ML20127H277

Summary of 770617 Meeting W/Representatives of Mark I Owners Group & GE in Bethesda,Md Re Discussions on Structural Acceptance Criteria for Mark I Containment Long Term Program.List of Attendees & Meeting Agenda Encl

ML20127H277
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	09/13/1977
From:	Guibert J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9211180471
Download: ML20127H277 (10)

Text

/ . .. a p

w, SU 131977 DOCKETS NOS.: 50-219, 50-237, 50-245, 50-249, 50-254, 50-259, 50-260, 50-265, 50-271, 50-277, 50-278, 50-293, 50-296, 8, 50-321, 50-324, 50-325, 50-331, 50-333, 50-341, 50-354, 50-355, and 56,-366 LICENSEES: Boston Edison Company, Carolina Power & Light Company, Comonwealth Edison Company. Detroit Edison Company, Georgia Power Company, Iowa ETectric Light & Power Com-pany, Jersey Central Power & l'ight Company, Nebraska Public Power District, Niagara' Mohawk Power Corporation.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Compa'ny, Northern States Power Company, Philadelphia Electric *' Company, Power Authority of the State of New York PubTic Service Electric and Gas. Tennessee Valley Authorit'/; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation , , .

FACILITIES: Gyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Mine Mile Point Unit No.1. Pilg' rim 13 nit No. T. Dresden Units Nos. 2 and

3. Millstone Unit No.1. Quad Tities Units Nos.1 and 2 Monticello, Peach Bottom Units

• Hos. 2 and 3. Browns Ferry Units Nos.1, 2 and 3. Vermont" Yankee, Hatch Units Nos.1 and 2. Brunswick Units Nos.1 *and 2. Duane Arnold Energy Center, Cooper, Fitzpatrick, Ehrico Femi Unit No. 2, and Hope Creek Units Nos.1 and 2.* , ,

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1977 WITH REPRESEN-TAT!YES OF THE MARK I OWNER'S ,tROUP On June 17, 1977, a meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland with represen-tatives of the Mark I Owner's Group and the General Electric Ccyny (GE).

The purpose of the meeting was to discu'is 'the' structural acceptanmt

~

criteria for the Mark I Containment Lorip T6m Program (LTP), in particular service limits for specific stNicturaT eTements as a function of loading events. Enclosure 1 is a list of' attendees.' Enclosure 2 is a copy of

~

the meeting agenda. ,,,",",,,]','",

Sumary

. . ... ns.

y L. J. Sobon, GE, stated that the developcent of a preliminary table (Enclosure 3) of loading event .combina'tf ons 'an'd associated stnsctpu orrecs > /

summaus > '

oate >

h7C FORM 318 (9 76) h1CM 0240 fr v. s. oovannusuv eninnne orrec e, ,,, . .. 4 9211180471 770913 PDR ADOCK 05000263 P PDR

(

r

(-

a-  ;

1 '

7 t -2 , ,

I

.e service limits for the Mark I containment system structural elements included consideration of all mechaMsticilly',possible load combina-tions. He further stated that %t eli of these 33 possible cabina-E tions would be included in the LFs'trstdril analyses and that preliminary judgement indicates thit 'ip'pjcximately 7 loading combina-tions would be requimd to bound,all)iossible combinations.

Based on Mr. Sobon's remarks, a discussion took place oh the need to consider an SRY and DBA pool swell load cdmbination in the LTP. The l Mark I Owner's position on this matter fi that such a load combination j i is mechanistically impossible and shod 1d no't be considered. Further- 1 more, the Owner's Group does not agree that a ' postulated single failure '

involving the opening of an SRV concurrent with the DBA pool swell is an appropriate application of the " single failurt criterion." The NRC staff stated that it would consider'sdch arguments

• the Atectinuin-tion of its position on this matter and expressed a comitment to advise i the Mark I Owner's Group of its posit.ior) ai soon as possible.

W. Cooper, Teledyne. Introduced the discussion on structural service limits with the following remarksi '

1. It should be noted that this is a Some load combinatiors may not requir,'sipar; preliminary effort.

a ti,'t,riatment. ,

2. The otrvetural acceptance criterie Application Guide will not contain loads, but rather will, re,f,e,r, td.jhe Load Definition Report.

3. Seismic loads will be treated as the each facility, i.e., the mo'it ged[y,an,alfsisonthedocket. were treated in the FSAR for ~*

4. Cyclic events will be evaluated for fatigue considerations for all fatigue-related loading ev6ntieven 'if such treatment is not required by the Code. '], f L'

5. The Application Guide is designed to establish generic service limits. Relief from these limits *'Vould ~ require NRC apprtval on a '

~

case by case basis.

6. Only MC (metal containment) related elements willbbe discussed '

s today. , ,_

W. Cooper proceeded to explain the table of proposed service limits for specific components under specific postulated loading combinations.

Following a lengthy discussion, the hRC staff expressed the following coments:

eu* _ .

.v.~,> . _

m.* . . . ~ _ . . _ . , . . _ . . . .._

7

(

] 3 ,

i i 1. The fomat of the Table (Enclosure ,3) seems to be appropriate, but the specific service limits proposed are not acceptable in

all cases. ,

2. The general service levels described by the staff (i.e., "A" for basic loads, "B" for load in conjunction with OBE, and "C" for load in conjunction with SSE) ' represent " ground-zero" for acceptability. Any deviations"from~~'

this ground zero" would require justification. ,

3.

Some zero" isgeneral guidance with resp;ect; to , deviations from "gmund as follows: , , , , ,

s. Jmp,ulsive_ Loads . For non-quasistatic loads, we would accept deviations which are based on "the 'us'e'~of impulsive techniques, such as are being investig'ated for 'the i NRC by Lawrence Liver-more Laboratories (LLL). 'Alon'g thiiline, we would be willing to arrange a meeting betwien the hrt ! Owner's Group and our consultants at Lll to dese: ribe; our 'phgram there.

1

b. Local Dynamie Loads. Jet forces and associated piping reac-tions would be acceptable *for 'idn' sideration under this category. However, we are* not' receptive 8 to your catecoriza-l tion, as presented today, 'of p'enetrations and local loads.

l We would consider pool swell I'mpact,

• safety-relief valve

. actuations, and steam chugging ~ loads as potentially falling

! within be sol this category. If they ['can be adequately justified to

c. Changes in Se_rvice _ Levels a_s a Function of the Transient.

{ ,

d. Level I Items. Only for non-safet then, only (T the consequinces 'of'y the'irrelated failureitems and, even on safety c related equipment is consi,deri,.,

4. External and intemal pressure boundarte,s, should, in general, be treated the same. ,. . .

At the conclusion of the meeting, arrangementwswere initiated for a i meeting between the representatives of the Mark I owner's Group and our consultants at LLL.

,% L i

John C. Guibert '

Technical Assistant i j g- Division of Operating Reactors; l .,,..g c5losures: / M// b/D$WC.

{ . , , , , . .

3G bert:et RMart om - __9/)f/77 9// /b7

s .

Distribution:

• NRC PDR

• Local PDR

• Docket Files E. G. Case V. Stello J. Reece K. R. Goller T. J. Carter

• D. Eisenhut A. Schwencer D. Ziemann j G. Lear R. Reid

• W. Butler D. Davis

• L. Shao '

• 0 ELD

• 01&E(3)

• NRC Participants

• ACR$(16)

W. Paulson P. O'Connor D. Jaffe R. Snaider T. Wambach C. Tranuncil M. Fletcher P. Riehm L. Kintner

• G. Lainas

• I. Sihweil

• J. Knight

• R. Tedesco

• R. Stuart J. Siegel R. Bevan S. Nowicki D. Verre111 G. Vissing

. *with. enclosure

L .

1. b, )

1. UNITED STA788

'

• j e kS NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMIS$10N WASHINGTON, D, C, 20666

" ]

i SEP 141971 l

. a DOCKETS NOS.: 50-219, 50-220, 50-237, 50-245, 50-249, 50-254,- 50-259, 50-260, 50-263. 50-265, 50-271, 50-277, 50-278, 50-293, .

50-296, 50-298, 50-321, 50-324, 50-325, 50-331, 50-333,  :

50-341, 50-354, 50-355, and 50-366 l LICENSEES: Boston Edison Company, Carolina Power & Light Company,

' Conmonwealth Edison Company, Detroit Edison Company, Georgia Power Company, Iowa Electric Light & Power Com-pany, Jersey Central Power &. Light Company, Nebraska Public Power District, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation,-  ;

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Northern States Power ,

I Company, Philadelphia Electric Company, Power Authority of the State of New York, Public Service Electric and Gas, Tennessee Valley Authority, Vermont Yankee Nuclear- 3 Power Corporation FACILITIES: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Nine Mile Point' Unit No.1, Pilgrim Unit No.1. Dresden Units Nos. 2 and 3, Millstone Unit No. 1,-Quad Cities Units Nos. 1 and 2.-

Monticello, Peach Bottom Units Nos. 2 and 3. Browns Ferry Units Nos.1, 2 and 3. Vermont Yankee, Hatch Units-Nos.1 and 2, Brunswick Units Nos. 1 and 2 Duane' Arnold Energy Center, Cooper Fitzpatrick, Enrico Fermi Unit No. 2,. and Hope Creek Units Nos.1 and 2.

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1977 WITH REPRESEN-:

TATIVES OF THE MARK I OWNER'S GROUP

- On June 17, 1977, a meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland with represen-tatives of the Mark I Owner's Group and the-General Electric Company (GE).-

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the structural- acceptance-criteria for the Mark I Containment Long Tenn Program (LTP), in- particular .

service limits for specific structural elements as a function of loading-events. Enclosure 1 is a list of attendees. Enclosure 2 is.-a copy _of the meeting agenda.

Sunnary L. J. Sobon, GE, stated that the development of'a preliminary table

-(Enclosure 3) of loading event combinations and associated structurt.1

}

1

-E.-..%# 4,.,i..w,.y[ ,,.,,,,.i,,,,...,v -- w,, ..,,,.,..g e .gw.<--e. m-,,,. , n-7 y, y .-g,.-.-r , y , . -, ..- > w-m e - ,'y'7

m 2

I service limits for the Mark I containment system structural elements included consideration of all mechanistically possible load combina-tions. He further stated that not all of these 33 possible combina-tions would be included in the LTP structural analyses and that preliminary judgement indicates that approximately 7 loading combina-tions would be requir:J to bound all possible combinations.

Based on Mr. Sobon's remarks, a discussion took place on the need to consider an SRV and DBA pool swell load combination in the LTP. The Hark I Owner's position on this matter is that such a load combination is mechanistically impossible and should not be considered. Further-nore, the Owner's Group does not agree that a postulated single failure involving the opening of an SRV concurrent with the DBA pool swell is an appropriate application of the " single failure criterion." The NRC staff stated that it would consider such arouments in the determina-tion of its position on this matter and expressed a connitment to advise the Mark I Owner's Group of its position as soon as possible.

W. Cooper Teledyne, introduced the discussion on structural service limits with the following remarks:

1. It should be noted that this is a preliminary effort. Some load combinations may not require separate treatment.

2. The structural acceptance criteria Application Guide will ntt contain loads, but rather will refer to the Load Definition leport.

3. Seismic loads will be treated as they were treated in the FSAR for each facility, i.e., the most recent analysis on the docket.

4. Cyclic events will be evaluated for fatigue considerations for all fatigue-related loading events, even if such treatment is not required by the Code.

5. The Application Guide is designed to establish generic service limits. Relief from these limits would require NRC approval on a case by case basis.

6. Only MC (metal containment) related elements will be discussed today.

W. Cooper proceeded to explain the table of proposed service limits for specific components under specific postulated loading combinations.

Following a lengthy discussion, the NRC staff expressed the following comments :

I

(.

3-

1. The format of the Table (Enclosure 3) seems to be appropriate, 1

but the specific service limits proposed are not acceptable in all cases.

2. The general service levels described by the staff (i.e., "A" for s basic loads, "B" for load in conjunction with OBE, and "C" for load in conjunction with SSE) represent " ground-zero" for acceptability. Any deviations from this " ground zero" would require justification. '

3. Some general guidance with respect to deviations from " ground zero" is as follows:

a. Impulsive Loads. For non-quasistatic loads, we would accept deviations which are based on the use of impulsive techniques, such as are being investigated for the NRC by Lawrence Liver-more Laboratories (LLL). Along this line, we would be trilling to arrange a meeting between the Mark I Owner's Group rnd our consultants at LLL to describe our program there.

b. Local Dynamic Loads. Jet forces and associated piping reac-tions would be acceptable for consideration under this category. However, we are not receptive. to yow categoriza-tion, as presented today, of penetrations and local loads.

We would consider pool swell impact, safety-relief valve-actuations, and steam chugging loads as pote.ntially falling 1 within this category, if they can be adequately justified to be so.

c. Changes in Service Levels as a Function of the Transient.

d. Level E Items. Only for non-safety related items and, even then, only if the consequences-of their failure on safety related equipment is considered.

4. r xternal and internal pressure boundaries should, in general, be treated the same.

At the conclusion of the meeting, arrangements were initiated for a meeting between the representatives of the Mark I Owner's Group and our consultants at LLL.

m ,

4, n b

/

John C. Guibert-Technical Assistant Division of Operating Reactors

Enclosures:

As stated

('

Enclosure 1 1

<<[

MEETING - JUNE 17. 1977 Name Organization J. Guibert NRC/ DOR i R. H. Buchholz GE L. D. Steinert GE W. E. Cooper 'Jy. Eng. Services N. W. Edwards NOTECH L. V. Sobon GE C. I. Grimes NRC/ DOR

Randy Broman Bechtel E. Mangrum GE T. J. Mul ford GE C. H. Hofmayer NRC/ DOR /EB L. C. Shao NRC/ DOR /EB R. J. Stuart NRC/ DOR /EB A. Hafiz NRC/SEB Keith Wichman NRC/SD/ DOR Bill Bauer PSE&G C. W. Churchman PSE&G Kulin D. Desai NRC/ DSS /MEB B. D. Liaw NRC/ DOR /EB Pei-Ying Chen NRC/MEB R. L. Cudlin NRC/ DOR D. Whitt CBI R. Klause Stone & Webster R. E. Shewmaker NRC/IE

HQ G. Bagchi NRC/ DOR /EB J. Kudiick NRC/ DSS /CSB R. E. Shaffstall GE-Bethesda I. Sihwiel NRC/ DSS /SEB C. Anderson NRC/ DSS /CSB

=

W T-

i Enclosure 2 AGENDA i

MARK 1 LONG TERM PROGRAM STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA MEETING WITH THE NRC JUNE 17, 1977 i

l 0900 INTRODUCTION MULFORD/SOBON 0915 OISCUSSION OF REVISION B COOPER OF PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS APPLICATION GUIDE 1200 Lunch 1300 CONTINUATION COOPER 1400 DISCUSSION OF INCREASED COOPER ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR CLASS MC VESSELS 1445 STATUS REPORT ON COLUMN MANGRUM BUCKLING TEST-PHASE 11-1500 CLOSURE SOB 0N 1530 Adjournment TJ Mulford 6/14/77 J

m'.

-4 e '

a iim.

i]! [4 ,,!.,lI, l N, '

i .i- .i r n l.i r .

l  !!!! ,rolI, ll!. 'l i:. t

)  ; ti- il

, .. . _ _ g r ,on . a, 4 y..

.s , {r,* e.p ,e . . , , I ;i ., ,. s. ! >

j ltlh c

3  ;

i1 h!$.E'l .u

. il!N,.hil!.!Ih!!.?!!II,,h!5I..lIn[tiI5 s . ...

n

. dl I

i t

r L

.I g = . 4. ..: ~.i a 1 .

_,.._f'I .t aw-

, 1 -. -

g y -.t .. 4, . .

4 .g w:_ _ . .. 49,_. ____

_-.3, s

.g .._...... _ .___ _

4.p. - _

y

e. p .~

4.!_

, e- .. _ _ _ _

3 _.,9.

1.

--m_

g &g y .1..f .

.i u , . -._ . . .. _ -

5 f 1 .=r._ .i. .1:~. . . 1 3_Ifr,__7; TJ'1;$T ._, _, .o . T~,

7t_..+._

.g sm 1j_{g g . . . 3 ~ . .Aa..

- .~ g -

3 . . ,, c- -

3 ...... . . ,. i~ Zi l n ......

. . n._ . . . . . ... . _ _ _

aa

, ..t. . .. . . . . .

o i g, y ....... . . .  ; 7 .p

{g

...... .. . ue p)g,)g ...... g

. . . mo s

...... . . . . ee

.j a ly ] .... p. ,

. . .

• O =

2:

31 1

, y .., . . . .. . av

( g' g . .j. ... .

e- -

y a

1 g5 o t

.H. .. . . . a ,

. 3 1i 4 .

.J5 . . . . r e g

gg 2.. , . . . ,

c - -_, . e . 3:

li.j g6 4 !. . . . . . ,

e .

ZI e = ;3' u p s ....

.k .?...

1 e y .. 4 .. .

=

e w

e p

- 1 li y .

.+. .. . . ,

p 5-

.g.+.

4.,

!.4 - 44 .

-y -

a g .L . . . . ,. .: _S1 j --

j g- y ... . . . A --

5 g

5g g ... . .. . o_ . u . . . . eve . o m oo p .c . .

1 7 . . . . . . . .. . . 4 ..p .. . .

1 g;

7

.pp . . ~ .s. . . . . .. . e . y4p .. .

i g * . . -

. , . .,. . ,. ,+. w u. ., _ _ a, .1

. .m.

i; ,  ; , , ,

]

1 i f i '

I 1 gg -. . I l l l $ .:

E h h l h ~b I bl! N ~f 2  : e

' f~

.i.! iet  !  ;  !

.4.Ij a . sit t g  : a

'e.,t ilt

n. +. l!'i i.: s:j1:l r

ui

!I;l ski o,

[i i o. .

n y. l +. e

.i 5 li I '

a n,i qn iii l! lk i M I@I l l ld $9'iIII' II N !! !!! II" I",U II bl l

[ qll n li

._ . m.,. .

u G - -m- . , , - g p.