTION 113 110 (KIPS) 62 32.3 17.7 20.2 (1)

FSTF EQUIVALENT SHELL STRESS INTENSITY = 8 BFN (R/T) 1.19 8 BFN (R/T)FSTF NHEREi R = MINOR RADIUS OF THE TORUS'

= SHELL THICKNESS'.AND 8 = STRESS INTENSITY (2)

FSTF EQU IV ~

SUPPORT REACTIONS (BFN REACTION)

FSTF POOL AREA PER COLUMN PAIR

= P.562 (BFN REACTION)

t,>g-ngr~ere~g,qg-<<",

o

-wr e-v r~

asser,

~

ITEM.82 Items

.2 and

.3 in Section 5.4.2.11 oi the PUAR:(5) suggest that the pre-chug load bounds the post-chug load in the analysis of the torus;

however, I tens S,in Sec t iion '5.4.2.11 indicates.

a higher. sur face stress fcir post-chuga Expla in this apparent inconsistency and indiicate whether pre-chug:

or, post-.clhug was considered in the control ling load combinations.for the.torus.

RESPONSE

The'iscussion of It'em 5 in Section Se4.2.11 of the PUA'R

.demonstrates-the inherent conservatisn>

ctf the BFN post-chug a~nal si's, relative to the FST'F data, The discus ion of

,I tems 2 and 3 of'.4.2.11 show that the LDR prescr ibed pre-chug analysis method bounds the actual measured FSTF chugging responses due-to both the pre-and post-chug phases.

'This is not to say tha't ipr>-chug 'wi'll always, bound post-chug.

It only sa'ys that consideration of the pre-chug phase alone, is sufficient to. demonstrate the conServat ism of

.torus results

-based on the.LDR method as compared to actual measured FSTF -results for the combined pre-and*

post-ch'ug'hases.

Al,so see the response itoi FRCiItem 7, including

-Table FRC-7-le For al 1 load comb inat ions involiviingi chu'gging, the max iniium

,s tress -due to e tither preor post'hug was used

( i. e.,

an envelope of pre-and post-chug,'re'sponses).

FRC 8-1, PUi&.0.4

ITEM 9':

Wi th respect to the fatigue analysis of the torus presented in Sec t ion 5.4.6 of the PUAR (5),

spec i fy the elas t ic i ty methods used to calculate stress intensification factors at the penet'rations.

RESPONSE

The stress

,intensification factors presented in Section 5.4.6 of the PUAR were calculated using formulas presented in the following text:

Formulas for Stress and Strain, 5th edition, by R. J.

Roark and W.

C.

Young, McGraw-Hill.

The insert,pad to shell junction intensifi'cation factor was based on Case 14, page 598.

For the insert pad to nozzle

junction, Case 5,

page 593 was used.

FRC 9-1 PUAR.04

ITEM 10:

Provide and just i fy the bound ing technique used to det'erkike

'he contro'll'ing load cases presented in the PUAR (5) i'n 'the fo 1 lowing sec t ions:

5.5.1, page 5-21 6.3.2 (and Table 6-5),

page 6-6 6.4.2 (and Table 6-7),

page 6-7 6.5.2 (and Table 6-9),

page 6-8 6;7.2 (and Table 6'-12),

page 6>>12 6.8.2 (and Tables 6-15 and 6-16),. page 6-14 6..9.2

'(and Table,s 6-17, 6-18, and 6-19),

page 6-.15 7.3.1 (and Table ?-I),

page 7-7 7.4.1 (and Table,s 7-2 to 7-4),

page

'7-12 8.2'.22 (and Table 8-2),

page 8-3 9'.1, page 9-2 9.2, page 9-2 RESPONSE.':

PUAR Section 5.5el No bounding techniques were used for determining controlling loa'd cases for the torus analy'si's.i All 1'oad 0:ombination.

were analyzed, including the calculation of stress intensit ies and reaction loads for the cradle and torus snubber.'.

The referenced section was stating which of the comb ina t ions produced the highest,st ress in tens i t ies.

PUAR Sectiooe 12.2.2 theo~9 0 0.9.2 PUAR Tab les 6-5, 6-.7, 6-9, 6-12 2

6" 13, 6-17, 6-18, and 6-19 give the event,,

combinati<>n, and syrvice level of the v'arious locations'f inspI.etio'n.',

gatile', 3-1, of the PUAR shows th.is information in a diffkrknt form.

The bounding'echnique for the table,s in PUAR Section 6 was such that Service Level C event combinations would be qual i fied i)sling'ervice Level B allowables when possible.

When this was not

possible, actual service level combinations coincided With the assigned service level str'ess Ijimits in PUAR Table '3 'l.

A logic desc'ription of the bounding justification for each table follows:

FRC 10-1 PURR.'04

PUAR Table 6-5 Lo ic 0

0 0

Load Comb ina t ion (LC),

15 to,,Service Level (SL')

B allowab,les envelops LC 1

th.rough LC 14.

LC 27 to SL B al:lowables envelops LC 17, LC 20, L'C 21, LC 23, and LC26.

LC 25 to SL B al lowables envelops LC 16, LC 18, LC 19, LC 22, and LC24.

o IBA is not indicated in LC 15 because:

('1)

SBA chugging.

is, no less severe th'an IBA chugging.

(2)

IBA'O is enveloped by. DBA CO in LC 27.

PUAR Table 6-7 Lo ic o

LC 18 to SL B allowables envelops LC 16.

0 0

For. the vacuum breaker to, main vent cap inter-

section, dynamic loading due to, pool swell vent response far exceeds any chugging, CO, or S/RV effect.

Ther,efore, evaluati,on of LC 1

through LC 15 plus LC 17',

LCs 20 through 23, and LCs 26 through 27 i's not necessary.

LC 18 does not envelop

.LC 19, LC 24, and LC 25.

However, 'the load contribution from-SSE versus OBE and the S/RV contribution are small and have been.

neglected consider.i'ng the increased allowabl:e for SL C r.e 1 a t i v e 'to SL B.

Note that the pool swell, load considers pool swell vent response and direct impact, of the swell on the vacuum breaker shell.

(The vacuum. breaker shell is actually.partially shielded by the vacuum breaker access plat.form.)

PUAR 'Table 6-9 Lo ic 0

This logic is similar to PUAR Table 65 except LC 27 could not be,sa tis'f'ied for SL. B pr imary plus secondary stresses (P

+ Q~3 Smc).

Ther efor e, LC 21 was evaluated for pr lunar'y plus, secondary instead.

(LC 21 is the same as LC 27 wi th no S/RV.

PUAR Table 6-9 incorrectly indicates LC 27 instead o'f LC 21.

This correction will be: made in the PUAR revision 2.)

FRC 10-2 PUAR. 04

PUAR Table 6-12 Lo~fc o

Again this logic is simi lar to PUAR Table 6-5 except LC 27 would not meet SL B al lowables.

Therefore, LC 27 was evaluated to SL C al lowables and LC 21 was evaluated to Sl. 9 al lowables for both pr imary

'and,'pr irnary plus secondary, stresses.

(PUAR Table 6-12 incor r ectly indicates LC 27 instead of LC 2'1 f'r the Serv ice Level 8 comb ina t ions.

'Th is correc t ion wi 1 1 be made.

in PUAR revis ion 2. )

PUAR Tables 6-15 and 6-16 L~oic o

Again this logic is simi lair to PUAR Table 6 5.

The noted loads are the wors t poss ib le comb ina t ion o'

any accident condit ion, including thermal effects, and the buck 1 i ng evaluation is per formed on

ttI, is'as iIs.

'PUAR Tables 6-.17~ 6-18~and 6-19

~Lo i c o

Again, LC 15,, IC 25, and IC 27 are the worst case'oad combinations for the systemThe indicated s ti esses ar e maximum sur fa.ce inc Iluding secondary effects wi th s igni ficant margin against 1.5 SnIc.'heref'ore, the primary plus secondary stress range evaluation i. aut'omatically assured.

PUAR Sectilon.7.3.1 Section 7,.3.1 provides a general d'escription of the

'bound'ing technique that was used to determine controlling load cases for S/RV piping in the drywell at Browns Ferriy.

Specifically, the controlling load cases for drywell S'/RV piping were determined by the following process:

(1)

Survey'll defined normal,

seismic, and LOCA ;oad de f in it ions to determine which oi'hese have sign~i f~ichn t e f fec t,on drywe 1 1 S/RV piip ing.

No te that separate modela Cf 'th'e /itin'g'ystems w'erie deve'loped to analyze the drywe1 1 and we twel 1 por t ioins of the system.,

The we twe 1 1 models were devel, oped in s igni fi can t de ta i 1 to s tudy torus hydrodynamic phenomenon closely.

These models extended a

s igni fican t dis tance into ma in vent to account for at ten at ion.

it was found that the S/RV piping in the main vent is isola ted from most of the hydrodynamic ef fee ts of S/RV di: charge or

.IAX'A exci tat io'n 'of'he suppression pool.

(An exception to this is the containment vent response FRC 10" 3 PUAR.04

I~

induced by DBA LOCA,pool swell. ),

The drywel 1 piping is su'fficiently removed.

from the suppression pool to discount ef fec ts 'from wa te'r clear ing trans fents in wetwel 1 port ions of the S/RV 1 ines.

V The load sources that were determined to have a

s igni f icant effect on drywell S/RV piping are:

a.

Deadweight b.

Seismic

- OBE and SSE c.

Al 1 S/RV blowdowns d.

Pool swel I v.ent response e.

Therma.l expans'ion f.

Pressure (2)

Per:form an i'nspec t i'on of Table '5-2 in the PUAAG (PUAR Re fer ence 13')

cons ider i ng the resu1 tant S/RV load sources noted in step 1 above.

A sur'rxnary of. the 'fi'nd'ings with! respect to PUAR Tab,le '7-1 f'o 1 1ows.

Case 1:,Sat is,f~i'es L'C l.

Case

-2:

Sat is fies LC 3 wh'ich envelops LC 2.,

Case 3:

Satisfies,LC 15 whi'ch 'envelops L'C'.4 through LC 14 except a's indi'cated by 'note

.6 on'PUAR Table 7-1..

Case 4:

Sails f i'es LC27 which 'envelops LC 16,;through L'C 26.

PUAR Section.

7,'.,4.;1 Section

?.4.1 pro'vides a general discussion o'f the bounding technique for wetwel1 S/RV piping.

Al I load sources, are treated.

A suianaiy of the envelopirig logic foi PUAR Tables, 7-2, 7-3, arid 7-'4 with resp'ect to Tab'le 5.-2 of the PUAAG (PUAR Reference I i) is 1 is ted below.

PUAR Table..7-2 Case l,and Case. 2:

Sat is fies LC l.

Case 3 arid Cise 4:

Satisfies LC 3 w'hich envel'ops LC 2.

FRC 10-4 PUAR.04

PUAR" Ta b I e 7-3 Case I ahd Case 2

'Sati'sf i-e 'C: I'I, r.ow I'I,, which envelops LC' through LC '10 for row 11.

Ca se 3 and Ca se 4.",

Sa ti,s fies LC 15, row ll,,which.'nvelops

'LC 12 through LC 14 for-row 1-1.

Case

'5. and Ca'se 6,:

Sa'tis f iies LC 15, row'0, whi'ch

'nvelops LC 4

tl~ir'atugh LC 14 for rlaw

,10.

PUAR"Table T.-I Case, I:

Sat'is fles

.LC 27 which, envelops LC 17, LC 20,,

LC.2,1, LC 23.,

and LC 26.

(Note thai'CO,'nld chuggir<g do not occur si'inul taneously and

.chuggirig, Is a'ddressed

@pre conservat ively in

'PUM Table 7'-3 for. SBA/IBA events e )

Case 2!

Sa'ti: fies LC 25 whic'h 'envelop's LC 16, LC 18, LC,;19, LC'2,. and LC 24.

.Case':

Satisfies LC 16 for ',the Ct.0 AP case.

(Due to'he love Iprobab I:1 i ty of,occurrence,,

S/RV blowdown.

and earthquake

'are not, assumed to be conc'urrent'ith'th'.

0.0'.ZiP pool swell.

This is in accord'ance wi,th. the:PUAAG.)

Q PUAR Sect.ion:Se2.2.2 The.boundary:yt tec'hnique used to. reduce,.the number of 'lokd

'case combina,tions shown:, in PUA'AG; Tabl'e

.'5-'2.

itPUAR Reference,

13) to those

'shown. in PUAR'abile. 8-'2 was based on using the most-conserva'tive combination of 1Oad cases associated, with, each of the serv-i'ce levels and ASME Sec'tion II'I,,NC-3600

'PUAR Reference

68) equation 9 stress limits.

(Note that fo,r different.local. combin'ations,',

thetii.ss limits could

1.2 S,.1.8 'S, or 2.4 S,

carr,esponding to Set v'i'ce Levela B,

C, and D, respec:tively.,)

The following are two examples o~f how this bounding techniiquae w'as applied:

When two ser,ies of -load combinatiio'ns li's:ted in the PUAAG were, the same except tha't

'one Included OBE a~nd the other, SSE and both sets of'oad combinations had the same s,tres,s.limits, the OBE,and SSE loa'd cases were envel'oped.

In this way the two sets of lo@d

'ombinations could thus be reduced to one.

",FRC 10- 5 PUAR. 04'

(2)

Another example would 'be when one set of load comb inat ions cons is ted 'of a 1 1

the load cases found in

,another set of load combinations plus at l,east one more load case.

If both sets of load'ombinations had to meet the same stress limits then only the combination with the grea'ter number of load cases was evaluated.

The controlling load combinations for each seivice level equation 9 stress li'mi:t were 'found in.th'is way.

In addi-tion,

,.NC-3600 equation 1'0 'or ll was satis.fied for each of the cont'rol 1 i'ng load combinat'ion's.

PUAR Section 9.1 The.new catwalk finite element model was analyzed for all, applicable

.load events.

The results showed that the largest

stresses,

'by far, were due to pool swell impact and drag.

Therefore, the most severe condition invol.ving 'th,is load was

limit;ing.

For.Load Combina'ti'on 25, the effects of pool swe.ll impact-drag, p'ool swel"1'nd vent header mot,ions, S/RV moti'ons, deadwe.ight.,

and 'SSE were add'ed absolute,ly.

PUAR Sect'ion 9.2 In.the same, manner as

.the catwalk, the vacuum breaker valve pla:tform is most severely affected by pool swell impact-drag loads,,

and the 'limi'ting 'load combination was determined

'in

.the same way.

FRC 10-6 PUAR.04

ITEM 11:

Pt'ovide "the stress resul ts from the analys,is of the torus shell and supports.

. I

RESPONSE

Stress intensit ies wiere calcu~la'ted by postprocessor computer codes for ail load comt) inatio'ns'nd fo'r al II elements in the finite element model.

The results were screened to locate predic ted overs tresses

Fo1 lowinj;. mod i f 'i ca t ions, al 1 stresses were below allowable's.

'he most highly stressed torus support locations are in 'th'e

cradle, adjacent to the scab plateis described in Section 5.2.4.3 of the PUAR.

The. addi t ion of the',scab pla tes

'educed the laical cradle stresses.

for Load Combination 14 from 24.4 ksi to 19.7 ksi.

Rielative to the Service Level p

allowable of 21.6 ks i (see Sei;.tijou 5,.3.2 oi'he PUAR),'he' tress factor was reduced'.froIn lf. 13,to.0.91.

The maxImuIn stress for any Service Level C or D load case was in the'ame region of the craclle and'z~~,, clar:i fy whether, the seismic and', thermal'esponse o f the drywe.l 1 was. cons'idered (8'ei". t lions; 6,.2. 1;.2.7.and~~

~~.6.2.i;.'.9 (S.)),~~

~~RESPONSE~~
Thermal'rowth o'f the-conta inment shell'was considered jn the anailys is of'he'a in vent/dry'we 1 1 in tersec,t ion.
Therrre 1 displacenIients were. ca'lcultated for 'the,drywall based uiIok maximum air.tI.mj>era tu'rIes: occurr ing,clur ing the KIBA, IBA, and
,.SBA events..
These displacement
~~s. >vere input ht the nodes re'presenting~~
'the drywel 1/main vent."intersect ion.
The'.t?Iierma'1'.
analysis was
'thin completed'onsider ing expansion':and restra int;of 'free end displacement cIf'he vent.system..
~
The, BFN LTP.seismic ana'lysis was based upon the'ethods.
~.employed in, the or iginal-plan t des ign.
'Se ismic.
r esponse.
o'f the'rywel 1/main, vent intersection wa,s analyzed using equivalent s'ta t ic loads de term'ineA from appropr iate accelera t ioix 'levels of. the ven't 'y't'm.
This is.cons i' tent w.i th the gene'ra 1 gu,ideIIines of-NUEtEG 0661, Section 4.,4.1 as.
wel,l as the
-P1IAAG (Pl'JAR Reference 13).
FRC 12 '-'1 PUAR,04 0
ITEM I 3:
Prov ide a
sunma ry of the ana 1'ys i's of the
.vacuum breaker valves;,
i nd ica te whe ther they are cons idered CI ass 2'omponents as required by, 'the cri ter ia (1).
~~RESPONSE~~
Appar ent ly this request we twe 11 vacuum b r eak.er s chugging events.
Since I Containment Long-Term sent to the NRC.
relates to analysis of the drywel1/
for cyclic loads occuring during this concern is not part of the Mark
~~program, a separa te response will be Ii'h is request rela tes to th'e new 10-inch S/RV vacuum~~
~~breakers, these valves have been analyzed and subsequently mod ified. to sat is fy ASME Section III Class 2 stress limits for all postulated condit ions including opening impacts.~~
The mod i fied S/RV vacuum breakers are shown on TVA drawing 47W401-9.
ADDENDUM
'I Addit ional information on quali fication test ing of the mod i fied S/RV vacuum breakers for opening impact loads was
~~requested during the September 13, 1984 meeting with NRC and FRC representa t ives.~~
That in forma t ion follows:
Pr eliminary forcing functions for design. of opening impact modifications were based on conservative predictions extrapola ted from Mont icello test results.
Mod i fication designs were made.
and preliminary tests for short-term, adequacy were conducted on that basis,.
The final forcing function for the S/RV line E vacuum breaker was determined from discharge line pressure measurements taken dur ing the Apr i 1 1983 BFN S/RV tests (PUAR Reference 41).
This forcing function was analytically extrapolated for all'FN S/RV lines and all long-term program load conditions.
Then a,prototype vacuum breaker was tested at Wyle Labora tory, Huntsvi lie, Alabama, to demonst ra te operab i 1 i ty for al 1 fore ing func t ions and the full 40-year plant life.
FRC 13-1
.PUAR.04 tMW0
~
~
I
~
~ t ff I
tV' 0
~
h t
'%W
~
'eA
ITEM 14:
The PUAR.(5) indicates that t'e chloulated stress>>values at the following locations are very close to.the respective a I 1 owab I e s:
0 o
dowi>comer/vent header inter sec t ion (Sect ion 6.5.4.1) o downcomer/t iebar in tersec t~ io~n (Sec t io'n 6.7.4.1)
Indica te. conservat isms in the a~nakys is to show tha't the. e
'calculated values would not be'xceeded if a diffe'rent analy t iica 1 approach were to be
~used>>
RES PON'iE:
Although the, stress values at the intersections mentioned above were close to the respect~ive all'ow'able stresses, this should not represe nt a significant concern.
Design modifications were made such that the stresses resulting from the new configurations wer~e
~just below the acceptable values.,
This would normal ly be ant iic ipa ted.
There are conservatisms which could be removed to obtain a
greater di fference in the allowable and actual calculated st-ress values for the above i'nt'er.,'sections.
For example::
(])
Absolute surmation was used in the. combination of loads.
(2)
The downcorner /t iebar was c~onser vat ively analyzed. using Service. Level B'llowables for Service Level C loads.
(SSE seismic loads were in'eluded in'he actual loading in place, of the -prescribed OBE seismic I"oad.)
(3)
There, are other.
conservati'sms associated with the DBA CO lateral load analysis method as described in 'the response to PRC I tern PRC 14-1 PUAR.04
ITEM 1'5:
Stress intensi f ication factors 'for the mi t'e'r bends in the vent system are not found in Table 6-17 as s ta ted in" Sect ion
.6.9'.
1 of the PUAR (5).
'Pr ovide these factors.
RES P.ONSE:
Main vent mitre bend SIF
- '3.85 Vent.header m'i:tr e bend, 'SIF 8.2 Downcomer mitre bend SIF
.- 3:.82 (An appropr'i'ate revision,wiI'I made to the PUAR:)
FRC 15-1 PUAR.04
ITEM 1 6:
Regard 1 ng the torus bel lows ana'lys is in Sec t ion 6. 10. l. 1 of the PlJAII (5'),
pr<>v i de the method and technica 1'as is 'for calcu lat inj,, the spr;-ing v'alues,tha t represent the bel I'ops flex ibi lii ty in the con~uter. models'f the vent system
'F.igur.es 6-2 and 6-:3 (5)).
RESPON6E:.i The spr ing values that:repr'esent the bellows flexibility were calculated using the "Standards of the Expansion Joint
- Manufacturers Associiation, Inc.,"
(PUAR Reference 24).
Appropr ligate data. for the BFN bellows was input including convolu t ion dep th, thickness, number of'onvolu t ions, and modu lus of elas t ic i ty.
FRC 16-1 PUAR. 0 4 0
~
~
ITEM I 7:
Provide and justify the a'pproach for the fa'tigue evaluation
.o f the be 1 1ows men t i oned in: Sec t i on 6. 10;.3 o f the PUAR (5 ).
~ '1 The fatigue evaluation was carr ied out using "Standards of the Expansion Joint Manufacturers Association, Inc."
(PUAR Reference 24) and the Mark:I. Containment
'Pro ram Au ented Class 2/3 Fati ue Evaluation Method and.Resul ts or T ical Torus Attached and S V,i sn S stems, PUAR e erence 21 Deflect.ions for the torus and bellows were obtained for each load event using computer analysis resul'ts and hand calcu-
,la t ions.
These de flee t ions 'resu I ted in bel lows stresses which were then combined in ac'cordance with the fatigue eva 1 u a t ion me thod no t e d abov'e.
FRC 17-1 PUAR.'0 4 El(h ( Phh'\\
~
( lff E ~ i
'lg I (
I' (h
i ~
(( h((
I)( i ~
) ~
P
~
"1
ITEM. 18:
Accord iing'to Sec't i ori 7,.3.3 n I of the PUAR',(5) the sa f e ty-
,rel i ef val'v.e I i i>e p'enetrat I'oti,o.f 'th&, re i'n "v,ent was modeled us,ing cy 1 1 ndr'le~el shell'1 exib i 1'i 'ty 'harac ter,i s t ics.
~~Indicate, the ice thod for'e'termi'ni'ing 'h'es'e character is t ics. I~~
~~RESPONSE~~
For'he S/RV-'ine penetratfion of 'the main 'vent, a six degree of,fr eedom "suppor t" 'was: modele'd.
For three degrees of freed'on> (pipe torsion arid th'e two transla't iona'I she'ar'dir'ection's) ful ji fi'xity was ass'umisd..For the ci r cumferent ia1 and ion'gi tudi'nal bending directions,'i j laard's methods (PUAR Reference
~~64) were utili ~ed to de'ter~mine rotat,ional spr iing rates.~~
F'r the main v'ent'adial direction, a transla tional
.spi ing r'ate was'etermi'ned.
pdr th4 R. J.
Roark text, IFormuias for Stress,and Strain.
.FRC 18-1 PUAR.04
ITEM I 9:
Prov ide the technical bas'is: for ob ta in ing. the s tress intensi'f'ication. fact'ors u'seda in the anal'ys'is "of the saf'ety-re'1 1'.ef val.ve dischar.ge pip'ing sys,tern
('S'ect.ions 7.'3.3.1 and 7.4.3.1 (5)).
RES PONSE':
In genera:1 the ND-36'V3. 2 ( b) -1 )
I n tens i.fi ca t ion p ip i'ng, ana lys'is 1'97V ASME'od'e S'ect,ion I I'I'(Figure is. the technical basis for "the stress factors. uti;lized i'n the S/RY'ischarge wi th the fol'lowing excep t ions:
Bas.I s:
~ ~
'1 Weld-0-Let Bonny Forge s,tress
'in.tensi'f ication factors and'. stress.
i'ndices for we 1 d'-o -1 e t s..
Sweep-0=Le t Quencher Near Collar'upport Stress intensi fication.factors and stress indices for. the Bonny Forge sweep-o-1 e ts.
Stress. intensification factor based, on eff'ective secti'on of quencher.
Assume's hole zone of quencher provides no structural contribution.
i =,Section. modulus of 12 inch Sch 80 Pi e
Ef fective section modulus of quencher I
FRC 19-1 PUAR.04
~
~
r r
I err
~re r r ~
~
~~, r ss+v sr~~
~ '
. ~ rr ~ ~
rt
~
~
iTEM 20 Provide, the stress,resul't s
from the 'wetwel 1 and drywell 1 sa fety-re,.l i ef'.val,,v,e.dischar ge p.ip ing analys'is
'(Sect ions 7,'.3.4..l. ari'd. '7.'4<..4'..1;,(,5)-).
~~RESPONSE~~
I Tables., FRC-.20-,1 through,:FRC-20-4 provide a
suranary. of the
'aaximum equ~iti'on, 9 st'resses from'he S/R'V discha'rge piping
-analys'is.
FRC 20 1
PUAR;. 0 4
TRBLE-FRC-20-i ORYHELL LOAO CQMBINATIGNS, MAXIMUM STRESS LOAO CASE '( 1')
I NOOE
'STRESS'KSIr)
'STRESS RATIO
-LINE C '(2)
CASE 1
CASE,2 CASE 3
. CASE 4 59 59
'47
.17,.
8'0.5
.22. 1
.20.6 0.991 0.760 0.61'3 0.573 LINE E (2)
CASE 1
CASE '2 CASE 3'CASE 4
157
~~15'57~~
~~157~~
,1'6,.2 23'.'8
,23,. 8
,,23.. 9
~~0.. 898~~
,0.883 0.'662 0.664
,1..LOAO CASE.PER TASL'E'-1 OF.PUAR.
,2.. LINE C IS A REPRESENTATIVE SHORT.LINE.
LINE E, IS A REPRESENTATIVE, LONG L'INE.
'CALCULATED STRESS ALI OHABLE STRESS
T,Rf3t.E, FF/C;-l20-.2 NOC SERVjiCE II EVEL B Atlo C.LOAD COMBINRT,IOhlS MAXIt tut<<
.;TIRESSES.
. l~E.'rWELL.EVRL.URT:ION 4
LOAD CASIE'(1)
NODE STRESS (KSI
) 'TRESS'(4' fkRl IOl LINE (3)
CASE 1
,CASE. 2 CASE',
CASE 4 10,.3
~
0.573 ENIVELOPED BY',CASE 10.9 0.404'ENIVELOPED BY CRSE '2, (2)
'LINE H (3),
CASE 1
CASE 2 CASE':3 CASE 4
'8 13'.3 ENVEIL".OPED BY -CRSE 4 (
0 '758 1:4. 1 0.'522.
ENVEIL'Oi'ED BY CASE 2 (2) 0 1'.
LOAD 'CASES PER TABLE '7'2 OFPURR',.
2.
THE,ENIVELOPING 'OCCURS BECRUSE R WORST'.CRSE
'NOC BLOWDOWN (SCREENED BENI WEEN'IRST -AND 'SECONDACTUATION)
IS'.USE(I)
NOR'HE STRESS ANAL.YSIS.,
3'.
L'INE L TYPICPIL SHORT 'LINE'.
LINE Hl -TYPICPIL LONG LINE.
4; STRESS RATIO CALC'ULATED STRESS ALLOWABLE STRESS
TRBLE:FRC-.20=.3 SBA/'IBA -- SERVICE 'LEVELS;C.AND 0 LOAD.COMBINATIGNS
,MAXIMUM STRESSES "HETNEL'L EVALUATION LOAD CASE.('1)
'NODE STRESS
',(KSI')
STRESS'RATIO CASE
.1 CASE 2 12
.2 21.'6 24.9 0,. 887 0.922
~~LINE,~~
.L CASE.3 CASE 4,
ENVELOPED BY CASE 5
,ENVELOPED'Y 'CASE 6 CASE 5
'CASE 6 12 2
.21.8 26.8 0.674 0.745 L'INE CASE 1
'CASE 2
.CASE.3 CASE 4
'CASE 5
CASE 6 8
10 26.5 26.0 ENVELOPED BY CASE '5 ENVELOPED 'BY. CASE 6 j
31.7 32'..2 0.982 0.963 0.881 0.894
~~1. 'LOAD CASES 'PER TABLE 7-3 OF, PUAR.~~
2.
SBA AND'RA BL'OWDOWNS SCREENED TO PROVIDE WORST CASE FOR'NALYSIS; CALCULATED'TRESS
',ALLOWABL'E STRESS
'I PiBL)=- FRC--20.->>
OBPi
- SERVICE.:LEVEL, D..LOAD-COMBINATIONS MAXIMl)M STRESSES
'NETNELL',E'.VALUA'T IONI NE L
'"LORD CASE Ei'i
,CASE 1
CASE 2'ASE.:3 NODE 235
'L STRES!~.
IIKSI,)
22.4 33 4 31.7 STRESS E>>,
'RATIO 0 '692 0'.
927'.880 LINE CASE 1
CASE 2 C,RSE 3 28.1
'28'.,'3 27.4,
.0.'7'81 0
.'787'.760 0
1.
LOAD, CASIES 'PER TABL'E 7-'4. OF
'PURR'ALCULATED
~~STRESS,~~
.AL'L'CIHABLE STRESS
ITEM 21:
Prov ide and just i fy the. al 1'ow'able safe ty-rel i e f valve nozzle loads which were.referred t'o in: Section 7.3.4.2 of the PUAR (5) ~
~~RESPONSE~~
As surrmarized'n the PUAR, relief valve nozzle loads calculated in. the d.rywell S/RV. piping ana'lysis were compared to a set of allowable nozzle loads used in the original S/RV analysis performed by Teledyne Engineering, Services and documented by PUAR Reference 45..
These allowable loads were provided by the reli.ef valve. vendor, Target Rock, and are incorporated'n the design report for. this component.
The alldwables and worst case calculated loads, are:
Va 1 v,e
~Flan e
Inlet Ou t'1 e.t.
Worst Load*
3 209 6,1 IN=,-LB.
287;,5'68:
IN.=LB Allowable Resultant Bending Moment from D~naml o Loads 400,000 IN-LB 300,000: IN<
~
Va 1 ve Flange Cond i t ion Wors t Load
(,IN-LB)'l 1 owah 1 e
( IN-L6)
In let Ou t le t Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet S
'S S
+ D (B).
S,+ D'(B)
S
+ D (CD)>>
S
+ D (C,,D)>>
296843 306205 390466 353947 637582 515009 437321 372971 874642',
745942 1375829 1096778
<<Direct add.i't i,on of dynamic load components.
As can be seen, all loads are acceptable.
Condi,t ion notes:
D (B)
(C)
(D)
Static Dynamic Service Level 'B Service Level C
Service level. D FRC 21-2 PUAE.04
ITEM 2 2:.
Wi th respec t to Sec t ion 7.4.3'..2.
1 of the PUAR (5), prov ide and just i fy all dynamic ampli.f ication. factors used in 'the calculation of'afety-relief valve discharge-induced fluid drag., forces on the sa fe ty-r el'i e f valve sys tern.
~~RESPONSE~~
Safety,-relief valve (S/RV) discharge-induced fluid drag forces were applied pseudo-sta ti.cally to the S/RV system.
The TQFORBF computer cod'e was used with S'/RV line input properties that would produce the highest force amplitudes possible from any line for any S/RV discharge case.
Maximum amplitude force-time histories were thus determined.
From these time histories, the peak amplitudes of the distr'ibuted forces were taken for equivalent static application to the system.
The equivalent pseudo-s ta t ic force dis tr ibut ion was determined by conservatively assuming the distribution of peak forces to act as a perfectly steady-state sinusoidal fore ing func t ion.
A modal analys is. of the S/RV sys tern indicated that there were no potentially responsive modes of the system within the broadened; 4.2-14.7 Hz ran'ge (see PUAR Section 5.5.2) of possible S/RV forcing frequencies.
Therefore, the lowest potentially responsive natural frequency of the system was assumed to be driven by the highest possible broadened forcing frequency of each load case considered.
This pulls the two frequenc ies
( i. e.,
the forcing frequency and the system frequency) as close together as they can ever -possibly be, thereby conserva-tively maximizing the dynamic load factor,(DLF).
The DLF was computed for each S/RV load case considered using the following expression for a harmonic forcing function (see PUAR Equation D.1.2-24):
1 (i-Qglg)'g
+
4 iInQ/~) g where damping ratio
(-2% was use
)
Q= forcing function frequency system natural frequency FRC 22-1 PUARe04 e ~
r ~: 'e'"
~ ~ere v" '+r'n" ~ ma'"'""'
e
r
~
The load cases considered and cdrresponding DLFs we'r'e
'as'ollows:
Ca s'e No.
Descr:iot ion NOC,'DBA-1st Actuation NOC,DBA-2nd Actuation SE1A,IBA-1st Actuation SE1A, IBA-'2nd Ac tua t i on (H.z )
8.34 10.2~J 12.3 1!
14.6~J 18.25 18.25 18.25 18.25 DLF'..26
~~1. 4i6 1'. 8 4 2.83 Finally BFN S/R'V test results showed significant conserva,tism~~
~ of S/RV discharge l.in,e and suppo'rt" st'resses relative to analytically predicted values.'ee PUAR 'Se'ctions C.'7.1 and C.7.2.
0 FRC 22-2 PUAR.04
ITEM 23:
,Wi th respec t to,Sec t io'n 8.2.2.3 o f the PUAR (5)', prov ide and j us t'i fy the r.eason's for not cons'1'der ing the contr ibu t ions of h igher modes above 2'0 Hz for 'seismic analysis
'of torus attached piping systems.
'RESPONSE:
Seismic.analysis of to'rus-attached pip"ing systems was performed using the origi'nal analysis methodology as permi.t ted by. Section 4.4. 1 of NUREG 0661.
Original seismic piping analysis methodology of BFN documented in '-FSAR
.Appendix C.3.'2.l..a, includes use oi'0 Hz as the "cut-off" frequency.
FRC 23-1 PUAR.04
IUI th respect to.Section 8.2,.5.2 of the PUAR- (5), provide justification for considering'taAch lines having peak spectral accelerations below 5.0 g at the point of attachment to the pr ocess 1 in'e to 'be quali f ied without fu r ther eva lua.t.ion.
i
~~RESPONSE~~
TVA's cri ter ia for excluding br~'t'ncih lines from addi t ional analysis may have been mis interpreted.
The exclusion limit is.not the acceleration input to the branch line from the process 1 inc.
I t is the ampli fl'ed mot ion of the process line, i.e, the exc1usion limit is based on the dynamic reponse spectra for the branch line.
The 5-g limit was or iginally selected based on TYA'0 experience ivith seismic quali.f ication of small lines with typical BFN con figu ra t i ons.
Exper ience with BFN LTP analysis of branch liines which exceeded the 5-g limit prov ide d fu rther ver,i f i ca t ion of: the accep tab i 1 i ty of 'th~is imi t for BFN branch lines.
ADDENDUM 0
Dur ing the Septeimb er 13, 1984 meeting, FRC r epresenta t iv'es'ndicated some concern with this response and during a'elecon on September 24, 1984,, addit ional information iwa's requested.
Tha t in forma t ion fol lows:
All branch lines which connect to 'thie tot'us'ttached piping process lines were evaluated for dynamic response of the'ranch
~~line, thermal and dynan1ic dispiac~ment of the a t tached pr oc ess 1 ii ne, and su. ta ined loads (deadwe igh t and pressure)~~
Re ferr ing to paragraph NC3650 of the 1977 ASIDE Section II I Code (PUAR Reference 23),
branch line dynamir'.
response s tresses plus susta ined load s tresses are included in code. equation 9 whereas bran'ch link s'tresses clue to process line displacements and susta ined loads are included in equa t ion 11.
The 5-g limit for branch line dynamic response analysis was spec i f i ed on the basis of exper ience's descr ibed above.
The adequacy of thai t 1imi t andi the fac t tha t equa t ion 11 FRC 24" 1 PUAR.04
s t'resses are typ ical ly more cr i t ical for BFN branch lines than equa t ion 9
s t'resses is shown by Tab le FRC-24-1.
Tha t tabula t ion giv'es resu 1 ts for ten BFN Un i t 3 branch 1 ines which had response spectra exceeding.
the 5-g 1imi t.
Stresses are presented as a percentage of the code equation 9 and 11 a-l.lowables.
The peak of response spectra accelera.tions-and branch line identi;fiers are also given.
Recognizing that the equation ll stresses.
were more critical, all branch lines were analyzed for those condit ions.
It was not necessary or cost effective to r igorously analyze all branch l,ines for equat ion 9
s,tresses--hence the 5-g limit.
~~Finally, the small compact valves which are located in BFN~~
'branch lines are structurally adequate for accelerations much greater than 5-g's.
Therefore, the 5-g 1imi t is also appropriate from a component operabi'll-ty standpoint.
FRC 24-2 PUAR.04
TAELE FRC:-.2 i-1 TYPICAL HRPSCH LINE ARQ YSIS K~TS Process Li,'ne Penetration X212 Process 'Line Node Point
.37 30 40 46 107
~F~i~~~l ovia~)e Str~eq Ettuat ton 11 Eguation
'9
~ 3
~3
.9.
.1
.1
..1
.1
.1
.4
.3, Peak Spec tra1 Acceieration,a'
'9.5 6.1
'9.3 6,3 9.9 X214 X223B X231 55 E30 55
- 75X 75K
~2
,.6 n 2
,;5
~ 4.I 9.5 10.8 19 a9
. 20'. I
~~20. 1 FHC 24-3 HJAR.'04~~
ITEi>I 25:
Wi th respec t to Sect ion 8.2.5.5 of the PUAR (5), provide just i;fication for considering the valves wi.th accelera t ions less than 3-g horizontal and,2-g vertical and -having no operator supports to be quali'fied without further eva lua t,ion.
~~RESPONSE~~
The 3-. g horizonta'1 and 2-,g vertica'1 accelera ti'on limits on valve acceler.a tions.are justi'fled by our experience with
,seismic qua.li f.ication of similar.'va.ives on four TVA nuclear plants (Browns Ferry.,
~~Sequoyah, Wa,tts iBar, and ~Bellefonte).~~
ln addition,
.none of.the:numerous valves which were evaluated for the BFN LTP,,had any problem with sa tis'fying
~~the requiremen~ts of PUAR Section 4..3..3 with applied accelera,tions, in excess of the 3-g/2-g limits.~~
FRC.25-1 PUAR. 04
ITEM 26:
,Prov ide a schedu le for the corrlp 1 4 t ion o f p i joe suppor't
~~mod i f ications. for Units~~
'2 and 3.
,RESPONSE:
The BFN Unit
'1 and Unit 3 Ipipe sup'port modifications are comp le te, and al 1 Un i t 2 in terna i pipe support mod i f ica t ions a re comp le t,e.
The.date for completion of Unit
-2 external pipe supper t'odif ications is currently (September'984) under negotia,tion with NRC.
An integrated modif ication. schedule was submit ted iin Augu,st 1984'or NRC review and approval, indicating completio'n of Unit 2 -external pipe support
=
mod i f i ca t iIon s du r ing the Cycle 6 re fue 1 i ng outage.
FRC 26-1 PUA]R. 0 4
ATTACHMENT 2 BFN PUAR FINAL TVA RESPONSES TO NRC AND BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL 'LABORATORY. QUESTIONS tl'r r
~rrpl
~
il~
il~
ll
General R~es ense, to PURR nest l'ons.
'.BFN L'TP anal;ys.i,s and des.ign activi.ty has proceeded on a
sc'hedul:e necessary to support,instal::lation of all
.modif'i,ca.tions dur.:1'ng, the, cyc'le
'4 and 5 refueling ou,tages o'f each uni't,.as requ'ired by.NRC.
The f:i;rst BFN cycle 4
refuel,ing outage began in 'Apr'itl 1981,.a'nd'ost of the major modi:f'i'cati'on. desi'gns were compl'ete
'by" May 1981.
Remaining modification designs,. pr.imarily.i'or torus attached pi.ping ext'ernal supports.,
were complete in t'ime.t'o support i.ns.tallati.on duriqg,'the cycle 5 r.efuel:ing outages.
,In order to, sa't,isfy schedule comnitments, it was necessary to make in'terpr.etations of, LDR and NUREG 0661.requirements based.
upon. the best available,.information at the time of analysis.
Most of'he, interpretations, were originally es.tablished in 1979 and early 1980.,
A continuing effort to remove excessive conservati'sm,from load defin'i'tions and analysis "methods was made, parti,cularly, when that conservat.ism, would: result i,n unnecessary, impractical modifica.tions.
,When,'later information. on, load definitions and associated analys.is: methods.
became avai.lable, it was
~~compared, to the lprevious interpretations-..~~
The I.ater information was used for reanalys.is,.and,.associ.ated des,ign work i.f a si,gnifi,cant
'unconservat.ism, in the prev;ious, interpretation was i'ndicated.
'For example,,
the f:inal downcomer ti.ebar.'/V,-brac.ing
,modification resulted from; November 1'981 changes in t'e DBA condensation osci'llation lateral l.oad defin'ition.
Somet imes, later i pf orma't i on was used. to r emove excess i ve conservatism, in remaining.analysis, and'esign work.
For
~~example, the 1.1 SRSS load combination technique was permitted for torus attached piping analysis after NRC' final position on 'this subject~~
'was defined in Apri'1 '1983 by PUAR 'Reference 58.
An absolute surrrnation combination technique was required prior to that time..
Fi.nally, when 'the later information showed the previous load defini:tions and analysis methods to be adequate'ly, (but not excess'ively) conservative, the original interpretations were retained.
In these situations, reanalysis util.izing the later information would have been unnecessary and costly,.
~~and, in. some cases, would have resulted in delays in the installation of modifications.~~
Many of the PUAR quest,ions derive from situations where the original interpretations stated in pUAR Section 4 were used for analysis.
Justification for these interpretations was provided in. PUAR Section. 4, Section 5,
and Appendix C.
Additional technical 'justification,'ollows in the responses to.,specifi.c.questions.
on 'these topics.
Other PUAR questions simply request add'itional i.nformation, which's prov.ided in the responses.
GR-1 P,UAR. 00
It is TVA's posi't ion that the,BFN PVAR (Revision 1) and 'ou'r review question responses demor'~st'ra'te compl lance wi th thee intent of the Mark I Containmedt Long-Term Program and NUREG 0661 (i.,e
, to upgrade
'the contai'nm'ent system safety.
margins,,
for all,'postul'cited hydrodynamic loading conditi'on's,'o those intended by the original design spec,ifications).
On-this basis, we feel that all indicated safety concerns are fully and satisfactorily addr!es'sed,
'an'd we respectfully request a favorable final evalilatioh for the BFN LTP.
i L
GR-2 PVAR. 00
According to Section 4.2.5 of the
~~PUAR, BFN used the loads~~
~~. defined by the PULD and the LDR Sect:ion 4.3.2 for pressure 1'oads on the torus..~~
~~However, BFN applied a much smaller~~
. margin on, the LDR.load 't'han stipulated in NUREG 0661, page A-6.
The BFN margin, of '6.5 percent on the LDR upload is justif-ied in the BFN PUAR on the basis that the 15 pe'rcent margin r'econmended on page 39 of NUREG 0661 i"s unnecessary because the EPRI 1/12-seal'e model
'had the BFN geometry, and that the Acceptance Criteria (AC) margin of 21.5 percent should therefore be reduced by 15 per'cent to.yi'eld 6.5 percent.
This does not meet the intent of the AC.
The 15 perce'nt margin of NUREG 0661 was,i'mposed for'everal reasons (see pp.
36.-3'8 of NUREG 0661).,
the geometry being only one of the concerns.
Consequently, a full justification for the reduction of the margin from 21.5 percent to 6.5 percent is
~~needed, or the ability of the torus to withstand~~
'a 15 percent load increase mist be dern'on'strat'ed.
RESPONSE:,
'I The uncer'tainty margins us'ed for BFN pool swell load dei'ini,tion and the BFN spool swell.analysis procedure ensured conservati've structural response predictions.
Some justifi-cation for,this fact is given, in 'Section 4.2.5.2'of the PUAR.
Addi.tional justification follows:
-1.
,Uncertainties regarding.the.2D/3D test model results were minimized because the 1/4 scale 2D and 1/12 scale 3D models for the generic Mark I LTP tests were prototypical of BFN.,geometry.
2.
Significant, conservatism was added to the BFN pool swell load definition because fluid,compressibility effects in the vent system were not considered in the 1/4 scale plant unique tests.
This conse'rvatism is recogni'zed and quantified in Section 2.4 of Supplement 1
'to NUREG 0661..
3, BFN plant unique 1/4 scale tests for normal operating conditions were conducted at min'imum dP and maximum downcomer submergence, thereby ensuring upper-bound p'ool swell load predictions.
4.
BFN plant unique I/4 scale tests for 0.0 hP condi tions were. conducted at 0.0 ALP and maximum downcomer submergence, thus ensuring upper-bound pool swell load predictions.
BNL, l-l PUAR. 00
S.
The
'BFN v pool swel Sections vent syst 5.4.2.7 o
procedure incl'uded system an for torus a's s ump t:l o comb i'na t i ent system and toruS analysis procedures for 1
loai1ing Included 'slgnifican't
'conservati.sms.'.4.5 akid 6.'ll of'he IPUAR'surrm'arfze the BFht em analysis procedur,e.'ections 4.4.4 and f the PVAR sunmarize the Bl N torus a'nalysis S,igni'f.icant-analgtilcal r.onservatisms the tvio percent da'mginlg Iaskumption for vent'lysis, the 80 percent waI ter 'mahs'assumption
~~analysis, and the twd percent torus damping re for all operating'AP~~
~~pbol,~~
's'we11 load ons; 6.
The BFN uncertainty margin,fair poiol swel 1 loads (S.S
.percent) was,conservat i-vely-appl i ed to the pr edicted'orus response includling vent system input effects,.
wher eas the download, and upload margi ns i,n NEC' acceptance cr i ter ia (Appendi x A of hIUREG. 0661') are appl icable for torus hydrodynamic pressure loads '.only.
V.
The BFN uncertainty margin (t).5 pIercent)
~~exceeds, NRG's recommended download margin (5.~4.gedce'nt).,I,t also exceeds one,standai d deviation of ttie 'BFN I/4'cale~~
.resul ts for operating bP condi tions.
Those standard
" deviations were appr'oximately 3.6 percen't and.4,.0.
percent for upload,and download respectively.
8.,
BFN operati.ng AP,pool swel 1.dynamic resp<inses were conservatively combined wi th dynamic respons'es
.fram other load sources
.by, the: methods described i.n. Section 4.4.2 of the PUAR.
Additional assurance.
regarding any remaining upload concern is provided by the i'act that the'~BFN torus tiedown desigri lis not cont.rollied, by a pool, swel;1 load combination.
This would remain true even if an additional 15 percent upload ma'rgin were added 'for pool, swe.l,l loads.
BNL 1,-2 PUAR. 00
ITEM:
What margin was appl ied on the LDR download?
Is the downl;oad speci fication consis~tent wi th Section 2.3 of the the Acceptance 'Criteria?
RESPONSE':
A 6.'5 percent uncertainty margi:n, was applied'or 'both down-
,l,oad: and upload
.as, descr.ibed in, the response to,'BNL item l.
The speci.fica'tion Iin Section 2.3 of'RC's acceptance criteria requires.
a download. margin of 5.4 percent, based upon a peak download of '2700 pounds for BFN 'I/'4 seal'e oper at'i ng"hP,tes ts.
BNL 2-1 PUAR. 00
ITEM 3:
For what structures would the losid exceed acceptable levels i f the tor us pre. sure loads were made c&ndis'teh't wi th NUREG 0661?
By how much, and for what load combinations?
~~RESPONSE~~
To make the BFN torus pressure
'loads consistent with NUREG 0661 an additional 15 percent margin would 'be added to,th'e upload phase--if the other conservatisms
-in the BFN pool swell load definition were, disregarded.
The download margin would be reduced by 1 percent.
Assuming that the
~~same, conservative analytical procedure was applied, maximum stresses in the download phase would decrease slightly and maximum stresses in the uploaId phhs& Would'increase by less than 15 percent.,~~
(An increase of 5 to 10 percent is estimated.)
This level of potential stress increase could readily be compen. ated by rem'oval
'ofom6, of thI'onservatism in t,he analytical procedure and load combination technique.
Therefore, realistically, there" is no potential to overstress a
BFN stru0tatre by changing the torus pressure load" defi,nition to c'omply with NUHEG 0661 generic margins.
iBNL 3-1 PUAR. 00
ITEM 4:
Was the vent header impact load def ini tion of;pages 6-17 of the PUAR i.n. accordance wi.th Secti-on. 2.10.,1 of NUREG 066,1?
If.not, explain the differences and provide estimates showing that sufficient margin exists to acconmodate the NUREG load.
~~RESPONSE~~
The vent header impact 1'oad definition was not in accordance with-Section 2.10.1 of'he NUREG 0661 acceptance criteria.
S'ection 2.1:O.l addresses loads on a vent header deflector.
BFN does. not. have a vent header deflector;
~~however, the BFN vent headers were reinforced near the center of each non-vent bay as, a result of pool swell impact loading anal'ysis as described in Section 6.11;3 of the PUAR.~~
A typical, BFN header reinforcement installation is shown by PUAR Plates 7 and 8.
The BFN vent system pool swel.l impact load analys.is (PUAR Reference 17) and. header reinforcement. modi,fication design were: performed i.n 1979, pr.ior to the release of NUREG 0661.
The longitudinal velocity, and impact timing:profiles were based upon EPRI 1/12 scale, split orifice tests for operating 8P and 0.0. 4P pool swell conditions.
NUREG 0661 specified the use of a single "conservative."
profile for impact velocity and timing for all conditions.
~~However, a comparison of-the resulting peak. impact pressures on the BFN vent header showed that the existing analytical values were more conservative i'or the entire non-vent bay.~~
This was particularly true in the critical region where the BFN reinforcement, modification is located.
Therefore, within the non-vent bay i,t was conclude4 that the existing analysis results were conservative relative, to the revised load def,ini tion from NUREG 0661.
Within the vent bay the peak impact pressures would be somewhat higher with the revised load definition.
However, conservative estimates of the increased vent system stresses in this region showed all stresses to be less than 24 percent of allowables for the operatinghP case and 37 percent for the 0.0 AP. case.
Further consideration of this information leads to the basic conclusi.on that the 1979 analysis was appropriately conservative and sufficiently accurate to address all structural concerns of the BFN vent system for pool swell impact and drag loads.
Additional analysis was not necessary.
BNL 4-1 PUAR. 00
-ITEM 5:
Ner e the IOCA jet and bubble dr'ag loads for'FNvaluated i n accordance w'I th the LDR and NUREG 066'I?
~~RESPONSE~~
~~Yes, LOCA jet and bubble drag loads for,,BFN were evaluated in accordance with the LDR and, NUREG 0661 (See~~
~~PUAR, Appendix D, Sections 'D.l.1.2 and D.l.l.l, respectively; for di scus's i ons )'~~
'BNL S,-l PUAR. 00
For analyzing structures, af'fected by CO loads, the LDR and NUREG. 0661 prescribe absolute sumnation of the CO load harmonics at li-Hz intervals.
from.
1 to 50 Hz.
BFN used an alternate approach where:
(i) forcing. frequencies above 31'z were neglected, and (ii) four parti,cular load harmonics (the ones at 4-5, 5-6, 10-11, and 15-16 Hz)'ere added absolutely and added.
to the SRSS of'he remaini,ng 26.
Justify the neglect of forcing frequencies above 31'z for
('a) torus shell loads, and (b) submerged structure drag loads.
(Arguments about smal;I torus. response do not apply fordrag loads.)
Why were CO drag l.oads (page 4-4) analyzed i'or 1-31 Hz only:,. but. post-chug: drag loads (page 4-5) for 1-50 Hz?
~~RESPONSE~~
~~0 When the. DBA. CO load def:i:ni:tions were provided by, the~~
~~LDR, it soon~~
~~became, ap'parent that there were'ignificant inherent conservatisms,,~~
not the least of which was the lack of any information about the phasing relationships between the Fourier harmonics.
Clearly, conservatisms could have been maximized by applying all 50, CO harmonics using an absolute sunmation rule, and whi'le some might infer this approach from the LDR and NUREG 0661, it was not prescribed.
Various experts identified. specific conservatisms and recorrmended approaches that would allow more realistic accounting for the potential DBA CO event.
Some of the key findings by these experts f'ollow:
From PUAR Reference 19 (or equivalently.:
GE/NEDE-24840).,
Section 3.4:
(1)
The 5.5 Hz harmonic was the dominant content of the loading.
(2) "... a.ll harmonics appear to be randomly phased relative to the dominant harmonic at 5.5 Hz."
(3)
"... investigators have seen a tendency for a fixed phase relationship between the dominant harmonic and one or two mul tiples of the dominant (e.g.,
5.5, 11, and 16.5 Hz) from examination of data from individual pressure transducer records for the FSTF test, but showed random phasing for all other harmonics."
I BNL 6-1 PUAR. 00
~
s r r
~ -, ~
~
~
rf
~ r rrl rri h <<Ml r
~'
r9'irrr lh w ',
5 rh r ~wlehhh, M 'rtr hht
~TIE Ehhhr hh J(r'.rulrr'r 'h lrrhlh EMIrr 'l."s
~ ~
~
l9
(4)
EVhf le 1 t was admi tted that there appeared to be some relative per iodici ty of t'e harmonic ampl
~~l. tudes that would preclude the appropriateness of pure.~~
SRSS combination o1i'he harmonic amplitudes, it was stated that ",;.. it is highly improbable for miore than about three harmonics to be'orst case phased at any one time...."
(5) "...
a rule which requires about three harmonics to be absolute combined INi th all additional harmonics SRSS combined is consistent with the as. umptfon of steady-state periodic amplitudes arid randem phasi ng."
-(6)
The LDR amplitudes are-defined with significant conservatisms as can be seen from Figure 3-11 (especially in the frequency range from 40 to 50 Hz where most LDR amplitudes ar,e much more than 100
,percent greater than thie average FSTF amplitudes).
(7)
A'iso from Figure 3-11, i t can be seen t',hat actual FSTF ampl f tudes seem to show that CO has relati,vely 1 lttie' requency content above 30 Hz.
From PUAR Reference 42, Section 4:
(8)
Conclusion
'No.
2 states thats "For structures wi*th frequency content similar to the FSTF or, Oyster Creek torus encl supports, only the harrnonfe responses belowi 30 Hz need to be computed and in'eluded."
Based, on the f'indings 1 isted and our own best technical judgment,,
T'VA feel,s that neglect of the fair cf ng, frequenci e's above 30 Hz, is justif;ied for".
(a) torus.,shel 1
loacls (b) submiergecl structure drag loadS An explanation of our reasoning followst As stated f n findi;ng (7), there is 1 i ttie frequency content of the CO lioacling. above 30 Hz; this.is the main reason for neglect i ng 1 t.,
Addi tional ly, for the BFN 'o'rus (even af ter substantial modf fications that resul ted'irectly fr'om CO loads analysis),
t',he responsive structural modes occur at frequenei es below,30 Hz.
Shapes 'f the'igher fr'equency modes of the torus will niot part.iei'pa'te'igni ficantly wi th the shape of the CO pressure distr ibution.
This argument al so appl ies for t'e post-chug loacli ng on the.torus since i
t'as the same distribution -shape as iCO wi th only the harmonic ampl i tude cioef fiei ents bei ng di ffec ent.
BNL 6-2 PUAR. 00
For harmonic for cing components wi th.frequencies more than 1.5. t.imes-the natural struc:tural frequencies, the dynamic load factors (DLFs) become less than 1.0.
For harmon.ic forces with frequencies greater than twi ce the natural structural frequencies, the DLFs are small and asymptotically approach zero.
In this range,,the forcing components would have negligible effect on the structure.
This is. the case wi.th the torus f'r high frequency
.harmonics.
Further, empirical evidence of the adequacy of the BFN analytical approach for the DBA CO loading on the torus is provided in the responses to BNL item 7 (see Table BNL-7-1)..
Similar evidence is provided for the chugging.
loading on. the. torus in the response to FRC item 7.(see Tabl e FRC-'7-l,).
Submerged s.tructures are a different matter, however.
Init'ially, most submerged structures were primar'ily responsive in the lower frequency ranges and were dominated by the DBA CO harmonics, In.order to avoi.d highly. amplif,ied responses due to CO, pre-.chug, and S/RV load definjtions, virtually every.submerged structure required substantial'edi'fication to stiffen and strenghten it.
These modifications took some.of the submerged structures into a responsive range with.post-.chug fluid,drag.
While it was, impractical to stiffen submerged structures (most of them 1nternal portions of large piping systems) above the, post-chug forcing frequencies and stil'1 maintain v1able designs for thermal loa'ds, it was possible, after-many iterations, to obtain 'designs that had sufficient strength to,meet allowables for all load.combinations.
This left BFN with
~ st:iff submerged structures that were well within a range of post-chug
~~drag, thus, necessitating use of. the full 0 to, 50 Hz range of the post-chug,.defini-tion prescr.ibed in the LDR.~~
FUAR Pla.tes II,:I'8, 1'9, 20, and
'21 show some of the stiff'ened submerged structures.
I 4
~iii e
~~,I BNL 6-3 PUAR. 00~~
~f)'
~
~ t...Q, r ~ g r aV Jr' r
~Ilail
.;p prV
+,I ~'~~ tt 8, tYr/ std;,,'
C ~, t.
~ s ', 7, '
~
~
The. appr oach of GE/NEDE 24840 - which i <<
i tsIel f a depar ture from the LDR - call's for taking the sum of the four harmonics which produce the highest structural
~~response, and adding them to the SRSS of the remaining harmonics.~~
Were the forcing functions at 4-5, 5-6, 10-11, and 15-16 Hz, the ones which produced the highest structural response for both tor us shell and all draj loads'?
In the work done by SMA (References 19 and
.42 of the BPN PUAR), the absolutI.
surmnation of the four 'highest Iharmonics had nothing to do with phase relationsh,ips, but was an artifice used to arrive at an 84 ipercent nonexceedance pr'obability (NEP).
Bas:ed on the discussl,on in the P~UAR, BFN's proIcedure does not guarantee an NEP of 84 ipercent.
Justify BFN's departure from the recommended procedure and/or demons'trate structural margins which would adequately cover incr easIes in tlute CO loads.
Was Alternate 4 of the CO basIel inc r igid wal 1 pressure spectrum applied to BPN!'ESPONSE:
While the approach recommended in PUAR Reference 19 (or GE/NEDE-24840) i s a diepar ture from thIe LDR, TVA bel 1 eves i.t is well justified by the thorough,studies and findings of many experts.
Those fii'ndings clearly stress the extreme conservatism, hence inappropriateness,,
of absolute sutrrnation of all response harmonics As the approach is specified, it requires the identification of the three or four highest response harmonics of a
structure to be combined absolutely with the SRSS of those remaining.
ThIis identification, however, ls an impracticable task when one consiiders the number of. structures to be analyzed and the response quantities of interest for each (e.g.,
dispiiacemenit, acceleration, force, stress, stress intensities).
Also, while this approach may guarantee 50 or 84 percent NEP for the CO loading alone, there can be no such claim for the controlling dksign ibad combinations involving CO since the pol',nts of maximum respo'nses for CO load combinations are likely to be different than for CO alone.
Therefore, TVA chose to vary slightly from the approach suggested in Section 6 of PUAR Reference 19.
The approach used was justifiable encl practical for timely, cost efficient implementation.
I t cannot'd g'ua'rar'>te'ed fcir both the tor us shel 1
and al 1 submerged structures that forcing functions at 4>>5, 5-6, 10-11, and 15-16 Hz were t'e ones producing the highest structural responses, although for some they may be--
especially for t'e torus shell since its primary response BNL 7-1
.PUAR. 00
occurs around
.these frequenci es.
~~However, f t i s impor tant to note that the suggestion, to use the four highest response harmonics was an art-iflce to obtain an 84 percent NEP of an artificial load definiti~on;-one which Dr.~~
A'I'an Bilanin has stated is 33 percent conservative just due to the presence of the bulkheads on the FSTF (see Reference
'BNL-'7.,l, Section 1,
Equa t-i on 1..7,),.
There are the, addi tional conservati'sms of the LDR prescribed ampl i tudes, as already addressed by 'f inding. 6 1 isted in our response to BNL Item 6.
And, speci fically concerning torus
.shell responses,,
TVA has the conser vat f sm of'aving appl t ed a
maximum envelope of the three LDR'lternatives speci fied for harmonics between,4-16 Hz rather.
than select'ing the one alternative producing maximum response.
To pursue the issue of why TVA chose forcing functions at 4-5, 5-6, 1'0-11, and 15-.16 Hz,. the following arguments are offered:
(1)
As contended, it is a practical impossibility to identify the three or, four-highest CO response harmonics for, all structures and,response quantities.
Therefore, TVA sought
~~a. practical al'terna'tive that would maintain some conservatism over a pure SRSS combinat,ion of the CO harmonics.~~
Because of the reported indications that there may be s'ome fixed phase relationship be, tween the dominant harmonic at 5.5 Hz and its first few mul"tiples, we decided to use the 5-6, 10-1'1, and 15'-16 Hz LDR harmonics.
The 4-5 Hz.harmonic was added to. t'his li'st since it was the next largest amplitude harmonic fn the LDR definition.
I;t should be noted that three of these (4-5, 5-.6, and 10-..11 Hz) are the 'highest of al'1 the amplitudes provided in the LDR.
(2)
Comparing the LDR prescribed'BA CO and post-chug amplitudes, it can be seen that for s'truc$ ures 'having primary response modes bel'ow about 20 Hz, CO load combinations woul'd be expected'o control for design since the CO amplitudes: below 20 Hz're generally larger than the post-chug amplitudes.
Structures having primary response modes, above 20'z would'ost likely be controll'.ed for design by post-chug load combfnat:i'ons since post-chug amplitudes are hi'gher in this range.
Therefore, by picking thi'ee of'he hi.ghest
'CO amplitudes for absolute suranation, the three potentially most damaging load components are assured of receiving conservative combination in the response predictions for structures likely to be cont'rolled in their design by CO load, combinations.
BNL 7-2 PUAR. 00
I I
JI I
~
~
1
~
4 I
q,j) l (3)
(4)
PUAR -Ref'er ence 19 reconwnen~'fs a
pr ecedure for obta ini'ng" 50 percent or-84 percent NEPs and -shows that this is achi'e'ved when t,he three or f'our. hi.ghest res'ponse harmonics are combined absbluteiiy.
This is based on compar'isons with, predicted response values a't these probabilities as taken from constructed CDF curves for both'he FSTF and Oyster Creek. torus.
As can be seen from; the CDF curve's of Figrlireis 4-6 through 4-10 from Reference 19 all hav'e r'elatively small variance as'ndicr<ted by their steep slope.
It can also be, seen th'at the response values pr edi.cted'y total absolute sum of all 'harmonics is wel,l abov'ei the respons'e value assocliated wiith 1~00'ercent NEP.
Therefore, while even a, totrLI SRSS combination of,', all heirmonics would be only
~sl i~ht~l unconservative relative to the CDF 50 percer>t and 84 per cent
.NEP" response
values, a 'total 'absolute combination would'e grossly overconse'r vitive*
IUhi'le. there fIs no reason to suspect that a total SRSS combirration c>f,all harmonic responses would prodluce. a
.resporise valise as low even as that associated. with a 0 percent NEP; it 1<< interesting to observe from PUAR Reference, 19, Figures 4-6, 4-7, 8, 4-9, and 4.-10, that the percentage differences between the 0 and 50 per;cent NHP response values
~~are, 11.3, 15.6 16.3, 24.i0,;and 18.,2. percent, respectiveily.~~
Th,erefore, even a -piLrre SRSS combination rule wouldl result in at least a
0 percent NEE',esponse
~~value, meaning the potential unconservatism could be no more than the above pericer<tage~~
-di fferences between
.0 an'd 50 percer>t NEP vilueii.
~~Further, since TVA's approach is mor' con'servat'ive than pure SRSS,,our predicted response values would.be sti'll less of.a percentige difference.~~
All of'these arguments mean that any, slight uncon-servatism there may be in TVA'.s approach is much more than -offset. by.the:inherent conservatism in the FSTF based'oad defini"t,ions.
.Inherent in those definitions, as iil,r.eady, meintioned,
'i,s at least.
a 33 percent conservat'ism acco'rding to Dr. Alan Bila'nin.
So,.while our approach doesot" ri'gorously assure
-84
'per ceait NEP -alf the conserva't i'e LDR load def ini t ions
'per se,
-we ':feel very confident.that thi',s
~~leVel, or, more woul,d be achieved: if more r'ealidti'c load definition eind anaiyssis techniques were,possib)'e'.~~
A strong indication of the. conservati'sm. of the. BFN BBA', CO'dna',lysis is sekn
'in 'the, attach'ed=,Table BNL-7-1.
iBFN,stresses and reaction, forces are. presented, factored as nearly as possible to an FSTF-equi. valent basfs, and compared to measured and caiciilated NEP vjaliies for the FSTF.
BNL 7-3 PUAR.00
Looking at Table BNL-7-1, the factored BFN cradle support pad reaction forces are seen to be conservative with respect to the 84 percent NEP values (this would indicate similar conservatism of the stresses in the critical cradle regions which required extensive modifications).
Also, the BFN BDC membrane stress intensity (f'actored
-to an FSTF-equivalent basis) is almost exactly the same as the 84 percent NEP value for the FSTF.
While this degree of closeness may be coincidental, it does provide additional evidence that there is no large deficiency in stress intens'ity predictions in the BFN analysis.
Finally, there are two additional conservatisms worth noting about the BFN analyti'cal approach.
Firs.t, 2
percent damping was used for the'BA plus S/RV 'load combination analyses of the torus and submerged s tructures even though higher damping is justifiable because of the higher service level allowables.
~~Second, conservative load combination techniques were applied (see PUAR Section 4.4.2).~~
~~Concerning the final question about Alternate 4 of the CO baseline rigid wall pressure~~
~~spectrum, we do not know to what this refers.~~
Additional'eference:
BNL-7.1 Structural Mechanics Associates, "A Statistical Basis for Load Factors Appropriate for Use with CO Harmonic Response Combination Design Rules," Report No.
SMA 12101.04-R003D, March 1982.
Addendum In the September 5,
1984 meeting, BNL expressed remaining concerns over. TVA's use of the absolute sum of the four highest DBA.CO harmonic amplitudes, rather than the four harmonics. causing the greatest response.
BNL also asked:
"How much greater could the DBA CO load be without exceeding allowables"7 (paraphrased)
Oui response considers the torus separately from the tiedown system for reasons which are explained below.
The most highly str'essed regions of the torus, relative to allowables, are in the cradle adjacent to the scab plates described in PUAR Section 5.2.4.3.
(Also see the response to FRC 'Item.11.)
The controlling load combination is number
, 14 which'oes not include DBA CO.
There are large margins BNL 7-4 PUAR.00
for all load! combinati'ons involving DBA'O.
If one assume's that cradle" stresses are di,rectly proportional to the net compressive
~~loads, the DBA CO rehctio'ns'ould be 2.5 times the values computed by the TVA, analys'is'fthout exceeding allowables.~~
The tiedown system,
.on the other
~~hand, is controlled by lolad combination number 2'7 which incltzdes DBA CO..~~
Tiedown stresses are directly propor tionhl 'to'est 'uplift loads.
From computer calculated responses to the '0 to 30 Hz unit amplitude harmonics and hand calculations, the increase in reactions by taking the four highest responses rather thah,'he responsIes to the four highes.t a!mpl'itudes',
has been quantified.
The conservatism of TVA's method of enveloping the three alternate sets of amplitudes has also been quan-tified.
These calculations show that the DBA CO reactions presented in Table BIIL-7-1 would be 9 percent higher i"f th0 four highest harmonic response's had b'eel u!sed,'while retaining the conservatisrn of enveloping the a]!ternate amplitudes.
If the i,ndividual altern'ate amplitude sets
'are
~~used, the reactions would be 5.4 percent higher than those'n the table.~~
~~With the 5.4 per'cent~~
~~increase, the tiedown system stresses do not exceed allowables.~~
It is intpo'rtant to reemphasize that the SIM method of Reference 19 pro>'rides large margins'or support reactions.
It is
'alamo 'no'tee'd'or'th'y that the limiting load combi'nation (number,27) includes the highly unlikely simultaneous:
occurrence'of the'maximum responses due to the safe shutdown earthquhk6, DBA CO, and a single valve S/RV actuation.
TVA combir>edi t'geese three dynatnic events absolutely.
If,. 1'or example, a I.l SRSS combination of the three dynamic loads had been
~~used, the uplift loads would have been barely great enough to *vercome the deadweight.~~
BNL 7-5i PUAR.OO
TRBLE BNL-7-i COMPARISON OF FSTF AND BRONNS FERRY DBA C.O.
RESPONSES BFN RESPONSES MEASURED BFN FACTORED TO FSTFi PER CALCULATED EQUIVALENT REF.I9
~~RESPONSE~~
QUANTITY RESULTS FSTF TABLE 7-2 50%
NEP FSTFi PER REF. I9 TABLE 6-2 84/
NEP FSTFr PER REF.19 TABLE 6-2 BDC.MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITY (KSI) 1.SB 2.77'"
2.6 2.47 2.79 INSIDE REACTION (KIPS)
OUTSIDE REACTION (KIPS),
306 333 202~
220~
93 110 122 140 140 159 I (R/T)FSTF] I 1
BFN L (R/T) BFN J LPLANT UNIQUE PRESSURE FACTOR=0.85 BFN HHEREz R = MINOR RADIUS OF THE TORUS' SHELL THICKNESS'ND O' STRESS INTENSITY (2)
FSTF EQUIVALENT SUPPORT REACTIONS =
(BFN REACTION)
BFN POOL AREA PER CRADLE 1
~LANT UNIQUE PRESSURE FACTOR
ITEM 8:
Were pne-chug loads applied to O'FN according to the LDR and NUREG 0661 speci'fications regarding amplitude, circumferential and vertical distribu'tion and cycle durat'ion?
If not, provide quantitative 'justification,
~~RESPONSE~~
l l'
Th'e pre.-chug loads were applied in coinpl etc 'accordance with the LDR and NIJREG 06(iI, including don'siderations
'of
.amplitude, circumferential and vert, ical di'stribution,, and cycle duratio&.
With regard to the latter, the respohses of 71 shell mcides due to siz Independen1).
harmonic (implying in'finite dura't,ion) forcing funct.ionls, fiine-'u'ned to the structural:frequencies, were enveloped for all points in the'odel.
No credit was taken for thei finite duration. of the'ctual even't.
~ 4 ~
~i BNL 8-1 PVAR,.00
For post.-chug
~~loads, were the harmonic forci,ng functions used in the 1-30 Hz range the ones speci, fied in the~~
~~LDR, and were they applied in the manner prescribed~~
.in the LDR?
if not,. justif'y departures.
~~RESPONSE~~
h For both.the pos:t-chug, pressure loads applied to the torus and the drag loads; appl'1;ed to internal'tructures.,
the harmoni'c forcing funct.ions, used in the 1-,30,Hz range were those specif.ied in, the LDR,, and, they were appl:ied in the
~~manner, prescri,bed by the LDR.~~
Appendix D,. Section D.1,.2.4.2 o,f the BFN PUAR expl'ai;ns. how the, LDR prescribed, method was applied. for,submerged. structures by -consider,ing
.the closes't
'owncomer l.oad sources.
together. with worst-case phasing be. tween the sources.
BNL 9-1 PUAR. 00
ITEM 10.:.
The finite element model. of Figure 6-7 shows amputated downcomers.
How were thy CO and CH loads applied to these amputated downcomers?
~~RESPONSE~~
The finite element model in Figure 6-.7 was used to examine more clos'ely t,'he vent downcomer/head'er intersection.
Loads for the dii ffereni: combir>ation even'ts'hich i'nclud'ed condensatiion osci Il'ation. and chugging iwe'ire extracted:
from the 45.o vent system beam model ',(PUAR Ffg'use 6-2) at'he node.
representing the downcomer/vent header. shel.l intersection.
~
These loads were then:input into the truncated model't. the end of the downcome,r.
(The downcomer end's comprised of
,rigid beams connected by a, node in the center.)
The appro-priate stresses were then extracte'd
.and compared to the stress allowables.
BNL 10-1 PUAR 00
ITEM 11:
Were the CO I'oads appli'ed to the downcomers in accordance wi'th the L'DRand NUREG 0661?
Were the eight load cases of Secti,on 4.4.3'.2 of the LDR'nalyzed for all relevant vent system parts, (including main vent/vent 'header intersection, drywell/main vent interaction, downcomer/vent header I'ntersection,,
etc.)?
The:PUAR expl'I'cftly mentions consi'deri'ng different load'ases onl'y f'r the downcomer/
tiebar Intersection,
'and 'fn that case refers only to four load'ases rather than the eight of the LDR (Section 6.V 1.2 1).
Why is 2
5 percent damping justified for BFN f'r CO lateral load analysis?
Note that Table 6-10 shows
.no.margin for the downcomer/vent header intersection in Load Combination 27 which involves CO.
RESPONSE':
The CO downcomer.
loads Were applied in a manner consistent wi.th the intent o'f the LDR and NUREG 0661.
The load from the differential pressure for one 'downcomer was added to
" the internal pressure, that occurs simultaneously in all downcomers, thereby producing a higher load in one downcomer fn 'each paii.
~~Thus, from Figure 4.4.3.4'f th'e~~
~~LDR, a~~
darkened downcomer indicated that the di.fferential and internal pressures were working together simultaneously, whereas
'the other downc'orner in the pa'i,r experfenced only the internal pressure.
Based on the primary downcomer swing frequency "extracted from a modal analysis of the system, s'Inusoidal forcing, functions were applied to downcomer pairs defined by Figure 4.4.3-3 in the LDR.
'Since the primary swing mode f'r t'e BFN system occurs at approximately 8 Hz, the 1st,
~~2nd, and 3rd harmonics were applied In the 4, 8,- and.l2 Hz ranges, respectively.~~
~~Another aspect of. the BFN analysis was the application of the first harmonic forces to the coincident.8-Hz swing frequency.~~
~~Response~~
of the system to this single frequency load envelops the sum of the three harmonfcs defined by the LDR.
This load was subsequently
.applied in the stress evaluation.
Also, the first harmonic force amplitudes were applied with 16,and 24'z sinusoidal functions to verIfy that higher-frequency responses do not impact the, total CO response.
In actuality, 30 individual sinusoidal functions were applied for each load case to account for potential response at the 1/2, I, l-l/2, '2, and 2-1/2 harmonfcs of the six discreet primary swing mode frequencies in the 8-9 Hz range.
Note that this load was in addition to the vent system CO loads which were applied In a separate analysis.
BNL 11-.1 PUAR. 00
Four load'ases were ini tial I'y analyzed'or downcomer CO literal loads as indicated by PUAR Figure 6-12.
From inspection, of the first, four load
~+ases'an'd resulting
~~stresses, it visas evident that in each~~
~~instance, the.worst effect'n a~~
daiwnc'orner would occur on one that was loca'ted on the inboarci side of the vent hea'de'r.
Furthermore, the highest loadeci'owncomer (unreinfoi'ced
'She'1 I) i esulted, from the applicati,on of L'oad Case, I (differential, pressure applied to all, inboard downcomers).
Sine!e 'the sec'ond four.load cases defined in revision 2', of the LDRiarie mirror images of the f,irst four cases and greater response resul,tied from Case I, it was resolved that'he worst'oading had aire,ady been analyzed.
Therefore, no further analysi,s was performed.
All'ri-tical 'locations of the ven DBA CO lateral Ioaci combinations.,
s,tress margiin rela'tive to Service CO, combination, in Table 6-10 of t the primary plus secondary stress
,level should be evaluated with co conservatism in the load comb'inat Level C combination) and the.fact Case I is the worst of the eight configurations.
t systEm were evaluated
'fbr As noted in. item ll, the Leviel. B.allowables for the he PUAR is-close to 1.0 for catiegory.
This stress
'sidieration of the, ion (event 21 is a Service that clowncomer lateral Load potential load Prel iminary anal'ysis of tt>e BFN c.ontat,nment vent system for the DBA CO Iateril load def-initidn 'indida't'ed'
'su'rface stress level in the vent header shell.near the down'comer that approached the yield stress value for SA-516.Grade VO steel.
Under this'ituatio'n the tot'al stress level for l,oad
.combination No.
21 would not me'et the allowable for primary plus secondary stress range.
In an effo'rt to avoi.d additional modification
( I.e., downcorner/vent header reinforcement.gu,ssets),
the 2 perceinti reconmended damping rat'io was investigated as a source of excessive conservatism.
Per Regulatory Guide 1.61,,
a 3 percent clamping value 'is r econmended for arialysi,s c>f large diamet,.er, piiping systems for the safe shutdown earthquake.
Furthermoire, the cal'culated damping value 'resulting from the snap putll test of a tied downcomer arrangiement (seE. Figure,4-5 in Reference 5 to supplement I of I%UREG Oi861) was found to be approximately 2'.'2 percent for a 50 percent yield; Also, the damping; versus strain curve iridicates ia rapid IIIIcrease in damping above the 50 percent yield'evel.
Based oui these findiings, i t iias concluded that a damping 'value greater than 2 percent but less tha'n 3 per cient is appropr tate for the Browns Ferry c'o'nf iguration.
~ The 2.5 percent value was selected as the midpoint of the',2 percent:range and utilized for the DBA COi downcomer lateral analysis.
Resul tinIg surface stre: ses. in the vent iheader shell at the down'comer intersection're 20 to 24 ksi (f'r DBA CO,.loadlipg,:alone) as compcired to -a yield stress value of,'32.6 ksi f'r SA-516'rade VO steel at 400oF BHL 11-2 PUAR. 00
Therefore, the 2.5 percent; damping value is justi.f led based on:
(1.)
The s'tructural response of the Browns Fo"ry downcomer/
vent header con'f igurat ion.
(2)
The projected, resul"-ts of the snap test for h'igher ini ti,al str ess l,evel,s.
4 (3)
The damping criteria, del ineated in Regulatory Guide
~~1. 61.~~
,)I
~ jt; 0%
~ Yi
~ l
'a I'
~
I
(
BNL 11-3 PUAR. 00
ITEM I 2'.
1Veie.the, chugging loaiis appl'f,.ed to th'e.d2>wncomers:in accordanc'e with the LI)R. arid NUREG 0661?
.We!r.e tlie.mu.l triv.ent'chugging lo'ads. accounted for, on1 l v'en't, system,part's in
~acco'r dance. wi.th;the LI)R 'and NUREG 0(i61',?
Note that accord ing to Table 6'-'10, IIoad, Comb inat ion:15, which involves CH,'uis'..i ela t iv,ely,t i,t,t le, margrin.I RESPONSE':
~~Yes, the chuggiing loads. were app'll'ed,;to, the vent system i'ri~~
'accordance, with,'the LI)R.and,,lIUREG 0661.
LCCA,chuggin'g.load's, included post-rchug
~~drag, chugging late'ral, acoustic yerit system pre,ssure ciscill'ation,'and gross y'ent syst'm pre.~su.re'sci 1 lat iaIn, which:were,aplpl ied tIo the bIeam models shoiivn in'PUAR'igur'es~~
'.6-2 and. 6-3.
'.Responsea Were determined from
-those models and- 'loca'.I stresses w4r6 ctalt.'u/at'ed'.for the cr i t'ica*l 'loca t ii'oats..
4 I,
212 I
I BNL 12-.1
~PUAR;, 0 0
ITEM 13:
What hydrodynamic load definit ion was used for the vent pipe drain referred to on page 6-10 and shown on Figure 6-8?
RES PONSE:
From a Stardyne model of the vent drain and support
~~system, the fundamental natural frequency of the system was found to be 35.1 Hz.~~
~~Clearly, high ampli tude harmonics.. of post-chug around this frequency would lead to a strong expectation that a load combination involving post-chug woul'd be~~
'ontrolling; although, the possibi lity of a combination with pool swell was also considered.
From investigations of all potentially controlling design load combinations (including associated service level allowables) it was determined that combination ll (see Figure 4..3-1 of NUREG 0661) was controlling.
Specifically, the design case determined to be controlling was the SBA combination of S/RV plus post-chug fluid drag loads under service.
level A allowables.
The dynamic loads were very conservat.ively accounted for by the "Equivalent Static Load Method" explained in Appendix D, Section D;1.2.3 of the BFN PUAR report.
All 50 post-chug bubble source amplit'udes and. FSI accelleration coefficients were summed and used as multipliers of the unit forces (For)BUB and (For)FSI described in Equations D.1.2-6 and D.1.2-8, respectivel'y.
To these a resonant DLF = 25 (assuming 2 percent dampingI) was conservatively applied.
The S/RV'oad, contributions were applied with a harmonic DLF = 1.2 based.
on the ra.tio of maximum S/RV bubble frequency-to-system frequency, of 1'4.7/35.1 (again assuming 2 percent damping).
Addendum In the September 5,
1984 meeting,,
BNL's consultant, Professor Son'in of MIT, asked if the potential for chugging
~~through, the.~~
vent drain pipe and the effects of the resulting lateral loads had been considered.
TVA responded that the LDR did not include a method for defining such. loads, and the effects could therefore not be evaluated.
Professor Sonin then asked to be provided the properties and dimensions of the drain pipe and its support and the drag loads which had been applied to them.
BNL 13-1 PUAR.00
A set of five pages of calcula tions os the ef fec ts of S'/RV and pos t-chug drag loads, were subse'quent ly transmi t ted to Professor SonIi'n through l&C.
The calcula t ions show the post-chug draj~ loads, part;icular ly, were, d'ef ined in an extremely,, conservat ive manner wh'ich should'ompensate f'r'he lick of a directly applied ~la'teial. chugging load.
BNL,, 13-2 PUAR. 00
ITEM I4.$
Combining individual S/RV shell pressures by SRSS to obtain mul tiple valve shell pressures is an exception to the AC.
Jus t i fy thi s,procedur e for BFN.
RESPONSE$
The use of SRSS to obtain multiple valve she'1'1'ressures for analysis of S/RV discharges is justified by the BFN plant unique S/RV tests (PUAR Reference 41) and the correlation of analysis and test results (PUAR Appendix C).
Section C.3.2 of the PUAR specifically addresses this issue.
The measured peak shell pressures during multiple valve tests were approximately 4'5 percent of the analysis values for single.valve tests and 54 percent of the analysis values for multiple valve tests.
Thus the multiple valve test pressures are correlated by a 1.2 SRSS of single valve test pressures, but the overall BFN analysis and design approach was clearly conservative,.
It is also notewort'hy that considerable care was taken in the BFN test to ensure simultaneous actuation of three S/RVs with adjacent discharge locations in the torus.
This represents a "worst loca'tion" in the torus.
Referring to PUAR Figure 7-3, S/RVs D, E, and M were actuated simultaneously
'i'or mul.tipl e valve tests.
S/RV E was actuated for single valve tests.
Excellent repeatability was demonstrated for both test series (five single valve tests and four multiple valve tests.)
BNL 14-1 PUAR.00
ITEM I5:
Clarify the statement that the torus was analyzed quasi-statica'lly for S'/RV hydrodynamic shell pres. ures.
Where does g(t), i.e.,
the wave form of the pressure
~~history, in the expression on page 5-1'3 of the PUAR come from?~~
~~Are pressure,s applied statically as stated on page 5-12 or is there a time variation as implied by the expression on page 5-13?~~
~~RESPONSE~~
The wave form,,of t'e pressure history, g(t) was generated by the QBUBS02 computer code.
The pressures were applied statically to the torus shell to determine torus stresses deflecti ons, and support loads.
Subsystems,,
such as attached piping, weve analyzed dynamically for, the acceleration resp'onse resulting from the assauned shell mo'tion (see page
'5-14 of the PUAR).,
BNL 15-1 PUAR. 00
~,
~
ITEM 16,:.
't t
Provide the fol lowi'ng addi tional information regarding the in-plant. S/RV: tests conducted at. BFN and. the S/RV design loads extrapolated from the tests:
t 1.0 Descripti'on.of the tes"ted: Quencher Device-1.1 Drawings showing deta.ils of the quencher geometry-plan, elevat.ion,,
arm length, arm diameter, hole arrangement, spaci'ng,
~~size, etc.,~~
1.2'ocation of quencher device relative to suppression pool boundaries and suppression.
pool surface.
2;,0 1.3 Any difference between the tested quencher configu-rat-ion and'. the Monti.cello version. (as described in GE/NEDE-24542-P) highlighted and quantified.
A descript'ion. of the loads observed during testing-2.1 Peak overpressure
('POP) and underpin-essure (PUP)
.recorded on the torus shell during each relevant S/RY, actua,t i:on.
t 2.2 A tmeas.ure of the frequency, content of each pressure
- signature.,
3..0 A description of the test conditions 3.1 Geometry of the tested SRVDL ('diameter,
~~length,~~
'free volume, and routing below pool, surface).
3.2 Geometry of any SRVDLs in. the plant that differ significantly from the tested SRVDL.
-4. 0 3.3.
S/RV steam flow rate (MS,), pool'emperature (TPL),
pipe temperature (TP), wate'r leg
~ length (LW) and.
pressure di:fferential (hP),. if any, for each test.
3.4 Minimum AP permitted by NRC Technical "Specification and corresponding LW for all 'SRYDLs.
A description of the design conditions for each load case used for design-4.1 Geometry of all SRVDLs involved and thei r azimuthal location in the torus.
4.2 TP, TPL, MS, hP, and LW for al,l SRVDLS involved.
'BNL 1 6" 1 PUAR. 00
5.0 A description iof the design loads for each load case'-
5.1 5.2, 5.3 5.4 hformali:zed pressure signature.
Single valve POP/PUP values.
Spatial atteriuiati'on of the POP/PUP values (i f this di ffera from, the LDR methodology,,
suf f1'ci'ient addi t ional -torus shell pressure data must be supp 1 i end to just i fy,such dev ia t ion),i Frequency range considered.
~~RESPONSE~~
1.0 Description of thie tested quencher device The plan view of all BFN quenchiers ln units
.1
<'md 2
is shown on TVA drawing 47W401-7.
For unit 3 thk plan view is shown on drawing 47W401-3.
The tested quenchers were in unlit 2 at azirnuths 78o-45'D),
101o 15'E)
~
and 123o,45'M)
S/RV E. w actuated. f'r single valve, tests and all three (0,
E,,
and M) were actuated fior mu 1 t iple valise tests.,
These plan vi,ews corriespond to PUAR Figur'e 3
~
BFN quencher arm details are shown on TVA drawing 47W401-5.
Al 1 BFN quencher s are ident ical in dies,ig n.
Copies of all refer enced drawings are available for r ev i ew.
Oi 1'. 2 1.3 The BFN quencher device loca tilons are shown on TVA drawings 47W401-3, 47W401-5, and 47W401-.7.
Hach quen'cheer center li. ne is at elevat ion 526.-5 wh ich is 50 feet above the bot tom of the torus shel.l.
This yields a submergence of appi~oximately 10.0 feet.
Typical BFN quencher installations are shown on PUAR p la tes 10,,
11, and 13.
The BFN quencher device u t i Aires the previously.
ex i s t i ng 10-'i nch ramshead as i nd i ca ted on drawi'ng'7W401-5, while the Mont icel lo version has a
12-inch ramshead.
The BFN device has a
10-inlch2-inch reiducer between the ramshead and quencher arm whi 1'e the Monticel lo gersion does not..BFNnd'onticello quencher arm designs are identical except for minor var i,'at iohs in support type and BNL 16-2 PUAR.00'L
~
~
~
location.
The BFN weld cap hole pattern matches the pattern
.shown i',Figure 1-2 of NEDE-24542-P; it does not match
.the pattern in. Figure 1-3 of that report.
2.0
~~A descripti'on of the loads observed during. testing 2.1 Torus shell pressures resulting from the S/RV test are discussed in Appendix C, Paragraph C.5..2 of the PUAR.~~
Table C-2 of the=PUAR presents a 'compari,son of the analyt'i~cally predi'cted pressures versus the average o'f the peak.pressures from =e'ach test.
Thi's information 'is from the TES: Report No.
5172 (PUAR Reference 41).
Pages 1 through 54 of Volume III of the TES report show the pressure traces of the t'orus shell for each test.
'A suranary of the maximum and minimum.press'ures (POP and PUP) reco'rded during each test are shown, in Tabl:es BNL-1'6-1 and BNL-16-2.
2.2 The.pressure traces for all locati,ons and each test are f'ound i'n the TES Report (PUAR'Reference 41).
All pressure traces are similar i'n shape ahd primary f:reque'ncy; The 'primary frequency 'of the
,pressure traces ranges f.rom 5.'5 to 6.5 Hz.
Typical pressure,'traces are shown i,n F'igure BNL-1'6-'1'.
3.0 A 'description of the test conditions 3.1 R 3.2 The geometry of all SRVDI s.
i.s shown on the TVA 47W401 drawing ser'ies.
All di scharge 1 ines are IO" SCH 40 i,n the drywel1 and 10" SCH 80 or 1'.0" SCH 60 in the. wetwell.
The routi;ng for all lines below the pool is the same.
The 'rout'ing in the torus above the
.pool can be grouped into two categories--
lon'g lines and short lines.
SRVDL, E, a long line, was chosen for the single valve 'tests since the long line 'should rept esent the
'orst case for S/RV blowdown.
S/RV's D, E,
and M.were actuated simultaneously for the multipl'e valve tests.
The initial gas volume foi all lines is shown in Tabl.e BNL-16-3.
Also, see 1-.1 above.
BNL 1 6-3 PUAR. 00
~
~
~
3.3,
-Test Conditions Line.D
.Line S
Line M MS;, lb/sec TP.,
oF LWid F'T QP; psid
,26 8 78-&1 238'-355 7,.'0 1 e 2.-1'.33 268 78-81 220-3V 9 7.0 1.2-:1.33 268 V8-81 246-361 V.'0
~~l. 2-le 33~~
+lnit.ial aIad final-.temp'eratures of'rywell 1:pipe'gauge.
3.4'he minimum&F3 permit ted by technical speci f.ications is 1.10 psid.,
The corresponding water,leg leng th. is approximately V.S fe.et mea'sui ed from the'quencher centerline elevation.
4.0
'A description of the design condit ions for each load case used.
f.or -design 4'..1
-Figure 7.3:.o,f the PUAR sh,ows a plan view of,thy S/RV di'scharge in the torus.
This information's well as other information r'egarding 'geometry is avai'lab'le from TVA'rawing series 47W401.
Ai-s*,
'ee le,l above.
4'.2 The following. parameters wer e extracted from selected RVRlZ; RVFOR input.
Case Al..l '(NOC)
SRVDL E,1'P oF
'rPL oF 115.
'.5 115 VS M~Slb/.sec AP~sid LW.ft 303 l. 2>>
2.,13 308 1.2*
V.13 Cess.C3.3 (ISA. with Steam in D~W Second.Actnntion)
SRYDL E
L.
TP toF'PL oF,MS 1b/sec dP s I d 350 90.
308
~~l. 0+~~
350 90
.308
~~1. 0+~~
~~LW i'It~~
~~40. T2 31.,56~~
~~,These 'values were.used in RVRIZ, a value of zero wa's used for RVFORe 5..'0 A'escription of the design loads for each iioad ca'se.~~
~~1 Normal.i'zed. pressure s ignature We in terpre t the term "normal ized pre.ssure s ignature" to mean th6 s~ar ia'tion of the shell~~
~~pressu~i es wi th times Thieref'ore, i t-is the sake~~
.the var iable g( t} dtbf ined
.in', S'ec t ion 5.,4.2.8,of
'NLi 16-4 PUAR.00
5.2 The largest magn.i'tude POP and PUP values generated by QBUBS02 were -.appl'led for.each SRVDL in the torus.
Per 'the 'LDR, first actuation pressures were conservatively
~~assumed, to.be possible for second actuation (reflood) conditions.~~
The single valve values are as follows:
Pressure
( si
)
Event NOC or DBA SBA or,IBA POP
~~16. 2 1'9. 7 11.9~~
~~16. 6 5 e 3 The spatial a t.t en ua t i on functions used we r e as defined~~
'i n.the LDR and ge n e r a t ed by QBUBSO 2.
The only de v i a t i on 'from the LDR i n t h i s r ega r d wa s the use of SRSS 'for combining the ef fects of mul tiple valve actuations.
The SRSS issu'e fs addressed by the respons'e:to:BNL Item 14.
5.4 The f,requency.range.used, for design, as provi'ded 'by Section.5..5.'2 of the PUAR, is as follows:
Fre uenc (Hz)
.Even.t NOC or DBA SBA or IBA Min imum
~~4. 16~~
~~5. 58 Max imum 10.'29~~
~~14. 69 BNL 1 6 "5 PUAR. 00~~
8.0 6.0 P
4;0 2.0.,
~~1 VI.~~
-2.0 $
-0.0 $
0I0L I
(
I V
'R,A.A. A
/
X./: V V
t$.V0.
I '
.0.2
~
'.0.4 0;6, 0;.8,'1.0 1".2-1'.4'.1.6 1.8
.2.0 P-6.0
'5.0 4.0 3,0 $
2.0 f
/l
/1 VIV
~
n 2 ~ M 2.0
-3.0
-4;0 5.00;0 0ec 0.4 0.6 0.8:1.0 TIHE SECONDS V
.1..4
'1.6 1.8I 2.0 X100 t=st"Uxi BN" -ib-,i
'YPICAL PRESSURE
'TRACES'I-UR'BFN, lORuS SHELL'
TRBLE'NL-.iS'-i
'MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRESSURES (PS:I )
SINQL'FVALVE. ACTUATION. TESTS S2 S3 S4 S5 2
4.
7 8
C7 S
1'0 12 13 5.648
-4'. 950, 5,.'870.
-5'.203 5.393
-4.825'.593
'3.950,
~~3. 105~~
~~. -2'.354:~~
~~5. 195'~~
-3'.554'1'.757,
. -1'.1'1'3
'.:2.'539 1'.716 2.226 1:.648
'6..158.
'4'.755 4 887
-3.655 6.417'5.5S6 8.743.
-5.898:
6..455'5.386,:
5.285
-4:.47.7';;07,7,'4'097
5.7,46.
-3.9SO; 1'.'670'1.482 2'.737"
1'.'988'.369
- 1'.859 6'.'996
-5.397,'.615
-3'. 907:
6.71'4
-5.538 7 233
-5.827
.6'.S7S
-5.'45.1, 6'.'004
-4.650'.'297,
-4:.'258 5,.'501
.3.S69:
1'.878
-,1.341 2'. 821;
-1.961'2.580.
-2'.036 8.,757
-5.249 5'-517
-3'32 8'.6S5
-5.'545 7:. 1'12
-5.849 6;550
-5.429'.
709
-4..'509'..620
"-3'.929',.814
-4.. 1'12 1'.810
-1.354 2.751
-2.008 3.057 1'.838
'6,S1S.
-,5.333 5,496
.-3.858
'5.971-
-5.293 6.232
-5.52S 5.800
-4.949 5.183
-4. 195 4:. 151,
-3.,467, 5.. 1.13
-3.915 1.650
. 1'.341
~
2'512
.1.900 2'.764.
= 1.634 7.046
.5' 383 5.461,
-3.970
TRBLE -BNL-16-2 MAXIMUM ANL) MINIMUM F'RP'SSURES.
(PS I )
MUII TIPLE VALVE ACTUATION TESTS MI2 I%3 M4 7
8 Cl S
10 12 13 14 I).685
-5.997 6 211
'-6.310 ii.787
-6. 150 CJ.204
-.6 016 6.471
'; -.4.922
'5.828
-4.623 1.348
-1.831 2 ~ 151
.2~ 1S2 11.98
-7.482 7'.616
-6 108 5.314.
-5,.300 6.029
.6.062 7.283
".438 8.857
-6.434 10.01
-6.485 6.310
-4.613 6;7S5
-5. 174 1.764 1;777 2.669
.2.185 1 1.00
-7.639 8.328
-5.876 6.140
.5.356 S.,i123
-;6.,333 9.,135
--6.,771 9.,956
-6.,688 1 0.,79
-6.,760 8.,523
-5.,659 8.,224
-5.,331 2.,642
-'1.,837 3;,288
-2.,383 1 0-.,36,
-7.,162 7.;S19
-6.,524 6.,343
-'5 '097 7.005
-6.35S
~~8.'617,~~
-6.786 10.00
.6.66 1'0.66
-6.491.
6.216-
-5.686 8.007
-5.590 2.903
. 1.50S 2.914
-2.240 1 1.16
-7,.1S6
'7.264
-5.S53 5.076
-4.57S
TRBL'E:BNL-i:6-3 INITIAL GAS VOLUME (FT~ )
'A1. 1 'NORMAL OPERATING CONDITION BLOWDOWN 73.80 75.37 68.'16 LONG LINES 58.31
'53.33
'55 07 52.'1'4 54;82
'51.'00 52'.'89 55;60 SHORT LINES 54.'82 54.93
ITEM I7:
Elaborate o'n the, methodology used'o a'ccount for fluid-s tr ucture inteicact ion ef fects during CO hand c'hugging, drag loads in ElFN, ivhich is mentioned in1Se1ct)on 4.4,.9 of the P,UAR.
~~RESPONSE~~
,For an elaboration on the methodology used to a'ccount for fluid-str uctur e interact ion ef fects during CO and chugging drag loads, see PUAR Section 4.4.9 tpage 4>>24R1),
wi th, revi sion 1 change, and PUAR Sect i,on D.1.2.1;3, where tlie methodology is discussed in detail.,
1BNL 17-1 PUAR. 00
ITEM.18"..
What i's the verti'cal loca't'ion: of the suppression pool temperature sensors in rel'ati'on to the S/RV T'/Quencher cen'ter l,inc?
~~RESPONSE~~
~~The sensors are loca'ted approximately 20 i'n'ches above~~
~~the, T-Quencher'ent'erli'ne and:at mid-b'ay.~~
(See PUAR Figure 10-7.)
BNL 18-1 PUAR. 00
ITEM 19
~
'Were, there, any'xceptions',to the AC -for the hydr'odynamic'i loads..appl.ied
'for analysis of the Torus Attached Piping?
I'f so,. elaborate;.
~~RESPONSE~~
Other than the general.
interpr'etations elaboi ated In.Section.
4.2 of'he E)FN Pl'JAR,, there,were;no speci'f I c exceptions to
the NUREG.06i61

A'C for the,'.,hydrodynamic loads'pplied'or anal'ysi's of the,torus:attached piping.,
~~BNIi 19-.1.~~
PUAR. 00
ITEM 20:
In the calculation of va'r ious drag loads for BFN, the computer codes
~~LOCAFOR, CONDFOR,~~
~~TQFORBF, and TQFOR03 were used.~~
Do the algorithms o'f these codes follow approved AC procedures?
State any exceptions and justify them.
~~RESPONSE~~
~~The GE computer codes I'OCAFOR,~~
~~CONDFOR, TQFORBP, and TQPOR03 were used in the calculation of various drag loads for BFN.~~
These codes were "put up on Control Data Corporation computers around the country for access by the different AEs performing Mark I plant unique long-tecum program evaluations.
These codes were develo'p'ed, documen'ted, and verIfied by consultants u'nder contra'ct with GE, not by the'Es performing the Mark I anlayses.
The codes are proprietary t'o GE and
- Were only provided as "black boxes" with instructions on their use (including descri'pti on of requi red input data)
~~provid'ed in the form o'f Application Guides.~~
The AEs (includ'ing TYA) therefore.
do not have the direct access to t'e specific algor'ithms
'o'f t'hese codes whic'h. would be necessary to a'newer youi questi'on definitively.
It is TYA's understand'ing>
~~however, that the codes~~
~~LOCAFOR, CONDFOR, and TEE@FOR, used for evalu'ation of pool sfiiell, CO and chugging, and S/RV drag loads, r'espectively, follow approved NUREG 0661 AC procedures.~~
That me'ans that TVA has defined only S/RV drag loads with codes not thought to specifically follow all NRC-approved AC proce'dures.
The only significant differences between the appr'oved code TEE/FOR (not used by TVA) and the TQFORBF and TQPOR03
~~codes,~~
,to TVA's knowledged are
'as follows:
T~FORRF This code is different in that two bubble pressure
~~factors, BFAC(l) and BFAC(2), were incorporated to be used as mul tipliers of the n'egative ahd posi tive bubbl'e pr essures; respect ively.~~
These were 4mpl rically d'eveloped factors used to obtain more realistic comparisons of code predictions to Monticello test results (see Appendix B of GE Appl ication Guide 5, Revision 3 - a later revision of PUAR Reference 63).
~T FOR03 This code is dlffe'rent In the bubble dynaMics portion o! the
.code which uses QBUBS03 instead of QBUBS02.
The resul t i s that far moi e real istic, load predictions are obtained from this code due BNL 20-1 PUAR. 00
~
~
I
~ %
to the at tenuat,ion tn bublble energy as i t rises tIo the. surface of the torus pool.
Particul'arly fort structures, located high.in 1'.he.pool, this code predicts'rag loads, that lark sighific'antly attenuated in amplitude with 'time.
Whil,e bo'th of these
-codes are felt to be more real istic than the; extremely conservatiive TEEQFOR code, it should be noted that the least conservat'ive
~~code, TQFOR03, was, only'sed fear the.down'comer.S/RV drag load prediciti*ns.~~
That was because the, downcomers az'e,-located, very. high in ithe pool where,'realisticall'y, the S/RV bubbles have attenuated substantially'rom
'their exit str'ength.
Loads pr ediicted for,this structure's i,ng even the 'TQFORBP codle (which is slightly 1 ess conser,-
vative'han.'PEEQPOR) w'ere found to be un'rehlistically high),
For'l"1subrrierged s'tructures otheir thorn. the downcomers, the still very conservative Tg!PORBF code was used to,obtain peak
'S/RV drag force amiIil i tudes.
Thi's ciode iwas used for the
.other s'ubmer'ged s'tructures because.
i t is cheeIper.to run thein TQFOR03 and the degree of overconservat'1'sm in TQFORBF, versus TQFOR03: is not 'too significant for structures in lower'levations of'he pool'.-
Other than the downcomers, most BFN
,submerged structures ar'e in the lower pool elevat'ions.
The use of TQFORBF and TQFOR03 was
',believed to be well justi'fled. by 'good engineer in'g...judgment and especially by the fact that TVA plannied S/RV tests which were. expected to
,support tliat.judgment'.
Additionally,'he S/RV,drag, (exc'ept forth'e downcomers) were.co'nserva'ti'vely
'defir'>ed assuming worst-case peak
'.load amplitudes, app11ied as steadier-state harmonics at worst.-case, frequencies..
As expected,,
the S/RV tests provided conclus'i,ve evidence of the adequacy~
of the, analytical'appraoch for S/RV fluid dirag loads.
~ Ajipendix C of the.PUAR desctibes'lhe correlation of analytical and test:. dat'a.
For examipl<!, the analytical approach for the downcorners (using, TQFOR03 loads)
.was showvi to overprIedict stre,sse's by a fac'toi of four relative to single anil niiilti~rle S/R11 test results.
i
~ ~'~'i
-'ir PJ C
BNL 20-2 PUAR.00,,
ITEM 21:
Are there any di fferences between Browns Ferry Un i ts 1,
2, and 3 which were s igni f.icant enough to warrant separa te analyses for any unit? If'o, state the di f ferences and the analyses used.
~~RESPONSE~~
Tot ns The Units 1 and 2 tori are virtually identical.
Unit 3
used lighter construction in the following areas:
Location Uni,ts 1 and 2
Untt 3
Ring gir'der inside flange l-l/2" x 12" 1" x 10" Ri'ng g'i rder web 1-1/4" x 12" 3/4" x 12" Cradle edge p'lates 1-1/4" x 12" 1" x 12" All dynamic torus anal'yses and the definition of modifi-cati'ons were 'ba'sed on the Unit 3 properties.
Modification studies showed that stif'I'ening the ring girder-cradle system always improved performance.
Hence,,
the definition of modifi'cation for Un.its 1,'nd' fr'om the Unit 3 ana.lysis results is conserv'ative; Vent S stem The vent systems for al'1'. BFN units 'are virtually identical.
Tor us Attached Pi in Ex'ternal BFN torus a't tached piping conf igura tions are d i fferen t for each BFN un it.
There fore, g'enera 1 ly a separate pipirig analysis was required for every piping system on each unit.
Internal torus attached piping Configurations are virtually idehtical i'rom unit to unit but th'ey are included in the external piping analytical models.
S/RV Dischar'e Pi in Two basic S/RV piping configurations are used in each BFN torus as shown by PUAR Figures 7-8 and 7-9.
The arrangement of all 13 lines in eacli BFN torus is shown in plan view by PUAR Figure 7-3.
BFN S/RV drywell piping configurations v'ary from line to line and and in some cases unit to unit.
Therefore, various analytical models were used for the S/RV piping in the drywells.-
Nonsafet Related Interrial Structures The nonsa fety related Iriternal stiuctures are virtually identical for all BFN units.
BNL 21-1 PUAR. 0 0
ITEM 22
'Th i'; i',an adidi t,"ion'al'I tern to. re'spond:
t'o a;verb'al,inqui ry
'rom'BNL't
.the Sep'temper'"5, 1984 meeting;,BNL asked how close'o impact with,the ma in 'ven't'ellows does, the pool swell come.
V RESPONSE::
Calculations; ba'sed on the;conse'rvatiye LDR methodology>.
predict. ihat-;the pool swel'1. profile woul'd'omeithin" 1.1 inches. of the bellows.
If the pool'well were to slightly impact the bellows, the velocity would, be, very
~~small, approaichilng,,zero at inc ipient Impaot~~
,Examinatiion of the, construction 'of'.the.'bellows leads'o the asse'ssment
.that it hiss ver', good 'local-'mpact res is tance.
i
'Any poten'tial for damage or leakage would r'e!qui're 'Impact over'a 'large, area,
~~which, in turn, would'equire the pool to,r ise at'" leis t, a foot,air,more ab'ove the;bcit tom of the.~~
.b e I'1 ows TVA, concludes that ther,e is no digni,ficant'.'saf'ety
'Co'ncern'or pool., swiell jimp'act. on the vent'ystem.bellows's
~
~ 5
~ ~
~ t r
~ 'I BNL'2'-I'UAR.,OO'
'HAX 'POOL SHELL PROFIL'E 4 +46' EL 54m -SO~E 3 o87' m
t, io I
I EL 537~-0 7+75'c
~S F'R PoiNT B oN 'vENTI YB +
5,07'S
~ YHAX POOL AT )L/R ~ 6.5<
YHAX
~Bol OOL HISSES 4Y i09'A ASOUT ii AT THE CLDSEST POINT>
FICURE BNL--ZZ=I TVPICAL, HID VENT BAY CROSS-SECTION
"r4 ~
~ Q
~
~
0 l
>>I I
.1 4
)
S 7
~,'A l
l I'
~
i>"
',f~
1 4
~4laJ ~ 1

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 =Text=
-{{#Wiki_filter:REGULATORY                  l        rORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYS       M  (RIDS)
+{{#Wiki_filter:REGULATORY l rORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYS M (RIDS)
-ACCESSION NBR;8410240289                                DOCiDATE! 84/10/11     NOTARIZED: YES          DOCKET tt FACIL;50-259 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Stationi Unit ii. Tennessee                                   05000259 50 260 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Stationi Unit 2i Tennessee                                   05000260 296 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Stationi Unit 3< Tennessee
+ACCESSION NBR;8410240289 DOCiDATE! 84/10/11 NOTARIZED:
-         '50 RE                                                                                          05000296 AUTH'AME             AUTHOR    AFFILIATION MILLsiL,M,           Tennessee                         Valley Authority RECIP ~
+YES FACIL;50-259 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Stationi Unit ii. Tennessee 50 260 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Stationi Unit 2i Tennessee
-DENTONgH ~    'ffice NAME'ECIPIENT AFFILIATION of Nuclear Reactor Regulationp Director
+'50 296 Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Stationi Unit 3<
+Tennessee AUTH'AME AUTHOR AFFILIATION MILLsiL,M, Tennessee Valley Authority RECIP ~ NAME'ECIPIENT AFFILIATION DENTONgH ~
+RE
+'ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulationp Director
 ==SUBJECT:==
 Forwards response to 840726 request for addi info =re Mark I containm nt ion ter program plant-unique analysi-s r ept-,
-DISTRIBUTION CO: A02         'PIES                           RECEIVED!LTR     f ENCL   3    SIZE:
+DISTRIBUTION CO:
-TITLE: OR Submi tal: USI A"7 Mark I Containment NOTES:NMSS/FCAF 1cy    ~ icy                                                                          05000259 NMSS/FCAF/PM'Le06/26/73 NMSS/FCAF    icy'cy     NMSS/FCAF/PM'L:06/28/74 05000260 NMSS/FCAF,icy, 1cy                                                                             05000296 NMSS/FCAF/PM'L:07/02/76 RECIPIENT                       COPIES                    REC IPIENT            COPIES ID CODE/NAME                     LTTR ENCL               ID CODE/NAME           LTTR ENCL-NRR ORB2 BC     01                                  Q INTERNALe ADM/LFMB                                         1    0     EDO                       1     0 ELD/HDS4        13                             1    0     NRR  DIR                  1     0 NRR. SIEGELIB                                 5    5     NRR/DE/MEB                4     4 NRR/DE/MTEB                                    1    1     NRR/DL/ORAB      10       1     1 NRR/DL/TAPMG                                   1    1     NRR/DS I/CSB     11       1     1 Q4                             1    1     RGN2                      1     1 EXTERNAL; ACRS              12                            10    3     LPDR             03       1     1 NRC   PDR       02.                            1    1     NSIC             05             1 NTIs                                           1    1 NDTEs:
+A02 'PIES RECEIVED!LTR f ENCL 3 SIZE:
- 'TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:'TTR                                39   ENCL     24
+TITLE:
+OR Submi tal:
+USI A"7 Mark I Containment NOTES:NMSS/FCAF 1cy ~ icy NMSS/FCAF/PM'Le06/26/73 NMSS/FCAF icy'cy NMSS/FCAF/PM'L:06/28/74 NMSS/FCAF,icy, 1cy NMSS/FCAF/PM'L:07/02/76 DOCKET tt 05000259 05000260 05000296 05000259 05000260 05000296 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME NRR ORB2 BC 01 INTERNALe ADM/LFMB ELD/HDS4 13 NRR. SIEGELIB NRR/DE/MTEB NRR/DL/TAPMG Q4 COPIES LTTR ENCL Q
+0
+0
+5
+1
+1
+1
+REC IPIENT ID CODE/NAME EDO NRR DIR NRR/DE/MEB NRR/DL/ORAB 10 NRR/DS I/CSB 11 RGN2 COPIES LTTR ENCL-1 0
+0
+4
+1
+1
+1
+EXTERNAL; ACRS NRC PDR NTIs NDTEs:
+10 3
+.
+1
+1
+LPDR NSIC 03 05 1
+1
+'TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:'TTR 39 ENCL 24
 n
-         ~   ~
+~
-           ~   ~
+~
-  ~ I l(
+~
+~
+~
+I l(
-TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 87401 400 Chestnut    Street Tower     II October 11, 1984
+TENNESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 87401 400 Chestnut Street Tower II October 11, 1984
-                     ~!
+~!
 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
 ==Dear Mr. Denton:==
+In the Matter of the Tennessee Valley Authority Docket Nos. 50-259 50-260 50-296 By letter from D. B. Vassallo to H. G. Parris dated July 26,
+: 1984, we received a request for additional information regarding the Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) for the Br owns Fevry Nuclear Plant.
+In response to your request, meetings were conducted at TVA's offices in Knoxville, Tennessee, on September 5 and 13, 1984.
+Enclosed are the responses to the request for additional information.
+The enclosure reflects discussions that weve held with your staff after the.
+meetings.
+Based on discussions with your staff, we believe that the responses provided here are acceptable for resolution of your staff's concerns.
+If you have any questions, please get in touch with us through the Browns Ferry Project Manager.
+Very truly -yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY L. M. Mills, Ma ager Nuclear Licensing Subscribe sworn to fo e me 'this da o
+.
+otary Public My Commission Expires Enclosure cc:
+See page 2
+i0240289 84iOii PDR ADGCK 05000259 P
+PDR An Equal Opportunity Employer
-In the Matter of the                                        Docket Nos. 50-259 Tennessee   Valley Authority                                             50-260 50-296 By letter from D. B. Vassallo to H. G. Parris dated July 26, 1984, we received a request for additional information regarding the Mark                I  Containment Long-Term Program Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) for the Br owns Fevry Nuclear Plant. In response to your request, meetings were conducted at TVA's offices in Knoxville, Tennessee, on September 5 and 13, 1984.
+c~q
-Enclosed are the responses          to the request for additional information. The enclosure reflects discussions that weve held with your staff after the.
+'V Vj I
-meetings. Based on discussions with your staff, we believe that the responses provided here are acceptable for resolution of your staff's concerns.
+Cg (J
-If you   have any questions, please get in touch with us through the Browns Ferry Project Manager.
-                       !"
-Very   truly -yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY L. M. Mills, Ma ager Nuclear Licensing Subscribe '       sworn       to   fo  e me 'this          da       o                   1984.
-otary Public My Commission   Expires Enclosure cc: See page    2 84i0240289 84iOii PDR ADGCK
-          '       05000259 P                         PDR An Equal Opportunity Employer
-c ~q 'V V j I
+Mr. Harold R. Denton N
-Cg (J
+October 11, 1984 co (Enclosure):
+U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II ATTN:
+James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. R. J. Clark Browns Ferry Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue
+: Bethesda, Maryland 20814
-Mr. Harold R. Denton                                   October 11, 1984 N
+~
-co   (Enclosure):
+~a 1
-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II ATTN: James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. R. J. Clark Browns Ferry Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda,  Maryland  20814
-  ~ ~a 1
+ENCLOSURE
-ENCLOSURE RESPONSE  TO D. B. VASSALLO'S LETTER TO H. G. PARRIS DATED JULY 26, 1984 MARK  I  CONTAINMENT LONG-TERM PROGRAM PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT LOADS EVALUATION BROMNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT Attachment  1 - Responses   to Franklin Research Center Questions   - Responses   to Brookhayen National Laboratory Questions
+===RESPONSE===
+TO D. B. VASSALLO'S LETTER TO H. G.
+PARRIS DATED JULY 26, 1984 MARK I CONTAINMENT LONG-TERM PROGRAM PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT LOADS EVALUATION BROMNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT Attachment 1 - Responses to Franklin Research Center Questions Attachment 2 - Responses to Brookhayen National Laboratory Questions
-~ WP ~'
+~ WP
-ATTACHMENT I BFN PUAR FINAL T.VA RESPONSES  IO RESEARCH CENTER QUESTIONS.
+~ '
-NRC'ND'RANKLIN
-Genera   1 Response    to PUAR Ques  t i ons BFN LTP     analysis and design activity has proceeded on a   schedu l.e necessary to suppor t i'nsta 1 la t ion of a l,l mod i f icat ions dur iing the Cycle 4 and 5 refuel ing outages of each unit, as required by NRC. The ..f irst BFN Cycle 4 refueling outage began in Apr i 1 1981, and most of. the major mod i f icat:ion designs were complete by May 1981.         Remaining mod i f ica t ion designs, pr imari ly for torus at tached pip ing external supports were complete in, time to support installation during the Cycle 5 refueling outages.
+ATTACHMENT I BFN PUAR FINAL T.VA RESPONSES IO NRC'ND'RANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER QUESTIONS.
-In order to satisfy schedule commitments, it was necessary to make interpretations of LDR 'and NUREG 0661 requirements based upon the 'best available information ~at the time of analysis Most of the interpre.tat'ions ivere originally established in 1979 and early 1980. A continuing effort to remove excessive conservatism from load definiitions and    analysis method. was made, particularly when that conservatism would result in unnecessary, impractical modifications.
-When la ter in forma t iion on load de f in i t ions and assoc ia ted analysis me thods became available, it~ was compared to the prev'ious in ter pretations. The later information was used for reanaly s is and assoc ia ted des ign work if a s igni f ican t
-.unconservat ism in the previous interpretation was indicated.
-For example the f ina1 downcomer t iebar/v-brac ing mod i f ica t iion resulted fr orn November 1981 changes in the DBA condensa't ion oscillation       tera 1 load de f in ii t ion.
-                                                                                               'a Sometime:s, la ter information was used to remove excessive conserva t ism in rema in ing analysis and des ign work. For example, the:l. SRSS load combination technique was 1
-permit ted for .torus at tached piip ing ana)lysis af ter NRC's f inal po:sit ion on this subject was def ined in April 1983 by PUAR Reference 58. An absolute sutrsm<t ion combination technique was required pr ior to t,hat t irne.
-Finally, when the later information showed the previous load definitions and analysis methods to be adequately (but not excessively) conservative, the original interpretations'ere retained. In these siituations reanalysis utiliz'ing th'
- 'later information would have been unnecessary and costly, and, in some cases, would have resulted in delays in th' installation of modifiic'ations.
-Many   of the E>UAR questions der ive from:si t uat ions where the original inte rpretations stated in PUAR Sect i on 4 wer e for analys is. Justi f iicat ion for these interp                               was
-                                                                                'used'etations provided in E~UAR Section 4, Sec ti,on 5, and Ap pendix C.
-Addi t ional technical .just if ica t ion follows in the to specific questions on these topics. Other                             ques'tions responses'UAR simply request additional information, whiich is provide'd in the respon,ses.
-GR-1                                         PUAR.04
-I t is TVA's posi t ion that the BFN PUAR (Revis ion 1') and our review quest ion responses demonstrate compliance with the intent of the Mark '1 Conta inment Long-Term Program and NUREG 0661 ( i.e., to upgrade the containment system safety margins, for 'a pos tu la ted hydrodynamic load i ng. cond i t ions, to those 1 1 intended by the or iginal design           f ica t ions) . On this basis, we feel that all indicatedspeci safety concerns are fully and sa t is factor i ly addressed, and we respec t fu ly r eques t a 1
+Genera 1 Response to PUAR Ques t i ons BFN LTP analysis and design activity has proceeded on a
-favorab le f inal evaluat ion for the BFN LTP..
+schedu l.e necessary to suppor t i'nsta 1 la t ion of a l,l mod i ficat ions dur iing the Cycle 4 and 5 refuel ing outages of each unit, as required by NRC.
-GR-2                          PUAR.04
+The
+..first BFN Cycle 4
+refueling outage began in Apr i 1
+: 1981, and most of.
+the major mod i f icat:ion designs were complete by May 1981.
+Remaining mod i f ica t ion designs, pr imari ly for torus at tached pip ing external supports were complete in, time to support installation during the Cycle 5 refueling outages.
+In order to satisfy schedule commitments, it was necessary to make interpretations of LDR 'and NUREG 0661 requirements based upon the 'best available information ~at the time of analysis Most of the interpre.tat'ions ivere originally established in 1979 and early 1980.
+A continuing effort to remove excessive conservatism from load definiitions and analysis method.
+was made, particularly when that conservatism would result in unnecessary, impractical modifications.
+When la ter analysis me prev'ious in for reanaly
+.unconservat For example resulted fr oscillation in forma t iion on load de fin i t ions and assoc ia ted thods became available, it~ was compared to the ter pretations.
+The later information was used s is and assoc ia ted des ign work if a s igni fican t ism in the previous interpretation was indicated.
+the fina1 downcomer t iebar/v-brac ing mod i f ica t iion orn November 1981 changes in the DBA condensa't ion
+'a tera 1
+load de fin ii t ion.
+Sometime:s, la ter information was used to remove excessive conserva t ism in rema in ing analysis and des ign work.
+For
+: example, the:l.
+SRSS load combination technique was permit ted for.torus at tached piip ing ana)lysis af ter NRC's final po:sit ion on this subject was def ined in April 1983 by PUAR Reference 58.
+An absolute sutrsm<t ion combination technique was required pr ior to t,hat t irne.
+Finally, when the later information showed the previous load definitions and analysis methods to be adequately (but not excessively) conservative, the original interpretations'ere retained.
+In these siituations reanalysis utiliz'ing th'
+'later information would have been unnecessary and costly,
+: and, in some
+: cases, would have resulted in delays in th' installation of modifiic'ations.
+Many of the E>UAR questions der ive from:si t uat original inte rpretations stated in PUAR Sect i for analys is.
+Justi f iicat ion for these interp provided in E~UAR Section 4,
+Sec ti,on 5, and Ap Addi t ional technical
+.just ifica t ion follows in to specific questions on these topics.
+Other simply request additional information, whiich the respon,ses.
+ions where the on 4 wer e
+'used'etationswas pendix C.
+the responses'UARques'tions is provide'd in GR-1 PUAR.04
-tTEM Provide      a  more deta i led'escr ip t ion of the vent, system 0
+I t is TVA's posi t ion that the BFN PUAR (Revis ion 1')
-ana   lys is regard ing   downc'orner 1'a tera 1 'loads (Sec t ioii 4.4.5 (5))
+and our review quest ion responses demonstrate compliance with the intent of the Mark '1 Conta inment Long-Term Program and NUREG 0661
+( i.e.,
+to upgrade the containment system safety margins, for 'a 1 1 pos tu la ted hydrodynamic load i ng. cond i t ions, to those intended by the or iginal design speci f ica t ions).
+On this
+: basis, we feel that all indicated safety concerns are fully and sa t is factor i ly addressed, and we respec t fu 1 ly r eques t a
+favorab le final evaluat ion for the BFN LTP..
+GR-2 PUAR.04
+tTEM Provide a more deta i led'escr ip t ion of the vent,system ana lys is regard ing downc'orner 1'a tera 1 'loads (Sec t ioii 4.4.5 (5))
 ===RESPONSE===
-As    descr.ibed in tihe LDR, the condensation osci llation lateral      load 'is simulated foreach downcomer pair by adding, a di f ferent ia 1 pressure      for one downcomer to t'e tha t occurs, in both downcomer., thereby produ'cfog intern'al'ressure,
+As descr.ibed in tihe LDR, the condensation osci llation lateral load
-                                                                                                '
+'is simulated foreach downcomer pair by adding, a di fferent ia 1 pressure for one downcomer to t'e intern'al'ressure, tha t occurs, in both downcomer.,
-higher load in one downcomer than in t'e other,. Thus, fr om Figure'.4'.3.4 of'he LDR,, a darkened downcomer indicates that: thIe differential. and internal pressures are work ing s iniu 1 taneI~us ly, wherea. the o ther downcome r only exper iences the in terna.l pressure.
+thereby produ'cfog higher load in one downcomer than in t'e other,.
-A 45o beam       model, Figure 6-2,,'ra0 uised to 'analyze both IBA CO and DBA CO.         Based on the primary''owncomer swing frequency extracted from a modal analysis of the system, sinusoidial ing functions were appl i ed 'o'he'owncomer pair s                                 'orc consider ing the load cases def iine'd by Figure 4.4 3-3 in the LDR.,Since the primary swing rood'e foII the BFN System occurs in the 8 Hz, range the 1st, 2nd, an8 !hard harmonics were addressed by sinusoidal functions in the 4, 8, and 12 Hz ranges, respectively. An added c'on'servatism in the BFN analysis was the hppl ication of the first harmonic forces to the coincident & Hz swing frequency. The response of <<he system to this- single i'requency'oad enveloped responses from the sum of 'the three harmonics defined by the LDR. Also, the f irst harmonic force.,ampl i tudes were applied with 16 and 24 Hz sinusoidal functions to verify that higher frequency responses do not in>pact tYie total CO respon'se.             In fact, 30 individual si~usoidal functions were applied for each load case to account, for poten t ia 1 harmonics a't the 1/2, 1,          l-l 2-1/2 ha rmon ics of the s ix d i sc ree t p r ima ry swing mode
+: Thus, fr om Figure'.4'.3.4 of'he LDR,,
-                                                                                   /2., 2, andI frequencies in the 8 to 9 Hz range.
+a darkened downcomer indicates that: thIe differential. and internal pressures are work ing s iniu 1 taneI~us ly, wherea.
-The BFN vent system was analyze'd'foir the fou'r itn it ia1 d i f feren t ia I pressure ca,sea spec'i f i ed by a May 1981 dra'f t of LDR Section 4.4.3. (See PUAR Figute 6-12.) Subsequently, four add'i t iona 1 mi r ror image ca'ses >vet e in'eluded in the f ical   CO   latera,! load definit ion. Evaluation of both the ir. it ia1 f'our cases   and theiir four mirror images demonstrated FRC'-l                                             PUAR.04
+the o ther downcome r only exper iences the in terna.l pressure.
+A 45o beam model, Figure 6-2,,'ra0 uised to 'analyze both IBA CO and DBA CO.
+Based on the primary''owncomer swing frequency extracted from a modal analysis of the system, sinusoidial
+'orc ing functions were appl i ed 'o'he'owncomer pair s consider ing the load cases def iine'd by Figure 4.4 3-3 in the LDR.,Since the primary swing rood'e foII the BFN System occurs in the 8
+Hz, range the 1st,
+: 2nd, an8
+!hard harmonics were addressed by sinusoidal functions in the 4, 8,
+and 12 Hz
+: ranges, respectively.
+An added c'on'servatism in the BFN analysis was the hppl ication of the first harmonic forces to the coincident
+& Hz swing frequency.
+The response of <<he system to this-single i'requency'oad enveloped responses from the sum of 'the three harmonics defined by the LDR.
+: Also, the first harmonic force.,ampl i tudes were applied with 16 and 24 Hz sinusoidal functions to verify that higher frequency responses do not in>pact tYie total CO respon'se.
+In fact, 30 individual si~usoidal functions were applied for each load case to account, for poten t ia 1 harmonics a't the 1/2, 1, l-l/2.,
+, andI 2-1/2 ha rmon ics of the s ix d i sc ree t p r ima ry swing mode frequencies in the 8
+to 9
+Hz range.
+The BFN vent system was analyze'd'foir the fou'r itn it ia1 d i fferen t ia I pressure ca,sea spec'i fi ed by a May 1981 dra'f t of LDR Section 4.4.3.
+(See PUAR Figute 6-12.) Subsequently, four add'i t iona 1 mi r ror image ca'ses
+>vet e in'eluded in the fical CO latera,!
+load definit ion.
+Evaluation of both the ir. it ia1 f'our cases and theiir four mirror images demonstrated FRC'-l PUAR.04
-t tha t Load Case 1 is control.l i.ng and addi t ional r igorous analysis of the mirror images was unnecessary.          (See response to BNL Item 11 for further discuss ion. ) The DBA CO downcomer la tera 1 load ef fec ts were combined with DBA CQ fluid drag loads and other loads in the controlling load comb ina t ions and eva lua ted to the govern ing stress levels.
+t tha t Load Case 1 is control.l i.ng and addi t ional r igorous analysis of the mirror images was unnecessary.
-The chugging la tera 1 loads were calcu la ted in accordance with the    LDR and NUREG 0661, us ing fr equenc ies from the modal analyses per formed'. on the 45 and 180 vent system beam models. These loads were appl ied to s'ingle downcomer s chuggingexclus,ively and to mu 1 t ip le downcomers chugging synchronously. The 45o beam model (PUAR Figure 6-2) was used for analysis of single downcomer chugging lateral'.
+(See response to BNL Item 11 for further discuss ion. )
-loads, and'he 180 beam model (PUAR Figure .6-3) was used for analysis of downcomer synchronous chugging la terai loads. The r esu 1 t ing e f fec ts were then comb ined wi th other loads, including chugging fluid drag loads on the tiebars and   v-bracing for stress, and fatigue evaluation of the entire vent system.
+The DBA CO downcomer la tera 1
-Stresses    were determined   by  applying appropriate   intensi-fication factors at intersections        and by direct application of loads to finite. element models       shown on PUAR Figures 6-5, 6-7,   and 6-11.
+load ef fec ts were combined with DBA CQ fluid drag loads and other loads in the controlling load comb ina t ions and eva lua ted to the govern ing stress levels.
-  ~  1
+The chugging la tera 1
-    'I
+loads were calcu la ted in accordance with the LDR and NUREG 0661, us ing fr equenc ies from the modal analyses per formed'. on the 45 and 180 vent system beam models.
-   .I I
+These loads were appl ied to s'ingle downcomer s chuggingexclus,ively and to mu 1 t ip le downcomers chugging synchronously.
-  ~~
+The 45o beam model (PUAR Figure 6-2) was used for analysis of single downcomer chugging lateral'.
+loads, and'he 180 beam model (PUAR Figure.6-3) was used for analysis of downcomer synchronous chugging la terai loads.
+The r esu 1 t ing e ffec ts were then comb ined wi th other
+: loads, including chugging fluid drag loads on the tiebars and v-bracing for stress, and fatigue evaluation of the entire vent system.
+Stresses were determined by applying appropriate intensi-fication factors at intersections and by direct application of loads to finite. element models shown on PUAR Figures 6-5, 6-7, and 6-11.
+~ 1
+'I
+.I I
+~ ~
 k ~
-FRC  1-2                PUAR.04
+FRC 1-2 PUAR.04
-ITEM.. 2 I Provide. the Physical detafi ls of 'the sei'smic lugs. that restrain .the. torus against hor izon tal seismic rrot ion yet ow therma   g row th;
+ITEM.. 2 I Provide. the Physical detafi ls of 'the sei'smic lugs. that restrain
-                                                                 'a 1 1           1
+.the. torus against hor izon tal seismic rrot ion yet
+'a 1
+ow therma 1
+g row th;
 ===RESPONSE===
 The er ec t ion drawing for. the seismic 'lu'gs's PDM-'E12.
-,Fabrica t ion de ta i ls. foi the cohyon@n ts are shown on PIM drawing 41. (Copies of the"draw~inps are avai lable for
+,Fabrica t ion de ta i ls. foi the cohyon@n ts are shown on PIM drawing 41.
+(Copies of the"draw~inps are avai lable for
 .rev iew." )
-FRC 2-jl'URR                      04
+FRC 2-jl'URR 04
 ITEM 3:
-Indicate   how  the ring girders were analyzed for loads from attached    internal structures. Any, dynamic load factors that may. have  been used in the analysis must be provided and justified.
+Indicate how the ring girders were analyzed for loads from attached internal structures.
+Any, dynamic load factors that may. have been used in the analysis must be provided and justified.
 ===RESPONSE===
-The   effects of the large'r systems on the ring girder and other portions of the torus were considered as follows:
+The effects of the large'r systems on the ring girder and other portions of the torus were considered as follows:
-header pool swell impact .were corisidered directly, as described in Sec'tion 5.4;2.7 of. the PUAR. In addition, the vent system masses were included in the dynamic
+header pool swell impact.were corisidered directly, as described in Sec'tion 5.4;2.7 of. the PUAR.
-      '22-1/2o torus model, so tha.t the mass times acceleration
+In addition, the vent system masses were included in the dynamic
+'22-1/2o torus model, so tha.t the mass times acceleration
 :(rigid body) inertial effects were, developed for al,l dynamic loads.
- '2. ECCS Header:      The torus cradle stresses due to the react      loads at the ECCS h'seder supports were added to the stress intensities i'n tha't region for the torus model, without exceeding,al lowables. The mass of the ECCS was also included in the dynamic torus model.
+'2.
-Thus, the rigid 'body por.tion of the ECCS header support reactions were conservatively included twice.
+ECCS Header:
-: 3. HPCI and RHR:    The masses of these systems were also included in the dynami'c torus model.
+The torus cradle stresses due to the react loads at the ECCS h'seder supports were added to the stress intensities i'n tha't region for the torus model, without exceeding,al lowables.
-                                 -
+The mass of the ECCS was also included in the dynamic torus model.
-The other 'systems were judged not to a'f feet overal:1 torus behavior, but to produce only local'ized.'f fects. Suppor't connections to the ring. gird'er were heavi ly reinforced. The line-of-action .of p'ipe bracing members was applied near the base of the ring .girder 'to el'iminate any signi fica'nt overturning tendency. For example, .see PUAR Appendix G Plates 18 and 21. Addi t.iona 1 ly, 'the support system for S/RV discharge lines and quenchers includes a 15-inch x 15-,inch box-beam which forms:a:continuous ring, inside the torus and
+: Thus, the rigid 'body por.tion of the ECCS header support reactions were conservatively included twice.
-..preven,ts any possibi.'lity .of overturning .each ring, girder in the region 'of,attachment. The main suppor,t members for the
+.
- ,catwa'lk perform a similar function at, each ring girder. 'See PUAR  Plates 12, 13, 26, and 27.
+HPCI and RHR:
-Local accelerati'on response spectra for .each dynamic load were defined at, each ring girder attachment point.,'he attached piping systems and s'tructures were analyzed for these input .spectra and assoc.iated. displacements.
+The masses of these systems were also included in the dynami'c
-FRC 3-1                     PUARe04
+- torus model.
+The other
+'systems were judged not to a'f feet overal:1 torus
+: behavior, but to produce only local'ized.'f fects.
+Suppor't connections to the ring. gird'er were heavi ly reinforced.
+The line-of-action.of p'ipe bracing members was applied near the base of the ring.girder 'to el'iminate any signi fica'nt overturning tendency.
+For example,
+.see PUAR Appendix G
+Plates 18 and 21.
+Addi t.iona 1 ly, 'the support system for S/RV discharge lines and quenchers includes a 15-inch x 15-,inch box-beam which forms:a:continuous ring, inside the torus and
+..preven,ts any possibi.'lity.of overturning
+.each ring, girder in the region 'of,attachment.
+The main suppor,t members for the
+,catwa'lk perform a similar function at, each ring girder.
+'See PUAR Plates 12, 13, 26, and 27.
+Local accelerati'on response spectra for.each dynamic load were defined at, each ring girder attachment point.,'he attached piping systems and s'tructures were analyzed for these input.spectra and assoc.iated.
+displacements.
+FRC 3-1 PUARe04
-Reactions were calculated from the piping analyses per Sections 7 and 8 of the PUAR', and fior the catwalk per Section 9. The local reinEorcement was designed for these r eact ion<<. The lc>cal ized stresses transmi t ted to the r ing were. limited to 3 ksi. Whlen combined with the           'irder general ring girder stresses, rio allowables were exceeded.
+Reactions were calculated from the piping analyses per Sections 7 and 8 of the PUAR',
-FRC 3-l?                 PUAR. 0 4
+and fior the catwalk per Section 9.
+The local reinEorcement was designed for these r eact ion<<.
+The lc>cal ized stresses transmi t ted to the r ing
+'irder were. limited to 3 ksi.
+Whlen combined with the general ring girder stresses, rio allowables were exceeded.
+FRC 3-l?
+PUAR. 0 4
-Wi  th respect     to the 22-1/2o torus model ment ioned in Sect ion 5.4.1.1 of the PUAR (5), the boundary condi t ions ar e based on the assump.t ion that al       1   loads are appl i ed equal ly to each of the 16 segments. However, the saf'ety-relief valve and chugging loads are asynmetrical.             Justify the use of a 22-1/2 model to evaluate the torus for S/RV and chugging instead of the 180o model required by the criteria (1).
+Wi th respect to the 22-1/2o torus model ment ioned in Sect ion 5.4.1.1 of the PUAR (5),
+the boundary condi t ions ar e based on the assump.t ion that al 1 loads are appl i ed equal ly to each of the 16 segments.
+: However, the saf'ety-relief valve and chugging loads are asynmetrical.
+Justify the use of a 22-1/2 model to evaluate the torus for S/RV and chugging instead of the 180o model required by the criteria (1).
 ===RESPONSE===
-The    following, po.ints perta:in.:
+The following, po.ints perta:in.:
-: 1. Synxnetric loading, for S/RV and chugging, is certainly bounding for cradle. loads just from the point of view of the magnitude of the ne.t applied load.
+.
-: 2. Shell'esponses are primarily a localized phenomenon.
+Synxnetric loading, for S/RV and chugging, is certainly bounding for cradle.
-They can be affec.ted by ring girder oval. ling, but this too is related to the, ne,t load, and so would be more severe for syranetric loads.
+loads just from the point of view of the magnitude of the ne.t applied load.
-'. The BFN: t.orus. support system, inhibits asymmetric response.      The development of asyrrmetric modes would t'equire 1'ongitudinal mot,ion, of the torus, which is prevented by the, se.ismi,c. lugs.       It would also require radial movement of the, ring girders which is prevented by the torus snubbers (PUAR Plate 1'),. Friction at the cradle support pads, would, also, inhibit any tendency for asymme tr-ic response.
+.
-'. I f s igni f icant asymmetr ic response could develop, i t would have been present in the single- and mul't I-valve AS/RV tests,      None. was egident, aqd analysis results based   on. synmetrl'c. 1'oading boundary cond,itions were shown   to be conservative        (PUAR Appendix 'C).
+Shell'esponses are primarily a localized phenomenon.
-Finally,     if is important to recognize that Section' of the PUAAG     (Refer nce (I) of the questions) is not a criteria.
+They can be affec.ted by ring girder oval.ling, but this too is related to the, ne,t
-It   is  -a guideline for analysis methods.
+: load, and so would be more severe for syranetric loads.
-FRC  4-1                      PUAR. 04
+'.
+The BFN: t.orus. support system, inhibits asymmetric response.
+The development of asyrrmetric modes would t'equire 1'ongitudinal mot,ion, of the torus, which is prevented by the, se.ismi,c. lugs.
+It would also require radial movement of the, ring girders which is prevented by the torus snubbers (PUAR Plate 1'),.
+Friction at the cradle support pads, would, also, inhibit any tendency for asymme tr-ic response.
+I f s igni ficant asymmetr ic response could develop, i t would have been present in the single-and mul't I-valve AS/RV tests, None. was egident, aqd analysis results based on. synmetrl'c.
+'oading boundary cond,itions were shown to be conservative (PUAR Appendix 'C).
+Finally, if is important to recognize that Section' of the PUAAG (Refer nce (I) of the questions) is not a criteria.
+It is
+-a guideline for analysis methods.
+FRC 4-1 PUAR. 04
-I TEiE 5:
+ITEiE 5:
-Figure 5-6 in the PtJAR (5), whiichi depicts the 180o model II of. the toius, shows only the lowe.r half of the torus shell.
+Figure 5-6 in the PtJAR (5),
-lndica te whether .the model inc Iludes the torus supp5)r ts.
+whiichi depicts the 180o model of. the toius, shows only the lowe.r half of the torus shell.
+lndica te whether
+.the model inc Iludes the torus supp5)r ts.
+II
 ===RESPONSE===
-Figure    '5 -6 .of the PUAR  depicts .only the lowe;r. ha'1 f of   the',
+Figure '5 -6.of the PUAR depicts
-o model       for clarity. The actual model includes      the upper and lower      halves. Al,jl supports are included (i.e.,       the torus snubber s, seismIic lugs, and, the suppor t'ad-t         iedown sys tern) .
+.only the lowe;r. ha'1 f of the',
-FRC  5-1                        P.VAR., 04 0
+o model for clarity.
+The actual model includes the upper and lower halves.
+Al,jl supports are included (i.e.,
+the torus snubber s, seismIic
+: lugs, and, the suppor t'ad-t iedown sys tern).
+FRC 5-1 P.VAR., 04 0
-Since NRC Regula'tory 'Guide 'I.'6'I "(I4) deal's with dampi'ng values fo'r the .seismic design..of, structures, expla in how this. Regula'tory Gu.ide val'idates th'e use of 4 percent damping for the '0.'0 AP pool'well analysis of 'the torus:(S'ection
+Since NRC Regula'tory 'Guide 'I.'6'I "(I4) deal's with dampi'ng values fo'r the.seismic design..of, structures, expla in how this. Regula'tory Gu.ide val'idates th'e use of 4 percent damping for the '0.'0 AP pool'well analysis of 'the torus:(S'ection
-    '5..4.2'.7 (5) ).
+'5..4.2'.7 (5) ).
 ===RESPONSE===
-The use of 'NRC Regu'I'a tory. 'Gu'i de I-.'61 damp i'ng was accep ted for ana:lys;i's, by Section 4.4.2 of NUREG 066;l., and the 0.'0 hP pool swel'I "case 'was designa'ted as a 'Servi'ce Level D condi't ion by Sec:t'ion '4.3.3.1 of 'NUREG '0661. Regulatory Guide '1.61 spec'i'f ies 4 percent damping .for 'welde'd steel
+The use of 'NRC Regu'I'a tory. 'Gu'i de I-.'61 damp i'ng was accep ted for ana:lys;i's, by Section 4.4.2 of NUREG 066;l.,
-     'structures, under.'SE;loadi'ng" which: is'ormal'ly associat'ed
+and the 0.'0 hP pool swel'I "case
-    .with Servi'ce Leve'ls C..and D condi't.ions. 'The:torus and vent
+'was designa'ted as a 'Servi'ce Level D
-:system'are 'welded steel s'tructures.
+condi't ion by Sec:t'ion '4.3.3.1 of 'NUREG '0661.
-    'Two perce'nt damp:ing was "conserva't.'ively used for BFN vent system '0.0. A'P 'pool -swe'I'I 'aInEa'I'ys'is. 'Fo'ur percent .damping was used 'for the 'torus,. Th'is "a's"sump't'ion i'n comb:i;n'a't'ion wi'th the overa I:I''n'a'I'ys is me'thod <produ'eed 'a r ea'sonab'ly conser vat ive dynami'c re'sponse '.p'red'ic't i'o'n;:BNL I'tems 'I "th'rough 4 provide addi,t:i'ona:I informa.t'ion on 't'e BFN poo'I 'sw'e'll analysis
+Regulatory Guide '1.61 spec'i'f ies 4 percent damping.for 'welde'd steel
-  -  me,thod.
+'structures, under.'SE;loadi'ng" which: is'ormal'ly associat'ed
-Final I'y,   'i t 'is noteNoIrIthy t'h'at two per'cen't 'damp'i'ng was con'ser vat   ively   assumed: fo'r .al I S'erv'i'ce Le'yel 'C I'oad
+.with Servi'ce Leve'ls C..and D condi't.ions.
-  ,  comb:ination 'toru's a'nd. v'en't 'sy''em analyses, to 'reduce the         ~
+'The:torus and vent
-numb'er of c'ases:fo'r ana'lys'is;.       Fou> pere'ent damp i'ng, 'is cons'i'dere'd just i"f i'able for the .Service Lev'el 'C "a'nd D- load
+:system'are
-~    'combinati'ons on th'e basi's -'of Regulatory Gu 1'de I.61..
+'welded steel s'tructures.
-FRC   6-1                         PUAR.04
+'Two perce'nt damp:ing was "conserva't.'ively used for BFN vent system '0.0. A'P 'pool -swe'I'I 'aInEa'I'ys'is.
+'Fo'ur percent
+.damping was used 'for the 'torus,.
+Th'is "a's"sump't'ion i'n comb:i;n'a't'ion wi'th the overa I:I''n'a'I'ys is me'thod <produ'eed
+'a r ea'sonab'ly conser vat ive dynami'c re'sponse
+'.p'red'ic't i'o'n;:BNL I'tems 'I "th'rough 4 provide addi,t:i'ona:I informa.t'ion on 't'e BFN poo'I 'sw'e'll analysis
+- me,thod.
+Final I'y,
+'i t 'is noteNoIrIthy t'h'at two per'cen't
+'damp'i'ng was con'ser vat ively assumed:
+fo'r.al I S'erv'i'ce Le'yel 'C I'oad
+, comb:ination 'toru's a'nd. v'en't 'sy''em analyses, to 'reduce the
+~
+numb'er of c'ases:fo'r ana'lys'is;.
+Fou> pere'ent damp i'ng, 'is cons'i'dere'd just i"fi'able for the.Service Lev'el
+'C "a'nd D-load
+~ 'combinati'ons on th'e basi's -'of Regulatory Gu 1'de I.61..
+FRC 6-1 PUAR.04
-Ni th respect    to Section. 5.4.2.11 of the PUAR (5), provide the technical basis and just i f i'ca't ion for consider ing the forcing functions from 0 t~) 30 Hz ihstehd 'of the ful 1 0 to 50 Hz for post-,chug analysis of the torus.
+Ni th respect to Section. 5.4.2.11 of the PUAR (5), provide the technical basis and just i fi'ca't ion for consider ing the forcing functions from 0
+t~) 30 Hz ihstehd 'of the ful 1 0 to 50 Hz for post-,chug analysis of the torus.
 ===RESPONSE===
-The intent of the discussion in. Section 5.4 .2.11         of the   PUAR was to emphas ize the fo1 lowing ma jor poin ts:
+The intent of the discussion in. Section 5.4.2.11 of the PUAR was to emphas ize the fo1 lowing ma jor poin ts:
-: 1. There are    signif'icant conservatisms in the BFN post-chug analysis method which offset 'th'e effects of not considering the harmonics in the 80't6 50 Hz range.
+.
-,2. The 30 to 50. Hz harmonics dere kohsidered in th'e drag load analyses.      (See Sectidn D.1.2.4..1 of the PUAR.)
+There are signif'icant conservatisms in the BFN post-chug analysis method which offset 'th'e effects of not considering the harmonics in the 80't6 50 Hz range.
-., Pre-chug generally controls oliver post-chug for torus analysis. The. BFN pre-.chug analysis was performed in complete accordance with NUREG 0661 and the IDR, including additional conser'vatilsmk inherent in the method.
+,2.
-: 4. Any remaining concern       with 't''e 'response of high frequency modes for torus attachments is offset by the high frequency content in the pool swell analySes.
+The 30 to
-Finally, 'a strong empirical indication (not a 'rigorous analytical proof) of the conservatism of the BIN chugging analyses (both pre- and post-chug) is seen in the attached table. BFN shell* surface streSs 'an'd Support reactfor>
+: 50. Hz harmonics dere kohsidered in th'e drag load analyses.
-forces are presented, factored 'as nearly as possible to an FSTF-equivalent basis, and Compared to 'measured and           ~
+(See Sectidn D.1.2.4..1 of the PUAR.)
-calculated NEP values for the O'STF. The conservat'ism of the BFN responses to post-chug 'an'alpsls results is due to the absolute sunmation of all 30 harmonics in the 0 to 30 Hz range.     (Note that the dominant BFN torus 'modes are in the 0 to 30 Hz range.)       PUAR Reference 20 recorrmends absolute suranation of 5 harmonics plus SRSS of remaining harmonics to achieve    an 84  percent   NEP.
+., Pre-chug generally controls oliver post-chug for torus analysis.
-FRCl 7- 1                    PUAR. 0 4
+The.
+BFN pre-.chug analysis was performed in complete accordance with NUREG 0661 and the IDR, including additional conser'vatilsmk inherent in the method.
+.
+Any remaining concern with 't''e 'response of high frequency modes for torus attachments is offset by the high frequency content in the pool swell analySes.
+: Finally,
+'a strong empirical indication (not a 'rigorous analytical proof) of the conservatism of the BIN chugging analyses (both pre-and post-chug) is seen in the attached table.
+BFN shell* surface streSs
+'an'd Support reactfor>
+forces are presented, factored 'as nearly as possible to an FSTF-equivalent
+: basis, and Compared to 'measured and
+~
+calculated NEP values for the O'STF.
+The conservat'ism of the BFN responses to post-chug 'an'alpsls results is due to the absolute sunmation of all 30 harmonics in the 0 to 30 Hz range.
+(Note that the dominant BFN torus 'modes are in the 0 to 30 Hz range.)
+PUAR Reference 20 recorrmends absolute suranation of 5 harmonics plus SRSS of remaining harmonics to achieve an 84 percent NEP.
+FRCl 7-1 PUAR. 0 4
 TRBLE FRC-7-1 COMPARISON OF FSTF AND BRONNS FERRY CHUQQINQ RESPONSES
-                                           =BFN RESPONSES                        OUE TO POST-CHUG ONLY BFN            FACTORED TO                        50% NEP         84% NEP CALCULATED          EQUIVALENT         CHUG,.PER     FSTFs PER       FSTFs 'PER
-                            .RESULTS               -FSTF           REF 2P         REF.2P          REF.2P RESPONSE            PRE-    'POST-      PRE-       POST-     TABLE 5-1     TABLE  4-1      TABLE .4-1 BDC SURFACE STRESS   INTENSITY       1.10,1,.12:1.31               1.33         0.90          0.88            0.98 (KSI)
-INSIDE REACTION         1'02     100      -'57        .56          -,31 .2        17.0            19.,2 (KIPS)
-OUTSIDE REACTION         113      110                   62           32.3          17.7            20.2 (KIPS)
-(R/T)FSTF          8 BFN (1) FSTF EQUIVALENT SHELL STRESS INTENSITY =                8 BFN   (R/T) 1.19 NHEREi  R  = MINOR RADIUS OF THE TORUS'               = SHELL THICKNESS'.AND  8 =   STRESS INTENSITY FSTF POOL AREA PER COLUMN PAIR (2) FSTF   EQU I V ~ SUPPORT   REACT I ONS  (BFN REACT I ON)
-                                                = P.562 (BFN REACTION)
-t,>g-ngr~ere~g,qg-<<", o -wr  e- v r~ ... asser, ~ ~   ~
+===RESPONSE===
-ITEM .82 Items .2 and .3 in Section 5.4.2.11 oi the PUAR:(5) suggest that the pre-chug load bounds the post-chug load in the analysis of the torus; however, I tens S,in Sec t iion '5.4.2.11 indicates. a higher. sur face stress fcir post-chuga Expla in this apparent inconsistency and indiicate whether pre-chug:
+=BFN RESPONSES BFN FACTORED TO CALCULATED EQUIVALENT CHUG,.PER
-or, post-.clhug was considered in the control ling load combinations .for the .torus.
+.RESULTS
+-FSTF REF 2P PRE-
+'POST-PRE-POST-TABLE 5-1 50%
+NEP FSTFs PER REF.2P TABLE 4-1 84%
+NEP FSTFs
+'PER REF.2P TABLE.4-1 OUE TO POST-CHUG ONLY BDC SURFACE STRESS INTENSITY 1.10,1,.12:1.31 1.33 (KSI) 0.90 0.88 0.98 INSIDE REACTION 1'02 100
+-'57 (KIPS)
+.56
+-,31.2 17.0 19.,2 OUTSIDE REACTION 113 110 (KIPS) 62 32.3 17.7 20.2 (1)
+FSTF EQUIVALENT SHELL STRESS INTENSITY = 8 BFN (R/T) 1.19 8 BFN (R/T)FSTF NHEREi R = MINOR RADIUS OF THE TORUS'
+= SHELL THICKNESS'.AND 8 = STRESS INTENSITY (2)
+FSTF EQU IV ~
+SUPPORT REACTIONS (BFN REACTION)
+FSTF POOL AREA PER COLUMN PAIR
+= P.562 (BFN REACTION)
+t,>g-ngr~ere~g,qg-<<",
+o
+-wr e-v r~
+: asser,
+~
+~
+~
+ITEM.82 Items
+.2 and
+.3 in Section 5.4.2.11 oi the PUAR:(5) suggest that the pre-chug load bounds the post-chug load in the analysis of the torus;
+: however, I tens S,in Sec t iion '5.4.2.11 indicates.
+a higher. sur face stress fcir post-chuga Expla in this apparent inconsistency and indiicate whether pre-chug:
+or, post-.clhug was considered in the control ling load combinations.for the.torus.
 ===RESPONSE===
 The'iscussion of It'em 5 in Section Se4.2.11 of the PUA'R
-                            .demonstrates-           the inherent conservatisn> ctf the BFN post-chug a~nal si's, relative to the FST'F data,             The discus ion of
+.demonstrates-the inherent conservatisn>
-                             ,I tems 2 and 3 of'.4.2.11 show that the LDR prescr ibed pre-chug analysis method bounds the actual measured FSTF chugging responses due- to both the pre- and post-chug phases. 'This is not to say tha't ipr>-chug 'wi'll always, bound post-chug. It only sa'ys that consideration of the pre-chug phase alone, is sufficient to. demonstrate the conServat ism of
+ctf the BFN post-chug a~nal si's, relative to the FST'F data, The discus ion of
-                           .torus results -based on the .LDR method as compared to actual measured          FSTF    -results for the combined pre-   and*
+,I tems 2 and 3 of'.4.2.11 show that the LDR prescr ibed pre-chug analysis method bounds the actual measured FSTF chugging responses due-to both the pre-and post-chug phases.
-the response itoi FRCiItem 7, including post-ch'ug'hases.
+'This is not to say tha't ipr>-chug 'wi'll always, bound post-chug.
-Al,so see
+It only sa'ys that consideration of the pre-chug phase alone, is sufficient to. demonstrate the conServat ism of
-                             -Table FRC-7-le For al      1  load comb inat ions involiviingi chu'gging, the max iniium
+.torus results
-                            ,s   tress -due to e tither preor post'hug was used ( i. e., an envelope of pre- and post-chug ,'re'sponses).
+-based on the.LDR method as compared to actual measured FSTF -results for the combined pre-and*
-FRC 8- 1,                                 PUi&. 0.4
+post-ch'ug'hases.
+Al,so see the response itoi FRCiItem 7, including
+-Table FRC-7-le For al 1 load comb inat ions involiviingi chu'gging, the max iniium
+,s tress -due to e tither preor post'hug was used
+( i. e.,
+an envelope of pre-and post-chug,'re'sponses).
+FRC 8-1, PUi&.0.4
 ITEM 9':
-Wi th respect to the fatigue analysis of the torus presented in Sec t ion 5.4.6 of the PUAR (5), spec i fy the elas t ic i ty methods used to calculate stress intensification factors at the penet'rations.
+Wi th respect to the fatigue analysis of the torus presented in Sec t ion 5.4.6 of the PUAR (5),
+spec i fy the elas t ic i ty methods used to calculate stress intensification factors at the penet'rations.
 ===RESPONSE===
-The  stress ,intensification factors presented in Section 5.4.6 of the PUAR were calculated using formulas presented in the following text: Formulas for Stress and Strain, 5th edition, by R. J. Roark and W. C. Young, McGraw-Hill.
+The stress
-The insert,pad to shell junction intensifi'cation factor was based on Case 14, page 598. For the insert pad to nozzle junction,   Case 5, page 593 was used.
+,intensification factors presented in Section 5.4.6 of the PUAR were calculated using formulas presented in the following text:
-FRC 9-1                      PUAR.04
+Formulas for Stress and Strain, 5th edition, by R. J.
+Roark and W.
+C.
+Young, McGraw-Hill.
+The insert,pad to shell junction intensifi'cation factor was based on Case 14, page 598.
+For the insert pad to nozzle
+: junction, Case 5,
+page 593 was used.
+FRC 9-1 PUAR.04
 ITEM 10:
-Provide and just i fy the bound ing technique used to det'erkike contro'll'ing load cases presented in the PUAR (5) i'n 'the                            'he fo lowing sec t ions:
+Provide and just i fy the bound ing technique used to det'erkike
-5.5.1,    page 5-21 6 .3 .2 (and Table    6-5), page 6-6 6 .4 .2 (and Table    6-7), page 6-7 6.5.2 (and Table 6-9),      page 6-8 6;7.2 (and Table 6'-12), page 6>>12 6.8.2 (and Tables 6-15 and 6-16),. page 6-14 6..9.2 '(and Table,s 6-17, 6-18, and 6-19), page 6-.15 7.3.1 (and Table ?-I), page 7-7 7.4.1 (and Table,s 7-2 to 7-4), page '7-12 8.2'.22 (and Table 8-2), page 8-3 9'.1, page 9-2 9.2, page 9-2 RESPONSE.':
+'he contro'll'ing load cases presented in the PUAR (5) i'n 'the fo 1 lowing sec t ions:
-PUAR    Section 5.5el No    bounding techniques were used for determining controlling loa'd cases for the torus analy'si's.i All 1'oad 0:ombination.
+.5.1, page 5-21 6.3.2 (and Table 6-5),
-were analyzed, including the calculation of stress intensit ies and reaction loads for the cradle and torus snubber.'. The referenced section was stating which of the comb ina t ions produced the highest,st ress in tens i t ies.
+page 6-6 6.4.2 (and Table 6-7),
-PUAR Sectiooe 12.2.2 theo~9 0 0.9.2 PUAR Tab les 6-5, 6-.7, 6-9, 6-12    2 6" 13, 6-17, 6-18, and 6-19 give the event,, combinati<>n, and syrvice level of the v'arious locations'f inspI.etio'n.', gatile', 3-1, of the PUAR shows th.is information in a diffkrknt form. The for the table,s in PUAR Section 6 was such that bounding'echnique Service Level C event combinations would be qual i f ied Level B allowables when possible. When this was not              i)sling'ervice possible, actual service level combinations coincided With the assigned service level str'ess Ijimits in PUAR Table '3 'l.
+page 6-7 6.5.2 (and Table 6-9),
-A   logic desc'ription of the bounding justification for                       each table follows:
+page 6-8 6;7.2 (and Table 6'-12),
-FRC 10-1                                   PURR.'04
+page 6>>12 6.8.2 (and Tables 6-15 and 6-16),. page 6-14 6..9.2
-                                                                                            '
+'(and Table,s 6-17, 6-18, and 6-19),
+page 6-.15 7.3.1 (and Table ?-I),
+page 7-7 7.4.1 (and Table,s 7-2 to 7-4),
+page
+'7-12 8.2'.22 (and Table 8-2),
+page 8-3 9'.1, page 9-2 9.2, page 9-2 RESPONSE.':
+PUAR Section 5.5el No bounding techniques were used for determining controlling loa'd cases for the torus analy'si's.i All 1'oad 0:ombination.
+were analyzed, including the calculation of stress intensit ies and reaction loads for the cradle and torus snubber.'.
+The referenced section was stating which of the comb ina t ions produced the highest,st ress in tens i t ies.
+PUAR Sectiooe 12.2.2 theo~9 0 0.9.2 PUAR Tab les 6-5, 6-.7, 6-9, 6-12 2
+" 13, 6-17, 6-18, and 6-19 give the event,,
+combinati<>n, and syrvice level of the v'arious locations'f inspI.etio'n.',
+gatile', 3-1, of the PUAR shows th.is information in a diffkrknt form.
+The bounding'echnique for the table,s in PUAR Section 6 was such that Service Level C event combinations would be qual i fied i)sling'ervice Level B allowables when possible.
+When this was not
+: possible, actual service level combinations coincided With the assigned service level str'ess Ijimits in PUAR Table '3 'l.
+A logic desc'ription of the bounding justification for each table follows:
+FRC 10-1 PURR.'04
-PUAR   Table 6-5 Lo ic 0    Load Comb ina t ion (LC), 15 to,,Service Level (SL') B allowab,les envelops LC           1   th.rough LC 14 .
+PUAR Table 6-5 Lo ic 0
-    LC 27 to SL B al:lowables envelops LC 17, LC 20, L'C 21, LC 23, and LC26.
+0
-    LC 25 to SL B al lowables            envelops    LC 16,    LC 18, LC 19, LC 22, and LC24.
+Load Comb ina t ion (LC),
-o    IBA  is not indicated in            LC 15   because:
+to,,Service Level (SL')
-('1) SBA chugging. is, no less            severe  th'an   IBA chugging.
+B allowab,les envelops LC 1
-(2) IBA'O is enveloped               by. DBA CO   in   LC  27.
+th.rough LC 14.
-PUAR   Table 6-7 Lo ic o    LC 18  to   SL B      allowables envelops        LC 16 .
+LC 27 to SL B al:lowables envelops LC 17, LC 20, L'C 21, LC 23, and LC26.
-  For. the vacuum         breaker to, main vent cap          inter-section, dynamic loading due to, pool swell vent response far exceeds any chugging, CO, or S/RV effect. Ther,efore, evaluati,on of LC through LC      1 15 plus LC 17', LCs 20 through 23, and LCs 26 through 27 i's  not necessary.
+LC 25 to SL B al lowables envelops LC 16, LC 18, LC 19, LC 22, and LC24.
-   LC 18 does not envelop .LC 19, LC 24, and LC 25.
+o IBA is not indicated in LC 15 because:
-However, 'the load contribution from- SSE versus OBE and the S/RV contribution are small and have been.
+('1)
-neglected consider.i'ng the increased allowabl:e for SL C r.e 1 a t i v e 'to   SL B.
+SBA chugging.
-Note that the pool swell, load considers pool swell vent response and direct impact, of the swell on the vacuum breaker shell.             (The vacuum. breaker shell is actually .partially shielded by the vacuum breaker access plat.form.)
+is, no less severe th'an IBA chugging.
-PUAR  'Table 6-9 Lo ic 0    This logic is similar to PUAR Table 65 except LC 27 could not be,sa tis'f'ied for SL. B pr imary plus secondary stresses (P + Q~3 Smc). Ther efor e, LC 21 was evaluated for pr lunar'y plus, secondary instead.       (LC 21 is the same as LC 27 wi th no S/RV.
+(2)
-PUAR Table 6-9 incorrectly indicates LC 27 instead o'f LC 21. This correction will be: made in the PUAR revision 2.)
+IBA'O is enveloped by. DBA CO in LC 27.
-FRC  10-2                     PUAR. 04
+PUAR Table 6-7 Lo ic o
+LC 18 to SL B allowables envelops LC 16.
+0
+For. the vacuum breaker to, main vent cap inter-
+: section, dynamic loading due to, pool swell vent response far exceeds any chugging, CO, or S/RV effect.
+Ther,efore, evaluati,on of LC 1
+through LC 15 plus LC 17',
+LCs 20 through 23, and LCs 26 through 27 i's not necessary.
+LC 18 does not envelop
+.LC 19, LC 24, and LC 25.
+However, 'the load contribution from-SSE versus OBE and the S/RV contribution are small and have been.
+neglected consider.i'ng the increased allowabl:e for SL C r.e 1 a t i v e 'to SL B.
+Note that the pool swell, load considers pool swell vent response and direct impact, of the swell on the vacuum breaker shell.
+(The vacuum. breaker shell is actually.partially shielded by the vacuum breaker access plat.form.)
+PUAR 'Table 6-9 Lo ic 0
+This logic is similar to PUAR Table 65 except LC 27 could not be,sa tis'f'ied for SL. B pr imary plus secondary stresses (P
++ Q~3 Smc).
+Ther efor e, LC 21 was evaluated for pr lunar'y plus, secondary instead.
+(LC 21 is the same as LC 27 wi th no S/RV.
+PUAR Table 6-9 incorrectly indicates LC 27 instead o'f LC 21.
+This correction will be: made in the PUAR revision 2.)
+FRC 10-2 PUAR. 04
-PUAR   Table 6-12 Lo~fc o    Again this logic is simi lar to PUAR Table 6-5 except LC 27 would not meet SL B al lowables.           Therefore, LC 27 was evaluated to SL C al lowables and LC 21 was evaluated to Sl. 9 al lowables for both pr imary                              'and,'pr irnary plus secondary, stresses.         (PUAR Table 6-12 incor r ectly indicates LC 27 instead of LC 2'1 f'r the Serv ice Level 8 comb ina t ions. 'Th is correc t ion wi 1 1 be made. in PUAR revis ion 2. )
+PUAR Table 6-12 Lo~fc o
-PUAR   Tables 6-15 and 6-16 L~oic o    Again this logic is simi lair to PUAR Table 6 5. The noted loads are the wors t poss ib le comb ina t ion o' any accident condit ion, including thermal effects, and the buck 1 i ng evaluation is per formed on ttI, iIs.
+Again this logic is simi lar to PUAR Table 6-5 except LC 27 would not meet SL B al lowables.
-is'as
+Therefore, LC 27 was evaluated to SL C al lowables and LC 21 was evaluated to Sl. 9 al lowables for both pr imary
-     'PUAR   Tables 6-.17~ 6-18~and 6-19          ~Lo ic o    Again, LC 15,, IC 25, and IC 27 are the worst combinations for the systemThe indicated case'oad s ti esses   ar e maximum sur fa.ce inc Iluding secondary effects wi th s igni f icant margin against 1.5 the primary plus secondary stress rangeSnIc.'heref'ore, evaluation i. aut'omatically assured.
+'and,'pr irnary plus secondary, stresses.
-PUAR   Sectilon .7.3.1 Section 7,.3.1 provides a general d'escription of the
+(PUAR Table 6-12 incor r ectly indicates LC 27 instead of LC 2'1 f'r the Serv ice Level 8 comb ina t ions.
+'Th is correc t ion wi 1 1 be made.
+in PUAR revis ion 2. )
+PUAR Tables 6-15 and 6-16 L~oic o
+Again this logic is simi lair to PUAR Table 6 5.
+The noted loads are the wors t poss ib le comb ina t ion o'
+any accident condit ion, including thermal effects, and the buck 1 i ng evaluation is per formed on
+: ttI, is'as iIs.
+'PUAR Tables 6-.17~ 6-18~and 6-19
+~Lo i c o
+: Again, LC 15,, IC 25, and IC 27 are the worst case'oad combinations for the systemThe indicated s ti esses ar e maximum sur fa.ce inc Iluding secondary effects wi th s igni ficant margin against 1.5 SnIc.'heref'ore, the primary plus secondary stress range evaluation i. aut'omatically assured.
+PUAR Sectilon.7.3.1 Section 7,.3.1 provides a general d'escription of the
 'bound'ing technique that was used to determine controlling load cases for S/RV piping in the drywell at Browns Ferriy.
 Specifically, the controlling load cases for drywell S'/RV piping were determined by the following process:
-(1)    Survey'll defined normal, seismic, and              LOCA  ;oad de f in it ions to determine which oi'hese          have sign~i f~ichn t e f fec t,on    drywe  1 1 S/RV piip ing.
+(1)
-No te that separate modela Cf 'th'e /itin'g'ystems w'erie deve'loped to analyze the drywe1 1 and we twel 1 por t ioins of the system., The we twe 1 1 models were devel, oped in s igni f i can t de ta i 1 to s tudy torus hydrodynamic phenomenon closely.           These models extended a s igni f ican t dis tance into ma in vent to account for at ten at ion. it was    found that the S/RV piping in the main vent is isola ted from most of the hydrodynamic ef fee ts of S/RV di: charge or .IAX'A exci tat io'n 'of'he suppression pool.
+Survey'll defined normal,
-(An exception to this is the containment vent response FRC  10" 3                PUAR.04
+: seismic, and LOCA ;oad de f in it ions to determine which oi'hese have sign~i f~ichn t e f fec t,on drywe 1 1 S/RV piip ing.
+No te that separate modela Cf 'th'e /itin'g'ystems w'erie deve'loped to analyze the drywe1 1 and we twel 1 por t ioins of the system.,
+The we twe 1 1 models were devel, oped in s igni fi can t de ta i 1 to s tudy torus hydrodynamic phenomenon closely.
+These models extended a
+s igni fican t dis tance into ma in vent to account for at ten at ion.
+it was found that the S/RV piping in the main vent is isola ted from most of the hydrodynamic ef fee ts of S/RV di: charge or
+.IAX'A exci tat io'n 'of'he suppression pool.
+(An exception to this is the containment vent response FRC 10" 3 PUAR.04
 I~
-induced by DBA LOCA,pool swell. ), The drywel piping                   1 is su'fficiently removed. from the suppression pool to discount ef fec ts 'from wa te'r clear ing trans fents in wetwel port ions of the S/RV ines.
+induced by DBA LOCA,pool swell. ),
-                                         1 V
+The drywel 1 piping is su'fficiently removed.
-The load sources                that were determined to have                a s igni f icant effect on drywell S/RV piping are:
+from the suppression pool to discount ef fec ts 'from wa te'r clear ing trans fents in wetwel 1 port ions of the S/RV 1 ines.
-: a.      Deadweight
+V The load sources that were determined to have a
-: b.      Seismic -         OBE    and SSE
+s igni f icant effect on drywell S/RV piping are:
-: c.      Al 1 S/RV blowdowns
+a.
-: d.      Pool swel       I  v.ent response
+Deadweight b.
-: e.      Therma.l expans'ion
+Seismic
-: f.      Pressure (2)   Per:form an i'nspec t i'on of Table '5-2 in the PUAAG (PUAR Re   fer ence 13') cons ider i ng the resu1 tant S/RV load sources noted in step 1 above.
+- OBE and SSE c.
+Al 1 S/RV blowdowns d.
+Pool swel I v.ent response e.
+Therma.l expans'ion f.
+Pressure (2)
+Per:form an i'nspec t i'on of Table '5-2 in the PUAAG (PUAR Re fer ence 13')
+cons ider i ng the resu1 tant S/RV load sources noted in step 1 above.
 A sur'rxnary of. the 'fi'nd'ings with! respect to PUAR Tab,le '7-1 f'o 1 1ows.
-                                                         '!
+Case 1:,Sat is,f~i'es L'C l.
-Case      1:,Sat       is,f~i'es   L'C  l.
+Case
-Case -2:        Sat is f ies LC         3    wh'ich envelops LC 2.,
+-2:
-Case      3:    Satisfies,LC             15   whi'ch 'envelops L'C'.4 through LC 14     except      a's   indi'cated      by 'note .6 on'PUAR Table 7-1..
+Sat is fies LC 3 wh'ich envelops LC 2.,
-Case 4:         Sails f i'es LC''27 which 'envelops                LC  16,;through L'C    26.
+Case 3:
-PUAR  Section.      7,'.,4.;1 Section ?.4.1 pro'vides a general discussion o'f the bounding technique for wetwel1 S/RV piping. Al I load sources, are treated. A suianaiy of the envelopirig logic foi PUAR Tables, 7-2, 7-3, arid 7-'4 with resp'ect to Tab'le 5.-2 of the PUAAG (PUAR Reference                 I i) is 1 is ted below.
+Satisfies,LC 15 whi'ch 'envelops L'C'.4 through LC 14 except a's indi'cated by 'note
-PUAR    Table ..7-2 Case     l,and   Case.       2:     Sat is f ies LC       l.
+.6 on'PUAR Table 7-1..
-Case     3  arid Cise 4:            Satisfies       LC 3     w'hich envel'ops   LC 2.
+Case 4:
-FRC    10-4                     PUAR.04
+Sails f i'es LC''27 which 'envelops LC 16,;through L'C 26.
+PUAR Section.
+,'.,4.;1 Section
+?.4.1 pro'vides a general discussion o'f the bounding technique for wetwel1 S/RV piping.
+Al I load sources, are treated.
+A suianaiy of the envelopirig logic foi PUAR Tables, 7-2, 7-3, arid 7-'4 with resp'ect to Tab'le 5.-2 of the PUAAG (PUAR Reference I i) is 1 is ted below.
+PUAR Table..7-2 Case l,and Case. 2:
+Sat is fies LC l.
+Case 3 arid Cise 4:
+Satisfies LC 3 w'hich envel'ops LC 2.
+FRC 10-4 PUAR.04
-PUAR" Ta b I e  7- 3 Case   I  ahd Case       2       'Sati'sf       i-e 'C:   I'I,   r.ow  I'I,, which envelops LC'              through                  LC '10                        for          row 11.
+PUAR" Ta b I e 7-3 Case I ahd Case 2
-Ca se  3  and Ca se      4.",     Sa   ti,s fies       LC 15, row
+'Sati'sf i-e 'C: I'I, r.ow I'I,, which envelops LC' through LC '10 for row 11.
-                                                         'LC 12 through   ll,,which.'nvelops LC 14                    for-row 1-1 .
+Ca se 3 and Ca se 4.",
-Case '5. and Ca'se       6,:      Sa'tis f iies        LC 15,    row'0,                      whi'ch LC 4 tl~ir'atugh LC 14 for rlaw                                  'nvelops
+Sa ti,s fies LC 15, row ll,,which.'nvelops
-                                      ,10 .
+'LC 12 through LC 14 for-row 1-1.
-PUAR" Table     T.-I Case,  I:     Sat'is f les     .LC 27 which, envelops LC 17, LC 20,,
+Case
-LC .2,1,   LC 23., and LC 26.                   (Note thai'CO,'nld chuggir<g do not occur si'inul taneously and
+'5. and Ca'se 6,:
-                 .chuggirig, Is a'ddressed @pre conservat ively in
+Sa'tis f iies LC 15, row'0, whi'ch
-                 'PUM Table 7'-3 for. SBA/IBA events                                         e )
+'nvelops LC 4
-Case   2!     Sa'ti: fies LC 25 whic'h 'envelop's LC 16, LC 18, LC,;19, LC'2,. and LC 24.
+tl~ir'atugh LC 14 for rlaw
-    .Case':       Satisfies         LC 16         for ',the Ct.0 AP case. (Due Iprobab            i ty of, occurrence,, S/RV blowdown.
+,10.
-Q to'he love                  I:1 and   earthquake              'are    not, assumed to be 0 .0'.ZiP pool swell.                This is in conc'urrent'ith'th'.
+PUAR"Table T.-I Case, I:
-accord'ance          wi,th. the:PUAAG.)
+Sat'is fles
-PUAR   Sect.ion:Se2.2.2 The .boundary:yt tec'hnique            used to. reduce,.the number of 'lokd combina,tions shown:, in PUA'AG; Tabl'e .'5-'2. itPUAR Reference,                                                                         'case
+.LC 27 which, envelops LC 17, LC 20,,
-: 13) to those 'shown. in PUAR'abile. 8-'2 was based on using the most- conserva'tive combination of 1Oad cases associated, with, each of the serv-i'ce levels and ASME Sec'tion II'I,,NC-3600 Reference 68) equation 9 stress limits. (Note that                                                                                        'PUAR fo,r different .local. combin'ations,', the''tii.ss limits could''
+LC.2,1, LC 23.,
-.2 S, .1.8 'S, or 2.4 S, carr,esponding to Set v'i'ce Levela B, C, and D, respec:tively.,) The following are two examples o~f how this bounding techniiquae w'as applied:
+and LC 26.
-When    two ser,ies        of -load combinatiio'ns li's:ted in the PUAAG    were, the       same       except tha't 'one Included OBE a~nd the other, SSE and both sets of'oad combinations had the same s,tres,s .limits, the OBE,and SSE loa'd cases were envel'oped.             In this way the two sets of lo@d could thus be reduced to one.                                                                            'ombinations
+(Note thai'CO,'nld chuggir<g do not occur si'inul taneously and
-                                             ",FRC     10- 5                                     PUAR. 04'
+.chuggirig, Is a'ddressed
+@pre conservat ively in
+'PUM Table 7'-3 for. SBA/IBA events e )
+Case 2!
+Sa'ti: fies LC 25 whic'h 'envelop's LC 16, LC 18, LC,;19, LC'2,. and LC 24.
+.Case':
+Satisfies LC 16 for ',the Ct.0 AP case.
+(Due to'he love Iprobab I:1 i ty of,occurrence,,
+S/RV blowdown.
+and earthquake
+'are not, assumed to be conc'urrent'ith'th'.
+.0'.ZiP pool swell.
+This is in accord'ance wi,th. the:PUAAG.)
+Q PUAR Sect.ion:Se2.2.2 The.boundary:yt tec'hnique used to. reduce,.the number of 'lokd
+'case combina,tions shown:, in PUA'AG; Tabl'e
+.'5-'2.
+itPUAR Reference,
+: 13) to those
+'shown. in PUAR'abile. 8-'2 was based on using the most-conserva'tive combination of 1Oad cases associated, with, each of the serv-i'ce levels and ASME Sec'tion II'I,,NC-3600
+'PUAR Reference
+: 68) equation 9 stress limits.
+(Note that fo,r different.local. combin'ations,',
+the''tii.ss limits could''
+.2 S,.1.8 'S, or 2.4 S,
+carr,esponding to Set v'i'ce Levela B,
+C, and D, respec:tively.,)
+The following are two examples o~f how this bounding techniiquae w'as applied:
+When two ser,ies of -load combinatiio'ns li's:ted in the PUAAG were, the same except tha't
+'one Included OBE a~nd the other, SSE and both sets of'oad combinations had the same s,tres,s.limits, the OBE,and SSE loa'd cases were envel'oped.
+In this way the two sets of lo@d
+'ombinations could thus be reduced to one.
+",FRC 10- 5 PUAR. 04'
-(2)   Another example would 'be when one set of load comb inat ions cons is ted 'of a 1 1 the load cases found in
+(2)
-         ,another set of load combinations plus at l,east one more load case. If both sets of load'ombinations had to meet the same stress limits then only the combination with the grea'ter number of load cases was evaluated.
+Another example would 'be when one set of load comb inat ions cons is ted 'of a 1 1
-The  controlling load combinations for each seivice level equation 9 stress li'mi:t were 'found in .th'is way. In addi-tion,
+the load cases found in
+,another set of load combinations plus at l,east one more load case.
+If both sets of load'ombinations had to meet the same stress limits then only the combination with the grea'ter number of load cases was evaluated.
+The controlling load combinations for each seivice level equation 9 stress li'mi:t were 'found in.th'is way.
+In addi-tion,
 ,.NC-3600 equation 1'0 'or ll was satis.fied for each of the cont'rol 1 i'ng load combinat'ion's.
-PUAR Section 9.1 The .new catwalk finite element model was analyzed for applicable .load events. The results showed that the largest all, stresses, 'by far, were due to pool swell impact and drag.
+PUAR Section 9.1 The.new catwalk finite element model was analyzed for all, applicable
+.load events.
+The results showed that the largest
+: stresses,
+'by far, were due to pool swell impact and drag.
 Therefore, the most severe condition invol.ving 'th,is load was
-:limit;ing. For .Load Combina'ti'on 25, the effects of pool swe.ll impact-drag, p'ool swel"1'nd vent header mot,ions, S/RV moti'ons, deadwe.ight., and 'SSE were add'ed absolute,ly.
+:limit;ing.
-PUAR   Sect'ion 9.2 In .the same, manner as .the catwalk, the vacuum breaker valve pla:tform is most severely ''affected by pool swell impact-drag loads,, and the 'limi'ting 'load combination was determined 'in
+For.Load Combina'ti'on 25, the effects of pool swe.ll impact-drag, p'ool swel"1'nd vent header mot,ions, S/RV moti'ons, deadwe.ight.,
- .the same way.
+and 'SSE were add'ed absolute,ly.
-FRC  10-6                PUAR.04
+PUAR Sect'ion 9.2 In.the same, manner as
+.the catwalk, the vacuum breaker valve pla:tform is most severely ''affected by pool swell impact-drag loads,,
+and the 'limi'ting 'load combination was determined
+'in
+.the same way.
+FRC 10-6 PUAR.04
 ITEM 11:
-Pt'ovide "the stress shell     and   supports.
+Pt'ovide "the stress resul ts from the analys,is of the torus shell and supports.
-resul ts from the analys,is of the torus
+. I
-                                                                                                   . I
 ===RESPONSE===
-Stress      intensit ies     wiere calcu~la'ted tresses                  by postprocessor       computer codes      for ail load      comt) inatio'ns'nd fo'r al    II elements in the f inite element model. The results were screened                     to locate predic ted overs                 Fo1 lowinj;. mod i f 'i ca t ions, al 1 stresses      were below allowable's.
+Stress intensit ies wiere calcu~la'ted by postprocessor computer codes for ail load comt) inatio'ns'nd fo'r al II elements in the finite element model.
-highly stressed torus support locations are in 'th'e
+The results were screened to locate predic ted overs tresses
-                                             'he most cradle, adjacent to the scab plateis described in Section 5.2.4.3 of the PUAR. The. addi t ion of the',scab pla tes the laical cradle stresses. for Load Combination 14                   'educed from 24.4 ksi to 19.7 ksi. Rielative to the Service Level p allowable of 21.6 ks i (see Sei;.tijou 5,.3.2 oi'he PUAR),'he' tress factor was reduced'.froIn lf. 13,to .0.91. The maxImuIn stress for any Service Level C or D load case was in region of the craclle and'z<s due to Load Comb inat ion the'ame
+Fo1 lowinj;. mod i f 'i ca t ions, al 1 stresses were below allowable's.
-: 25. Even wi thou t the scab ply t6s, h'owevet', the max imum stress intensity was 26.8 ksi, corryared to the '28.8 ksi a I lowab le,.      These cradle s tress resu 1 ts conserva t i vely neglect the S/RV load reduction factor for torus supports defined in PUAR SectiIon C.9.1.
+'he most highly stressed torus support locations are in 'th'e
-The shell and ring girder stress allowables presented 5-1 of the PUAR were never approached excep1.'n the                             in'able vicinity of large piping penetrations. A number of th' p ip ing mod i f icat ions descr ibed in SeIe t ion 8, as we 1 1 as the nozzle re;inf'orcements and local shell reinforcement around the ECCS header penetra tions were required in order to meet the contaiinment vessel (ASME Section III, Subsection At some of the e locations, the calculate'd          MC)'llowables.
+: cradle, adjacent to the scab plateis described in Section 5.2.4.3 of the PUAR.
-stresses are greater than 90 percent of Service Level B allowab les for the primiary plus secondary stress intensi'ty range.
+The. addi t ion of the',scab pla tes
-An    i nd ica t i'on of the gener a 1 shel 1'tress s ta te away f't om the influence of penetration loads is given by the following table. Membtane and sur fac6 )tress In)ensit ies are presented.
+'educed the laical cradle stresses.
-for mid-bevy bot tom-dead-centet', 'one of the move highly s tressed      locations, f'r th most cr it ical load combinations.
+for Load Combination 14 from 24.4 ksi to 19.7 ksi.
-FRC 11-1                          PUAR.04
+Rielative to the Service Level p
+allowable of 21.6 ks i (see Sei;.tijou 5,.3.2 oi'he PUAR),'he' tress factor was reduced'.froIn lf. 13,to.0.91.
+The maxImuIn stress for any Service Level C or D load case was in the'ame region of the craclle and'z<s due to Load Comb inat ion 25.
+Even wi thou t the scab ply t6s, h'owevet',
+the max imum stress intensity was 26.8 ksi, corryared to the '28.8 ksi a I lowab le,.
+These cradle s tress resu 1 ts conserva t ively neglect the S/RV load reduction factor for torus supports defined in PUAR SectiIon C.9.1.
+The shell and ring girder stress allowables presented in'able 5-1 of the PUAR were never approached excep1.'n the vicinity of large piping penetrations.
+A number of th' p ip ing mod i ficat ions descr ibed in SeIe t ion 8, as we 1 1 as the nozzle re;inf'orcements and local shell reinforcement around the ECCS header penetra tions were required in order to meet the contaiinment vessel (ASME Section III, Subsection MC)'llowables.
+At some of the e locations, the calculate'd stresses are greater than 90 percent of Service Level B
+allowab les for the primiary plus secondary stress intensi'ty range.
+An i nd ica t i'on of the gener a 1 shel 1'tress s ta te away f't om the influence of penetration loads is given by the following table.
+Membtane and sur fac6 )tress In)ensit ies are presented.
+for mid-bevy bot tom-dead-centet',
+'one of the move highly s tressed locations, f'r th most cr it ical load combinations.
+FRC 11-1 PUAR.04
-Stress     Int'en's;1 t     (ksi )    %   of Allowable
+Stress Int'en's;1 t (ksi )
-'Load Serv ice                    'Membrane     +               Membrane +
+% of Allowable
-Comb. Leve I.                                    Memb ra n e 14      :B         15. I            15.4            78            53 18       B          5.'I              5.4           26            19 20       B          9.4               9.'9          49            34 25      C           8 .'9                  '.3
+'Load Comb.
-: 23.           16 27      C          13.3             13.9            35            24
+18 20 25 27
-'16B     D           6.2               6.8           15            11 FRC    11-2                    PUAR;04
+'16B Serv ice Leve I.
+:B B
+B C
+C D
+: 15. I 5.'I 9.4 8.'9 13.3 6.2
+'Membrane
++
+.4 5.4 9.'9
+'.3 13.9 6.8 Memb ra n e 78 26 49 23.
+15 Membrane
++
+19 34 16 24 11 FRC 11-2 PUAR;04
-     .ITEM 12:
+.ITEM 12:
-Regard fng'. the 'ana'lys is of theI ma ih Iten't"/"dr'ywi'l l .in'ter'-.
+Regard fng'. the 'ana'lys is of theI ma ih Iten't"/"dr'ywi'll.in'ter'-.
-sec t i'or>,, clar:i fy whether, the seismic and', thermal'esponse o f the drywe.l 1 was. cons'idered (8'ei". t lions; 6,.2. 1;.2.7 .and
+sec t i'or>,, clar:i fy whether, the seismic and', thermal'esponse o f the drywe.l 1 was. cons'idered (8'ei". t lions; 6,.2. 1;.2.7.and
-     .6.2.i;.'.9     (S.)),
+.6.2.i;.'.9 (S.)),
 ===RESPONSE===
-Thermal'rowth          o'f the- conta inment shell'was considered jn the anailys is     of'he'a     in vent/dry'we   1 1 in tersec,t ion. Therrre  1 displacenIients were. ca'lcultated for 'the,drywall based uiIok maximum air .tI.mj>era tu'rIes: occurr ing,clur ing the KIBA, IBA, and
+Thermal'rowth o'f the-conta inment shell'was considered jn the anailys is of'he'a in vent/dry'we 1 1 in tersec,t ion.
-    ,.SBA events..       These displacement s. >vere input ht the nodes re'presenting 'the drywel 1/main vent ."intersect ion. The'.t?Iierma'1'.
+Therrre 1 displacenIients were. ca'lcultated for 'the,drywall based uiIok maximum air.tI.mj>era tu'rIes: occurr ing,clur ing the KIBA, IBA, and
-analysis was 'thin completed'onsider ing expansion':and restra int;of 'free end displacement cIf'he vent .system..
+,.SBA events..
+These displacement
+: s. >vere input ht the nodes re'presenting
+'the drywel 1/main vent."intersect ion.
+The'.t?Iierma'1'.
+analysis was
+'thin completed'onsider ing expansion':and restra int;of 'free end displacement cIf'he vent.system..
 ~
-The, BFN LTP .seismic ana'lysis was based upon the'ethods.
+The, BFN LTP.seismic ana'lysis was based upon the'ethods.
-  ~
+~.employed in, the or iginal-plan t des ign.
-     .employed in, the or iginal- plan t des ign. 'Se ismic. r esponse.
+'Se ismic.
-o'f the'rywel 1/main, vent intersection wa,s analyzed using equivalent s'ta t ic loads de term'ineA from appropr iate i' accelera t ioix 'levels of. the ven't     'y't'm.       This is .cons tent w.i th the gene'ra 1 gu,ideIIines of- NUEtEG 0661, Section 4.,4.1 as.
+r esponse.
-wel,l as the -P1IAAG (Pl'JAR Reference 13).
+o'f the'rywel 1/main, vent intersection wa,s analyzed using equivalent s'ta t ic loads de term'ineA from appropr iate accelera t ioix 'levels of. the ven't 'y't'm.
-FRC 12 '-'1                       PUAR,04 0
+This is.cons i' tent w.i th the gene'ra 1 gu,ideIIines of-NUEtEG 0661, Section 4.,4.1 as.
+wel,l as the
+-P1IAAG (Pl'JAR Reference 13).
+FRC 12 '-'1 PUAR,04 0
 ITEM I 3:
-Prov ide a sunma ry of the ana 1'ys i's of the .vacuum breaker valves;, i nd ica te whe ther they are cons idered CI ass as required by, 'the cri ter ia (1).                   2'omponents
+Prov ide a
+sunma ry of the ana 1'ys i's of the
+.vacuum breaker valves;,
+i nd ica te whe ther they are cons idered CI ass 2'omponents as required by, 'the cri ter ia (1).
 ===RESPONSE===
-Appar ent  ly this request relates to analysis of the drywel1/
+Appar ent ly this request we twe 11 vacuum b r eak.er s chugging events.
-we twe 11 vacuum b r eak.er s          for cyclic loads occuring during chugging events.          Since this concern is not part of the Mark I Containment Long-Term program, sent to the NRC.
+Since I Containment Long-Term sent to the NRC.
-a separa te response               will   be I i'h  is request rela tes to th'e new 10-inch S/RV vacuum breakers, these valves have been analyzed and subsequently mod if ied. to sat is fy ASME Section II I Class 2 stress                          limits for all postulated condit ions including opening impacts.
+relates to analysis of the drywel1/
-The mod i f ied S/RV vacuum breakers are shown on TVA drawing 47W401-9.
+for cyclic loads occuring during this concern is not part of the Mark
+: program, a separa te response will be Ii'h is request rela tes to th'e new 10-inch S/RV vacuum
+: breakers, these valves have been analyzed and subsequently mod ified. to sat is fy ASME Section III Class 2 stress limits for all postulated condit ions including opening impacts.
+The mod i fied S/RV vacuum breakers are shown on TVA drawing 47W401-9.
 ADDENDUM
-                                  'I Addit ional information on quali f ication test ing of the mod i f ied S/RV vacuum breakers for opening impact loads was
+'I Addit ional information on quali fication test ing of the mod i fied S/RV vacuum breakers for opening impact loads was
-:requested during the September 13, 1984 meeting with NRC and FRC representa t ives. That in forma t ion follows:
+:requested during the September 13, 1984 meeting with NRC and FRC representa t ives.
-Pr eliminary forcing functions for design. of opening impact modifications were based on conservative predictions extrapola ted from Mont icello test results. Mod i f ication designs were made. and preliminary tests for short-term, adequacy were conducted on that basis,.
+That in forma t ion follows:
-The final forcing function for the S/RV line E vacuum breaker was determined from discharge line pressure measurements taken dur ing the Apr i 1 1983 BFN S/RV tests (PUAR Reference 41).                This forcing function was analytically extrapolated      for    all'FN          S/RV lines and all long-term program load conditions. Then a,prototype vacuum breaker was tested at Wyle Labora tory, Huntsvi lie, Alabama, to demonst ra te operab i i ty for al fore ing func t ions and the 1
+Pr eliminary forcing functions for design. of opening impact modifications were based on conservative predictions extrapola ted from Mont icello test results.
-full 40-year plant li fe.                     1 FRC 13-1                    .PUAR.04 tMW0 ~ ~ I ~ ~ t ff                    I tV'   0   ~                 h  t '%W  ~ 'eA
+Mod i fication designs were made.
+and preliminary tests for short-term, adequacy were conducted on that basis,.
+The final forcing function for the S/RV line E vacuum breaker was determined from discharge line pressure measurements taken dur ing the Apr i 1 1983 BFN S/RV tests (PUAR Reference 41).
+This forcing function was analytically extrapolated for all'FN S/RV lines and all long-term program load conditions.
+Then a,prototype vacuum breaker was tested at Wyle Labora tory, Huntsvi lie, Alabama, to demonst ra te operab i 1 i ty for al 1 fore ing func t ions and the full 40-year plant life.
+FRC 13-1
+.PUAR.04 tMW0
+~
+~
+I
+~
+~ t ff I
+tV' 0
+~
+h t
+'%W
+~
+'eA
 ITEM 14:
-The PUAR .(5) a I 1 owab Ie s:
+The PUAR.(5) indicates that t'e chloulated stress>>values at the following locations are very close to.the respective a I 1 owab I e s:
-indicates that t'e chloulated stress>>values at the following locations are very close to .the respective 0
+o
-o     dowi>comer/vent header inter sec t ion (Sect ion 6.5.4.1) o      downcomer/t iebar in tersec io~n (Sec t io'n 6.7.4.1) t~
+dowi>comer/vent header inter sec t ion (Sect ion 6.5.4.1) o downcomer/t iebar in tersec t~ io~n (Sec t io'n 6.7.4.1)
-Indica te. conservat isms in the a~nakys is to show tha't the.      e
+Indica te. conservat isms in the a~nakys is to show tha't the. e
-'calculated values would not be'xceeded if a diffe'rent analy t iica approach were to be ~used>>
+'calculated values would not be'xceeded if a diffe'rent analy t iica 1 approach were to be
-RES PON'iE:
+~used>>
-Although the, stress values at the intersections mentioned above were close to the respect~ive all'ow'able stresses,          this should not represe nt a significant concern. Design modifications were made such that the stresses resulting from the new configurations wer~e ~just below the acceptable values., This would normal ly be ant iic ipa ted.
+RES PON'iE:
-There are conservatisms which could be removed to obtain a greater di fference in the allowable and actual calculated st-ress values for the above i'nt'er.,'sections. For example::
+Although the, stress values at the intersections mentioned above were close to the respect~ive all'ow'able stresses, this should not represe nt a significant concern.
-(])     Absolute surmation was used in the. combination of loads.
+Design modifications were made such that the stresses resulting from the new configurations wer~e
-(2)     The downcorner /t iebar was c~onser vat ively analyzed. using Service. Level B'llowables for Service Level C loads.
+~just below the acceptable values.,
+This would normal ly be ant iic ipa ted.
+There are conservatisms which could be removed to obtain a
+greater di fference in the allowable and actual calculated st-ress values for the above i'nt'er.,'sections.
+For example::
+(])
+Absolute surmation was used in the. combination of loads.
+(2)
+The downcorner /t iebar was c~onser vat ively analyzed. using Service. Level B'llowables for Service Level C loads.
 (SSE seismic loads were in'eluded in'he actual loading in place, of the -prescribed OBE seismic I"oad.)
-(3)     There, are other. conservati'sms associated with the DBA CO lateral load analysis method as described        in 'the response   to PRC  I tern PRC  14-1                   PUAR.04
+(3)
+There, are other.
+conservati'sms associated with the DBA CO lateral load analysis method as described in 'the response to PRC I tern PRC 14-1 PUAR.04
 ITEM 1'5:
 Stress intensi f ication factors 'for the mi t'e'r bends in the vent system are not found in Table 6-17 as s ta ted in" Sect ion
-.6.9'. of the PUAR (5). 'Pr ovide these factors.
+.6.9'.
-RES P.ONSE:
+of the PUAR (5).
-Main vent    mitre   bend SIF      - '3.85 Vent .header m'i:tr e bend, 'SIF    8.2 Downcomer    mitre   bend SIF     .- 3:.82 (An  appropr'i'ate revision,wiI'I made to the  PUAR:)
+'Pr ovide these factors.
-FRC 15-1                  PUAR.04
+RES P.ONSE:
+Main vent mitre bend SIF
+- '3.85 Vent.header m'i:tr e bend, 'SIF 8.2 Downcomer mitre bend SIF
+.- 3:.82 (An appropr'i'ate revision,wiI'I made to the PUAR:)
+FRC 15-1 PUAR.04
-ITEM   1 6:
+ITEM 1 6:
-Regard     ng the     torus bel lows ana'lys is in Sec t ion 6. 10. l.          1 (5'), pr<>v i de the method and technica 1'as is 'for 1
+Regard 1 ng the torus bel lows ana'lys is in Sec t ion 6. 10. l. 1 of the PlJAII (5'),
-of the     PlJAII calcu lat inj,, the spr;-ing v'alues,tha t represent the bel I'ops flex ibi lii ty in the con~uter. models'f the vent system 6-2 and 6-:3     (5)).                                 'F.igur.es RESPON6E:.i The spr ing       values that:repr'esent the bellows flexibi li ty were   calculated using the "Standards of the Expansion Joint
+pr<>v i de the method and technica 1'as is 'for calcu lat inj,, the spr;-ing v'alues,tha t represent the bel I'ops flex ibi lii ty in the con~uter. models'f the vent system
-- Manufacturers Associiation, Inc.," (PUAR Reference 24).
+'F.igur.es 6-2 and 6-:3 (5)).
+RESPON6E:.i The spr ing values that:repr'esent the bellows flexibility were calculated using the "Standards of the Expansion Joint
+- Manufacturers Associiation, Inc.,"
+(PUAR Reference 24).
 Appropr ligate data. for the BFN bellows was input including convolu t ion dep th, thickness, number of'onvolu t ions, and modu lus of elas t ic i ty.
-FRC 16- 1                    PUAR. 0 4 0
+FRC 16-1 PUAR. 0 4 0
-          ~    -  ~
+~
+~
 ITEM I 7:
-Provide and          justify   the a'pproach        for the fa'tigue evaluation
+Provide and justify the a'pproach for the fa'tigue evaluation
-                                 .o  f the     be 1 1ows men t i oned   in: Sec t i on 6. 10;.3      o f the  PUAR (5  ) .
+.o f the be 1 1ows men t i oned in: Sec t i on 6. 10;.3 o f the PUAR (5 ).
-The       fatigue evaluation was carr ied out using "Standards of the Expansion Joint Manufacturers Association, Inc." (PUAR Reference 24) and the Mark:I. Containment 'Pro ram Au ented Class 2/3 Fati ue Evaluation Method and .Resul ts or T ical Torus Attached and S               V,i    sn     S stems, PUAR Deflect.ions for the torus and bellows were obtained for each e erence 21 load event using computer analysis resul'ts and hand calcu-
+~ '1 The fatigue evaluation was carr ied out using "Standards of the Expansion Joint Manufacturers Association, Inc."
-~  '1
+(PUAR Reference 24) and the Mark:I. Containment
-                                 ,la t ions. These de flee t ions 'resu I ted in bel lows stresses which were then combined in ac'cordance with the fatigue eva 1 u a t i on me thod no t e d abov'e.
+'Pro ram Au ented Class 2/3 Fati ue Evaluation Method and.Resul ts or T ical Torus Attached and S V,i sn S stems, PUAR e erence 21 Deflect.ions for the torus and bellows were obtained for each load event using computer analysis resul'ts and hand calcu-
- '
+,la t ions.
-FRC 17-1                               PUAR.'0 4 El(h (   Phh'\
+These de flee t ions 'resu I ted in bel lows stresses which were then combined in ac'cordance with the fatigue eva 1 u a t ion me thod no t e d abov'e.
-            "1
+FRC 17-1 PUAR.'0 4 El(h ( Phh'\\
-                    ~ ( lff E~ i   'lg I (  '       I'       *     '' (h    i~ (( h(( I)( i ~ )~ P ~
+~
+( lff E ~ i
+'lg I (
+I' (h
+i ~
+(( h((
+I)( i ~
+) ~
+P
+~
+"1
 ITEM. 18:
-Accord iing'to Sec't i ori 7,.3.3    n I of the    PUAR',(5)   ., the sa f e ty-
+Accord iing'to Sec't i ori 7,.3.3 n I of the PUAR',(5) the sa f e ty-
- ,rel i ef val'v.e I i i>e p'enetrat I'oti,o.f 'th&, re i'n "v,ent was modeled us,ing cy ndr'le~el shell'1 exib i 1'i 'ty 'harac ter,i s t ics.
+,rel i ef val'v.e I i i>e p'enetrat I'oti,o.f 'th&, re i'n "v,ent was modeled us,ing cy 1 1 ndr'le~el shell'1 exib i 1'i 'ty 'harac ter,i s t ics.
-1 Indicate, the ice thod for'e'termi'ni'ing 'h'es'e character is t ics.
+: Indicate, the ice thod for'e'termi'ni'ing 'h'es'e character is t ics. I
-I
 ===RESPONSE===
-For'he S/RV-'ine penetratfion of 'the main 'vent, a six degree of,fr eedom "suppor t" 'was: modele'd. For three degrees of freed'on> (pipe torsion arid th'e two transla't iona'I ful ji f i'xi ty was ass'umisd..For the ci r cumferent ia1 she'ar'dir'ection's) and ion'gi tudi'nal bending directions,'i j laard's methods (PUAR Reference 64) were utili ~ed to de'ter~mine rotat,ional spr iing rates. F'r the main v'ent'adial direction, a transla tional
+For'he S/RV-'ine penetratfion of 'the main 'vent, a six degree of,fr eedom "suppor t" 'was: modele'd.
-.spi ing r'ate was'etermi'ned. pdr th4 R. J. Roark text, IFormuias for Stress,and Strain.
+For three degrees of freed'on> (pipe torsion arid th'e two transla't iona'I she'ar'dir'ection's) ful ji fi'xity was ass'umisd..For the ci r cumferent ia1 and ion'gi tudi'nal bending directions,'i j laard's methods (PUAR Reference
-                                    .FRC   18-1                                           PUAR.04
+: 64) were utili ~ed to de'ter~mine rotat,ional spr iing rates.
+F'r the main v'ent'adial direction, a transla tional
+.spi ing r'ate was'etermi'ned.
+pdr th4 R. J.
+Roark text, IFormuias for Stress,and Strain.
+.FRC 18-1 PUAR.04
 ITEM I 9:
-Prov ide the technical            bas'is: for ob ta in ing. the s tress intensi'f'ication. fact'ors u'seda in the anal'ys'is "of the saf'ety-re'1 1'.ef val.ve dischar.ge pip'ing sys,tern ('S'ect.ions 7.'3.3.1 and 7.4.3.1 (5)).
+Prov ide the technical bas'is: for ob ta in ing. the s tress intensi'f'ication. fact'ors u'seda in the anal'ys'is "of the saf'ety-re'1 1'.ef val.ve dischar.ge pip'ing sys,tern
+('S'ect.ions 7.'3.3.1 and 7.4.3.1 (5)).
 RES PONSE':
-In genera:1  the         1'97V ASME'od'e S'ect,ion I I'I'(Figure ND-36'V 3 . 2 ( b) -1 ) is. the technical basis for "the stress I n tens i.f i ca t ion factors. uti;lized i'n the S/RY'ischarge p ip i'ng, ana lys'is wi th the fol'lowing excep t ions:
+In genera:1 the ND-36'V3. 2 ( b) -1 )
+I n tens i.fi ca t ion p ip i'ng, ana lys'is 1'97V ASME'od'e S'ect,ion I I'I'(Figure is. the technical basis for "the stress factors. uti;lized i'n the S/RY'ischarge wi th the fol'lowing excep t ions:
 Bas.I s:
-Weld-0-Let                      Bonny Forge s,tress                     'in.tensi'f ication factors       and'. stress. i'ndices for we 1 d'-o -1 e t s..
 ~ ~
-  '1 Sweep-0=Le t                    Stress       intensi f ication .factors and stress       indices for. the Bonny Forge sweep-o-1 e ts.
+'1 Weld-0-Let Bonny Forge s,tress
-Quencher Near                   Stress. intensification factor based, on Collar'upport                   eff'ective secti'on of quencher. Assume's hole zone of quencher provides no structural contribution.
+'in.tensi'f ication factors and'. stress.
-i =,Section. modulus of 12 inch Sch 80 Pi                       e Ef fective section modulus of quencher I
+i'ndices for we 1 d'-o -1 e t s..
-FRC 19-1                                        PUAR.04 r   r  I err ~
+Sweep-0=Le t Quencher Near Collar'upport Stress intensi fication.factors and stress indices for. the Bonny Forge sweep-o-1 e ts.
-re r  r~ ~    *, r ss+v  sr ~ '   . ~ rr ~ ~     rt
+Stress. intensification factor based, on eff'ective secti'on of quencher.
-                                                                                    *
+Assume's hole zone of quencher provides no structural contribution.
-                                                                                      ~
+i =,Section. modulus of 12 inch Sch 80 Pi e
-                                                                                      ~  ~
+Ef fective section modulus of quencher I
-                                                                                           ~
+FRC 19-1 PUAR.04
+* ~
+~
+r r
+I err
+~re r r ~
+~
+*, r ss+v sr
+~ '
+. ~ rr ~ ~
+rt
+~
+~
-iTEM 20 Provide, the stress,resul't                 s  from the 'wetwel 1 and drywell   1 sa  fety-re,.l i ef'.val,,v,e .dischar ge         p.ip ing analys'is '(Sect ions 7,'.3.4 ..l. ari'd. '7.'4<..4'..1;,(,5)-) .
+iTEM 20 Provide, the stress,resul't s
+from the 'wetwel 1 and drywell 1 sa fety-re,.l i ef'.val,,v,e.dischar ge p.ip ing analys'is
+'(Sect ions 7,'.3.4..l. ari'd. '7.'4<..4'..1;,(,5)-).
 ===RESPONSE===
-I Tables., FRC-.20-,1 through,:FRC-20-4 provide a suranary. of the equ~iti'on, 9 st'resses from'he S/R'V discha'rge piping                 'aaximum
+I Tables., FRC-.20-,1 through,:FRC-20-4 provide a
+suranary. of the
+'aaximum equ~iti'on, 9 st'resses from'he S/R'V discha'rge piping
 -analys'is.
-FRC 20   1                     PUAR;. 0 4
+FRC 20 1
+PUAR;. 0 4
-TRBLE-        FRC-20-i ORYHELL LOAO CQMBINATIGNS,  MAXIMUM STRESS LOAO CASE '( 1')          NOOE         'STRESS'KSIr)    'STRESS I                                     RATIO CASE      1              59             .17,.         0.991 8'0.5
+TRBLE-FRC-20-i ORYHELL LOAO CQMBINATIGNS, MAXIMUM STRESS LOAO CASE '( 1')
--LINE           CASE,2                   59                           0.760
+I NOOE
-     '(2)                               '47 C             CASE 3                                 .22. 1      0.61'3
+'STRESS'KSIr)
-              . CASE 4                                 .20.6          0.573 CASE     1             157              ,1'6,.2      :0.. 898 LINE            CASE '2                                 23'.'8       ,0.883
+'STRESS RATIO
-:15'57 E (2)         CASE                                   ,23,. 8        0 .'662 3'CASE 4               :157             ,,23.. 9       0.664
+-LINE C '(2)
- ,1..LOAO CASE .PER TASL'E'-1            OF .PUAR.
+CASE 1
-,2.. LINE    C IS  A REPRESENTATIVE SHORT .LINE.
+CASE,2 CASE 3
-LINE E, IS  A REPRESENTATIVE, LONG L'INE.
+. CASE 4 59 59
-                             'CALCULATED STRESS ALI OHABLE STRESS
+'47
+.17,.
+'0.5
+.22. 1
+.20.6 0.991 0.760 0.61'3 0.573 LINE E (2)
+CASE 1
+CASE '2 CASE 3'CASE 4
+:15'57
+:157
+,1'6,.2 23'.'8
+,23,. 8
+,,23.. 9
+:0.. 898
+,0.883 0.'662 0.664
+,1..LOAO CASE.PER TASL'E'-1 OF.PUAR.
+,2.. LINE C IS A REPRESENTATIVE SHORT.LINE.
+LINE E, IS A REPRESENTATIVE, LONG L'INE.
+'CALCULATED STRESS ALI OHABLE STRESS
-NOC   -'.
+T,Rf3t.E, FF/C;-l20-.2 NOC SERVjiCE II EVEL B Atlo C.LOAD COMBINRT,IOhlS MAXIt tut<<
-SERVjiCE T,Rf3t .E, FF/C;-l20-.2 II EVEL B Atlo MAX It tut<< .;TIRESSES.       .
+.;TIRESSES.
-C .LOAD    COMBINRT,IOhlS l~E.'rWELL .EVRL.URT:ION 4
+. l~E.'rWELL.EVRL.URT:ION 4
-LOAD CASIE'(1)            NODE            STRESS    (KSI ) 'TRESS'(4' fkRl I Ol CASE  1                                     BY CRSE '2,     (2)
+LOAD CASIE'(1)
-LINE           ,CASE. 2                                  10,.3        ~
+NODE STRESS (KSI
-.573 0.404'ENIVELOPED (3)         CASE',                        ENIVELOPED BY',CASE CASE 4                                   10.9 (2)
+) 'TRESS'(4' fkRl IOl LINE (3)
-'LINE H  (3),
+CASE 1
-CASE CASE 2 1
+,CASE. 2 CASE',
-CASE':3
+CASE 4 10,.3
-                                        '8 ENVEIL'Oi'ED BY CASE 2 13'.3 ENVEIL".OPED BY -CRSE     4   (
+~
-'758                  0 CASE 4                                    1:4. 1               0.'522.
+.573 ENIVELOPED BY',CASE 10.9 0.404'ENIVELOPED BY CRSE '2, (2)
-'. LOAD 'CASES PER TABLE         '7'2   OF''PURR',.
+'LINE H (3),
-: 2. THE,ENIVELOPING 'OCCURS BECRUSE R WORST'.CRSE 'NOC  BLOWDOWN        .
+CASE 1
-(SCREENED BENI WEEN'IRST -AND 'SECOND''ACTUATION) IS'.USE(I)
+CASE 2 CASE':3 CASE 4
-STRESS    ANAL.YSI S .,
+'8 13'.3 ENVEIL".OPED BY -CRSE 4 (
-NOR'HE 3'. L'INE L  TYPICPIL SHORT 'LINE'.
+'758 1:4. 1 0.'522.
-LINE Hl  -TYPICPIL LONG LINE.
+ENVEIL'Oi'ED BY CASE 2 (2) 0 1'.
-CALC'ULATED STRESS 4;   STRESS    RATIO ALLOWABLE STRESS
+LOAD 'CASES PER TABLE '7'2 OF''PURR',.
+.
+THE,ENIVELOPING 'OCCURS BECRUSE R WORST'.CRSE
+'NOC BLOWDOWN (SCREENED BENI WEEN'IRST -AND 'SECOND''ACTUATION)
+IS'.USE(I)
+NOR'HE STRESS ANAL.YSIS.,
+'.
+L'INE L TYPICPIL SHORT 'LINE'.
+LINE Hl -TYPICPIL LONG LINE.
+; STRESS RATIO CALC'ULATED STRESS ALLOWABLE STRESS
-TRBLE:FRC-.20=.3 SBA/'IBA -- SERVICE 'LEVELS;C                    .AND 0 LOAD .COMBINATIGNS
+TRBLE:FRC-.20=.3 SBA/'IBA -- SERVICE 'LEVELS;C.AND 0 LOAD.COMBINATIGNS
-          ,MAXIMUM STRESSES                . "HETNEL'L EVALUATION LOAD CASE .('1)        '
+,MAXIMUM STRESSES "HETNEL'L EVALUATION LOAD CASE.('1)
-                                     'NODE           STRESS    ',(KSI')   STRESS'RATIO CASE  .1                12                 21 .'6           0,. 887 CASE 2                   .2                24.9             0.922 LINE,          CASE .3                          ENVELOPED BY CASE 5
+'NODE STRESS
-  .L           CASE 4,                         ,ENVELOPED'Y 'CASE 6 CASE 5                  12                .21.8             0.674
+',(KSI')
-              'CASE 6                   2                 26.8             0.745 CASE  1                  8                26.5              0.982
+STRESS'RATIO CASE
-             'CASE 2                                     26.0              0.963 L'INE         .CASE .3                          ENVELOPED BY CASE '5 CASE 4                          ENVELOPED 'BY. CASE 6 j
+.1 CASE 2 12
-                                   31.7              0.881
+.2 21.'6 24.9 0,. 887 0.922
-                         'CASE 10 CASE 6                                    32'..2            0.894
+: LINE,
-: 1.   'LOAD CASES 'PER TABLE         7-3   OF,  PUAR.
+.L CASE.3 CASE 4,
-: 2. SBA AND'RA    BL'OWDOWNS SCREENED            TO PROVIDE WORST CASE FOR'NALYSIS; CALCULATED'TRESS
+ENVELOPED BY CASE 5
-                        ',ALLOWABL'E STRESS
+,ENVELOPED'Y 'CASE 6 CASE 5
+'CASE 6 12 2
+.21.8 26.8 0.674 0.745 L'INE CASE 1
+'CASE 2
+.CASE.3 CASE 4
+'CASE 5
+CASE 6 8
+26.5 26.0 ENVELOPED BY CASE '5 ENVELOPED 'BY. CASE 6 j
+.7 32'..2 0.982 0.963 0.881 0.894
+: 1. 'LOAD CASES 'PER TABLE 7-3 OF, PUAR.
+.
+SBA AND'RA BL'OWDOWNS SCREENED TO PROVIDE WORST CASE FOR'NALYSIS; CALCULATED'TRESS
+',ALLOWABL'E STRESS
-                           'I PiBL)=-    FRC--20.->>
+'I PiBL)=- FRC--20.->>
-OBPi    - SERVICE.:LEVEL, D..LOAD- COMB INATIONS MAXIMl)M STRESSES                'NETNELL',E'.VALUA'T ION''I
+OBPi
-       '"LORD CASE Ei'i               NODE                      STRES!~. IIKSI,)     .
+- SERVICE.:LEVEL, D..LOAD-COMBINATIONS MAXIMl)M STRESSES
-STRESS          E>>, '.
+ 'NETNELL',E'.VALUA'T ION''I NE L
-                                                                                              'RATIO
+'"LORD CASE Ei'i
-                                                             'L
+,CASE 1
-            ,CASE    1                 235                           22.4                      0  '692 NE CASE                                                    33 4                      0'.
+CASE 2'ASE.:3 NODE 235
-L                                                                                                  927'.880 2'ASE.:
+'L STRES!~.
-                                                31.7 CASE      1                                             28.1                      .0.'7'81 LINE CASE 2                                                                             0 0
+IIKSI,)
-                                                                            '28'.,'3
+.4 33 4 31.7 STRESS E>>,
-                                                                                                   .'787'.760 C,RSE    3                                              27.4,
+'RATIO 0 '692 0'.
-: 1. LOAD, CASIES 'PER TABL'E 7-'4. OF
+'.880 LINE CASE 1
-                                             'PURR'ALCULATED STRESS,
+CASE 2 C,RSE 3 28.1
-                                                                 '
+'28'.,'3 27.4,
-                             .AL'L'CIHABLE STRESS
+.0.'7'81 0
+.'787'.760 0
+.
+LOAD, CASIES 'PER TABL'E 7-'4. OF
+'PURR'ALCULATED
+: STRESS,
+.AL'L'CIHABLE STRESS
 ITEM 21:
-Prov ide and just i fy the. al 1'ow'able safe ty-rel i e f valve nozzle loads which were .referred t'o in: Section 7.3.4.2 of the PUAR (5)   ~
+Prov ide and just i fy the. al 1'ow'able safe ty-rel i e f valve nozzle loads which were.referred t'o in: Section 7.3.4.2 of the PUAR (5) ~
 ===RESPONSE===
-As   surrmarized'n the PUAR, relief valve nozzle loads calculated in. the d.rywell S/RV. piping ana'lysis were compared to a set of allowable nozzle loads used in the original S/RV analysis performed by Teledyne Engineering, Services and documented by PUAR Reference 45.. These allowable loads were provided by the reli.ef valve. vendor, Target Rock, and are incorporated'n the design report for. this component. The alldwables and worst case calculated loads, are:
+As surrmarized'n the PUAR, relief valve nozzle loads calculated in. the d.rywell S/RV. piping ana'lysis were compared to a set of allowable nozzle loads used in the original S/RV analysis performed by Teledyne Engineering, Services and documented by PUAR Reference 45..
-Allowable Resultant Va 1 v,e                                              Bending Moment from
+These allowable loads were provided by the reli.ef valve. vendor, Target Rock, and are incorporated'n the design report for. this component.
-  ~Flan e                   Worst Load*                      D~naml o Loads Inlet                   3 209 6,1   IN=,-LB.              400,000 IN-LB Ou t'1 e.t.             287;,5'68: IN.=LB                  300,000: IN<<I B'SRSS combination. of dynami.c loads.
+The alldwables and worst case calculated loads, are:
-In addition to the 'vendor allowable nozzle load check, the connecting flanges for the, relief valvre insta1 la t ion were evaluated against static and: static plus dyriamic load a'1'lowables as calculated per the procedure of Paragraph.
+Va 1 v,e
-NB-36'58. 1'n t'e 1977: A'SME Boi ler and Pressure Vessel Code
+~Flan e
-,
+Inlet Ou t'1 e.t.
-(PUAR Reference 68),.             The followi,ng tab.le provide-s a sunmary, of that evaluation:
+Worst Load*
-FRC   21-1                      PUAR.04
+209 6,1 IN=,-LB.
-                                                                                    '
+;,5'68:
-r    I t ~ N      ~     a   t ~  r g      a               r   r> ~
+IN.=LB Allowable Resultant Bending Moment from D~naml o Loads 400,000 IN-LB 300,000: IN<<I B'SRSS combination. of dynami.c loads.
+In addition to the 'vendor allowable nozzle load check, the connecting flanges for the, relief valvre insta1 la t ion were evaluated against static and: static plus dyriamic load
+, a'1'lowables as calculated per the procedure of Paragraph.
+NB-36'58. 1'n t'e 1977:
+A'SME Boi ler and Pressure Vessel Code (PUAR Reference 68),.
+The followi,ng tab.le provide-s a
+: sunmary, of that evaluation:
+FRC 21-1 PUAR.04 r
+I t
+~
+N
+~
+a t
+~
+r g
+a r
+r>
+~
-Va 1 ve Flange           Cond i t ion            (,IN-LB)'lIN-L6)
+Va 1 ve Flange Cond i t ion Wors t Load
-Wors t Load
+(,IN-LB)'l 1 owah 1 e
-(
+( IN-L6)
-owah 1 e In let           S                        296843     437321 Ou t le t       'S                        306205     372971 Inlet            S  + D   (B).            390466     874642',
+In let Ou t le t Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet S
-Outlet           S,+ D'(B)                353947     745942 Inlet            S  + D   (CD)>>           637582    1375829 Outlet           S  + D   (C,,D)>>         515009    1096778
+'S S
-<<Direct add.i't i,on  of dynamic load components.
++ D (B).
+S,+ D'(B)
+S
++ D (CD)>>
+S
++ D (C,,D)>>
+306205 390466 353947 637582 515009 437321 372971 874642',
+1375829 1096778
+<<Direct add.i't i,on of dynamic load components.
 As can be seen, all loads are acceptable.
-Condi,t ion notes:              Static D     Dynamic (B)     Service Level 'B (C)     Service Level C (D)     Service level. D FRC  21-2               PUAE.04
+Condi,t ion notes:
+D (B)
+(C)
+(D)
+Static Dynamic Service Level 'B Service Level C
+Service level. D FRC 21-2 PUAE.04
-ITEM   2 2:.
+ITEM 2 2:.
-Wi th respec t to Sec t ion 7.4.3'..2. 1 of the PUAR (5), prov ide and    just i fy all dynamic ampli.f ication. factors used in 'the calculation         of'afety-relief             valve discharge-induced   fluid drag.,  forces      on     the sa fe ty-r el'i e f valve sys tern.
+Wi th respec t to Sec t ion 7.4.3'..2.
+of the PUAR (5), prov ide and just i fy all dynamic ampli.f ication. factors used in 'the calculation of'afety-relief valve discharge-induced fluid drag., forces on the sa fe ty-r el'i e f valve sys tern.
 ===RESPONSE===
 Safety,-relief valve (S/RV) discharge-induced fluid drag forces were applied pseudo-sta ti.cally to the S/RV system.
-The TQFORBF computer cod'e was used with S'/RV line input properties that would produce the highest force amplitudes possible from any line for any S/RV discharge case. Maximum amplitude force-time histories were thus determined. From these time histories, the peak amplitudes of the distr'ibuted forces were taken for equivalent static application to the system.
+The TQFORBF computer cod'e was used with S'/RV line input properties that would produce the highest force amplitudes possible from any line for any S/RV discharge case.
-The    equivalent pseudo-s ta t ic force dis tr ibut ion was determined by conservatively assuming the distribution of peak forces to act as a perfectly steady-state sinusoidal fore ing func t ion. A modal analys is. of the S/RV sys tern indicated that there were no potentially responsive modes of the system within the broadened; 4.2-14.7 Hz ran'ge (see PUAR Section 5.5.2) of possible S/RV forcing frequencies.
+Maximum amplitude force-time histories were thus determined.
-Therefore, the lowest potentially responsive natural frequency of the system was assumed to be driven by the highest possible broadened forcing frequency of each load case considered.               This pulls the two frequenc ies ( i. e.,
+From these time histories, the peak amplitudes of the distr'ibuted forces were taken for equivalent static application to the system.
-the forcing frequency and the system frequency) as close together as they can ever -possibly be, thereby conserva-tively maximizing the dynamic load factor,(DLF). The DLF was computed for each S/RV load case considered using the following expression for a harmonic forcing function (see PUAR Equation D.1.2-24):
+The equivalent pseudo-s ta t ic force dis tr ibut ion was determined by conservatively assuming the distribution of peak forces to act as a perfectly steady-state sinusoidal fore ing func t ion.
-(i- Qglg)'g          + 4   iInQ/~) g where damping         ratio  (-2% was use )
+A modal analys is. of the S/RV sys tern indicated that there were no potentially responsive modes of the system within the broadened; 4.2-14.7 Hz ran'ge (see PUAR Section 5.5.2) of possible S/RV forcing frequencies.
-Q= forcing function frequency system natural frequency FRC   22-1                  PUARe04 e ~ r ~:    'e'"         ~~ ere v" '+r'n" ~ ma'"'""'   '"      e
+Therefore, the lowest potentially responsive natural frequency of the system was assumed to be driven by the highest possible broadened forcing frequency of each load case considered.
-* r    ~
+This pulls the two frequenc ies
+( i. e.,
+the forcing frequency and the system frequency) as close together as they can ever -possibly be, thereby conserva-tively maximizing the dynamic load factor,(DLF).
+The DLF was computed for each S/RV load case considered using the following expression for a harmonic forcing function (see PUAR Equation D.1.2-24):
+(i-Qglg)'g
++
+iInQ/~) g where damping ratio
+(-2% was use
+)
+Q= forcing function frequency system natural frequency FRC 22-1 PUARe04 e ~
+r ~: 'e'"
+~ ~ere v" '+r'n" ~ ma'"'""'
+e
+* r
+~
-The load cases     considered    and   cdrresponding   DLFs we'r'e
+The load cases considered and cdrresponding DLFs we'r'e
-                                                                      'as'ollows:
+'as'ollows:
-Ca s'e No.              Descr:iot ion              (H.z )
+Ca s'e No.
-DLF'..26 NOC,'DBA-1st    Actuation           8.34     18.25 NOC,DBA-2nd Actuation              10.2~J    18.25        1. 4i6 SE1A,IBA-1st Actuation             12.3   1! 18.25        1'. 8        4 SE1A, I BA-'2nd Ac tua t i on      14.6~J    18.25        2.83 Finally  BFN S/R'V test results showed significant conserva,tism
+Descr:iot ion NOC,'DBA-1st Actuation NOC,DBA-2nd Actuation SE1A,IBA-1st Actuation SE1A, IBA-'2nd Ac tua t i on (H.z )
-~
+.34 10.2~J 12.3 1!
-of S/RV discharge l.in,e and suppo'rt" st'resses relative to analytically predicted values.'ee PUAR 'Se'ctions C.'7.1 and C.7.2.
+.6~J 18.25 18.25 18.25 18.25 DLF'..26
-FRC  22-2                 PUAR.04
+: 1. 4i6 1'. 8 4 2.83 Finally BFN S/R'V test results showed significant conserva,tism
+~ of S/RV discharge l.in,e and suppo'rt" st'resses relative to analytically predicted values.'ee PUAR 'Se'ctions C.'7.1 and C.7.2.
+FRC 22-2 PUAR.04
 ITEM 23:
- ,Wi th respec t to,Sec t io'n 8.2.2.3 o f the PUAR (5)', prov ide and j us t'i fy the r.eason's for not cons'1'der ing the contr ibu t ions of h igher modes above 2'0 Hz for 'seismic analysis 'of torus attached piping systems.
+,Wi th respec t to,Sec t io'n 8.2.2.3 o f the PUAR (5)', prov ide and j us t'i fy the r.eason's for not cons'1'der ing the contr ibu t ions of h igher modes above 2'0 Hz for 'seismic analysis
- 'RESPONSE:
+'of torus attached piping systems.
-Seismic .analysis of to'rus-attached pip"ing systems was performed using the origi'nal analysis methodology as permi.t ted by. Section 4 .4 . 1 of NUREG 0661. Original seismic piping analysis methodology of BFN documented in '-FSAR
+'RESPONSE:
+Seismic.analysis of to'rus-attached pip"ing systems was performed using the origi'nal analysis methodology as permi.t ted by. Section 4.4. 1 of NUREG 0661.
+Original seismic piping analysis methodology of BFN documented in '-FSAR
 .Appendix C.3.'2.l..a, includes use oi'0 Hz as the "cut-off" frequency.
-FRC 23-1                      PUAR.04
+FRC 23-1 PUAR.04
-i IUI th respect      to.Section 8.2,.5.2 of the PUAR- (5), provide justification for considering'taAch lines                  having peak spectral accelerations belowin'e5.0 g'beat the point of attachment to the pr ocess 1               to       quali f ied without fu r ther eva lua.t.ion.
+IUI th respect to.Section 8.2,.5.2 of the PUAR- (5), provide justification for considering'taAch lines having peak spectral accelerations below 5.0 g at the point of attachment to the pr ocess 1 in'e to 'be quali f ied without fu r ther eva lua.t.ion.
+i
 ===RESPONSE===
-TVA's     cri ter ia for excluding      br~'t'ncih lines from addi t ional analysis       may have been mis    interpreted. The exclusion limi t is .not the acceleration input to the branch line from the process        inc. I t is the ampli fl'ed mot ion of the process line, i.e, the exc1usion limit is based on the dynamic 1
+TVA's cri ter ia for excluding br~'t'ncih lines from addi t ional analysis may have been mis interpreted.
-reponse spectra for the branch line.
+The exclusion limit is.not the acceleration input to the branch line from the process 1 inc.
-The 5-g      limit was or iginally selected based on TYA'0 experience ivith seismic quali.f ication of small lines with typical BFN con f igu ra t i ons. Exper ience wi th BFN LTP analysis of branch liines which exceeded the 5-g limit prov ide d fu r ther ver,i f i ca t ion of: the accep tab i 1 i ty of 'th~is                        '
+I t is the ampli fl'ed mot ion of the process line, i.e, the exc1usion limit is based on the dynamic reponse spectra for the branch line.
-imi t for BFN branch lines.
+The 5-g limit was or iginally selected based on TYA'0 experience ivith seismic quali.f ication of small lines with typical BFN con figu ra t i ons.
-ADDENDUM Dur ing the Septeimb er 13, 1984 meeting,             FRC r epresenta t 0
+Exper ience with BFN LTP analysis of branch liines which exceeded the 5-g limit prov ide d fu rther ver,i f i ca t ion of: the accep tab i 1 i ty of 'th~is imi t for BFN branch lines.
-some  concern with this response and during                          iv'es'ndicated on September 24, 1984,, addit ional information iwa's    a'elecon requested.       Tha t in forma t ion fol lows:
+ADDENDUM 0
-All    branch lines which connect to 'thie tot'us'ttached piping process lines were evaluated for dynamic response of line, thermal and dynan1ic dispiac~ment of the                 the'ranch a t tached pr oc ess 1 ii ne, and su. ta ined loads (deadwe igh t and pressure) . Re ferr ing to paragraph NC3650 of the 1977 ASIDE Section II I Code (PUAR Reference 23), branch line dynamir'.
+Dur ing the Septeimb er 13, 1984 meeting, FRC r epresenta t iv'es'ndicated some concern with this response and during a'elecon on September 24, 1984,, addit ional information iwa's requested.
+Tha t in forma t ion fol lows:
+All branch lines which connect to 'thie tot'us'ttached piping process lines were evaluated for dynamic response of the'ranch
+: line, thermal and dynan1ic dispiac~ment of the a t tached pr oc ess 1 ii ne, and su. ta ined loads (deadwe igh t and pressure)
+Re ferr ing to paragraph NC3650 of the 1977 ASIDE Section II I Code (PUAR Reference 23),
+branch line dynamir'.
 response s tresses plus susta ined load s tresses are included in code. equation 9 whereas bran'ch link s'tresses clue to process line displacements and susta ined loads are included in equa t ion 11.
 The 5-g limit for branch line dynamic response analysis was spec i f i ed on the basis of exper ience's descr ibed above.
-The adequacy of thai t 1imi t andi the fac t tha t equa t ion 11 FRC   24" 1                      PUAR.04
+The adequacy of thai t 1imi t andi the fac t tha t equa t ion 11 FRC 24" 1 PUAR.04
-s t'resses are typ ical ly more cr i t ical for BFN branch lines than equa t ion 9 s t'resses is shown by Tab le FRC-24-1. Tha t tabula t ion giv'es resu 1 ts for ten BFN Un i t 3 branch 1 ines which had response spectra exceeding. the 5-g 1imi t.
+s t'resses are typ ical ly more cr i t ical for BFN branch lines than equa t ion 9
-Stresses are presented as a percentage of the code equation 9 and 11 a-l.lowables. The peak of response spectra accelera.tions- and branch line identi;fiers are also given.
+s t'resses is shown by Tab le FRC-24-1.
-Recognizing that the equation ll stresses. were more critical, all branch lines were analyzed for those condit ions. It was not necessary or cost effective to r igorously analyze all branch l,ines for equat ion 9 s,tresses--hence the 5-g limit.
+Tha t tabula t ion giv'es resu 1 ts for ten BFN Un i t 3 branch 1 ines which had response spectra exceeding.
-Finally, the small compact valves which are located in BFN
+the 5-g 1imi t.
-'branch lines are structurally adequate for accelerations much greater than 5-g's.         Therefore, the 5-g 1imi t is also appropriate from a component operabi'll-ty standpoint.
+Stresses are presented as a percentage of the code equation 9 and 11 a-l.lowables.
-FRC 24-2                    PUAR.04
+The peak of response spectra accelera.tions-and branch line identi;fiers are also given.
+Recognizing that the equation ll stresses.
+were more critical, all branch lines were analyzed for those condit ions.
+It was not necessary or cost effective to r igorously analyze all branch l,ines for equat ion 9
+s,tresses--hence the 5-g limit.
+: Finally, the small compact valves which are located in BFN
+'branch lines are structurally adequate for accelerations much greater than 5-g's.
+Therefore, the 5-g 1imi t is also appropriate from a component operabi'll-ty standpoint.
+FRC 24-2 PUAR.04
-TAELE  FRC:-.2 i-1 TYPICAL HRPSCH LINE ARQ YSIS       K~TS Process  Li,'ne Penetration Process 'Line Node   Point
+TAELE FRC:-.2 i-1 TYPICAL HRPSCH LINE ARQ YSIS K~TS Process Li,'ne Penetration X212 Process 'Line Node Point
-                               ~F~i~~~l Ettuat ton    11 ovia~)e Str~eq Eguation   '9 Peak Spec Acceieration,a' tra1 X212                .37             ~3                  ~ 3            '9.5 30             .9.                 .1             6.1 40             .1                 ..1             '9.3 46             .1                  .1             6,3 107             .4                  .3,            9.9 X214                  55                                               9.5 X223B               E30             ~ 2                               10.8 X231                  55            ,.6                 ~ 4            19 a9
+.37 30 40 46 107
-                     - 75X             n 2                 .I          . 20'. I 75K             ,;5                               20. 1 FHC    24-3                       HJAR.'04
+~F~i~~~l ovia~)e Str~eq Ettuat ton 11 Eguation
-                                                                                 '
+'9
+~ 3
+~3
+.9.
+.1
+.1
+..1
+.1
+.1
+.4
+.3, Peak Spec tra1 Acceieration,a'
+'9.5 6.1
+'9.3 6,3 9.9 X214 X223B X231 55 E30 55
+- 75X 75K
+~2
+,.6 n 2
+,;5
+~ 4.I 9.5 10.8 19 a9
+. 20'. I
+: 20. 1 FHC 24-3 HJAR.'04
-ITEi>I  25:
+ITEi>I 25:
-Wi  th respec t to Sect ion 8.2.5.5 of the PUAR (5), provide just i;f ication for considering     the valves wi.th accelera t ions less than 3-g horizontal       and,2-g vertical and -having no operator supports to be quali'fied without further eva lua t,ion.
+Wi th respec t to Sect ion 8.2.5.5 of the PUAR (5), provide just i;fication for considering the valves wi.th accelera t ions less than 3-g horizontal and,2-g vertical and -having no operator supports to be quali'fied without further eva lua t,ion.
 ===RESPONSE===
-The    3-. g horizonta'1 and 2-,g vertica'1 accelera ti'on limits on valve acceler.a tions .are justi'fled by our experience with
+The 3-. g horizonta'1 and 2-,g vertica'1 accelera ti'on limits on valve acceler.a tions.are justi'fled by our experience with
-,seismic qua.li f.ication of similar.'va.ives on four TVA nuclear plants (Browns Ferry., Sequoyah, Wa,tts iBar, and ~Bellefonte).
+,seismic qua.li f.ication of similar.'va.ives on four TVA nuclear plants (Browns Ferry.,
-ln addition, .none of .the:numerous valves which were evaluated for the BFN LTP,,had any problem with sa tis'fying
+: Sequoyah, Wa,tts iBar, and ~Bellefonte).
+ln addition,
+.none of.the:numerous valves which were evaluated for the BFN LTP,,had any problem with sa tis'fying
 :the requiremen~ts of PUAR Section 4..3..3 with applied accelera,tions, in excess of the 3-g/2-g limits.
-FRC .25-1                    PUAR. 04
+FRC.25-1 PUAR. 04
 ITEM 26:
- ,Prov ide    a schedu le for the corrlp 4 t ion 1       o f p i joe suppor't
+,Prov ide a schedu le for the corrlp 1 4 t ion o f p i joe suppor't
-:mod i f ications. for Units '2 and 3.
+:mod i f ications. for Units
+'2 and 3.
 ,RESPONSE:
-The BFN      Unit '1 and Unit 3 Ipipe sup'port modifications are comp  le te, and al Un i t 2 in terna i pipe support mod i f ica t ions 1
+The BFN Unit
-a re comp le t,e.
+'1 and Unit 3 Ipipe sup'port modifications are comp le te, and al 1 Un i t 2 in terna i pipe support mod i f ica t ions a re comp le t,e.
-The .date      for completion of Unit -2 external pipe supper ications is currently (September'984) under                      t'odif negotia,tion with NRC. An integrated modif ication. schedule was submit ted iin Augu,st 1984'or NRC review and approval, indicating completio'n of Unit 2 -external pipe support               =
+The.date for completion of Unit
-mod i f i ca t iIon s du r ing the Cycle 6 re fue i ng outage.
+-2 external pipe supper t'odif ications is currently (September'984) under negotia,tion with NRC.
-FRC 26-1                         PUA]R. 0 4
+An integrated modif ication. schedule was submit ted iin Augu,st 1984'or NRC review and approval, indicating completio'n of Unit 2 -external pipe support
+=
+mod i f i ca t iIon s du r ing the Cycle 6 re fue 1 i ng outage.
+FRC 26-1 PUA]R. 0 4
-ATTACHMENT 2 BFN PUAR FINAL TVA RESPONSES TO  NRC AND BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL 'LABORATORY. QUESTIONS tl'r r ~ rrpl ~
+ATTACHMENT 2 BFN PUAR FINAL TVA RESPONSES TO NRC AND BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL 'LABORATORY. QUESTIONS tl'r r
+~rrpl
+~
 il~
@@ Line 592: / Line 1,167: @@
 ll
-General     R~es  ense, to PURR      nest l'ons.
+General R~es ense, to PURR nest l'ons.
-'.BFN L'TP anal;ys.i,s and     des.ign   activi.ty    has proceeded     on a sc'hedul:e necessary        to support,instal::lation of all
+'.BFN L'TP anal;ys.i,s and des.ign activi.ty has proceeded on a
-.modif'i,ca.tions dur.:1'ng, the, cyc'le '4 and 5 refueling ou,tages o'f each uni't, .as requ'ired by .NRC. The f:i;rst BFN cycle 4 refuel,ing outage began in 'Apr'itl 1981, .a'nd'ost of the major modi:f'i'cati'on. desi'gns were compl'ete 'by" May 1981. Remaining modification designs,. pr.imarily .i'or torus .t'oattached pi.ping ext'ernal supports., were complete in t'ime                   support i.ns.tallati.on duriqg,'the cycle 5 r.efuel:ing outages.
+sc'hedul:e necessary to support,instal::lation of all
-  ,In order to, sa't,isfy schedule comnitments, it was necessary to make in'terpr.etations of, LDR and NUREG 0661 .requirements based. upon. the best available,.information at the time of analysis.       Most  of'he, interpretations,          were   originally es.tablished in 1979 and early 1980., A continuing effort to remove excessive conservati'sm,from load defin'i'tions and analysis "methods was made, parti,cularly, when that conservat.ism, would: result i,n unnecessary, impractical modifica.tions.
+.modif'i,ca.tions dur.:1'ng, the, cyc'le
- ,When,'later information. on, load definitions and associated analys.is: methods. became avai.lable, it was compared, to the lprevious interpretations-.. The I.ater information was used for reanalys.is,.and,.associ.ated des,ign work i.f a si,gnifi,cant
+'4 and 5 refueling ou,tages o'f each uni't,.as requ'ired by.NRC.
- 'unconservat.ism, in the prev;ious, interpretation was i'ndicated.
+The f:i;rst BFN cycle 4
- 'For example,, the f:inal downcomer ti.ebar.'/V,-brac.ing
+refuel,ing outage began in 'Apr'itl 1981,.a'nd'ost of the major modi:f'i'cati'on. desi'gns were compl'ete
- ,modification resulted from; November 1'981 changes in t'e DBA condensation      osci'llation lateral       l.oad   defin'ition.
+'by" May 1981.
-Somet imes,    later i pf orma't i on was    used. to    r emove  excess i ve conservatism, in remaining .analysis, and'esign work. For .
+Remaining modification designs,. pr.imarily.i'or torus attached pi.ping ext'ernal supports.,
-example, the 1.1 SRSS load combination technique was permitted for torus attached piping               analysis after NRC' final position on       'this  subject    'was   defined    in Apri'1 '1983 by   PUAR  'Reference   58. An   absolute     surrrnation   combination technique was required prior to that time..
+were complete in t'ime.t'o support i.ns.tallati.on duriqg,'the cycle 5 r.efuel:ing outages.
-Fi.nally, when 'the later information showed                the previous load defini:tions and      analysis    methods     to  be  adequate'ly,   (but not excess'ively) conservative, the original interpretations were retained. In these situations, reanalysis util. izing the later information would have been unnecessary and costly,.
+,In order to, sa't,isfy schedule comnitments, it was necessary to make in'terpr.etations of, LDR and NUREG 0661.requirements based.
-and, in. some cases, would have resulted in delays in the installation of modifications.
+upon. the best available,.information at the time of analysis.
-Many of the PUAR quest,ions derive from situations where the original interpretations stated in pUAR Section 4 were used for analysis. Justification for these interpretations was provided in. PUAR Section. 4, Section 5, and Appendix C.
+Most of'he, interpretations, were originally es.tablished in 1979 and early 1980.,
-Additional technical 'justification,'ollows in the responses to.,specifi.c .questions. on 'these topics. Other PUAR questions simply request add'itional i.nformation, which's prov.ided in the responses.
+A continuing effort to remove excessive conservati'sm,from load defin'i'tions and analysis "methods was made, parti,cularly, when that conservat.ism, would: result i,n unnecessary, impractical modifica.tions.
-GR-1                                P,UAR. 00
+,When,'later information. on, load definitions and associated analys.is: methods.
+became avai.lable, it was
+: compared, to the lprevious interpretations-..
+The I.ater information was used for reanalys.is,.and,.associ.ated des,ign work i.f a si,gnifi,cant
+'unconservat.ism, in the prev;ious, interpretation was i'ndicated.
+'For example,,
+the f:inal downcomer ti.ebar.'/V,-brac.ing
+,modification resulted from; November 1'981 changes in t'e DBA condensation osci'llation lateral l.oad defin'ition.
+Somet imes, later i pf orma't i on was used. to r emove excess i ve conservatism, in remaining.analysis, and'esign work.
+For
+: example, the 1.1 SRSS load combination technique was permitted for torus attached piping analysis after NRC' final position on 'this subject
+'was defined in Apri'1 '1983 by PUAR 'Reference 58.
+An absolute surrrnation combination technique was required prior to that time..
+Fi.nally, when 'the later information showed the previous load defini:tions and analysis methods to be adequate'ly, (but not excess'ively) conservative, the original interpretations were retained.
+In these situations, reanalysis util.izing the later information would have been unnecessary and costly,.
+: and, in. some cases, would have resulted in delays in the installation of modifications.
+Many of the PUAR quest,ions derive from situations where the original interpretations stated in pUAR Section 4 were used for analysis.
+Justification for these interpretations was provided in. PUAR Section. 4, Section 5,
+and Appendix C.
+Additional technical 'justification,'ollows in the responses to.,specifi.c.questions.
+on 'these topics.
+Other PUAR questions simply request add'itional i.nformation, which's prov.ided in the responses.
+GR-1 P,UAR. 00
-It is TVA's posi't ion that the,BFN PVAR (Revision 1) and 'ou'r review question responses demor'~st'ra'te compl lance wi th thee intent of the Mark I Containmedt Long-Term Program and NUREG 0661 (i.,e , to upgrade 'the contai'nm'ent system safety.
+It is TVA's posi't ion that the,BFN PVAR (Revision 1) and 'ou'r review question responses demor'~st'ra'te compl lance wi th thee intent of the Mark I Containmedt Long-Term Program and NUREG 0661 (i.,e
-margins,, for all,'postul'cited hydrodynamic loading   conditi'on's,'o i
+, to upgrade
-those intended by the original design spec,ifications).
+'the contai'nm'ent system safety.
-On- this basis, we feel that all indicated safety concerns             .
+margins,,
-are fully and satisfactorily addr!es'sed, 'an'd we respectfully request a favorable final evalilatioh for the BFN LTP.
+for all,'postul'cited hydrodynamic loading conditi'on's,'o those intended by the original design spec,ifications).
-L GR-2                   PVAR. 00
+On-this basis, we feel that all indicated safety concerns are fully and satisfactorily addr!es'sed,
+'an'd we respectfully request a favorable final evalilatioh for the BFN LTP.
+i L
+GR-2 PVAR. 00
-According to Section 4.2.5 of the PUAR, BFN used the loads
+According to Section 4.2.5 of the
-. defined by the PULD and the LDR Sect:ion 4.3.2 for pressure 1'oads on the torus.. However, BFN applied a much smaller
+: PUAR, BFN used the loads
-  . margin on, the LDR .load 't'han stipulated in NUREG 0661, page A-6.
+. defined by the PULD and the LDR Sect:ion 4.3.2 for pressure 1'oads on the torus..
-The BFN margin,    of '6.5 percent on the LDR upload is justif-ied in the   BFN PUAR on   the basis that the 15 pe'rcent margin r'econmended on page 39 of NUREG 0661 i"s unnecessary because the EPRI 1/12-seal'e model 'had the BFN geometry, and that the Acceptance Criteria (AC) margin of 21.5 percent should therefore be reduced by 15 per'cent to .yi'eld 6.5 percent.
+: However, BFN applied a much smaller
-This does not meet the intent of the AC. The 15 perce'nt margin of NUREG 0661 was,i'mposed for'everal reasons (see pp. 36.-3'8 of NUREG 0661)., the geometry being only one of the concerns. Consequently, a full justification for the reduction of the margin from 21.5 percent to 6.5 percent is needed, or the ability of the torus to withstand 'a 15 percent load increase mist be dern'on'strat'ed.
+. margin on, the LDR.load 't'han stipulated in NUREG 0661, page A-6.
+The BFN margin, of '6.5 percent on the LDR upload is justif-ied in the BFN PUAR on the basis that the 15 pe'rcent margin r'econmended on page 39 of NUREG 0661 i"s unnecessary because the EPRI 1/12-seal'e model
+'had the BFN geometry, and that the Acceptance Criteria (AC) margin of 21.5 percent should therefore be reduced by 15 per'cent to.yi'eld 6.5 percent.
+This does not meet the intent of the AC.
+The 15 perce'nt margin of NUREG 0661 was,i'mposed for'everal reasons (see pp.
+.-3'8 of NUREG 0661).,
+the geometry being only one of the concerns.
+Consequently, a full justification for the reduction of the margin from 21.5 percent to 6.5 percent is
+: needed, or the ability of the torus to withstand
+'a 15 percent load increase mist be dern'on'strat'ed.
 RESPONSE:,
-                                              'I The    uncer'tainty margins us'ed for BFN pool swell load dei'ini,tion and the BFN spool swell .analysis procedure ensured conservati've structural response predictions. Some justifi-cation for,this fact is given, in 'Section 4.2.5.2'of the PUAR. Addi.tional justification follows:
+'I The uncer'tainty margins us'ed for BFN pool swell load dei'ini,tion and the BFN spool swell.analysis procedure ensured conservati've structural response predictions.
-    -1. ,Uncertainties regarding .the .2D/3D test model results were minimized because the 1/4 scale 2D and 1/12 scale 3D models for the generic Mark I LTP tests were prototypical of BFN.,geometry.
+Some justifi-cation for,this fact is given, in 'Section 4.2.5.2'of the PUAR.
-: 2. Significant, conservatism was added to the BFN pool swell load definition because fluid,compressibility effects in the vent system were not considered in the 1/4 scale plant unique tests. This conse'rvatism is recogni'zed and quantified in Section 2.4 of Supplement     1
+Addi.tional justification follows:
-          'to NUREG 0661..
+-1.
-,    BFN plant unique 1/4 scale tests for normal operating conditions were conducted at min'imum dP and maximum downcomer submergence, thereby ensuring upper-bound p'ool swell load predictions.
+,Uncertainties regarding.the.2D/3D test model results were minimized because the 1/4 scale 2D and 1/12 scale 3D models for the generic Mark I LTP tests were prototypical of BFN.,geometry.
-: 4. BFN plant unique I/4 scale tests for 0.0 hP condi tions were. conducted at 0.0 ALP and maximum downcomer submergence, thus ensuring upper-bound pool swell load predictions.
+.
-BNL, l-l                   PUAR. 00
+Significant, conservatism was added to the BFN pool swell load definition because fluid,compressibility effects in the vent system were not considered in the 1/4 scale plant unique tests.
+This conse'rvatism is recogni'zed and quantified in Section 2.4 of Supplement 1
+'to NUREG 0661..
+, BFN plant unique 1/4 scale tests for normal operating conditions were conducted at min'imum dP and maximum downcomer submergence, thereby ensuring upper-bound p'ool swell load predictions.
+.
+BFN plant unique I/4 scale tests for 0.0 hP condi tions were. conducted at 0.0 ALP and maximum downcomer submergence, thus ensuring upper-bound pool swell load predictions.
+BNL, l-l PUAR. 00
-S. The 'BFN v ent system and toruS analysis procedures for pool swel loai1ing Included 'slgnifican't Sections 1
+S.
-akid 6.'ll  of'he               'conservati.sms.'.4.5 IPUAR'surrm'arfze the BFht vent syst em analysis procedur,e.'ections 4.4.4 and 5.4.2.7 o f the PVAR sunmarize the Bl N torus a'nalysis procedure           S,igni'f.icant- analgtilcal r.onservatisms incl'uded the tvio percent da'mginlg Iaskumption for system an                  the 80 percent     waI ter 'mahs'assumption                           vent'lysis, for torus analysis, and the twd percent torus damping a's s ump t:l o re for all operating'AP pbol, 's'we11 load comb i'na t i ons;
+The
-: 6. The BFN uncertainty margin,fair poiol swel                 1                  loads (S.S
+'BFN v pool swel Sections vent syst 5.4.2.7 o
-      .percent) was,conservat i-vely- appl i ed to the pr response includling vent system input effects,.
+procedure incl'uded system an for torus a's s ump t:l o comb i'na t i ent system and toruS analysis procedures for 1
-edicted'orus wher eas the download, and upload margi ns i,n NEC' acceptance cr i ter ia (Appendi x A of hIUREG. 0661') are appl icable for torus hydrodynamic pressure loads '.only.
+loai1ing Included 'slgnifican't
-V. The BFN uncertainty margin (t).5 pIercent) exceeds, NRG's recommended download margin (5.~4.gedce'nt).,I,t also exceeds one,standai d deviation of ttie 'BFN I/4'cale
+'conservati.sms.'.4.5 akid 6.'ll of'he IPUAR'surrm'arfze the BFht em analysis procedur,e.'ections 4.4.4 and f the PVAR sunmarize the Bl N torus a'nalysis S,igni'f.icant-analgtilcal r.onservatisms the tvio percent da'mginlg Iaskumption for vent'lysis, the 80 percent waI ter 'mahs'assumption
-      .resul ts for operating bP condi tions. Those standard
+: analysis, and the twd percent torus damping re for all operating'AP
-    "
+: pbol,
-deviations were appr'oximately 3.6 percen't and.4,.0.
+'s'we11 load ons; 6.
+The BFN uncertainty margin,fair poiol swel 1 loads (S.S
+.percent) was,conservat i-vely-appl i ed to the pr edicted'orus response includling vent system input effects,.
+wher eas the download, and upload margi ns i,n NEC' acceptance cr i ter ia (Appendi x A of hIUREG. 0661') are appl icable for torus hydrodynamic pressure loads '.only.
+V.
+The BFN uncertainty margin (t).5 pIercent)
+: exceeds, NRG's recommended download margin (5.~4.gedce'nt).,I,t also exceeds one,standai d deviation of ttie 'BFN I/4'cale
+.resul ts for operating bP condi tions.
+Those standard
+" deviations were appr'oximately 3.6 percen't and.4,.0.
 percent for upload,and download respectively.
-.,    BFN    operati.ng AP,pool swel        1 .dynamic resp<inses                                    were conservatively combined wi th dynamic respons'es .fram other load sources .by, the: methods described i.n. Section 4.4.2 of the PUAR.
+.,
-Additional assurance. regarding any remaining upload concern is provided by the i'act that the'~BFN torus tiedown desigri lis not cont.rollied, by a pool, swel;1 load combination. This would remain true even if an additional 15 percent upload ma'rgin were added 'for pool, swe.l,l loads.
+BFN operati.ng AP,pool swel 1.dynamic resp<inses were conservatively combined wi th dynamic respons'es
-BNL 1,-2                                       PUAR. 00
+.fram other load sources
+.by, the: methods described i.n. Section 4.4.2 of the PUAR.
+Additional assurance.
+regarding any remaining upload concern is provided by the i'act that the'~BFN torus tiedown desigri lis not cont.rollied, by a pool, swel;1 load combination.
+This would remain true even if an additional 15 percent upload ma'rgin were added 'for pool, swe.l,l loads.
+BNL 1,-2 PUAR. 00
 ITEM'':
-What    margin was appl ied on the    LDR download?    Is the downl;oad speci f ication consis~tent    wi th Section 2.3  of the the Acceptance     'Criteria?
+What margin was appl ied on the LDR download?
+Is the downl;oad speci fication consis~tent wi th Section 2.3 of the the Acceptance 'Criteria?
 RESPONSE':
 A 6.'5 percent uncertainty margi:n, was applied'or 'both down-
-,l,oad: and upload .as, descr.ibed in, the response to,'BNL item    l.
+,l,oad: and upload
-The    speci.fica'tion Iin Section 2.3 of'RC's acceptance criteria requires. a download. margin of 5.4 percent,         based upon a peak download of '2700 pounds for BFN 'I/'4 seal'e oper at'i ng" hP,tes ts.
+.as, descr.ibed in, the response to,'BNL item l.
-BNL 2-1                      PUAR. 00
+The speci.fica'tion Iin Section 2.3 of'RC's acceptance criteria requires.
+a download. margin of 5.4 percent, based upon a peak download of '2700 pounds for BFN 'I/'4 seal'e oper at'i ng"hP,tes ts.
+BNL 2-1 PUAR. 00
 ITEM 3:
-For what structures would the losid exceed acceptable levels i f the tor us pre. sure loads were made c&ndis'teh't wi th NUREG 0661?   By how much, and for what load combinations?
+For what structures would the losid exceed acceptable levels i f the tor us pre. sure loads were made c&ndis'teh't wi th NUREG 0661?
+By how much, and for what load combinations?
 ===RESPONSE===
-To make the BFN torus pressure 'loads consistent with NUREG 0661 an additional 15 percent margin would 'be added to,th'e upload phase--if the other conservatisms -in the BFN pool swell load definition were, disregarded.      The download margin would be reduced by 1 percent. Assuming that the same, conservative analytical procedure was applied, maximum stresses in the download phase would decrease slightly and maximum stresses in the uploaId phhs& Would'increase by less than 15 percent.,     (An increase of 5 to 10 percent is estimated.)     This level of potential stress    increase could readily   be compen. ated by rem'oval 'of''om6, of in t,he analytical procedure and load      thI'onservatism combination technique. Therefore, realistically, there" is no potential to overstress a BFN stru0tatre by changing the torus pressure load" defi,nition to c'omply with NUHEG 0661 generic margins.
+To make the BFN torus pressure
-iBNL 3-1                                    PUAR. 00
+'loads consistent with NUREG 0661 an additional 15 percent margin would 'be added to,th'e upload phase--if the other conservatisms
+-in the BFN pool swell load definition were, disregarded.
+The download margin would be reduced by 1 percent.
+Assuming that the
+: same, conservative analytical procedure was applied, maximum stresses in the download phase would decrease slightly and maximum stresses in the uploaId phhs& Would'increase by less than 15 percent.,
+(An increase of 5 to 10 percent is estimated.)
+This level of potential stress increase could readily be compen. ated by rem'oval
+'of''om6, of thI'onservatism in t,he analytical procedure and load combination technique.
+Therefore, realistically, there" is no potential to overstress a
+BFN stru0tatre by changing the torus pressure load" defi,nition to c'omply with NUHEG 0661 generic margins.
+iBNL 3-1 PUAR. 00
-ITEM  4:
+ITEM 4:
-Was   the vent header impact load def ini tion of;pages 6-17 of the  PUAR i.n. accordance wi.th Secti-on. 2.10.,1 of NUREG 066,1?
+Was the vent header impact load def ini tion of;pages 6-17 of the PUAR i.n. accordance wi.th Secti-on. 2.10.,1 of NUREG 066,1?
-If .not, explain    the differences and provide estimates showing that sufficient margin exists to acconmodate the NUREG    load.
+If.not, explain the differences and provide estimates showing that sufficient margin exists to acconmodate the NUREG load.
 ===RESPONSE===
-The vent header      impact 1'oad  definition  was not in accordance with-Section 2.10.1      of'he    NUREG 0661  acceptance criteria.
+The vent header impact 1'oad definition was not in accordance with-Section 2.10.1 of'he NUREG 0661 acceptance criteria.
 S'ection 2.1:O.l addresses loads on a vent header deflector.
-BFN does. not. have a vent header deflector; however, the BFN vent headers were reinforced near the center of each non-vent bay as, a result of pool swell impact loading anal'ysis as described in Section 6.11;3 of the PUAR. A typical, BFN header reinforcement installation is shown by PUAR   Plates   7 and 8.
+BFN does. not. have a vent header deflector;
+: however, the BFN vent headers were reinforced near the center of each non-vent bay as, a result of pool swell impact loading anal'ysis as described in Section 6.11;3 of the PUAR.
+A typical, BFN header reinforcement installation is shown by PUAR Plates 7 and 8.
 The BFN vent system pool swel.l impact load analys.is (PUAR Reference 17) and. header reinforcement. modi,fication design were: performed i.n 1979, pr.ior to the release of NUREG 0661.
 The longitudinal velocity, and impact timing:profiles were based upon EPRI 1/12 scale, split orifice tests for operating 8P and 0.0. 4P pool swell conditions.
-NUREG 0661      specified the   use  of a single "conservative."
+NUREG 0661 specified the use of a single "conservative."
-profile for      impact velocity and timing for all conditions.
+profile for impact velocity and timing for all conditions.
-However, a comparison of- the resulting peak. impact pressures on the BFN vent header showed that the existing analytical values were more conservative i'or the entire non-vent This was particularly true in the critical region wherebay.        the BFN   reinforcement, modification is located.
+: However, a comparison of-the resulting peak. impact pressures on the BFN vent header showed that the existing analytical values were more conservative i'or the entire non-vent bay.
-within the non-vent bay i,t was conclude4 thatTherefore,the existing analysis results were conservative relative, to the revised load def,ini tion from NUREG 0661 .
+This was particularly true in the critical region where the BFN reinforcement, modification is located.
-Within the vent bay the peak impact pressures would be somewhat higher with the revised load definition. However, conservative estimates of the increased vent system stresses in this region showed all stresses to be less than 24 percent of allowables for the operatinghP case and 37 percent for the 0.0 AP. case.
+Therefore, within the non-vent bay i,t was conclude4 that the existing analysis results were conservative relative, to the revised load def,ini tion from NUREG 0661.
-Further consideration of this information leads to the basic conclusi.on that the 1979 analysis was appropriately conservative and sufficiently accurate to address all structural concerns of the BFN vent system for pool swell impact and drag loads. Additional analysis was not necessary.
+Within the vent bay the peak impact pressures would be somewhat higher with the revised load definition.
-BNL 4-1                      PUAR. 00
+: However, conservative estimates of the increased vent system stresses in this region showed all stresses to be less than 24 percent of allowables for the operatinghP case and 37 percent for the 0.0 AP. case.
+Further consideration of this information leads to the basic conclusi.on that the 1979 analysis was appropriately conservative and sufficiently accurate to address all structural concerns of the BFN vent system for pool swell impact and drag loads.
+Additional analysis was not necessary.
+BNL 4-1 PUAR. 00
--ITEM  5:
+-ITEM 5:
-Ner  e the IOCA      jet  and bubble dr'ag loads for'FN''valuated in  accordance     w'I th the LDR and NUREG 066'I?
+Ner e the IOCA jet and bubble dr'ag loads for'FN''valuated i n accordance w'I th the LDR and NUREG 066'I?
 ===RESPONSE===
-Yes, LOCA jet and bubble drag loads for,,BFN were evaluated in accordance with the LDR and, NUREG 0661 (See PUAR, Appendix D, Sections 'D.l.1.2 and f or di scus's i ons )'
+: Yes, LOCA jet and bubble drag loads for,,BFN were evaluated in accordance with the LDR and, NUREG 0661 (See
-D.l.l.l, respectively;
+: PUAR, Appendix D, Sections 'D.l.1.2 and D.l.l.l, respectively; for di scus's i ons )'
-                                  'BNL S,-l                     PUAR. 00
+'BNL S,-l PUAR. 00
-For analyzing structures, af'fected by CO loads, the LDR and NUREG. 0661          prescribe absolute sumnation of the CO load harmonics at li-Hz intervals. from. 1 to 50 Hz. BFN used an alternate approach where:
+For analyzing structures, af'fected by CO loads, the LDR and NUREG. 0661 prescribe absolute sumnation of the CO load harmonics at li-Hz intervals.
-(i)        forcing. frequencies above 31'z were neglected, and (ii) four            parti,cular load harmonics (the ones at 4-5, 5-6, 10-11, and 15-16 Hz)'ere added absolutely and added.
+from.
+to 50 Hz.
+BFN used an alternate approach where:
+(i) forcing. frequencies above 31'z were neglected, and (ii) four parti,cular load harmonics (the ones at 4-5, 5-6, 10-11, and 15-16 Hz)'ere added absolutely and added.
 to the SRSS of'he remaini,ng 26.
 Justify the neglect of forcing frequencies above 31'z for
-('a) torus shell loads, and (b) submerged structure drag loads. (Arguments about smal;I torus. response do not apply fordrag loads.)
+('a) torus shell loads, and (b) submerged structure drag loads.
-Why were CO drag l.oads (page 4-4) analyzed i'or 1-31 Hz only:,. but. post-chug: drag loads (page 4-5)                                      for      1-50 Hz?
+(Arguments about smal;I torus. response do not apply fordrag loads.)
+Why were CO drag l.oads (page 4-4) analyzed i'or 1-31 Hz only:,. but. post-chug: drag loads (page 4-5) for 1-50 Hz?
 ===RESPONSE===
-When the. DBA. CO load def:i:ni:tions were                                provided             by,   the LDR, it 0                                 soon became, ap'parent that there conservatisms,, not the least of which was the lack of any information about the phasing relationships between the Fourier harmonics. Clearly, conservatisms could have been maximized by applying all 50, CO harmonics using an absolute were'ignificant inherent sunmation rule, and whi'le some might infer this approach from the LDR and NUREG 0661,                           it experts identified. specific conservatisms and recorrmended was not prescribed.                          Various approaches that would allow more realistic accounting for the potential DBA CO event. Some of the key findings by these experts f'ollow:
+When the. DBA. CO load def:i:ni:tions were provided by, the
-From PUAR Reference                    19    (or equivalently.:                   GE/NEDE-24840).,
+: LDR, it soon
+: became, ap'parent that there were'ignificant inherent conservatisms,,
+not the least of which was the lack of any information about the phasing relationships between the Fourier harmonics.
+Clearly, conservatisms could have been maximized by applying all 50, CO harmonics using an absolute sunmation rule, and whi'le some might infer this approach from the LDR and NUREG 0661, it was not prescribed.
+Various experts identified. specific conservatisms and recorrmended approaches that would allow more realistic accounting for the potential DBA CO event.
+Some of the key findings by these experts f'ollow:
+From PUAR Reference 19 (or equivalently.:
+GE/NEDE-24840).,
 Section 3.4:
-(1)       The 5.5 Hz harmonic was the dominant                                     content of the loading.
+(1)
-(2)       "... a.ll harmonics appear to                           be randomly phased relative to the               dominant harmonic at 5.5 Hz."
+The 5.5 Hz harmonic was the dominant content of the loading.
-(3)       "...      investigators have seen a tendency for a fixed phase relationship between the dominant harmonic and one or two mul tiples of the dominant (e.g., 5.5, 11, and 16.5 Hz) from examination of data from individual pressure transducer records for the FSTF test, but showed random phasing for all other harmonics."
+(2) "... a.ll harmonics appear to be randomly phased relative to the dominant harmonic at 5.5 Hz."
-I                                                                              BNL   6-1                                           PUAR. 00
+(3)
- ~ s r r ~ -, ~ ~ ~ rf ~ r rrl rri h <<Ml  r ~ '   r9'irrr lh w ', 5 rh r ~ wlehhh, M  'rtr hht ~ TIE Ehhhr hh J(r' .rulrr'r 'h lrrhlh EMIr r 'l."s ' ~ ~ ~ l9
+"... investigators have seen a tendency for a fixed phase relationship between the dominant harmonic and one or two mul tiples of the dominant (e.g.,
+.5, 11, and 16.5 Hz) from examination of data from individual pressure transducer records for the FSTF test, but showed random phasing for all other harmonics."
+I BNL 6-1 PUAR. 00
+~
+s r r
+~ -, ~
+~
+~
+rf
+~ r rrl rri h <<Ml r
+~'
+r9'irrr lh w ',
+rh r ~wlehhh, M 'rtr hht
+~TIE Ehhhr hh J(r'.rulrr'r 'h lrrhlh EMIrr 'l."s
+~ ~
+~
+l9
-(4)    EVhf le  1 t was admi tted that there appeared to be some relative     per iodici ty of t'e harmonic ampl tudes that l.
+(4)
-would preclude the appropriateness of pure. SRSS combination o1i'he harmonic amplitudes, it was stated that ",;.. it is highly improbable for miore than about three harmonics to be'orst case phased at any one time...."
+EVhf le 1 t was admi tted that there appeared to be some relative per iodici ty of t'e harmonic ampl
-(5) "... a rule which requires about three harmonics to be absolute combined INi th all additional harmonics SRSS combined is consistent with the as. umptfon of steady-state periodic amplitudes arid randem phasi ng."
+: l. tudes that would preclude the appropriateness of pure.
--(6) The LDR amplitudes are- defined with significant conservatisms as can be seen from Figure 3-11 (especially in the frequency range from 40 to 50 Hz where most LDR amplitudes ar,e much more than 100
+SRSS combination o1i'he harmonic amplitudes, it was stated that ",;.. it is highly improbable for miore than about three harmonics to be'orst case phased at any one time...."
-       ,percent greater than thie average FSTF amplitudes).
+(5) "...
-(7) A'iso from Figure 3-11, i t can be seen t',hat actual FSTF ampl f tudes seem to show that CO has relati,vely 1 lt tie' requency content above 30 Hz.
+a rule which requires about three harmonics to be absolute combined INi th all additional harmonics SRSS combined is consistent with the as. umptfon of steady-state periodic amplitudes arid randem phasi ng."
+-(6)
+The LDR amplitudes are-defined with significant conservatisms as can be seen from Figure 3-11 (especially in the frequency range from 40 to 50 Hz where most LDR amplitudes ar,e much more than 100
+,percent greater than thie average FSTF amplitudes).
+(7)
+A'iso from Figure 3-11, i t can be seen t',hat actual FSTF ampl f tudes seem to show that CO has relati,vely 1 lttie' requency content above 30 Hz.
 From PUAR Reference 42, Section 4:
-(8) Conclusion 'No. 2 states thats "For structures wi*th frequency content similar to the FSTF or, Oyster Creek torus encl supports, only the harrnonfe responses belowi 30 Hz need to be computed and in'eluded."
+(8)
-Based, on the f'indi ngs 1 isted and our own best technical judgment,, T'VA feel,s that neglect of the fair cf ng, f requenci      e's above 30 Hz, is justif;ied for".
+Conclusion
-(a)     torus.,shel  1  loacls (b)     submiergecl  structure drag loadS An explanation of our reasoning followst As stated f n f indi;ng (7), there is i t tie f requency content 1
+'No.
-of the CO lioacling. above 30 Hz; this .is the main reason for neglect i ng t., Addi ti onal ly, for the BFN 'o'rus (even af ter 1
+states thats "For structures wi*th frequency content similar to the FSTF or, Oyster Creek torus encl supports, only the harrnonfe responses belowi 30 Hz need to be computed and in'eluded."
-substantial modf f ications that resul ted'irectly fr'om CO f requenei es below,30 Hz. Shapes         'f loads analysis), t',he responsive structural modes occur at the'igher f r'equency modes of the torus will niot part.iei'pa'te'igni f icantly wi th the shape of the CO pressure distr ibution. This argument al so appl ies for t'e post-chug loacli ng on the .torus since i the same distribution -shape as iCO wi th only the harmonic          t'as ampl i tude cioef f i ei ents bei ng di f f ec ent.
+Based, on the f'indings 1 isted and our own best technical judgment,,
-BNL  6-2                   PUAR. 00
+T'VA feel,s that neglect of the fair cf ng, frequenci e's above 30 Hz, is justif;ied for".
+(a) torus.,shel 1
+loacls (b) submiergecl structure drag loadS An explanation of our reasoning followst As stated f n findi;ng (7), there is 1 i ttie frequency content of the CO lioacling. above 30 Hz; this.is the main reason for neglect i ng 1 t.,
+Addi tional ly, for the BFN 'o'rus (even af ter substantial modf fications that resul ted'irectly fr'om CO loads analysis),
+t',he responsive structural modes occur at frequenei es below,30 Hz.
+Shapes 'f the'igher fr'equency modes of the torus will niot part.iei'pa'te'igni ficantly wi th the shape of the CO pressure distr ibution.
+This argument al so appl ies for t'e post-chug loacli ng on the.torus since i
+t'as the same distribution -shape as iCO wi th only the harmonic ampl i tude cioef fiei ents bei ng di ffec ent.
+BNL 6-2 PUAR. 00
-For harmonic       for cing components wi th .frequencies more than 1.5. t.imes- the     natural struc:tural frequencies, the dynamic load factors (DLFs) become less than 1.0. For harmon.ic forces with frequencies greater than twi ce the natural structural frequencies, the DLFs are small and asymptotically approach zero. In this range,,the forcing components would have negligible effect on the structure.
+For harmonic for cing components wi th.frequencies more than 1.5. t.imes-the natural struc:tural frequencies, the dynamic load factors (DLFs) become less than 1.0.
+For harmon.ic forces with frequencies greater than twi ce the natural structural frequencies, the DLFs are small and asymptotically approach zero.
+In this range,,the forcing components would have negligible effect on the structure.
 This is. the case wi.th the torus f'r high frequency
-                                .harmonics.
+.harmonics.
-Further, empirical evidence of the adequacy of the                                                  BFN analytical approach for the DBA CO loading on the torus is provided in the responses to BNL item 7 (see Table BNL-7-1).. Similar evidence is provided for the chugging.
+Further, empirical evidence of the adequacy of the BFN analytical approach for the DBA CO loading on the torus is provided in the responses to BNL item 7 (see Table BNL-7-1)..
-loading    on. the. torus in the response          to    FRC     item                         7 .(see Tabl e FRC-'7-l,)     .
+Similar evidence is provided for the chugging.
-Submerged     s.tructures are      a  different matter,                however.
+loading on. the. torus in the response to FRC item 7.(see Tabl e FRC-'7-l,).
-Init'ially, most        submerged    structures       were primar'ily responsive in the lower frequency ranges and were dominated by the DBA CO harmonics,              In .order to avoi.d highly. amplif,ied responses due to CO, pre-.chug, and S/RV load definjtions, virtually every .submerged structure required to stiffen and strenghten modifications took some .of the submerged structures into a it. Thesesubstantial'edi'fication responsive range with .post-.chug              fluid,   drag. While impractical to stiffen submerged structures (most of them it  was, 1nternal portions of large piping systems) above the, post-chug forcing frequencies and stil'1 maintain v1able designs for thermal loa'ds, it was possible, after- many iterations, to obtain 'designs that had sufficient strength to,meet allowables for all load .combinations. This left BFN with
+Submerged s.tructures are a different matter, however.
-                             ~
+Init'ially, most submerged structures were primar'ily responsive in the lower frequency ranges and were dominated by the DBA CO harmonics, In.order to avoi.d highly. amplif,ied responses due to CO, pre-.chug, and S/RV load definjtions, virtually every.submerged structure required substantial'edi'fication to stiffen and strenghten it.
-st:iff submerged structures that were well within a range of post-chug drag, thus, necessitating use of. the full 0 to, 50 Hz range of        the post-chug,.defini-tion prescr.ibed in the LDR.
+These modifications took some.of the submerged structures into a responsive range with.post-.chug fluid,drag.
-FUAR Pla.tes       II,:I'8,   1'9, 20, and '21 show some of the stiff'ened    submerged structures.
+While it was, impractical to stiffen submerged structures (most of them 1nternal portions of large piping systems) above the, post-chug forcing frequencies and stil'1 maintain v1able designs for thermal loa'ds, it was possible, after-many iterations, to obtain 'designs that had sufficient strength to,meet allowables for all load.combinations.
+This left BFN with
+~ st:iff submerged structures that were well within a range of post-chug
+: drag, thus, necessitating use of. the full 0 to, 50 Hz range of the post-chug,.defini-tion prescr.ibed in the LDR.
+FUAR Pla.tes II,:I'8, 1'9, 20, and
+'21 show some of the stiff'ened submerged structures.
 I 4
-~i ii e
+~iii e
-:,I BNL  6-3                                                   PUAR. 00
+:,I BNL 6-3 PUAR. 00
-    ~f)' ~ ~
+~f)'
-t...Q, r ~
+~
-g r aV Jr'  r Ilail''
+~ t...Q, r ~ g r aV Jr' r
-                                      ~         .;p  prV    +,I ~ '~~   tt 8, tYr/ std;,,' C ~, t. ~  s                    ',     7, '   ~   - ~
+~Ilail''
+.;p prV
++,I ~'~~ tt 8, tYr/ std;,,'
+C ~, t.
+~ s ', 7, '
+~
+~
-The. appr oach of GE/NEDE 24840 - which i << i tsIel f a depar ture from the LDR   - call's for taking the sum of the four harmonics which produce the highest structural response, and adding them to the SRSS of the remaining harmonics. Were the forcing functions at 4-5, 5-6, 10-11, and 15-16 Hz, the ones which produced the highest structural response for both tor us shell and all draj loads'? In the work done by SMA (References 19 and .42 of the BPN PUAR), the absolutI.
+The. appr oach of GE/NEDE 24840 - which i <<
-surmnation of the four 'highest Iharmonics had nothing to do with phase relationsh,ips, but was an artifice used to arrive at an 84 ipercent nonexceedance pr'obability (NEP). Bas:ed on the discussl,on in the P~UAR, BFN's proIcedure does not guarantee an NEP of 84 ipercent. Justify BFN's departure from the recommended procedure and/or demons'trate structural margins which would adequately cover incr easIes in tlute CO loads. Was Al ternate 4 of the CO basIel inc r igid wal 1 pressure spectrum applied to BPN!'ESPONSE:
+i tsIel f a depar ture from the LDR - call's for taking the sum of the four harmonics which produce the highest structural
-While the approach recommended in PUAR Reference 19 (or GE/NEDE-24840)   i s a diepar ture from thIe LDR, TVA bel eves        1 i.t is well justified by the thorough,studies and findings of many experts. Those fii'ndings clearly stress the extreme conservatism, hence inappropriateness,, of absolute sutrrnation of all response harmonics As the approach is specified,                    it of the three or four highest response harmonics of a requires the identification structure to be combined absolutely with the SRSS of those remaining. ThIis identification, however, ls an impracticable task when one consiiders the number of. structures to be analyzed and the response quantities of interest for each (e.g., dispiiacemenit, acceleration, force, stress, stress intensities). Also, while this approach may guarantee 50 or 84 percent NEP for the CO loading alone, there can be no such claim for the controlling dksign ibad combinations involving CO since the pol',nts of maximum respo'nses for CO load combinations are likely to be different than for CO alone. Therefore, TVA chose to vary slightly from the approach suggested in Section 6 of PUAR Reference 19. The approach used was justifiable encl practical for timely, cost efficient implementation.
+: response, and adding them to the SRSS of the remaining harmonics.
-I t cannot'd g'ua'rar'>te'ed fcir both the tor us shel 1 and al 1 submerged structures that forcing functions at 4>>5, 5-6, 10-11, and 15-16 Hz were t'e ones producing the highest structural responses, although for some they may be--
+Were the forcing functions at 4-5, 5-6, 10-11, and 15-16 Hz, the ones which produced the highest structural response for both tor us shell and all draj loads'?
-especially for t'e torus shell since its primary response BNL           7-1                       .PUAR. 00
+In the work done by SMA (References 19 and
+.42 of the BPN PUAR), the absolutI.
+surmnation of the four 'highest Iharmonics had nothing to do with phase relationsh,ips, but was an artifice used to arrive at an 84 ipercent nonexceedance pr'obability (NEP).
+Bas:ed on the discussl,on in the P~UAR, BFN's proIcedure does not guarantee an NEP of 84 ipercent.
+Justify BFN's departure from the recommended procedure and/or demons'trate structural margins which would adequately cover incr easIes in tlute CO loads.
+Was Alternate 4 of the CO basIel inc r igid wal 1 pressure spectrum applied to BPN!'ESPONSE:
+While the approach recommended in PUAR Reference 19 (or GE/NEDE-24840) i s a diepar ture from thIe LDR, TVA bel 1 eves i.t is well justified by the thorough,studies and findings of many experts.
+Those fii'ndings clearly stress the extreme conservatism, hence inappropriateness,,
+of absolute sutrrnation of all response harmonics As the approach is specified, it requires the identification of the three or four highest response harmonics of a
+structure to be combined absolutely with the SRSS of those remaining.
+ThIis identification, however, ls an impracticable task when one consiiders the number of. structures to be analyzed and the response quantities of interest for each (e.g.,
+dispiiacemenit, acceleration, force, stress, stress intensities).
+Also, while this approach may guarantee 50 or 84 percent NEP for the CO loading alone, there can be no such claim for the controlling dksign ibad combinations involving CO since the pol',nts of maximum respo'nses for CO load combinations are likely to be different than for CO alone.
+Therefore, TVA chose to vary slightly from the approach suggested in Section 6 of PUAR Reference 19.
+The approach used was justifiable encl practical for timely, cost efficient implementation.
+I t cannot'd g'ua'rar'>te'ed fcir both the tor us shel 1
+and al 1 submerged structures that forcing functions at 4>>5, 5-6, 10-11, and 15-16 Hz were t'e ones producing the highest structural responses, although for some they may be--
+especially for t'e torus shell since its primary response BNL 7-1
+.PUAR. 00
-occurs around .these f requenci es. However, f t i s impor tant to note that the suggestion, to use the four highest response harmonics was an art-iflce to obtain an 84 percent NEP of an artificial load definiti~on;-one                which Dr. A'I'an Bilanin has stated is 33 percent conservative just due to the presence                      of the bulkheads on the FSTF (see Reference 'BNL-'7.,l, Section 1, Equa t-i on   1 ..7,),.
+occurs around
-There are the, addi            tional conservati'sms of the LDR prescribed ampl i tudes,       as     already addressed      by 'f inding. 6 isted in our 1
+.these frequenci es.
-response to BNL Item 6. And, speci f ically concerning torus
+: However, f t i s impor tant to note that the suggestion, to use the four highest response harmonics was an art-iflce to obtain an 84 percent NEP of an artificial load definiti~on;-one which Dr.
-.shell responses,, TVA has the conser vat f sm of'aving appl t ed a maximum envelope of the three LDR'l ternatives speci f ied for harmonics between,4-16 Hz rather. than select'ing the one alternative producing maximum response.
+A'I'an Bilanin has stated is 33 percent conservative just due to the presence of the bulkheads on the FSTF (see Reference
-To pursue        the issue of why TVA chose forcing functions at 4-5, 5-6, 1'0-11, and              15-.16 Hz,. the following arguments are offered:
+'BNL-'7.,l, Section 1,
-(1)   As    contended, identify it  is a practical impossibility to the three or, four- highest CO response harmonics for, all structures and,response quantities.                  Therefore, TVA sought a. practical al'terna'tive that would maintain some conservatism over a pure SRSS combinat,ion of the CO harmonics.             Because of the reported indications that there may be s'ome fixed phase relationship be, tween the dominant harmonic at 5.5 Hz and its first few mul"tiples, we decided to use the 5-6, 10-1'1, and 15'-16 Hz LDR harmonics. The 4-5 Hz .harmonic was added to. t'his li'st since it was the next largest amplitude harmonic fn the LDR definition.              I;t should be noted that three of these (4-5, 5-.6, and 10-..11 Hz) are the 'highest of al'1 the amplitudes provided in the LDR.
+Equa t-i on 1..7,),.
-(2)   Comparing the            LDR prescribed'BA CO and post-chug amplitudes, it can be seen that for s'truc$ ures 'having primary response modes bel'ow about 20 Hz, CO load combinations woul'd be expected'o control for design since the CO amplitudes: below 20 Hz're generally larger than the post-chug amplitudes.                 Structures having primary response modes, above 20'z would'ost likely be controll'.ed for design by post-chug load combfnat:i'ons since post-chug amplitudes are hi'gher in this range.
+There are the, addi tional conservati'sms of the LDR prescribed ampl i tudes, as already addressed by 'f inding. 6 1 isted in our response to BNL Item 6.
-Therefore, by picking thi'ee of'he hi.ghest 'CO amplitudes for absolute suranation, the three potentially most damaging load components are assured of receiving conservative combination in the response predictions for structures likely to be cont'rolled in their design by CO load, combinations.
+And, speci fically concerning torus
-BNL 7-2                    PUAR. 00
+.shell responses,,
+TVA has the conser vat f sm of'aving appl t ed a
+maximum envelope of the three LDR'lternatives speci fied for harmonics between,4-16 Hz rather.
+than select'ing the one alternative producing maximum response.
+To pursue the issue of why TVA chose forcing functions at 4-5, 5-6, 1'0-11, and 15-.16 Hz,. the following arguments are offered:
+(1)
+As contended, it is a practical impossibility to identify the three or, four-highest CO response harmonics for, all structures and,response quantities.
+Therefore, TVA sought
+: a. practical al'terna'tive that would maintain some conservatism over a pure SRSS combinat,ion of the CO harmonics.
+Because of the reported indications that there may be s'ome fixed phase relationship be, tween the dominant harmonic at 5.5 Hz and its first few mul"tiples, we decided to use the 5-6, 10-1'1, and 15'-16 Hz LDR harmonics.
+The 4-5 Hz.harmonic was added to. t'his li'st since it was the next largest amplitude harmonic fn the LDR definition.
+I;t should be noted that three of these (4-5, 5-.6, and 10-..11 Hz) are the 'highest of al'1 the amplitudes provided in the LDR.
+(2)
+Comparing the LDR prescribed'BA CO and post-chug amplitudes, it can be seen that for s'truc$ ures 'having primary response modes bel'ow about 20 Hz, CO load combinations woul'd be expected'o control for design since the CO amplitudes: below 20 Hz're generally larger than the post-chug amplitudes.
+Structures having primary response modes, above 20'z would'ost likely be controll'.ed for design by post-chug load combfnat:i'ons since post-chug amplitudes are hi'gher in this range.
+Therefore, by picking thi'ee of'he hi.ghest
+'CO amplitudes for absolute suranation, the three potentially most damaging load components are assured of receiving conservative combination in the response predictions for structures likely to be cont'rolled in their design by CO load, combinations.
+BNL 7-2 PUAR. 00
-(3)   PUAR -Ref'er   ence  19 reconwnen~'fs a pr ecedure   for obta     ini'ng" 50   percent or-    84 percent NEPs and -shows that this                   is achi'e'ved   when t,he three or f'our. hi.ghest res'ponse harmonics are combined absbluteiiy. This is based on compar'isons with, predicted response values a't these probabilities as taken from constructed CDF curves for both'he FSTF and Oyster Creek. torus. As can be seen from; the CDF curve's of Figrlireis 4-6 through 4-10 from I
+I I
-Reference 19 all hav'e r'elatively small variance I                         by their steep slope.       It can also be, seen as'ndicr<ted th'at the response values pr edi.cted'y total absolute sum of all 'harmonics is wel,l abov'ei the respons'e value JI assocliated wiith 1~00'ercent NEP. Therefore, while even I          a, totrLI SRSS combination of,', all heirmonics would be only
+JI I
-               ~sl i~ht~l    unconservative relative to the CDF 50 percer>t and 84 per cent .NEP" response values, a 'total 'absolute
+~
- ~
+~
-    ~
-combination would'e grossly overconse'r vi tive*
+~
-(4)   IUhi'le. there fIs no reason     to suspect that a total SRSS combirration c>f,all harmonic responses would prodluce. a
+I
-               .resporise valise as low even as that associated. with a 0 percent NEP; it 1<< interesting to observe            from PUAR Reference, 19, Figures 4-6, 4-7, 8, 4-9, and 4.-10, that the percentage differences between the 0 and 50 per;cent NHP response values are, 11.3, 15.6 16.3, 24.i0,;and 18.,2. percent, respectiveily. Th,erefore, even a -piLrre SRSS combination rule wouldl result in at least a 0 percent NEE',esponse        value, meaning the potential unconservatism could be no more than the above pericer<tage -di f ferences between .0 an'd 50 percer>t NEP vilueii. Further, since TVA's approach is mor' con'servat'ive than pure SRSS,,our predicted response values would .be sti'll less of .a percentige difference.
+q,j) l (3)
-All of'these arguments mean that any, slight uncon-servatism there may be in TVA'.s approach is much more than -offset. by .the:inherent conservatism in the FSTF based'oad defini"t,ions. .Inherent in those definitions, as iil,r.eady, meintioned, 'i,s at least. a 33 percent
+(4)
-     ~ 4 conservat'ism acco'rding to Dr. Alan Bila'nin.
+PUAR -Ref'er ence 19 reconwnen~'fs a
-I So, .while our approach does''ot" ri'gorously assure -84 ceait NEP -alf the conserva't i'e LDR load def ini t ions               'per se, -we ':feel very confident .that thi',s leVel, or, more             'per woul,d be achieved:
+pr ecedure for obta ini'ng" 50 percent or-84 percent NEPs and -shows that this is achi'e'ved when t,he three or f'our. hi.ghest res'ponse harmonics are combined absbluteiiy.
-anaiyssis if more r'ealidti'c load definition eind techniques were,possib)'e'.      A strong indication of the. conservati'sm. of the. BFN BBA', CO'dna',lysis is sekn
+This is based on compar'isons with, predicted response values a't these probabilities as taken from constructed CDF curves for both'he FSTF and Oyster Creek. torus.
-                'in 'the, attach'ed=,Table BNL-7-1. iBFN,stresses and reaction, forces are. presented, factored as nearly as possible to an FSTF-equi. valent basfs, and compared to q,j)            measured and caiciilated NEP vjaliies for the FSTF.
+As can be seen from; the CDF curve's of Figrlireis 4-6 through 4-10 from Reference 19 all hav'e r'elatively small variance as'ndicr<ted by their steep slope.
-l BNL 7-3                   PUAR.00
+It can also be, seen th'at the response values pr edi.cted'y total absolute sum of all 'harmonics is wel,l abov'ei the respons'e value assocliated wiith 1~00'ercent NEP.
+Therefore, while even a, totrLI SRSS combination of,', all heirmonics would be only
+~sl i~ht~l unconservative relative to the CDF 50 percer>t and 84 per cent
+.NEP" response
+: values, a 'total 'absolute combination would'e grossly overconse'r vitive*
+IUhi'le. there fIs no reason to suspect that a total SRSS combirration c>f,all harmonic responses would prodluce. a
+.resporise valise as low even as that associated. with a 0 percent NEP; it 1<< interesting to observe from PUAR Reference, 19, Figures 4-6, 4-7, 8, 4-9, and 4.-10, that the percentage differences between the 0 and 50 per;cent NHP response values
+: are, 11.3, 15.6 16.3, 24.i0,;and 18.,2. percent, respectiveily.
+Th,erefore, even a -piLrre SRSS combination rule wouldl result in at least a
+percent NEE',esponse
+: value, meaning the potential unconservatism could be no more than the above pericer<tage
+-di fferences between
+.0 an'd 50 percer>t NEP vilueii.
+: Further, since TVA's approach is mor' con'servat'ive than pure SRSS,,our predicted response values would.be sti'll less of.a percentige difference.
+All of'these arguments mean that any, slight uncon-servatism there may be in TVA'.s approach is much more than -offset. by.the:inherent conservatism in the FSTF based'oad defini"t,ions.
+.Inherent in those definitions, as iil,r.eady, meintioned,
+'i,s at least.
+a 33 percent conservat'ism acco'rding to Dr. Alan Bila'nin.
+So,.while our approach does''ot" ri'gorously assure
+-84
+'per ceait NEP -alf the conserva't i'e LDR load def ini t ions
+'per se,
+-we ':feel very confident.that thi',s
+: leVel, or, more woul,d be achieved: if more r'ealidti'c load definition eind anaiyssis techniques were,possib)'e'.
+A strong indication of the. conservati'sm. of the. BFN BBA', CO'dna',lysis is sekn
+'in 'the, attach'ed=,Table BNL-7-1.
+iBFN,stresses and reaction, forces are. presented, factored as nearly as possible to an FSTF-equi. valent basfs, and compared to measured and caiciilated NEP vjaliies for the FSTF.
+BNL 7-3 PUAR.00
-Looking at Table BNL-7-1, the factored BFN cradle support pad reaction forces are seen to be conservative with respect to the 84 percent NEP values (this would indicate similar conservatism of the stresses in the critical cradle regions which required extensive modifications). Also, the BFN BDC membrane stress intensity (f'actored -to an FSTF-equivalent basis) is almost exactly the same as the 84 percent NEP value for the FSTF. While this degree of closeness may be coincidental, it does provide additional evidence that there is no large deficiency in stress intens'ity predictions in the BFN analysis.
+Looking at Table BNL-7-1, the factored BFN cradle support pad reaction forces are seen to be conservative with respect to the 84 percent NEP values (this would indicate similar conservatism of the stresses in the critical cradle regions which required extensive modifications).
-Finally, there are    two additional conservatisms worth noting about the    BFN analyti'cal approach. Firs.t, 2 percent   damping was used for the'BA plus S/RV 'load combination analyses of the torus and submerged s tructures even though higher damping is justifiable because of the higher service level allowables.
+Also, the BFN BDC membrane stress intensity (f'actored
-Second, conservative load combination techniques were applied (see PUAR Section 4.4.2).
+-to an FSTF-equivalent basis) is almost exactly the same as the 84 percent NEP value for the FSTF.
-Concerning the    final question about Alternate 4 of the CO  baseline rigid wall pressure spectrum, we do not know to what this refers.
+While this degree of closeness may be coincidental, it does provide additional evidence that there is no large deficiency in stress intens'ity predictions in the BFN analysis.
+Finally, there are two additional conservatisms worth noting about the BFN analyti'cal approach.
+Firs.t, 2
+percent damping was used for the'BA plus S/RV 'load combination analyses of the torus and submerged s tructures even though higher damping is justifiable because of the higher service level allowables.
+: Second, conservative load combination techniques were applied (see PUAR Section 4.4.2).
+Concerning the final question about Alternate 4 of the CO baseline rigid wall pressure
+: spectrum, we do not know to what this refers.
 Additional'eference:
-BNL-7.1 Structural Mechanics Associates,        "A  Statistical Basis for Load Factors Appropriate for Use with CO Harmonic Response Combination Design Rules," Report No. SMA 12101.04-R003D, March 1982.
+BNL-7.1 Structural Mechanics Associates, "A Statistical Basis for Load Factors Appropriate for Use with CO Harmonic Response Combination Design Rules," Report No.
-Addendum In the September 5, 1984 meeting, BNL expressed remaining concerns over. TVA's use of the absolute sum of the four highest DBA.CO harmonic amplitudes, rather than the four harmonics. causing the greatest response.      BNL also asked:
+SMA 12101.04-R003D, March 1982.
-  "How much greater could the DBA CO load be without exceeding allowables"7 (paraphrased)
+Addendum In the September 5,
-Oui response    considers the torus separately from the tiedown system for reasons     which are explained below.
+meeting, BNL expressed remaining concerns over. TVA's use of the absolute sum of the four highest DBA.CO harmonic amplitudes, rather than the four harmonics. causing the greatest response.
-The most   highly str'essed regions of the torus, relative to allowables, are in the cradle adjacent to the scab plates described in PUAR Section 5.2.4.3. (Also see the response to FRC 'Item .11.) The controlling load combination is number
+BNL also asked:
-, 14 which'oes not include DBA CO.        There are large margins BNL 7-4                  PUAR.00
+"How much greater could the DBA CO load be without exceeding allowables"7 (paraphrased)
+Oui response considers the torus separately from the tiedown system for reasons which are explained below.
+The most highly str'essed regions of the torus, relative to allowables, are in the cradle adjacent to the scab plates described in PUAR Section 5.2.4.3.
+(Also see the response to FRC 'Item.11.)
+The controlling load combination is number
+, 14 which'oes not include DBA CO.
+There are large margins BNL 7-4 PUAR.00
-for all load! combinati'ons involving DBA'O. If one assume's that cradle" stresses are di,rectly proportional to the net compressive loads, the DBA      CO  rehctio'ns'ould be 2.5 times the values computed by the      TVA, analys'is'fthout exceeding allowables.
+for all load! combinati'ons involving DBA'O.
-The tiedown system, .on the other hand, is controlled by lolad combination number 2'7 which incltzdes DBA CO.. Tiedown stresses are directly propor tionhl 'to'est 'uplift loads.
+If one assume's that cradle" stresses are di,rectly proportional to the net compressive
-From computer   calculated responses to the '0 to 30 Hz unit amplitude harmonics and hand calculations, the increase in reactions by taking the four highest responses rather responsIes to the four highes.t a!mpl'itudes', has been thah,'he quantified. The conservatism of TVA's method of enveloping the three alternate sets of amplitudes has also been quan-tified. These calculations show that the DBA CO reactions presented in Table BIIL-7-1 would be 9 percent higher i"f th0 four highest harmonic response's had b'eel u!sed,'while retaining the conservatisrn of enveloping the a]!ternate amplitudes. If the i,ndividual altern'ate amplitude sets 'are used, the reactions would be 5.4 percent higher than the table.
+: loads, the DBA CO rehctio'ns'ould be 2.5 times the values computed by the TVA, analys'is'fthout exceeding allowables.
-those'n With the 5.4 per'cent increase, the tiedown system stresses do not exceed allowables.       It is intpo'rtant to reemphasize that the SIM method of Reference 19 pro>'rides large support reactions. It is 'alamo 'no'tee'd'or'th'y limiting load combi'nation (number,27) includes that margins'or the the highly unlikely simultaneous: occurrence'of the'maximum responses due to the safe shutdown earthquhk6, DBA CO, and a single valve S/RV actuation. TVA combir>edi t'geese three dynatnic events absolutely. If,. 1'or example, a      I.l    SRSS combination of the three dynamic loads had been used, the uplift loads would have been barely great enough to *vercome the deadweight.
+The tiedown system,
-BNL 7-5i                      PUAR.OO
+.on the other
+: hand, is controlled by lolad combination number 2'7 which incltzdes DBA CO..
+Tiedown stresses are directly propor tionhl 'to'est 'uplift loads.
+From computer calculated responses to the '0 to 30 Hz unit amplitude harmonics and hand calculations, the increase in reactions by taking the four highest responses rather thah,'he responsIes to the four highes.t a!mpl'itudes',
+has been quantified.
+The conservatism of TVA's method of enveloping the three alternate sets of amplitudes has also been quan-tified.
+These calculations show that the DBA CO reactions presented in Table BIIL-7-1 would be 9 percent higher i"f th0 four highest harmonic response's had b'eel u!sed,'while retaining the conservatisrn of enveloping the a]!ternate amplitudes.
+If the i,ndividual altern'ate amplitude sets
+'are
+: used, the reactions would be 5.4 percent higher than those'n the table.
+With the 5.4 per'cent
+: increase, the tiedown system stresses do not exceed allowables.
+It is intpo'rtant to reemphasize that the SIM method of Reference 19 pro>'rides large margins'or support reactions.
+It is
+'alamo 'no'tee'd'or'th'y that the limiting load combi'nation (number,27) includes the highly unlikely simultaneous:
+occurrence'of the'maximum responses due to the safe shutdown earthquhk6, DBA CO, and a single valve S/RV actuation.
+TVA combir>edi t'geese three dynatnic events absolutely.
+If,. 1'or example, a I.l SRSS combination of the three dynamic loads had been
+: used, the uplift loads would have been barely great enough to *vercome the deadweight.
+BNL 7-5i PUAR.OO
-TRBLE       BNL-7-i COMPARISON OF FSTF AND BRONNS FERRY DBA           C.O. RESPONSES BFN RESPONSES       MEASURED        50% NEP         84/   NEP BFN     FACTORED TO       FSTFi PER       FSTFi   PER     FSTFr PER CALCULATED   EQUIVALENT         REF.I9          REF. I9         REF.19 RESPONSE    QUANTITY    RESULTS        FSTF          TABLE   7-2     TABLE 6-2       TABLE   6-2 BDC.MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITY         1.SB         2.77'"           2.6             2.47            2.79 (KSI)
+TRBLE BNL-7-i COMPARISON OF FSTF AND BRONNS FERRY DBA C.O.
-INSIDE REACTION         306          202~             93              122             140 (KIPS)
+RESPONSES BFN RESPONSES MEASURED BFN FACTORED TO FSTFi PER CALCULATED EQUIVALENT REF.I9
-OUTSIDE REACTION         333          220~             110             140             159 (KIPS),
-I (R/T)FSTF] I                   1 BFN L (R/T) BFN J LPLANT   UNIQUE PRESSURE FACTOR=0.85       BFN HHEREz R = MINOR RADIUS OF THE TORUS'        SHELL THICKNESS'ND O'        STRESS INTENSITY (2) FSTF EQUIVALENT SUPPORT REACTIONS = (BFN REACTION)                             '
+===RESPONSE===
+QUANTITY RESULTS FSTF TABLE 7-2 50%
+NEP FSTFi PER REF. I9 TABLE 6-2 84/
+NEP FSTFr PER REF.19 TABLE 6-2 BDC.MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITY (KSI) 1.SB 2.77'"
+.6 2.47 2.79 INSIDE REACTION (KIPS)
+OUTSIDE REACTION (KIPS),
+333 202~
+~
+110 122 140 140 159 I (R/T)FSTF] I 1
+BFN L (R/T) BFN J LPLANT UNIQUE PRESSURE FACTOR=0.85 BFN HHEREz R = MINOR RADIUS OF THE TORUS' SHELL THICKNESS'ND O' STRESS INTENSITY (2)
+FSTF EQUIVALENT SUPPORT REACTIONS =
+(BFN REACTION)
 BFN POOL AREA PER CRADLE 1
-       ~LANT UNIQUE PRESSURE FACTOR
+~LANT UNIQUE PRESSURE FACTOR
 ITEM 8:
-Were pne-chug loads     applied to O'FN according to the LDR and NUREG 0661    speci'fications regarding amplitude, circumferential and    vertical distribu'tion and cycle durat'ion?    If not, provide quantitative 'justification,
+Were pne-chug loads applied to O'FN according to the LDR and NUREG 0661 speci'fications regarding amplitude, circumferential and vertical distribu'tion and cycle durat'ion?
+If not, provide quantitative 'justification,
 ===RESPONSE===
-Th'e  pre.-chug loads were applied    in coinpl etc 'accordance with the  LDR and NIJREG  06(iI, including don'siderations 'of l  .amplitude, circumferential and vert, ical di'stribution,, and l'  cycle duratio&. With regard to the latter, the respohses of 71 shell mcides due to siz Independen1). harmonic (implying in'finite dura't,ion) forcing funct.ionls, fiine-'u'ned to the structural:frequencies, were enveloped for all points in No credit was taken for thei finite duration. of the'odel.
+l l'
-even't.                                                the'ctual
+Th'e pre.-chug loads were applied in coinpl etc 'accordance with the LDR and NIJREG 06(iI, including don'siderations
-~ 4~
+'of
-  ~ i BNL 8-1                       PVAR,.00
+.amplitude, circumferential and vert, ical di'stribution,, and cycle duratio&.
+With regard to the latter, the respohses of 71 shell mcides due to siz Independen1).
+harmonic (implying in'finite dura't,ion) forcing funct.ionls, fiine-'u'ned to the structural:frequencies, were enveloped for all points in the'odel.
+No credit was taken for thei finite duration. of the'ctual even't.
+~ 4 ~
+~i BNL 8-1 PVAR,.00
-For post.-chug loads, were the harmonic forci,ng functions used in the 1-30 Hz range the ones speci, fied in the LDR, and were they applied in the manner prescribed .in the LDR?
+For post.-chug
+: loads, were the harmonic forci,ng functions used in the 1-30 Hz range the ones speci, fied in the
+: LDR, and were they applied in the manner prescribed
+.in the LDR?
 if not,. justif'y departures.
 ===RESPONSE===
-h For both .the pos:t-chug, pressure loads applied to the torus and the drag loads; appl'1;ed to internal'tructures., the harmoni'c forcing funct.ions, used in the 1-,30,Hz range were those specif.ied in, the LDR,, and, they were appl:ied in the manner, prescri,bed by the LDR. Appendix D,. Section D.1,.2.4.2 o,f the BFN PUAR expl'ai;ns. how the, LDR prescribed, method was applied. for, submerged. structures    by -consider,ing .the closes't l.oad sources. together. with worst-case phasing           'owncomer be. tween the sources.
+h For both.the pos:t-chug, pressure loads applied to the torus and the drag loads; appl'1;ed to internal'tructures.,
-BNL  9-1                       PUAR. 00
+the harmoni'c forcing funct.ions, used in the 1-,30,Hz range were those specif.ied in, the LDR,, and, they were appl:ied in the
+: manner, prescri,bed by the LDR.
+Appendix D,. Section D.1,.2.4.2 o,f the BFN PUAR expl'ai;ns. how the, LDR prescribed, method was applied. for,submerged. structures by -consider,ing
+.the closes't
+'owncomer l.oad sources.
+together. with worst-case phasing be. tween the sources.
+BNL 9-1 PUAR. 00
 ITEM 10.:.
-The   finite element model. of Figure 6-7 shows amputated downcomers. How were thy CO and CH loads applied to these amputated downcomers?
+The finite element model. of Figure 6-7 shows amputated downcomers.
+How were thy CO and CH loads applied to these amputated downcomers?
 ===RESPONSE===
-The finite element model in Figure 6-.7 was used to examine more clos'ely t,'he vent downcomer/head'er intersection.       Loads for the dii ffereni: combir>ation even'ts'hich i'nclud'ed condensatiion osci Il'ation. and chugging iwe'ire extracted: from the 45.o vent system beam model ',(PUAR Ffg'use 6-2) at'he node.
+The finite element model in Figure 6-.7 was used to examine more clos'ely t,'he vent downcomer/head'er intersection.
+Loads for the dii ffereni: combir>ation even'ts'hich i'nclud'ed condensatiion osci Il'ation. and chugging iwe'ire extracted:
+from the 45.o vent system beam model ',(PUAR Ffg'use 6-2) at'he node.
 representing the downcomer/vent header. shel.l intersection.
-These loads were then:input into the truncated model't. the
+~
-                                                                     ~
+These loads were then:input into the truncated model't. the end of the downcome,r.
-end of the downcome,r.      (The downcomer end's comprised of
+(The downcomer end's comprised of
-,rigid beams connected by a, node in the center.) The appro-priate stresses were then extracte'd .and compared to the stress allowables.
+,rigid beams connected by a, node in the center.)
-BNL 10-1                     PUAR 00
+The appro-priate stresses were then extracte'd
+.and compared to the stress allowables.
+BNL 10-1 PUAR 00
 ITEM 11:
-Were the CO I'oads appli'ed to the downcomers in accordance wi'th the L'DR''and NUREG 0661? Were the eight load cases of Secti,on 4.4.3'.2 of the LDR'nalyzed for all relevant vent system parts, (including main vent/vent 'header intersection, drywell/main vent interaction, downcomer/vent header I'ntersection,, etc.)? The:PUAR expl'I'cftly mentions consi'deri'ng different load'ases onl'y    f'r  the downcomer/
+Were the CO I'oads appli'ed to the downcomers in accordance wi'th the L'DR''and NUREG 0661?
-tiebar Intersection, 'and 'fn that case refers only to four load'ases rather than the eight of the LDR (Section 6.V 1.2 1). Why is 2 5 percent damping justified for BFN f'r   CO lateral load analysis?
+Were the eight load cases of Secti,on 4.4.3'.2 of the LDR'nalyzed for all relevant vent system parts, (including main vent/vent 'header intersection, drywell/main vent interaction, downcomer/vent header I'ntersection,,
-Note that Table 6-10 shows .no .margin for the downcomer/vent header intersection in Load Combination 27 which involves CO.
+etc.)?
+The:PUAR expl'I'cftly mentions consi'deri'ng different load'ases onl'y f'r the downcomer/
+tiebar Intersection,
+'and 'fn that case refers only to four load'ases rather than the eight of the LDR (Section 6.V 1.2 1).
+Why is 2
+percent damping justified for BFN f'r CO lateral load analysis?
+Note that Table 6-10 shows
+.no.margin for the downcomer/vent header intersection in Load Combination 27 which involves CO.
 RESPONSE':
-The CO downcomer. loads Were applied in a manner consistent wi.th the intent o'f the LDR and NUREG 0661. The load from the differential pressure for one 'downcomer was added to
+The CO downcomer.
-"
+loads Were applied in a manner consistent wi.th the intent o'f the LDR and NUREG 0661.
-the internal pressure, that occurs simultaneously in all downcomers, thereby producing a higher load in one downcomer fn 'each paii. Thus, from Figure 4.4.3.4'f th'e LDR, a darkened downcomer indicated that the di.fferential and internal pressures were working together simultaneously, whereas 'the other downc'orner in the pa'i,r experfenced only the internal pressure.
+The load from the differential pressure for one 'downcomer was added to
-Based on the primary downcomer swing frequency "extracted from a   modal analysis of the system, s'Inusoidal forcing, functions were applied to downcomer pairs defined by Figure 4.4.3-3 in the LDR. 'Since the primary swing mode       f'r  t'e BFN system occurs at approximately 8 Hz, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd harmonics were applied In the 4, 8,- and.l2 Hz ranges, respectively.
+" the internal pressure, that occurs simultaneously in all downcomers, thereby producing a higher load in one downcomer fn 'each paii.
-Another aspect of. the BFN analysis was the application of the first harmonic forces to the coincident .8-Hz swing frequency. Response of the system to this single frequency load envelops the sum of the three harmonfcs defined by the LDR. This load was subsequently .applied in the stress evaluation. Also, the first harmonic force amplitudes were applied with 16,and 24'z sinusoidal functions to verIfy that higher- frequency responses do not impact the, total CO response.      In actuality, 30 individual sinusoidal functions were applied for each load case to account for potential response at the 1/2, I, l-l/2, '2, and 2-1/2                  of the six discreet primary swing mode frequencies harmonfcs in the 8-9 Hz range. Note that this load was in addition to the vent system CO loads which were applied In a separate analysis.
+: Thus, from Figure 4.4.3.4'f th'e
-BNL 11-.1                    PUAR. 00
+: LDR, a
+darkened downcomer indicated that the di.fferential and internal pressures were working together simultaneously, whereas
+'the other downc'orner in the pa'i,r experfenced only the internal pressure.
+Based on the primary downcomer swing frequency "extracted from a modal analysis of the system, s'Inusoidal forcing, functions were applied to downcomer pairs defined by Figure 4.4.3-3 in the LDR.
+'Since the primary swing mode f'r t'e BFN system occurs at approximately 8 Hz, the 1st,
+: 2nd, and 3rd harmonics were applied In the 4, 8,- and.l2 Hz ranges, respectively.
+Another aspect of. the BFN analysis was the application of the first harmonic forces to the coincident.8-Hz swing frequency.
+===Response===
+of the system to this single frequency load envelops the sum of the three harmonfcs defined by the LDR.
+This load was subsequently
+.applied in the stress evaluation.
+Also, the first harmonic force amplitudes were applied with 16,and 24'z sinusoidal functions to verIfy that higher-frequency responses do not impact the, total CO response.
+In actuality, 30 individual sinusoidal functions were applied for each load case to account for potential response at the 1/2, I, l-l/2, '2, and 2-1/2 harmonfcs of the six discreet primary swing mode frequencies in the 8-9 Hz range.
+Note that this load was in addition to the vent system CO loads which were applied In a separate analysis.
+BNL 11-.1 PUAR. 00
-Four   load'ases       were     ini tial I'y analyzed'or     downcomer CO literal   loads as indicated by PUAR Figure 6-12. From inspection, of the first, four load ~+ases'an'd resulting stresses, effect'n      it  visas evident that in each instance, a daiwnc'orner would occur on one that was loca'ted the .worst on the inboarci side of the vent hea'de'r.                Furthermore, the highest loadeci'owncomer (unreinfoi'ced 'She'1 I) i esulted, from the applicati,on of L'oad Case, I (differential, pressure applied to all, inboard downcomers). Sine!e 'the sec'ond four .load cases defined in revision               of the LDRiarie mirror images f,irst four cases and greater response resul,tied fromofCase I, 2',
+Four load'ases were ini tial I'y analyzed'or downcomer CO literal loads as indicated by PUAR Figure 6-12.
-the it  was resolved that'he worst'oading had aire,ady been analyzed. Therefore, no further analysi,s was performed.
+From inspection, of the first, four load
-All'ri-tical 'locations of the ven t systEm were evaluated 'fbr DBA CO lateral Ioaci combinations.,                As noted in. item s,tress margiin rela'tive to Service Leviel. B .allowables for the ll,  the CO, combination, in Table 6-10 of t he PUAR is- close to 1.0 for the primary plus secondary stress catiegory. This stress
+~+ases'an'd resulting
- ,level should be evaluated with co                             of the,        'sidieration conservatism in the load comb'inat ion (event 21 is a Service Level C combination) and the .fact that clowncomer lateral Load Case I is the worst of the eight potential load configurations.
+: stresses, it visas evident that in each
-Prel iminary anal'ysis of tt>e BFN c.ontat,nment vent system for the DBA CO Iateril load def-initidn 'indida't'ed' 'su'rface stress level in the vent header shell .near the down'comer that approached the yield stress value for SA-516 .Grade VO steel.
+: instance, the.worst effect'n a
+daiwnc'orner would occur on one that was loca'ted on the inboarci side of the vent hea'de'r.
+Furthermore, the highest loadeci'owncomer (unreinfoi'ced
+'She'1 I) i esulted, from the applicati,on of L'oad Case, I (differential, pressure applied to all, inboard downcomers).
+Sine!e 'the sec'ond four.load cases defined in revision 2', of the LDRiarie mirror images of the f,irst four cases and greater response resul,tied from Case I, it was resolved that'he worst'oading had aire,ady been analyzed.
+Therefore, no further analysi,s was performed.
+All'ri-tical 'locations of the ven DBA CO lateral Ioaci combinations.,
+s,tress margiin rela'tive to Service CO, combination, in Table 6-10 of t the primary plus secondary stress
+,level should be evaluated with co conservatism in the load comb'inat Level C combination) and the.fact Case I is the worst of the eight configurations.
+t systEm were evaluated
+'fbr As noted in. item ll, the Leviel. B.allowables for the he PUAR is-close to 1.0 for catiegory.
+This stress
+'sidieration of the, ion (event 21 is a Service that clowncomer lateral Load potential load Prel iminary anal'ysis of tt>e BFN c.ontat,nment vent system for the DBA CO Iateril load def-initidn 'indida't'ed'
+'su'rface stress level in the vent header shell.near the down'comer that approached the yield stress value for SA-516.Grade VO steel.
 Under this'ituatio'n the tot'al stress level for l,oad
-.combination No. 21 would not me'et the allowable for primary plus secondary stress range. In an effo'rt to avoi.d additional modification ( I .e ., downcorner/vent header reinforcement .gu,ssets), the 2 perceinti reconmended damping rat'io was investigated as a source                of excessive conservatism.
+.combination No.
-Per Regulatory Guide 1.61,, a 3 percent clamping value 'is r econmended     for arialysi,s c>f large diamet,.er, piiping systems for the safe shutdown earthquake.                 Furthermoire, the cal'culated damping value 'resulting from the snap putll test of a tied downcomer arrangiement (seE. Figure,4-5 in Reference 5 to supplement I of I%UREG Oi861) was found to be approximately 2'.'2 percent for a 50 percent yield; Also, the damping; versus strain curve iridicates ia rapid IIIIcrease             in damping above the 50 percent yield'evel.                Based oui these f indiings, i t iias concluded that a damping 'value greater than 2 percent but less tha'n 3 per cient is                    tate for the Browns Ferry c'o'nf iguration. The 2.5 appropr
+would not me'et the allowable for primary plus secondary stress range.
-                       ~
+In an effo'rt to avoi.d additional modification
-percent value was selected as the midpoint of the',2 percent:range and utilized for the DBA COi downcomer lateral analysis.                Resul tinIg surface stre: ses. in the vent iheader shell at the down'comer               intersection're 20 to 24 ksi (f'r DBA CO,.loadlipg,:alone) as compcired to -a yield stress value of,'32.6 ksi f'r SA-516'rade VO steel at 400oF BHL   11-2                 PUAR. 00
+( I.e., downcorner/vent header reinforcement.gu,ssets),
+the 2 perceinti reconmended damping rat'io was investigated as a source of excessive conservatism.
+Per Regulatory Guide 1.61,,
+a 3 percent clamping value 'is r econmended for arialysi,s c>f large diamet,.er, piiping systems for the safe shutdown earthquake.
+Furthermoire, the cal'culated damping value 'resulting from the snap putll test of a tied downcomer arrangiement (seE. Figure,4-5 in Reference 5 to supplement I of I%UREG Oi861) was found to be approximately 2'.'2 percent for a 50 percent yield; Also, the damping; versus strain curve iridicates ia rapid IIIIcrease in damping above the 50 percent yield'evel.
+Based oui these findiings, i t iias concluded that a damping 'value greater than 2 percent but less tha'n 3 per cient is appropr tate for the Browns Ferry c'o'nf iguration.
+~ The 2.5 percent value was selected as the midpoint of the',2 percent:range and utilized for the DBA COi downcomer lateral analysis.
+Resul tinIg surface stre: ses. in the vent iheader shell at the down'comer intersection're 20 to 24 ksi (f'r DBA CO,.loadlipg,:alone) as compcired to -a yield stress value of,'32.6 ksi f'r SA-516'rade VO steel at 400oF BHL 11-2 PUAR. 00
-Therefore, the
+Therefore, the 2.5 percent; damping value is justi.f led based on:
-* 2.5 percent; damping value is justi.f led based on:
+(1.)
-(1.) The  s'tructural response of the Browns Fo"ry downcomer/
+The s'tructural response of the Browns Fo"ry downcomer/
 vent header con'f igurat ion.
-(2)  The projected, resul"-ts of the snap test for h'igher ini ti,al str ess l,evel,s.
+(2)
-(3)  The damping    criteria,   del ineated in Regulatory Guide
+The projected, resul"-ts of the snap test for h'igher ini ti,al str ess l,evel,s.
+(3)
+The damping criteria, del ineated in Regulatory Guide
 : 1. 61.
- ,)I
+,)I
-~  jt; 0%
+~ jt; 0%
+~ Yi
+~ l
+'a I'
 ~
-Yi
+I
- ~    l
-  'a I'
-      ~
-BNL   11-3              PUAR. 00 I
 (
+BNL 11-3 PUAR. 00
 ITEM I 2'.
-Veie    .the, chugging loaiis appl'f,.ed to th'e .d2>wncomers:in accordanc'e        with the LI)R. arid NUREG 0661? .We!r.e tlie .mu.l lo'ads. accounted for, on''1 l v'en't, system,part's in             triv.ent'chugging
+Veie.the, chugging loaiis appl'f,.ed to th'e.d2>wncomers:in accordanc'e with the LI)R. arid NUREG 0661?
-       ~acco'r dance. wi.th;the LI)R 'and NUREG 0(i61',?
+.We!r.e tlie.mu.l triv.ent'chugging lo'ads. accounted for, on''1 l v'en't, system,part's in
+~acco'r dance. wi.th;the LI)R 'and NUREG 0(i61',?
 Note that accord ing to Table 6'-'10, IIoad, Comb inat ion:15, which involves CH,'uis'..i ela t iv,ely,t i,t,t le, margrin.I RESPONSE':
-Yes, the chuggiing loads. were app'll'ed,;to, the vent system i'ri
+: Yes, the chuggiing loads. were app'll'ed,;to, the vent system i'ri
-       'accordance, with,'the LI)R.and,,lIUREG 0661. LCCA,chuggin'g.load's, included post-rchug drag, chugging late'ral, acoustic yerit system pre,ssure ciscill'ation,'and gross y'ent syst'm 1 lat iaIn, which:were,aplpl ied pre.~su.re'sci tIo the bIeam models shoiivn
+'accordance, with,'the LI)R.and,,lIUREG 0661.
-                            '.6-2 and. 6-3. '.Responsea Were determined from                                 in'PUAR'igur'es
+LCCA,chuggin'g.load's, included post-rchug
-       -those models and- 'loca'.I stresses w4r6 ctalt.'u/at'ed'.for the cr i t'ica*l 'loca t ii'oats..
+: drag, chugging late'ral, acoustic yerit system pre,ssure ciscill'ation,'and gross y'ent syst'm pre.~su.re'sci 1 lat iaIn, which:were,aplpl ied tIo the bIeam models shoiivn in'PUAR'igur'es
-  I, 212 I
+'.6-2 and. 6-3.
-I BNL 12-.1                                    ~PUAR;, 0 0
+'.Responsea Were determined from
+-those models and- 'loca'.I stresses w4r6 ctalt.'u/at'ed'.for the cr i t'ica*l 'loca t ii'oats..
+I,
+I
+I BNL 12-.1
+~PUAR;, 0 0
 ITEM 13:
-What hydrodynamic    load   definit ion was used for the vent pipe drain referred to    on page   6-10 and shown on Figure 6-8?
+What hydrodynamic load definit ion was used for the vent pipe drain referred to on page 6-10 and shown on Figure 6-8?
 RES PONSE:
-From a Stardyne model     of the vent drain and support system, the fundamental natural frequency of the system was found to be 35.1 Hz. Clearly, high ampli tude harmonics.. of post-chug around this frequency would lead to a strong expectation that a load combination
+From a Stardyne model of the vent drain and support
-'ontrolling; although, theinvolving       post-chug woul'd be possibi li ty of a combination with pool swell was also considered.        From investigations of all potentially controlling design load combinations (including associated service level allowables) it was determined that combination  ll  (see Figure 4..3-1 of NUREG 0661) was controlling. Specifically, the design case determined to be controlling was the SBA combination of S/RV plus post-chug fluid drag loads under service. level A allowables.
+: system, the fundamental natural frequency of the system was found to be 35.1 Hz.
-The dynamic loads were very conservat.ively accounted for by the "Equivalent Static Load Method" explained in Appendix D, Section D;1.2.3 of the BFN PUAR report. All 50 post-chug bubble source amplit'udes and. FSI accelleration coefficients were summed and used as multipliers of the unit forces (For)BUB and (For)FSI described in Equations D.1.2-6 D.1.2-8, respectivel'y. To these a resonant DLF = 25 and (assuming 2 percent dampingI) was conservatively applied.
+: Clearly, high ampli tude harmonics.. of post-chug around this frequency would lead to a strong expectation that a load combination involving post-chug woul'd be
-The S/RV'oad, contributions were applied with a harmonic DLF = 1.2 based. on the ra.tio of maximum S/RV bubble frequency-to-system frequency, of 1'4.7/35.1 (again assuming 2 percent   damping).
+'ontrolling; although, the possibi lity of a combination with pool swell was also considered.
-Addendum In the September 5, 1984 meeting,, BNL's consultant, Professor Son'in  of MIT, asked    if  the potential for chugging through, the.
+From investigations of all potentially controlling design load combinations (including associated service level allowables) it was determined that combination ll (see Figure 4..3-1 of NUREG 0661) was controlling.
+Specifically, the design case determined to be controlling was the SBA combination of S/RV plus post-chug fluid drag loads under service.
+level A allowables.
+The dynamic loads were very conservat.ively accounted for by the "Equivalent Static Load Method" explained in Appendix D, Section D;1.2.3 of the BFN PUAR report.
+All 50 post-chug bubble source amplit'udes and. FSI accelleration coefficients were summed and used as multipliers of the unit forces (For)BUB and (For)FSI described in Equations D.1.2-6 and D.1.2-8, respectivel'y.
+To these a resonant DLF = 25 (assuming 2 percent dampingI) was conservatively applied.
+The S/RV'oad, contributions were applied with a harmonic DLF = 1.2 based.
+on the ra.tio of maximum S/RV bubble frequency-to-system frequency, of 1'4.7/35.1 (again assuming 2 percent damping).
+Addendum In the September 5,
+meeting,,
+BNL's consultant, Professor Son'in of MIT, asked if the potential for chugging
+: through, the.
 vent drain pipe and the effects of the resulting lateral loads had been considered.
-TVA responded    that the LDR did not include a method for defining such. loads, and the effects could therefore not be evaluated. Professor Sonin then asked to be provided the properties and dimensions of the drain pipe and its support and the drag loads which had been applied to them.
+TVA responded that the LDR did not include a method for defining such. loads, and the effects could therefore not be evaluated.
-BNL 13-1                    PUAR.00
+Professor Sonin then asked to be provided the properties and dimensions of the drain pipe and its support and the drag loads which had been applied to them.
+BNL 13-1 PUAR.00
-A set of   fi ve pages of calcula tions os the ef fec ts of S'/RV and pos t-chug drag loads, were subse'quent ly transmi t ted to Professor SonIi'n through l&C. The calcula t ions show the post-chug draj~ loads, part;icular ly, were, d'ef ined in an extremely,, conservat ive manner wh'ich should'ompensate lick of a directly applied ~la'teial. chugging load. f'r'he BNL,, 13-2                    PUAR. 00
+A set of five pages of calcula tions os the ef fec ts of S'/RV and pos t-chug drag loads, were subse'quent ly transmi t ted to Professor SonIi'n through l&C.
+The calcula t ions show the post-chug draj~ loads, part;icular ly, were, d'ef ined in an extremely,, conservat ive manner wh'ich should'ompensate f'r'he lick of a directly applied ~la'teial. chugging load.
+BNL,, 13-2 PUAR. 00
 ITEM I4.$
@@ Line 886: / Line 1,775: @@
 Jus t i fy thi s,procedur e for BFN.
 RESPONSE$
-The use    of SRSS to obtain multiple valve she'1'1'ressures for analysis of S/RV discharges is justified by the BFN plant unique S/RV tests (PUAR Reference 41) and the correlation of analysis and test results (PUAR Appendix C).
+The use of SRSS to obtain multiple valve she'1'1'ressures for analysis of S/RV discharges is justified by the BFN plant unique S/RV tests (PUAR Reference 41) and the correlation of analysis and test results (PUAR Appendix C).
 Section C.3.2 of the PUAR specifically addresses this issue.
-The measured peak shell pressures during multiple valve tests were approximately 4'5 percent of the analysis values for single .valve tests and 54 percent of the analysis values for multiple valve tests . Thus the multiple valve test pressures are correlated by a 1.2 SRSS of single valve test pressures, but the overall BFN analysis and design approach was clearly conservative,.
+The measured peak shell pressures during multiple valve tests were approximately 4'5 percent of the analysis values for single.valve tests and 54 percent of the analysis values for multiple valve tests.
-It is also notewort'hy that considerable care was taken in the BFN test to ensure simultaneous actuation of three S/RVs with adjacent discharge locations in the torus. This represents a "worst loca'tion" in the torus. Referring to PUAR Figure 7-3, S/RVs D, E, and M were actuated simultaneously 'i'or mul.tipl e valve tests. S/RV E was actuated for single valve tests. Excellent repeatability was demonstrated for both test series (five single valve tests and four multiple valve tests.)
+Thus the multiple valve test pressures are correlated by a 1.2 SRSS of single valve test pressures, but the overall BFN analysis and design approach was clearly conservative,.
-BNL 14-1                   PUAR.00
+It is also notewort'hy that considerable care was taken in the BFN test to ensure simultaneous actuation of three S/RVs with adjacent discharge locations in the torus.
+This represents a "worst loca'tion" in the torus.
+Referring to PUAR Figure 7-3, S/RVs D, E, and M were actuated simultaneously
+'i'or mul.tipl e valve tests.
+S/RV E was actuated for single valve tests.
+Excellent repeatability was demonstrated for both test series (five single valve tests and four multiple valve tests.)
+BNL 14-1 PUAR.00
-ITEM   I5:
+ITEM I5:
-Clarify the statement that the torus was analyzed quasi-statica'lly for S'/RV hydrodynamic shell pres. ures. Where does g(t), i.e., the wave form of the pressure history, in the expression on page 5-1'3 of the PUAR come from? Are pressure,s applied statically as stated on page 5-12 or is there   a  time variation as implied by the expression on page 5-13?
+Clarify the statement that the torus was analyzed quasi-statica'lly for S'/RV hydrodynamic shell pres. ures.
+Where does g(t), i.e.,
+the wave form of the pressure
+: history, in the expression on page 5-1'3 of the PUAR come from?
+Are pressure,s applied statically as stated on page 5-12 or is there a time variation as implied by the expression on page 5-13?
 ===RESPONSE===
-The wave form,,of t'e pressure   history, g(t) was generated by the QBUBS02 computer code. The pressures were applied statically    to the torus shell to determine torus stresses deflecti ons, and support loads. Subsystems,, such as attached piping, weve analyzed dynamically for, the acceleration resp'onse resulting from the assauned shell mo'tion (see page of the PUAR).,                                            '5-14 BNL 15-1                   PUAR. 00
+The wave form,,of t'e pressure history, g(t) was generated by the QBUBS02 computer code.
+The pressures were applied statically to the torus shell to determine torus stresses deflecti ons, and support loads.
+Subsystems,,
+such as attached piping, weve analyzed dynamically for, the acceleration resp'onse resulting from the assauned shell mo'tion (see page
+'5-14 of the PUAR).,
+BNL 15-1 PUAR. 00
-~, ~
+~,
+~
 ITEM 16,:.
-                                                                    't t Provide the fol lowi'ng addi tional information regarding the in-plant. S/RV: tests conducted at. BFN and. the S/RV design loads extrapolated from the tests:
+'t t
-t 1.0 Descripti'on .of the tes"ted: Quencher Device-1.1 Drawings showing deta.ils of the quencher geometry-plan, elevat.ion,, arm length, arm diameter, hole arrangement, spaci'ng, size, etc.,
+Provide the fol lowi'ng addi tional information regarding the in-plant. S/RV: tests conducted at. BFN and. the S/RV design loads extrapolated from the tests:
-.2'ocation         of quencher device relative to suppression pool boundaries and suppression. pool surface.
+t 1.0 Descripti'on.of the tes"ted: Quencher Device-1.1 Drawings showing deta.ils of the quencher geometry-plan, elevat.ion,,
-.3     Any difference between the tested quencher configu-rat-ion and'. the Monti.cello version. (as described in GE/NEDE-24542-P)       highlighted   and   quantified.
+arm length, arm diameter, hole arrangement, spaci'ng,
-;,0 A  descript'ion. of the loads observed during testing-2.1 Peak overpressure ('POP) and underpin-essure (PUP)
+: size, etc.,
-                    .recorded on the torus shell during each relevant S/RY,  actua,t i:on.               t 2.2     A tmeas.ure   of the frequency, content of each pressure
+.2'ocation of quencher device relative to suppression pool boundaries and suppression.
-                 -
+pool surface.
-signature.,
+;,0 1.3 Any difference between the tested quencher configu-rat-ion and'. the Monti.cello version. (as described in GE/NEDE-24542-P) highlighted and quantified.
-..0 A description of the test conditions 3.1 Geometry of the tested SRVDL ('diameter, length,
+A descript'ion. of the loads observed during testing-2.1 Peak overpressure
-                   'free volume, and routing below pool, surface).
+('POP) and underpin-essure (PUP)
+.recorded on the torus shell during each relevant S/RY, actua,t i:on.
+t 2.2 A tmeas.ure of the frequency, content of each pressure
+- signature.,
+..0 A description of the test conditions 3.1 Geometry of the tested SRVDL ('diameter,
+: length,
+'free volume, and routing below pool, surface).
 .2 Geometry of any SRVDLs in. the plant that differ significantly from the tested SRVDL.
-.3. S/RV steam flow rate (MS,), pool'emperature (TPL),
+-4. 0 3.3.
-pipe temperature (TP), wate'r leg length (LW) and.
+S/RV steam flow rate (MS,), pool'emperature (TPL),
+pipe temperature (TP), wate'r leg
+~ length (LW) and.
 pressure di:fferential (hP),. if any, for each test.
-                                                             ~
 .4 Minimum AP permitted by NRC Technical "Specification and corresponding LW for all 'SRYDLs.
-     -4. 0 A  description of the design conditions for each load case used       for design-4.1 Geometry of all SRVDLs involved and thei r azimuthal location in the torus.
+A description of the design conditions for each load case used for design-4.1 Geometry of all SRVDLs involved and thei r azimuthal location in the torus.
 .2 TP, TPL, MS, hP, and LW for al,l SRVDLS involved.
-                                         'BNL 1 6" 1                     PUAR. 00
+'BNL 1 6" 1 PUAR. 00
-.0  A    description       iof the design    loads for each load case'-
+.0 A description iof the design loads for each load case'-
-.1     hformali:zed pressure         signature.
+.1 5.2, 5.3 5.4 hformali:zed pressure signature.
-.2,    Single valve POP/PUP values.
+Single valve POP/PUP values.
-.3     Spatial atteriuiati'on of the POP/PUP values (i f this di f fera from, the LDR methodology,, suf f 1'ci'ient addi t ional -torus shell pressure data must be supp 1 i end to just i fy,such dev ia t ion),i 5.4     Frequency range considered.
+Spatial atteriuiati'on of the POP/PUP values (i f this di ffera from, the LDR methodology,,
+suf f1'ci'ient addi t ional -torus shell pressure data must be supp 1 i end to just i fy,such dev ia t ion),i Frequency range considered.
 ===RESPONSE===
-.0  Description of           thie  tested quencher device The plan view of all BFN quenchiers ln units .1 <'md 2 is shown on TVA drawing 47W401-7. For unit 3 thk plan view is shown on drawing 47W401-3. The tested quenchers were in unlit 2 at azirnuths 78o-45'D),
+.0 Description of thie tested quencher device The plan view of all BFN quenchiers ln units
-o 15'E)             and 123o,45'M)       S/RV E. w actuated. f'r single valve, tests and all three
+.1
-                                 ~
+<'md 2
-(0, E,, and M) were actuated fior mu t iple valise 1
+is shown on TVA drawing 47W401-7.
-tests., These plan vi,ews corriespond to PUAR Figur'e                                                         '
+For unit 3 thk plan view is shown on drawing 47W401-3.
-Oi 3 ~
+The tested quenchers were in unlit 2 at azirnuths 78o-45'D),
-BFN    quencher arm details are shown on TVA drawing 47W401-5. Al 1 BFN quencher s are ident ical in dies,ig n.
+o 15'E)
-Copies of        all refer enced    drawings are available                                                 for r ev i ew.
+~
-'. 2  The BFN quencher device loca tilons are shown on TVA drawings 47W401-3, 47W401-5, and 47W401-.7. Hach quen'cheer center li. ne is at elevat ion 526.-5 wh ich is 50 feet above the bot tom of the torus shel.l. This yields a submergence of appi~oximately 10.0 feet.
+and 123o,45'M)
-Typical BFN quencher installations are shown on PUAR p     la tes   10,,  11, and 13.
+S/RV E. w actuated. f'r single valve, tests and all three (0,
-.3    The BFN quencher device u t i Aires the previously.
+E,,
-ex i s t i ng 10-'i nch ramshead as i nd i ca ted on while the Mont icel lo version has a                                    drawi'ng'7W401-5, 12-inch ramshead. The BFN device has a reiducer between the ramshead and quencher 10-inlch''2-inch arm whi 1'e the Monticel lo gersion does quencher arm designs are identical not..BFN''nd'onticello except for minor var i,'at iohs in support type and BNL 16-2                PUAR.00'L
+and M) were actuated fior mu 1 t iple valise tests.,
+These plan vi,ews corriespond to PUAR Figur'e 3
+~
+BFN quencher arm details are shown on TVA drawing 47W401-5.
+Al 1 BFN quencher s are ident ical in dies,ig n.
+Copies of all refer enced drawings are available for r ev i ew.
+Oi 1'. 2 1.3 The BFN quencher device loca tilons are shown on TVA drawings 47W401-3, 47W401-5, and 47W401-.7.
+Hach quen'cheer center li. ne is at elevat ion 526.-5 wh ich is 50 feet above the bot tom of the torus shel.l.
+This yields a submergence of appi~oximately 10.0 feet.
+Typical BFN quencher installations are shown on PUAR p la tes 10,,
+, and 13.
+The BFN quencher device u t i Aires the previously.
+ex i s t i ng 10-'i nch ramshead as i nd i ca ted on drawi'ng'7W401-5, while the Mont icel lo version has a
+-inch ramshead.
+The BFN device has a
+-inlch''2-inch reiducer between the ramshead and quencher arm whi 1'e the Monticel lo gersion does not..BFN''nd'onticello quencher arm designs are identical except for minor var i,'at iohs in support type and BNL 16-2 PUAR.00'L
-~ ~ ~
+~
-location. The BFN weld cap hole pattern matches the pattern .shown     i', Figure 1-2 of NEDE-24542-P; does not match .the pattern in. Figure 1-3 of that it report.
+~
-.0 :A  descripti'on of the loads observed during. testing 2.1 Torus shell pressures resulting from the S/RV test are discussed in Appendix C, Paragraph C.5..2 of the PUAR. Table C-2 of the=PUAR presents a 'compari,son of the analyt'i~cally predi'cted pressures versus the average o'f the peak .pressures from =e'ach test. Thi's information 'is from the TES: Report No. 5172 (PUAR Reference 41). Pages 1 through 54 of Volume III of the TES report show the pressure traces of the t'orus shell for each test. 'A suranary of the maximum and minimum .press'ures (POP and PUP) reco'rded during each test are shown, in Tabl:es BNL-1'6-1 and BNL-16-2.
+~
-.2    The .pressure traces for all locati,ons and each test are f'ound i'n the TES Report (PUAR'Reference All pressure traces are similar i'n shape ahd 41).
+location.
-primary f:reque'ncy; The 'primary frequency 'of the
+The BFN weld cap hole pattern matches the pattern
-                ,pressure traces ranges f.rom 5.'5 to 6.5 Hz. Typical pressure,'traces are shown i,n F'igure BNL-1'6-'1'.
+.shown i',Figure 1-2 of NEDE-24542-P; it does not match
-.0 A  'description of the test conditions 3.1 R 3.2 The geometry of all SRVDI s. i.s shown on the TVA 47W401 drawing ser'ies. All di scharge 1 ines are IO" SCH 40 i,n the drywel1 and 10" SCH 80 or 1'.0" SCH 60 in the. wetwell. The routi;ng for all lines below the pool is the same. The 'rout'ing in the torus above the
+.the pattern in. Figure 1-3 of that report.
-                        .pool can be grouped into two categories--
+.0
-lon'g lines and short lines. SRVDL, E, a long line, was chosen for the single valve 'tests since the long line 'should rept esent the case for S/RV blowdown. S/RV's D, E,    'orst and M .were actuated simultaneously for the multipl'e valve tests. The initial gas volume foi all lines is shown in Tabl.e BNL-16-3.
+:A descripti'on of the loads observed during. testing 2.1 Torus shell pressures resulting from the S/RV test are discussed in Appendix C, Paragraph C.5..2 of the PUAR.
+Table C-2 of the=PUAR presents a 'compari,son of the analyt'i~cally predi'cted pressures versus the average o'f the peak.pressures from =e'ach test.
+Thi's information 'is from the TES: Report No.
+(PUAR Reference 41).
+Pages 1 through 54 of Volume III of the TES report show the pressure traces of the t'orus shell for each test.
+'A suranary of the maximum and minimum.press'ures (POP and PUP) reco'rded during each test are shown, in Tabl:es BNL-1'6-1 and BNL-16-2.
+.2 The.pressure traces for all locati,ons and each test are f'ound i'n the TES Report (PUAR'Reference 41).
+All pressure traces are similar i'n shape ahd primary f:reque'ncy; The 'primary frequency 'of the
+,pressure traces ranges f.rom 5.'5 to 6.5 Hz.
+Typical pressure,'traces are shown i,n F'igure BNL-1'6-'1'.
+.0 A 'description of the test conditions 3.1 R 3.2 The geometry of all SRVDI s.
+i.s shown on the TVA 47W401 drawing ser'ies.
+All di scharge 1 ines are IO" SCH 40 i,n the drywel1 and 10" SCH 80 or 1'.0" SCH 60 in the. wetwell.
+The routi;ng for all lines below the pool is the same.
+The 'rout'ing in the torus above the
+.pool can be grouped into two categories--
+lon'g lines and short lines.
+SRVDL, E, a long line, was chosen for the single valve 'tests since the long line 'should rept esent the
+'orst case for S/RV blowdown.
+S/RV's D, E,
+and M.were actuated simultaneously for the multipl'e valve tests.
+The initial gas volume foi all lines is shown in Tabl.e BNL-16-3.
 Also, see 1-.1 above.
-BNL  1 6-3              PUAR. 00
+BNL 1 6-3 PUAR. 00
-                                                                                                                        ~     ~ ~
+~
-.3,   -Test Conditions Line    .D        .Line   S         Line     M MS;,    lb/sec               ,26 8              268               268 78-&1             78-81             V8-81 TP.,      oF           238'-355           220-3V 9         246-361 LWid    F'T                   7,.'0             7.0               V.'0 QP; psid              1 e 2.-1'.33       1.2-:1.33         l. 2-le 33
+~
-              +lnit.ial      aIad   final- .temp'eratures of'rywell                1:pipe'gauge.
+~
-.4'he          minimum&F3 permit ted by technical speci f.ications is 1.10 psid., The corresponding water,leg leng th. is approximately V.S fe.et mea'sui ed from the'quencher centerline elevation.
+.3,
-.0   'A   description of the design condit ions for                           each               load                 .
+-Test Conditions Line.D
-case    used. f.or -design 4'..1   -Figure 7.3: .o,f the PUAR sh,ows                a   plan view of,thy S/RV di'scharge in the torus.                      This information's well as other information r'egarding 'geometry is avai'lab'le from TVA'rawing series 47W401. Ai-s*,
+.Line S
-le,l above.                                                                                        'ee 4'.2    The     following. parameters wer e extracted from selected RVRlZ; RVFOR input.
+Line M MS;, lb/sec TP.,
-Case     Al..l   '(NOC)
+oF LWid F'T QP; psid
-AP~sid                                .ft 1'P SRVDL E,
+,26 8 78-&1 238'-355 7,.'0 1 e 2.-1'.33 268 78-81 220-3V 9 7.0 1.2-:1.33 268 V8-81 246-361 V.'0
-oF 115.
+: l. 2-le 33
++lnit.ial aIad final-.temp'eratures of'rywell 1:pipe'gauge.
-                                        'rPL oF
+.4'he minimum&F3 permit ted by technical speci f.ications is 1.10 psid.,
-                                         '.5 VS M~Slb/.sec 303 308 l . 2>>
+The corresponding water,leg leng th. is approximately V.S fe.et mea'sui ed from the'quencher centerline elevation.
-.2*
+.0
-LW 2.,13 V.13
+'A description of the design condit ions for each load case used.
-                                                                                                          '
+f.or -design 4'..1
-Cess .C3.3        (ISA. with     Steam    in  D~W   Second.Actnntion)
+-Figure 7.3:.o,f the PUAR sh,ows a plan view of,thy S/RV di'scharge in the torus.
-SRYDL        TP  toF'PL         oF,MS 1b/sec             dP     s Id              LW           i'I t E         350           90.             308           l. 0+                   40.         T2 L.        350           90             .308           1. 0+                   31.,56
+This information's well as other information r'egarding 'geometry is avai'lab'le from TVA'rawing series 47W401.
-       *,These 'values were .used                 in RVRIZ,     a   value of zero                           wa's used     for    RVFORe 5..'0  A'escription of              the design loads             for   each     iioad            ca'se''.
+Ai-s*,
-Normal.i'zed. pressure              s ignature We     in terpre t the term "normal ized pre.ssure s ignature" to mean th6 s~ar ia'tion of the shell
+'ee le,l above.
-               ;pressu~i es wi th times               Thieref'ore, i t- is the sake
+'.2 The following. parameters wer e extracted from selected RVRlZ; RVFOR input.
-               .the var iable g( t} dtbf ined .in', S'ec t ion 5.,4.2.8,of
+Case Al..l '(NOC)
-                                                                                                                  'NLi 16-4                        PUAR.00
+SRVDL E,1'P oF
+'rPL oF 115.
+'.5 115 VS M~Slb/.sec AP~sid LW.ft 303 l. 2>>
+.,13 308 1.2*
+V.13 Cess.C3.3 (ISA. with Steam in D~W Second.Actnntion)
+SRYDL E
+L.
+TP toF'PL oF,MS 1b/sec dP s I d 350 90.
+: l. 0+
+90
+.308
+: 1. 0+
+LW i'It
+: 40. T2 31.,56
+*,These 'values were.used in RVRIZ, a value of zero wa's used for RVFORe 5..'0 A'escription of the design loads for each iioad ca'se''.
+Normal.i'zed. pressure s ignature We in terpre t the term "normal ized pre.ssure s ignature" to mean th6 s~ar ia'tion of the shell
+;pressu~i es wi th times Thieref'ore, i t-is the sake
+.the var iable g( t} dtbf ined
+.in', S'ec t ion 5.,4.2.8,of
+'NLi 16-4 PUAR.00
-.2   The largest magn.i'tude POP and PUP values generated by QBUBS02 were -.appl'led for .each SRVDL in the torus. Per 'the 'LDR,         first    actuation pressures were conservatively assumed, to .be possible for second actuation (reflood) conditions. The single valve values are as follows:
+.2 The largest magn.i'tude POP and PUP values generated by QBUBS02 were -.appl'led for.each SRVDL in the torus.
-Pressure     ( si  )
+Per 'the 'LDR, first actuation pressures were conservatively
-Event                           POP NOC  or  DBA                    16. 2                11.9 SBA  or,IBA                     1'9. 7                16. 6 5 e 3 The spatial a t .t en ua t i on functions used we r e as defined 'i n .the LDR and ge n e r a t ed by QBUBSO 2 . The only de v i a t i on 'f rom the LDR i n t h i s r ega r d wa s the use of SRSS 'for combining the ef fects of mul tiple valve actuations. The SRSS issu'e fs addressed by the respons'e:to:BNL        Item 14.
+: assumed, to.be possible for second actuation (reflood) conditions.
-.4   The f,requency .range .used,         for design, as provi'ded    'by Section.5..5.'2 of the        PUAR,     is as follows:
+The single valve values are as follows:
-Fre uenc     (Hz)
+Pressure
-         .Even.t                  Mi n imum                Max imum NOC  or DBA                   4. 16                   10.'29 SBA  or IBA                   5. 58                   14. 69 BNL  1 6 "5                    PUAR. 00
+( si
+)
+Event NOC or DBA SBA or,IBA POP
+: 16. 2 1'9. 7 11.9
+: 16. 6 5 e 3 The spatial a t.t en ua t i on functions used we r e as defined
+'i n.the LDR and ge n e r a t ed by QBUBSO 2.
+The only de v i a t i on 'from the LDR i n t h i s r ega r d wa s the use of SRSS 'for combining the ef fects of mul tiple valve actuations.
+The SRSS issu'e fs addressed by the respons'e:to:BNL Item 14.
+.4 The f,requency.range.used, for design, as provi'ded 'by Section.5..5.'2 of the PUAR, is as follows:
+Fre uenc (Hz)
+.Even.t NOC or DBA SBA or IBA Min imum
+: 4. 16
+: 5. 58 Max imum 10.'29
+: 14. 69 BNL 1 6 "5 PUAR. 00
-.0 6.0
+.0 6.0 P
-   . 4;0 P
+;0 2.0.,
-.0.,
+;1 VI.
-;1                                                'R,A''.A. A VI.
+-2.0 $
-     -2.0 I (          /  X./:  V
+-0.0 $
-              $                     I           V
+I0L I
-     -0.0 $                              V 0I0L I'
+(
-t$ .V
+I V
-: 0.  .0.2   ~ '.0.4  0;6, 0;.8,'1.0            1".2-  1'.4'.1.6        1.8  .2.0 6.0
+'R,A''.A. A
-      '5.0 4.0                            /l 3,0 P-            $                       /1 2.0 f
+/
-VIV
+X./: V V
-       ~
+t$.V0.
-2.0
+I '
-          ~
+.0.2
-n M
+~
-V
+'.0.4 0;6, 0;.8,'1.0 1".2-1'.4'.1.6 1.8
-     -3.0
+.2.0 P-6.0
-     -4;0 5.0 0;0  0ec      0.4   0.6      0.8:1.0                .1..4   '1.6      1.8I  2.0 X100 TIHE SECONDS t=st"Uxi       BN"   -ib-,i
+'5.0 4.0 3,0 $
-                      'YPICAL   PRESSURE 'TRACES'I-UR'BFN, lORuS SHELL'
+.0 f
+/l
+/1 VIV
+~
+n 2 ~ M 2.0
+-3.0
+-4;0 5.00;0 0ec 0.4 0.6 0.8:1.0 TIHE SECONDS V
+.1..4
+'1.6 1.8I 2.0 X100 t=st"Uxi BN" -ib-,i
+'YPICAL PRESSURE
+'TRACES'I-UR'BFN, lORuS SHELL'
 TRBLE'NL-.iS'-i
-          'MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRESSURES                                               (PS:I  )
+'MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRESSURES (PS:I )
-SINQL'FVALVE. ACTUATION. TESTS S2                   S3      ,            S4              S5 5.648        .                             6.71'4             8'.6S5           '5.971-
+SINQL'FVALVE. ACTUATION. TESTS S2 S3 S4 S5 2
-          -4'. 950,               6.417'5.5S6
+.
-                                                      -5.538            -5.'545            -5.293 2         5,.'870.            8.743.                 7 233              7:. 1'12          6.232
+8
-           -5'.203           -5.898:                  -5.827            -5.849             -5.52S 5.393                                     .6'.S7S             6;550             5.800
+C7 S
-           -4.825'.593 6..455'5.386,:
+'0 12 13 5.648
-                                                      -5.'45.1,         -5.429'.           -4.949
+-4'. 950, 5,.'870.
-: 4.                            5.285                  6'.'004                  709         5.183
+-5'.203 5.393
-       '3.950,                                        -4.650'.'297,     -4..'509'..620
+-4.825'.593
-                                                                                           -4. 195 7         3. 105         -4:.47.7';;07,7,'4'097''                                         4:. 151,
+'3.950,
-:.  -2'.354:                                   -4:.'258        "-3'.929',.814
+: 3. 105
-                                                                                           -3.,467, 8         5. 195'             5.7,46.                5,.'501                              5.. 1.13
+:. -2'.354:
-           -3'.554'1'.757,
+: 5. 195'
-                             -3.9SO;                  .3.S69:          -4..      1'12     -3.915 C7 S                             1'.'670'1.482 1'.878             1'.810             1.650
+-3'.554'1'.757,
-        .  -1'.1'1'3                                  -,1.341           -1.354             . 1'.341  ~
+. -1'.1'1'3
-'0      '.:2.'539             2'.737"                2'. 821;           2.751             2'512 1'.716 1'.'988'.369       -1.961'2.580.
+'.:2.'539 1'.716 2.226 1:.648
-                                                                        -2.008             .1.900 12          2.226                                                        3.057             2'.764.
+'6..158.
-:.648           - 1'.859                 -2'.036           1'.838             =  1.634 13        '6 ..158.            6'.'996                8.,757            '6,S1S.            7.046
+'4'.755 4 887
-        '4'.755              -5.397,'.615
+-3.655 6.417'5.5S6 8.743.
-                                                      -5.249             -,5.333            .5' 383 4 887                                     5'-517             5,496             5.461,
+-5.898:
-           -3.655            -3'. 907:                -3'32            .-3.858              -3.970
+..455'5.386,:
+.285
+-4:.47.7';;07,7,'4'097''
+.7,46.
+-3.9SO; 1'.'670'1.482 2'.737"
+'.'988'.369
+- 1'.859 6'.'996
+-5.397,'.615
+-3'. 907:
+.71'4
+-5.538 7 233
+-5.827
+.6'.S7S
+-5.'45.1, 6'.'004
+-4.650'.'297,
+-4:.'258 5,.'501
+.3.S69:
+'.878
+-,1.341 2'. 821;
+-1.961'2.580.
+-2'.036 8.,757
+-5.249 5'-517
+-3'32 8'.6S5
+-5.'545 7:. 1'12
+-5.849 6;550
+-5.429'.
+-4..'509'..620
+"-3'.929',.814
+-4.. 1'12 1'.810
+-1.354 2.751
+-2.008 3.057 1'.838
+'6,S1S.
+-,5.333 5,496
+.-3.858
+'5.971-
+-5.293 6.232
+-5.52S 5.800
+-4.949 5.183
+-4. 195 4:. 151,
+-3.,467, 5.. 1.13
+-3.915 1.650
+. 1'.341
+~
+'512
+.1.900 2'.764.
+= 1.634 7.046
+.5' 383 5.461,
+-3.970
-TRBLE -BNL-16-2 MAXIMUM ANL) MINIMUM F'RP'SSURES.             (PS  I)
+TRBLE -BNL-16-2 MAXIMUM ANL) MINIMUM F'RP'SSURES.
-MUII    T IPLE VALVE ACTUATION TESTS MI2       I%3          M4 I).685        6.029     S.,i123      7.005
+(PS I )
-         -5.997         .6.062  -;6.,333   -6.35S 6 211         7.283     9.,135     : 8.'617,
+MUII TIPLE VALVE ACTUATION TESTS MI2 I%3 M4 7
-         '-6.310      "
+Cl S
-                        .438  --6.,771   -6.786 ii.787       8.857     9.,956  10.00
+12 13 14 I).685
-         -6. 150        -6.434   -6.,688    .6.66 CJ .204     10.01    1  0.,79   1'0.66
+-5.997 6 211
-         -.6 016        -6.485   -6.,760    -6.491.
+'-6.310 ii.787
-       6.471         6.310     8.,523       6.216-
+-6. 150 CJ.204
-      '; -.4.922        -4.613   -5.,659    -5.686 8      '5.828         6;7S5     8.,224       8.007 Cl
+-.6 016 6.471
-         -4.623         -5. 174  -5.,331    -5.590 S       1.348         1 .764   2.,642        2.903
+'; -.4.922
-         -1 .831          1;777  -'1.,837   . 1 .50S 10       2 ~ 151       2.669     3;,288       2.914
+'5.828
-         .2~ 1S2       .2.185  -2.,383    -2.240 12    11.98          1 1.00   1  0-.,36, 1 1.16
+-4.623 1.348
-         -7.482         -7.639   -7.,162    -7,.1S6 13       7'.616        8.328     7.;S19     '7.264
+-1.831 2 ~ 151
-         -6     108     -5.876   -6.,524    -5.S53 14       5.314.        6.140     6.,343       5.076
+.2~ 1S2 11.98
-         -5,.300        .5.356  -'5 '097   -4.57S
+-7.482 7'.616
+-6 108 5.314.
+-5,.300 6.029
+.6.062 7.283
+".438 8.857
+-6.434 10.01
+-6.485 6.310
+-4.613 6;7S5
+-5. 174 1.764 1;777 2.669
+.2.185 1 1.00
+-7.639 8.328
+-5.876 6.140
+.5.356 S.,i123
+-;6.,333 9.,135
+--6.,771 9.,956
+-6.,688 1 0.,79
+-6.,760 8.,523
+-5.,659 8.,224
+-5.,331 2.,642
+-'1.,837 3;,288
+-2.,383 1 0-.,36,
+-7.,162 7.;S19
+-6.,524 6.,343
+-'5 '097 7.005
+-6.35S
+:8.'617,
+-6.786 10.00
+.6.66 1'0.66
+-6.491.
+.216-
+-5.686 8.007
+-5.590 2.903
+. 1.50S 2.914
+-2.240 1 1.16
+-7,.1S6
+'7.264
+-5.S53 5.076
+-4.57S
-TRBL'E:BNL-i:6-3 INITIAL GAS     VOLUME (FT~ )
+TRBL'E:BNL-i:6-3 INITIAL GAS VOLUME (FT~ )
-'A 1 .1  'NORMAL OPERATING CONDITION BLOWDOWN 73.80 75.37        LONG LINES 68.'16 58.31
+'A1. 1 'NORMAL OPERATING CONDITION BLOWDOWN 73.80 75.37 68.'16 LONG LINES 58.31
-       '53.33
+'53.33
-       '55 07 52.'1'4 54;82 SHORT LINES
+'55 07 52.'1'4 54;82
-       '51 .'00 52'.'89 55;60 54.'82 54.93
+'51.'00 52'.'89 55;60 SHORT LINES 54.'82 54.93
-ITEM   I7:
+ITEM I7:
 Elaborate o'n the, methodology used'o a'ccount for fluid-s tr ucture inteicact ion ef fects during CO hand c'hugging, drag loads in ElFN, ivhich is mentioned in1Se1ct)on 4.4,.9 of the P,UAR.
 ===RESPONSE===
-,For an   elaboration on the methodology used to a'ccount for fluid-str uctur e interact   ion ef fects during CO and chugging drag loads, see PUAR Section 4.4.9 tpage 4>>24R1), wi th, revi sion 1 change, and PUAR Sect i,on D.1.2.1;3, where tlie methodology is discussed in detail.,
+,For an elaboration on the methodology used to a'ccount for fluid-str uctur e interact ion ef fects during CO and chugging drag loads, see PUAR Section 4.4.9 tpage 4>>24R1),
-BNL 17-1                    PUAR. 00
+wi th, revi sion 1 change, and PUAR Sect i,on D.1.2.1;3, where tlie methodology is discussed in detail.,
+BNL 17-1 PUAR. 00
-ITEM .18"..
+ITEM.18"..
-What   i's the verti'cal loca't'ion: of the suppression pool temperature sensors      in rel'ati'on to the S/RV T'/Quencher cen'ter l,inc?
+What i's the verti'cal loca't'ion: of the suppression pool temperature sensors in rel'ati'on to the S/RV T'/Quencher cen'ter l,inc?
 ===RESPONSE===
-The sensors    are loca'ted approximately    20 i'n'ches above the, T-Quencher'ent'erli'ne     and:at mid-b'ay.   (See PUAR Figure 10-7.)
+The sensors are loca'ted approximately 20 i'n'ches above
-BNL   18-1                    PUAR. 00
+: the, T-Quencher'ent'erli'ne and:at mid-b'ay.
+(See PUAR Figure 10-7.)
+BNL 18-1 PUAR. 00
-ITEM 19   ~
+ITEM 19
-'Were, there, any'xceptions',to the AC -for the hydr'odynamic'i loads..appl.ied 'for analysis of the Torus Attached Piping?
+~
+'Were, there, any'xceptions',to the AC -for the hydr'odynamic'i loads..appl.ied
+'for analysis of the Torus Attached Piping?
 I'f so,. elaborate;.
 ===RESPONSE===
-Other than the general. interpr'etations elaboi ated In .Section.
+Other than the general.
+interpr'etations elaboi ated In.Section.
 .2 of'he E)FN Pl'JAR,, there,were;no speci'f I c exceptions to
- ;the NUREG .06i61: A'C for the,'.,hydrodynamic loads'pplied'or anal'ysi's of the,torus:attached piping.,
+;the NUREG.06i61: A'C for the,'.,hydrodynamic loads'pplied'or anal'ysi's of the,torus:attached piping.,
-:BNIi 19-.1.              PUAR. 00
+:BNIi 19-.1.
+PUAR. 00
-ITEM  20:
+ITEM 20:
-In the calculation of va'r ious drag loads for BFN, the computer codes LOCAFOR, CONDFOR, TQFORBF, and TQFOR03 were used. Do the algorithms o'f these codes follow approved AC procedures?     State any exceptions and justify them.
+In the calculation of va'r ious drag loads for BFN, the computer codes
+: LOCAFOR, CONDFOR,
+: TQFORBF, and TQFOR03 were used.
+Do the algorithms o'f these codes follow approved AC procedures?
+State any exceptions and justify them.
 ===RESPONSE===
-The GE computer codes I'OCAFOR, CONDFOR, TQFORBP, and TQPOR03 were used in the calculation of various drag loads for BFN.
+The GE computer codes I'OCAFOR,
+: CONDFOR, TQFORBP, and TQPOR03 were used in the calculation of various drag loads for BFN.
 These codes were "put up on Control Data Corporation computers around the country for access by the different AEs performing Mark I plant unique long-tecum program evaluations.
-These codes were develo'p'ed, documen'ted, and verIfied by consultants u'nder contra'ct with GE, not by the'Es performing the Mark I anlayses.      The codes are proprietary t'o GE and
+These codes were develo'p'ed, documen'ted, and verIfied by consultants u'nder contra'ct with GE, not by the'Es performing the Mark I anlayses.
--
+The codes are proprietary t'o GE and
-Were only provided as "black boxes" with instructions on their use (including descri'pti on of requi red input data)
+- Were only provided as "black boxes" with instructions on their use (including descri'pti on of requi red input data)
-:provid'ed in the form o'f Application Guides. The AEs (includ'ing TYA) therefore. do not have the direct access to t'e specific algor'ithms 'o'f t'hese codes whic'h. would be necessary to a'newer youi questi'on definitively. It is TYA's understand'ing> however, that the codes LOCAFOR, CONDFOR, and TEE@FOR, used for evalu'ation of pool sfiiell, CO and chugging, and S/RV drag loads, r'espectively, follow approved NUREG 0661 AC procedures.      That me'ans that TVA has defined only S/RV drag loads with codes not thought to specifically follow all NRC-approved AC proce'dures.
+:provid'ed in the form o'f Application Guides.
-The only significant differences between the appr'oved code TEE/FOR (not used by TVA) and the TQFORBF and TQPOR03 codes,
+The AEs (includ'ing TYA) therefore.
-  ,to TVA's knowledged are 'as follows:
+do not have the direct access to t'e specific algor'ithms
-T~FORRF  This code is different in that two bubble pressure factors, BFAC(l) and BFAC(2), were incorporated to be used as mul tipl iers of the n'egative ahd posi tive bubbl'e pr essures; respect i vely. These were 4mpl rically d'eveloped factors used to obtain more realistic comparisons of code predictions to Monticello test results (see Appendix B of GE Appl ication Guide 5, Revision 3 - a later revision of PUAR Reference 63).
+'o'f t'hese codes whic'h. would be necessary to a'newer youi questi'on definitively.
-This code is dlffe'rent In the
+It is TYA's understand'ing>
-  ~T   FOR03                                      bubble dynaMics portion o! the .code which uses QBUBS03 instead of QBUBS02. The resul t i s that f ar moi e real istic, load predictions are obtained from this code due BNL  20-1                     PUAR. 00
+: however, that the codes
+: LOCAFOR, CONDFOR, and TEE@FOR, used for evalu'ation of pool sfiiell, CO and chugging, and S/RV drag loads, r'espectively, follow approved NUREG 0661 AC procedures.
+That me'ans that TVA has defined only S/RV drag loads with codes not thought to specifically follow all NRC-approved AC proce'dures.
+The only significant differences between the appr'oved code TEE/FOR (not used by TVA) and the TQFORBF and TQPOR03
+: codes,
+,to TVA's knowledged are
+'as follows:
+T~FORRF This code is different in that two bubble pressure
+: factors, BFAC(l) and BFAC(2), were incorporated to be used as mul tipliers of the n'egative ahd posi tive bubbl'e pr essures; respect ively.
+These were 4mpl rically d'eveloped factors used to obtain more realistic comparisons of code predictions to Monticello test results (see Appendix B of GE Appl ication Guide 5, Revision 3 - a later revision of PUAR Reference 63).
+~T FOR03 This code is dlffe'rent In the bubble dynaMics portion o! the
+.code which uses QBUBS03 instead of QBUBS02.
+The resul t i s that far moi e real istic, load predictions are obtained from this code due BNL 20-1 PUAR. 00
-to the at tenuat,ion tn bublble energy as i t rises tIo the. surface of the torus pool. Particul'arly fort structures, located high .in 1'.he .pool, this code predicts'rag loads, that lark sighific'antly attenuated in amplitude with 'time.
+~
-Whil,e bo'th of these -codes are felt to be more real istic than the; extremely conservatiive TEEQFOR code, it should be noted that the least conservat'ive code, TQFOR03, was, only'sed fear the .down'comer .S/RV drag load prediciti*ns. That was because the, downcomers az'e,-located, very. high in ithe pool the S/RV bubbles have attenuated                     where,'realisticall'y,
+~
-                      'their exit str'ength. Loads pr ediicted for ,this substantially'rom i,ng even the 'TQFORBP codle (which is slightly 1 ess conser,-
+I
-structure's vative'han.'PEEQPOR) w'ere found to be un'rehlistically high),
+~ %
-For'l"1''subrrierged s'tructures otheir thorn. the downcomers, the still drag very conservative Tg!PORBF code was used to,obtain peak force amiIil i tudes. Thi's ciode iwas used for the                                           'S/RV
+to the at tenuat,ion tn bublble energy as i t rises tIo the. surface of the torus pool.
-              .other s'ubmer'ged s'tructures because. i t is cheeIper .to run thein TQFOR03 and the degree of overconservat'1'sm         in TQFORBF, versus TQFOR03:    is not 'too significant for structures in of'he pool'.- Other than the downcomers, most BFN           lower'levations
+Particul'arly fort structures, located high.in 1'.he.pool, this code predicts'rag loads, that lark sighific'antly attenuated in amplitude with 'time.
-              ,submerged structures ar'e in the lower pool elevat'ions.
+Whil,e bo'th of these
-The use of TQFORBF and TQFOR03 was ',believed to be well justi'f led. by 'good engineer in'g...judgment and especially by the fact that TVA plannied S/RV tests which were. expected to
+-codes are felt to be more real istic than the; extremely conservatiive TEEQFOR code, it should be noted that the least conservat'ive
-              ,support tliat .judgment'. Additionally,'he S/RV,drag, (exc'ept for''th'e downcomers) were .co'nserva'ti'vely 'defir'>ed assuming worst-case peak '.load amplitudes, app11ied as steadier-state harmonics at worst.-case, frequencies..
+: code, TQFOR03, was, only'sed fear the.down'comer.S/RV drag load prediciti*ns.
-As expected,, the S/RV tests provided conclus'i,ve evidence of the adequacy~ of the, analytical'appraoch for S/RV fluid dirag loads. Ajipendix C of the.PUAR desctibes'lhe correlation of
+That was because the, downcomers az'e,-located, very. high in ithe pool where,'realisticall'y, the S/RV bubbles have attenuated substantially'rom
-                         ~
+'their exit str'ength.
-analytical and test:. dat'a. For examipl<!, the analytical
+Loads pr ediicted for,this structure's i,ng even the 'TQFORBP codle (which is slightly 1 ess conser,-
-    ~   ~   I approach for the downcorners (using, TQFOR03 loads) .was showvi to overprIedict stre,sse's by a fac'toi of four relative to
+vative'han.'PEEQPOR) w'ere found to be un'rehlistically high),
-   ~%
+For'l"1''subrrierged s'tructures otheir thorn. the downcomers, the still very conservative Tg!PORBF code was used to,obtain peak
-single anil niiil ti~rle S/R11 test results.
+'S/RV drag force amiIil i tudes.
+Thi's ciode iwas used for the
+.other s'ubmer'ged s'tructures because.
+i t is cheeIper.to run thein TQFOR03 and the degree of overconservat'1'sm in TQFORBF, versus TQFOR03: is not 'too significant for structures in lower'levations of'he pool'.-
+Other than the downcomers, most BFN
+,submerged structures ar'e in the lower pool elevat'ions.
+The use of TQFORBF and TQFOR03 was
+',believed to be well justi'fled. by 'good engineer in'g...judgment and especially by the fact that TVA plannied S/RV tests which were. expected to
+,support tliat.judgment'.
+Additionally,'he S/RV,drag, (exc'ept for''th'e downcomers) were.co'nserva'ti'vely
+'defir'>ed assuming worst-case peak
+'.load amplitudes, app11ied as steadier-state harmonics at worst.-case, frequencies..
+As expected,,
+the S/RV tests provided conclus'i,ve evidence of the adequacy~
+of the, analytical'appraoch for S/RV fluid dirag loads.
+~ Ajipendix C of the.PUAR desctibes'lhe correlation of analytical and test:. dat'a.
+For examipl<!, the analytical approach for the downcorners (using, TQFOR03 loads)
+.was showvi to overprIedict stre,sse's by a fac'toi of four relative to single anil niiilti~rle S/R11 test results.
 i
-  ~ ~'~'i
+~ ~'~'i
-    -'ir PJ BNL 20-2               PUAR.00,,
+-'ir PJ C
-C
+BNL 20-2 PUAR.00,,
 ITEM 21:
-Are there any di f ferences between Browns Ferry Un i ts 1, 2, and 3 which were s igni f.icant enough to warrant separa te analyses for any unit?
+Are there any di fferences between Browns Ferry Un i ts 1,
-the analyses used.
+, and 3 which were s igni f.icant enough to warrant separa te analyses for any unit? If'o, state the di f ferences and the analyses used.
-If'o,   state the di f ferences and
 ===RESPONSE===
-Tot ns The    Units   1 and 2 tori are virtually identical.             Unit   3 used     lighter construction in the following areas:
+Tot ns The Units 1 and 2 tori are virtually identical.
-Location                   Uni,ts   1   and   2       Untt  3 Ring gir'der inside flange            l-l/2" x      12"       1" x 10" Ri'ng g'i rder web                    1-1/4"    x 12"         3/4" x 12" Cradle edge p'lates                   1-1/4"    x 12"         1" x 12" All    dynamic torus anal'yses and the definition of modifi-cati'ons were 'ba'sed on the Unit 3 properties. Modification studies showed that stif'I'ening the ring girder-cradle system always improved performance.            Hence,, the definition of modifi'cation for Un.its 1,'nd'           fr'om the Unit 3 ana.lysis results is conserv'ative; Vent    S  stem The vent systems       for al'1'. BFN  units    'are  virtually identical.
+Unit 3
-Tor us Attached Pi in Ex'ternal BFN torus a't tached piping conf igura tions are d i f feren t for each BFN un i t.      There fore, g'enera ly a 1
+used lighter construction in the following areas:
-separate pipirig analysis was required for every piping system on each       unit.
+Location Uni,ts 1 and 2
+Untt 3
+Ring gir'der inside flange l-l/2" x 12" 1" x 10" Ri'ng g'i rder web 1-1/4" x 12" 3/4" x 12" Cradle edge p'lates 1-1/4" x 12" 1" x 12" All dynamic torus anal'yses and the definition of modifi-cati'ons were 'ba'sed on the Unit 3 properties.
+Modification studies showed that stif'I'ening the ring girder-cradle system always improved performance.
+Hence,,
+the definition of modifi'cation for Un.its 1,'nd' fr'om the Unit 3 ana.lysis results is conserv'ative; Vent S stem The vent systems for al'1'. BFN units 'are virtually identical.
+Tor us Attached Pi in Ex'ternal BFN torus a't tached piping conf igura tions are d i fferen t for each BFN un it.
+There fore, g'enera 1 ly a separate pipirig analysis was required for every piping system on each unit.
 Internal torus attached piping Configurations are virtually idehtical i'rom unit to unit but th'ey are included in the external piping analytical models.
-S/RV Dischar'e Pi in Two    basic S/RV piping configurations are used in each BFN torus as shown by PUAR Figures 7-8 and 7-9. The arrangement of all 13 lines in eacli BFN torus is shown in plan view by PUAR Figure 7-3.        BFN S/RV drywell piping configurations v'ary from line to line and and in some cases unit to unit.
+S/RV Dischar'e Pi in Two basic S/RV piping configurations are used in each BFN torus as shown by PUAR Figures 7-8 and 7-9.
+The arrangement of all 13 lines in eacli BFN torus is shown in plan view by PUAR Figure 7-3.
+BFN S/RV drywell piping configurations v'ary from line to line and and in some cases unit to unit.
 Therefore, various analytical models were used for the S/RV piping in the drywells.-
-Nonsafet       Related Interrial Structures The nonsa     fety related Iriternal stiuctures are virtually identical for all BFN units.
+Nonsafet Related Interrial Structures The nonsa fety related Iriternal stiuctures are virtually identical for all BFN units.
-BNL 21-1                          PUAR. 0 0
+BNL 21-1 PUAR. 0 0
 ITEM 22
-         'Th  i';   i',an  adidi t,"ion'al'I tern to. re'spond: t'o a;verb'al,inqui ry
+'Th i'; i',an adidi t,"ion'al'I tern to. re'spond:
-                            .the Sep'temper'"5, 1984 meeting;,BNL asked how                    'rom'BNL't close'o impact wi th,the ma in 'ven't'ellows does, the pool swell come.
+t'o a;verb'al,inqui ry
-RESPONSE::
+'rom'BNL't
-V Calculations; ba'sed on the;conse'rvatiye LDR methodology>.
+.the Sep'temper'"5, 1984 meeting;,BNL asked how close'o impact with,the ma in 'ven't'ellows does, the pool swell come.
-predict. ihat-;the pool swel'1. profile woul'd'ome''ithin" 1.1 inches. of the bellows.              If   the pool'well were to slightly      impact the bellows, the velocity would, be, very small, approaichilng,,zero at inc ipient Impaot              .
+V RESPONSE::
-          ,Examinatiion of the, construction 'of'.the .'bellows leads'o the asse'ssment .that i t hiss ver', good 'local-'mpact res is tance.                   i
+Calculations; ba'sed on the;conse'rvatiye LDR methodology>.
-          'Any poten'tial for damage or leakage would r'e!qui're 'Impact over'a 'large, area, which, in turn, would'equire the pool to,r ise at'" leis t, a foot,air,more ab'ove the;bcit tom of the.
+predict. ihat-;the pool swel'1. profile woul'd'ome''ithin" 1.1 inches. of the bellows.
-         .b e I'1 ows .
+If the pool'well were to slightly impact the bellows, the velocity would, be, very
-TVA, concludes       that ther,e is no digni,f icant'.'saf'ety       'Co'ncern'or pool., swiell jimp'act. on the vent'ystem.bellows's                        ~
+: small, approaichilng,,zero at inc ipient Impaot
-     ~ 5
+,Examinatiion of the, construction 'of'.the.'bellows leads'o the asse'ssment
-   ~ ~
+.that it hiss ver', good 'local-'mpact res is tance.
-~  t r
+i
- ~    'I BNL'2'-I'UAR.,OO'
+'Any poten'tial for damage or leakage would r'e!qui're 'Impact over'a 'large, area,
+: which, in turn, would'equire the pool to,r ise at'" leis t, a foot,air,more ab'ove the;bcit tom of the.
+.b e I'1 ows TVA, concludes that ther,e is no digni,ficant'.'saf'ety
+'Co'ncern'or pool., swiell jimp'act. on the vent'ystem.bellows's
+~
+~ 5
+~ ~
+~ t r
+~ 'I BNL'2'-I'UAR.,OO'
-'HAX 'POOL SHELL PROFIL'E 4 +46' EL 54m -SO~E 3 o87' I I                    EL 537~-0 m   t,  io 7+75'c            ~
+'HAX 'POOL SHELL PROFIL'E 4 +46' EL 54m -SO~E 3 o87' m
-S F'R PoiNT        B oN 'vENTI YB +  5,07'S
+t, io I
-               ~
+I EL 537~-0 7+75'c
-YHAX POOL AT )L/R ~                6.5<
+~S F'R PoiNT B oN 'vENTI YB +
-YHAX       ''~B''ol OOL HISSES 4Y ASOUT  ii  i09'A AT THE CLDSEST POINT>
+,07'S
+~ YHAX POOL AT )L/R ~ 6.5<
+YHAX
+''~B''ol OOL HISSES 4Y i09'A ASOUT ii AT THE CLDSEST POINT>
 FICURE BNL--ZZ=I TVPICAL, HID VENT BAY CROSS-SECTION
-                 "r4 ~
+"r4 ~ ''
-                       '' ~ Q
+~ Q
-                                ~ ~
+~
+~
 l
-            >>I I
+>>I I
-           .1 4
+.1 4
-            )
+)
 S 7
-   ~,'A l
+~,'A l
 l I'
-       ~       4
+~
-                  ~4laJ ~     1 i>"
+i>"
-    ',f~
+',f~
-}}
+4
+~4laJ ~ 1}}

ML18029A183: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 03:33, 7 January 2025

Text

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Denton:

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Response

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Navigation menu

Search