ML20204E978

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

ML20204E978
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	08/25/1982
From:	Subramonian N, Gonzalez A Franklin Research Ctr, Franklin Institute
To:	Shaw H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20204E983	List: ML20204E978 ML20204G514
References
CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 TER-C5506-309, NUDOCS 8208270248
Download: ML20204E978 (38)

Text

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

~ -

..+

EManEFMIEEhEiidis:mCMSMFm.:c ".%

ENCI.0SURE 4

,c TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ' .

AUDIT FOR MARK I CONTAINMENT LONG-TERM PROGRAM - STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ,

ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC. POWER PLANT, UNIT 2 .

m FRC PROJECT C5506 rRC ASSIGNMENT 9 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRCG-81 130 (1CTASK 309 I

Preparedby h Author: N. Subrancn'ian Franklin Research Center A. Gonzalez 20th and Race Street FRCGroup Lesder: N. Subramonian Philadelphia, PA 19103 .

I

' er.pmaar .

\

Nuclear Regulatory Corr; mission Lead NRC Engineer: H. Shaw i

Washingto:1,D.C. 20555

?

August 25, 1982 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsore4 by an agency of the United Stties-1 Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their l

employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or a.3sumes any legal liabillbf or '

l responsibility for any third party's use, o the results of such use, of any information, aapa-i rstus, product or process disclos(d in this report. or repaesents that its use by such third l party would not infringe privately owned rt0 hts.

Reviewed by: Approved by:

! Prepared by:

NohSa~mdm '

@ iLby jff&

Principal Author. 'Dhnartment[ ire / tor Date: I' U

• Date: $'29 1762.- Dats: f - 2 9' # L l

NN@.1% 3  %

\ 00. Franklin Research Center A DMslortof The raTklin Institute

1 TER-C5506-309

1. INTRODUCTION Tbb capability of the boiling water reactor .(BWR) Mark I containment

. cuppet ion chamber to withstand hydrodynamic loads was not considered in the criginal design of the structures. The resolution of this issue was divided tto_a chorti-tern program and a long-term program.

Based on the results of the short-term program, which verified that each Mark I containment would maintain its integrity and functional capability when subjected to 1.he loads induced by a design-basis loss-of-coolant accident (ICCA), the NRC staff granted an exemption relating to the structural factor cf ocf0ty requirements of '10CFR50, 55(a) .

Se objective of the long-term program was to restore the margins of cafoty in the Mark I containment structures to the originally intended,

' margin 3. He results of the long-term program are contained in NUREG-0661

[1], which describes the generic hydrodynamic load definition and structural accept nce criteria consistent with the requirements of the applicatie codes cnd ctandards.

The objective of this report-is to present the results of an audit of the

' F;rmi Unit 2 plant-unique analysis (PDA) report with regard to structural cnalysis. The audit was performed using a moderately detailed audit procedure

' developed earlier [2] and attached to this report as Appendid A.' This report doe 3 not include results of the audit related to torus attached piping, which f.willbeprovidedina'supplementaryreport. The key items of the audit procedure are obtained from " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Crit ria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" [3], which meets the critoria of Reference 1.

4

-. . . . _ r ~. m - ,1 m -i mammvenw w r/

w.

TER-C5506-309

2. AUDIT FINDINGS

~

A detailed presentation of the audit for Fermi Unit 2 is provided in

• Appeddix A, which contains information with regard to several key items outlined in the audit procedure [2]. Based on this detailed audit, it was concluded earlier that certain items in the Fermi Unit 2 PDA report [4]

indicated noncompliance with the requirements of the criteria [3] and several l

aspects of the analysis required further information. Based on this l conclusion, the Licensee was requested to provide additional information on these aspects in order to indicate compliance with the criteria. The items contained in the request for additional information are attached to this report as Appendix B.

The Licensee has responded [5] to all the items contained in the request for additional information (Appendix B) as discussed in the following subsections.

Question 2.1.1 (NBC Question 10.1) l In response to this question, the Licensee has shown that the method of analysis used in Reference 4 gives a more conservative estimate of the lateral load compared to the result of an analysis based on a 180* beam model. Also, the magnitude of the stresses that would be indicated in the region surrounding the support columns using a 180* beam model is esdinated to be negligible due to the fact that the overturning moments are small. The Licensee has provided adequate justification for not considering an analysis using a 180' beam model.

Question 2.1.2 (NRC Question 10.2)

In response to this question, the Licensee has provided justification for assuming that only 20% of the total mass of water in the suppression chamber acts as a rigidly attached mass, based on experimental evidence 16] which is shown'to be applicable to Fermi Unit 2 analysis. The Licensee's response is considered to be technically adequate.

._ 000 Firenklin Research e -

.. e.- . . . . . - . .a < . . . . a .u ... _ p . _ a __ - L- J . . Z i l J C . . . .

.#._s.. .- .i -

i TER-C5506-309 Qu:stion 2.1.3 (NBC Question 10.3)

In response to this question, the Licensee has indicated th,e basis for obtaining the modal correction f actors used in Beforence 4 and has shown that the truits are applicable to multidegree-of-freedon systems if the modal superposi-ti:n method is employed. The Licensee's derivations and assumptions are techni-celly adequate since their conservatism is demonstrated using Monticello tests.

Question 2.1.4 (NBC Question 10.4)

In response to this question, the Licensee has shown that the bending r -moments in the suport columns are snail since the columns are permitted to t

olide horizontally at their baser further, the effects of buckling are The Licensee's response is negligible since the columns are heavily braced.

considered to be technically adequate.

Question 2.1.5 (NIC Question 10,5)

In response to this question, the Licensee has provided justification for not performing a nonlinear time history analysis based on the fact that the Fcrsi Unit 2 suppression chamber is fully anchored to the basemat and that the t:nsile forces are less than the allowable anchorage capacity. The Licensee's justification is satisfactory.

Question 2.1.6 (NBC Question 10.6)

In response to this question, the Licensee has indicated that two different tempertures,173*F for the suppression chamber and 100'F for the base plate of the support system, were used in the analysis since these were the maximum values expected in the specified regions. The Licensee's cxplanation is satisfactory.

~3~

- A.__._______------

P TER-C5506-30 9 Question 2.2.1 (NE Question 11.1) -

. In response to this question, the Licensee has provided justification for using the square root of the sua of the squares (SRSS) method for combining the responses in the DRV piping based on Reference 7, which indicates that the probability of exceeding the loada is 16% or less when the SRSS method is used. The Licensee's justification is satisfactory.

l Question 2.2.2 l

l (NRC Question 11.2) i In response to this question, the Licenseee has justified the use of 5 l

Mark 1's equa' tion for SRV piping fatigue analysis since the SRV piping is a Class 2 system and Mark 1's equations are applicable for this clas.s. The Licensee has further indicated that the fatigue analysis for SRV piping presented in Reference 4 incorporates the recommendations of the generic approach developed by the Mark I Owners Group, which is subject to NRC approval.

, Question 2.2.3 (NRC Question 11.3) i In response to this question, the Licensee has provided the reasons for  ;

not using the fatigue equation for Class 1 piping and indicates conformity to '

} the recommendations of the Mark I Owners Group. The Licensee's approach is  !

satisfactory subject to NRC approval of the recommendations of the Mark I -

L Owners Group. l i

Question 2.2.4 (NBC Question 11.4)

In response to this question, the Licensee has provided the basis for developing maximum-stress cycle factors and indicated that these are derived I

{

from Class 2 piping thermal fatigue techniques which are defined in Section e _ --  ?"n?"?*****?"*" - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~

o i.

TER-C5506-309 The Licensee's approach is satisfactory WC-3611.1(a) (3) of Reference 8. _

pubject to NBC approval of the recommendations of the Mark I Owners Group.

l Jue: tion 2.2.5 GNBC Qutation 11.5)

In response to this question, the Licensee has provided information on -

tha dynamic load factors used in Reference 4 with justification for the values rruned. The Licensee's response is satisfactory.

Quactisn 2.2.6  !

(NIC Quistion 11.6)

In response to this question, the Licensee has indicated that the SRV The Licensee's support connection stresses are within the allowable limits.

r sponsa to this question is satisf actory.

Que:tien 2.3.1 (NBC Qu stion 12.1)

In response to this question, the Licensee has provided the basis for calculcting the hydrodynamic masses used in Reference 4 for avaluating cubmerged structures as the relationship contained in Table 4.3-4.1 of '

Ref:rcnce 9. The Licensee's approach is technically adequate.

Qu:cticn 2.3.2 (NRC Question 12.2)

In response to this question, the Licensee has indicated that all the appliscble loads included in Table 1 of Appendix B have been considered in the cnaly31s. The Licensee has provided justification for not considering a few cf th ce loads in the analysis based on the fact that these are of negligible magnitude. The Licensee's response is satisf actory.

-5

.A. __ _ _ . _ , _ .--- - - -. -- -. - _ , . _ _ _

m

, s I

TER-C5506-30 9 Question 2.3'.3 (IIIC Question 12.3)

~

In' response to this question, the Licensee'has indicated tha't the -

I cttschment welds to the torus shell corinocting the internal structures have been evaluated as Class MC components and are within allowable limits. The Licensee's response is satisfactory.

l i

1 1

i  !

t

. s 1

I 1

I a

4 ,

~6-0$ Franklin Research Center M _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

9.fGE*5MY4W w..F4'-L "cu.2!kTth i <

~

6.

TER-C5506-309

3. CONCLUSIONS From the audit of the Fermi Unit 2 plant unique analysis report, it was concluded ear 5ier that certain aspects required additicnal information. The Licensee's response [5] to the request for additional information indicates that the Licensee's structural analysis with regard to major modification is in general conformance to the criteria requirements [3]. The Licensee's cyproach to fatigue analysis of SRV piping as clarified in response to questions 11.2 to 11.4 of Appendix B indicates conformity with the approach roccamended by the Mark I Owners Group, which is subject to NRC approval.

The Licensee's analysis of torus attached piping will be audited at a 1cter date and the findings will be included in a supplementary technical cvaluation report.

r g,- g . . . ~. . .

+

1 TER-C5506-309

4. REFERENCES

1. MURBG-0661- ~

" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program ,

Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7*

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

'USNBC ,

July 1980

2. Technical Evaluation Report Audit Procedure for Mark I Containment Ieng-Term Program - Structural Analysis Franklin Research Center, Philadelphia, PA June 1982, TER-C5506-308 -

3. NEDO-24583-1

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

October 1979

4. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report, Volumes 1-5 Prepared by NUTECE Engineers, Inc.

April 1982 5.- E. Tauber (Detroit Edison)

Draf t copy t'f letter to B. J. Youngblood (Division of Licensing, USNBC)

Letter identification EF2-59, 222, and attachments j

- 6. NEDC-23702-P

" Mark I Conthinnent Program Seismic Slosh Evaluation" March 1978 i

7. NUREG-0484, Revision 1 t " Methodology for Combining Dinamic Responses *'

USNBC

{

4 May 1980

8. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Roller and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1

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

9. NEDO-21888 Revision 2

" Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA November 1981

~

nklinik* , e.h Center A Chute of

• hbusMe

t h a - h r,. - :c - _ _ _ .

APPENDIX A i

AUDIT DETAILS l

l l

i i

I l

J 4

w%

0 . Franklin Research Center A DMsion of The Franklin Institute The Benjermn Frankhn Parkway, PMs Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000

. ~ l . .. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- - :2 ,

. .. . . . . -w l.E ,

TER-C5506-30 9 t

1. INTRODUCTION _

The key. items used to evaluate the Licensee's general compliance with the

. requirements of NUREG-0661 [1] and specific compliance with the requirements cf CMark I containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" (2) are contained in Table 2-1. This audit procedure is applicable to all Mark I containments, except the Brunswick containments, which have a concrete torus.

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

Idrally, the requirement is met by the Licensee, but if the requirement is not met, an alternative approach could have been used. This alternative approach will be reviewed and compared with the audit requirement. An explanation of thy the appr'oach was found conservative or unconservative will be provided. A column indicating ' Additional Information Required" will be used when the

,infcrmation provided by the Licensee is inadequate to make an assessment.

A few remarks concerning Tables 2-1 and 2-2 will facilitate their future u *.,o o A . summary of the audit as detailed in Table 2-1 is provided in Table 2-2, highlighting major concerns. When deviations are identified, reference to appropriate notes are listed in Table 2-1. ,

o Notes will be used extensively in both tables under the various columns when the actual audits are conducted, to prodide a reference that explains the reasons behind the decision. Where the criterion is satisfied, a check mark will be used to indicate compliance.

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

o Where the Licensee's response to the request for additional I information provided satisfactory evidence for compliance with the criteria, an appropriate remark is made and the original audit finding is provided only for the sake of completeness.

l l

NRC Contract N3. NRC 0341-130 00 Franklin Research Center FRC Project No.C5506 Page l 1

A owes.on of The Frankh institute FRC Assignment No.9 20th and Race Streets. Phala.. Pa. !9103 (215) 4481000 FRC Task No. 304 g Plant Name FE.RMt WNer 2. ,

Tabl]2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criterla of Marki Containment Long-Term Program Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Licensee Uses Addt!. Altemate Approach _

No.[2] in the Audit Not Info. NA Remarks

- Met Met Reqd. Conser- Umonser-vative vative 1.2 All structural elements of the vent system and suppres-clon chamber must be considered in the review.

'Ibe following pressure retaining elements (and their supports) must be considered in the reviews o trus shell with associ- V ated penetrations, reinforcing rings, and support attachments o trus shell supports to V '

the containment structure ~

o Vents between the drywell V and the vent ring header (including penetrationa therein)

• o Region of drywell local V to vent penetrations i

o Bellows between vents and V torus shell (internal or .

external to torus) o Vent ring header and the V downcomers attached to it o Vent ring header supports /

to the torus o Vacuum breaker valves y attached to vent penetra- M T'o B E.

tions within the torus Au p g 7Eo (where applicable) LATE R o Vacuum breaker piping Jt systeu, including vacuum breaker valves attached to torus shell penetra- ,

JMA,r ,*F ~M -

s NRC Contract No. NRC-03 41-130 UJ Fr:nklin Research Center FRC Project No.C5506 Page A Dvoon of The Franklin Insonsw FRC Assignment No.9 20th and Rue Streets. Phde.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRCTask No. 309 FE8t pf f U nit 2. b Plant Name Tabl]2-1. Audit Procedure forStructural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program Criteria Ucensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Addtl. Alternate Approach

. No [2] In the Audit Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser. Unconser-vative Vative.

1.2 (Cont.)

tions and to vent penetrations external to the torus (where applicable) o Piping systems, including g

• To SE Pumps and valves internal AUDITED to the torus, attached to L.A.T E R.

the torus shell and/or vent penetrations l

o All main steam system safety relief valve

/ 1 (SRV) pipingf f INCL.UD ES o Applicable portions of

• the following piping systems:

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

other piping required to

. maintain core cooling af ter loss-of-coolant .

accident (IDCA)) ,

)

- Piping systems which provide a drywell-to-wetwell pressure dif-forential (to alleviate pool swell effects)

- Cther piping systems, including vent drains o Supports of piping systems

• mentioned in previous item o Vent header deflectors V ., .

, including associated

' bardware I

~

~

___s w

4 -

NRC Contract N3. NRC 03 81130 ~

UUUU Ftnk!!n Rese:rch Ccnter FRC Project No.C5506 A D6vmon of The Frankhn Instnute FRC Assignment No.9 Page FRC Task No.

20th and Race Streets. Phde.. Pa.19103 (215) 448-1000 309 A Plant Name RERM uust 2 ,

. Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark 1 Containment Long-Term Program Section Keyitems Considered Licensee Uses Criteria t NO.[2] in the Audit Alternate Approach _

Not NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vative votive 1.2 (Cont.)

o Internal structural V elements (e.g. , monorails, catwalks, their supports) whose failure might impair the containment function 1.3 c. The structural V acceptance criteria for existing Mark I containment systems are contained in the American Society of Machanical Engineers (ASMIC) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code,Section III, Division 1 (1977 Edition), with addenda through the Summer 1977 Addenda

[3] to be referred herein as the Code. She alternatives to this criteria provided in Reference 2 are also acceptable.

b. When complete appil-cation of the criteria (item 1.3a) results in hardships or unusual difficulties without a compensa-ting increase in level of quality and safety, other structural acceptance criteria may be used after approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I u

o-. .

l1'uu Franidin Research Center .

NRC Contract No. NRC 03 81-1D FRC ProjectNo.C8500 Pag ~) l A Dhamon of The FranhamInsemuse FRC Assignment No.O  ;

FRCTask No. 304 20th and Race Serests. Phde.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448-1000 Plant Name is g a M i U N I T 2. 5 i I

Vable 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Markl Containment Long-Term Program

'ction Keyitems Considered Criteria Addu' Licensee Uses Alternate Approach  ;

3[2) in the Audit Not Info A Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser- _

• votive vative 1 .

i2.1 c. Identify the code

/

gas sar.T.

LedeM'd . I or other classification W 8d of the structural element 2'B 3 Q*iafas.lco A.4: rj OF

b. Prepare specific g . AP. .

dimensional boundary NNatt definition for the A specific Mark I contain-ment systems (mte:

f 1

Welds connecting piping to a nossle are piping welds, not Class MC ,

{ I welds) l 82 Guidelines for classification -

cf structural elements and boundary definition are as fcilows:

(Refer to Table.2-3 and hble 2-4 for non-piping and piping structural elements, rcspectively, and to item 5 in this table for row d:cignations used for d: fining limits of boundaries)

c. '2brus shell (Bow 1) - SEE -

18 8 C'S**'I ggcy, ggs e4 Se torus membrane 3

in combination with reinforcing rings, ,Ar-y M '.M d'd penetration elements NNI%

within the NE-3334 [3] A limit of reinforce-ment normal to the ,

torus shell, and attachment welds to the inner or outer I

. surface.of the above members but not to nossles, is a Class MC [3] vessel.

MM - - - - . - . . . . -

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

_..g,.... ...,,

.Q_

. 1 w

G. S 'i,-'.' - kh' :%n .$,1na.: ka}.. - /. .+-

W J.g[.fg*/fi.[. p n -..a rgy. e

. hi _ N-N 5~ N -

c -- iI$ ;2& %. -

00 Franklin Research Center NRC Contract No. NRC43 41-130 FRC Project No.C5506 A Divoon of The Frankhn inanum Pag FRC AssignmentNo.9 20th and Race Streets. Phde.. Pa. 19103(215) FRC Task 448 No. 1000309 Plant Name praRwt UNI 7 2. g Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria - of Mark l Containm rm Program Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Licensee Uses No.[2] - In the Audit _ Addtt. Alternate Approach Not info .

NA Met Met Reqd. Cone Uncone Remarks

, vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)

b. Turus shell supports V

(Row 1) - Subsection NF (3) support structures between the torus shell and the building structure, exclusive of the attachment welds to the torus shellt welded.or mechanical attachments to the building structures (excluding embedmonts): i and seismic constraints -

between the torus shell and the building structure are Class MC

[3] supports.

c. External vents and V vent-to-torus bellows (Row 1) - 1he external vents (between the attachment weld to the drywell and the attachment weld to the bellows) including:

vent penetrations within the NE-3334 [3]

limit of reinforcement normal to the vent, internal or external '

attachment welds to the external vent but not to noszles, and the I vent-to-torus bellows (including attachment welds to the torus shell and to the external vents) are Class MC [3) vessels.

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

, . 1.

._ _~ _ - --

~

NRC Contract N3.NRC 03-8111)

FRC ProjectNo.CS506 Page

@UHU Fr:nk!!n Research Center FRC Assignment No.9 A Divun of The FeankhnInsutute FRCTask No. .509 7 20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 Plant Name prEmMI UNif 2 Table 2+1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of MarklContainment Long-Term Program Ucensee Uses Keyitems Considered Criteria Addt!. Alternate Approach ction NA Remarks -

in the Audit Not info.

3.[2] - Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-

• vative vative 2.2 (Cont.)

d. Drywell-vent connection V region (now 1) - Vent welded connections to the drywell (the drywell and the drywell region of interest for this program is up to the NE-3334 [3] limit of reinforcement on the ,

drywell shell) are Class MC [3] vessels. .

o. Internal vents (Ibws 2 V and 3) - Are the continuation of the vents internal to the torus shell from the vent-bellows welds and includes the cylindrical shell, the closure head, penetrations in the cylindrical shell or closure head within the NE-3334 [3] limit of .

reinforcement normal to the vent, and attachment f welds to inner or outer surface of the vent but not to nozzles.

f. Vent ring header (Bows V 4 and 5) and downcomers (Row 6) - Vent ring header including the downconers and internal or external attachment l

.w elds to the ring header and the attachment welds to the downcomers are Class MC

[3] vessels.

NRC Contract No.NRC48411D

~

.. k0 anklin Research Center _ -

FRC Project No.C0000 P;ge l

., m , m. FRC Asanm No..

20th and flece Sweess. Phds.. Pa. 19103(21N 44810o0 FRCTask No. p S Plant Name 3eeage uni 7 2.

Tabl]2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of MarkIContainment Long-Term Program

= ;u=;

l Se n novit.ms Conside,ed Cmea ,ddti.

No.[2] in the Audit Not Info.

,,, ,,e ,,

NA Remarks l

Met Met Reed. Consor. Unconser- ,

i votive vative l 2.2 (Cont.)

j - The portion ~of the V downconer within the NE-3334 (3] limit of reinforcement normal to the vent ring header and portion of the vent ,

i ring header within ME-3334 limit of reinforcement arc considered under now 5.

g. Vent ring header , V supports (Row 7) -

, Subsection NF (3]

supports, exclusive of

the attachment welds to the vent ring header and to the torus shell, are Class NC (3]

supports.

h.  % Tomus ATTACHat Essential (nows I PIP:N4 ro B E 10 and 11) and non-essential (nows Auoerso LA1'ER*

12 and 13) piping systems - A piping g, ggy pg plNG system or a portion DI N#$

$ of it is essential i

SEEN TaggATED i if the system is necessary to assure AS ESSENTIAL the integrity of

) the reactor coolant pressure boundary, i the capability to shut down the f

reactor and maintain it in a shutdown

, condition, or the  !

capability to prevent or mitigate  !

the consequences of I

--,,,-,.-,--,--,,,m-..nnm _ nn,. nre-..,, ,_.-.ne.a.,,n_- - - - -

_- x __ .. - =_ a .

. NRC Contract No. NhC 0341130 d Frank!!nRewarchCenter FRC Project No.C5506 Page l A Desaon of The Frankhn Insettute FRC Assignment No. 9 '

20th and Race Streets. Phda.. Pa.19103 (215) 4481000 FRC Task No. p g Plant Name pt gg M ug 7 2 Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark iContainment Long-Term Program Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Ucensee Uses Addt!. Alternate Approach -

1 No. (2) in the Audit ' Not Info. NA Remarks '

- Met Met Reqd. Conser. Unconser- )

vative vative '

2.2 (Cont.)

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

i the guideline exposure I of 10CFR100 [4]. Piping should be considered essential if it performs a safety-related role at a later time during the event combination being considered or during any subsequent event M Toaus ATTACHED combination. p, pg g

i. Active and inactive M To SE component (Rows Au De T'E D 10-13) - Active L A T' E M.

component is a pump or valve in an essential piping system which is required to perform 's a mechanical motion during the course of accomplishing a system safety function.

j. Containment vacuus M l breakers (Row 2) -

Vacuum breakers valves aounted on the vent internal to the torus or on piping associated with the torus are Class 2 [3] components.

m__ __ _

. . ~ -

@UUUU Franklin Research Center - NRC Contract Nr. NRCM41-1D FRC ProjectNo.C6506

~

A Dwwon of The Frankhn inwause FRC Asel0 nmentNo.9 Page 20th and Race Saeets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 FRC1000 Task No. 309 Plant Name pra at M i U N I T 2. IC Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criterla of Mark l Containment Long T Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Licensee Uses No [2] in the Audit Addtl. Afterrate Approach Not Info.

Met Met Reqd. Conser. Unconsor.

2.2 (Cont.)

k. External piping and # .

supports (aows 10-13):

- No Class 1 piping # Torus ATTAcHtt PIPING To SE.

- Piping external to N Aupp7sp 1AYER and penetrating the torus or the external vents, including the attachment weld to the torus or vent nozzle is Class 2 [3] piping. The other terminal end of such external piping should be determined based on its function and isolation capability.

- Subsection NF [3]

support for such external piping including welded or mechanical attachment to structurer excluding any attachment welds to the piping or other pressure i retaining component are Class 2 [3] supports.

1. Internal piping and V supports (k ws 10-13) - Are Class 2 or Class 3 piping and Class 2 or Class 3 component supports.  !

a. Internal structures V (Row 9) - Non-safety-related elements which are not pressure retaining, exclusive of attachment welds to any pressure retainirig

y.

. .--_ ~ ~

NRC Contract No. NRC 0341 130 f

~

FRC Project N3.C5608 Page i nklin Research C:nter FRC Assignment No.9 A Dneon olN Franklininstuuw 20rh and Race Sweets. Phda.. Pa.19103 (215) 4481000 FRCTask No. 3o9 ,,

Plant Name ata RMI UNIT 2 Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark lContainment Long-Term Program Keyitema Considered Criteria Addtl.

stion Alt rnat poroach In the Audit Not Info. NA Remarks o.[2]

Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vetive vative 2.2 (Cont.)

member (e.g. ,

monorails. ladders, catwalks, and their ,

supports). I

n. Vent deflectors (Row 9) V I

- Vent header flow deflectors and associated hardware (not including attachment welds to Class MC vessels) are internal s tructure s.

3.2 Imad terminology used V should be based on Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the unit or the Ioad Definition Report (IDR) [5]. In case of conflict, the LDR loads l shall be used.

3.3 consideration of all load V SEE l'E W combinations defined in sucT.

2M

A .JioFe3 Section 3 of the IDR [5]

shall be provided. ,,

FENht y 4.3 c. 2 reevaluation for A limits set for design pressure and design

• temperature values is .

needed for present structural elements.

b. Design limit V requirements used for initial construction following normal ,

practice with respect ,

to load definition and j allowable stress shall l be used for systems or

m' G %

-U NRC Contrset No. NRC4341-1D l0ll E.~.:.lin Research Center' . FRC ProjectNo.C5006

~

ADevisenof 7heFrenienInsmuse PRC Assignment No.g Page Shh and Race Sereses. Phile.. Pa.19103 (215)

PRC4481000 Task No. M Plant Name 8254 >g4 UNs? 2 g2

• Table 2-1. Audit Procedure forStructural AcceptanceCelteriao of Mark l Containm .-

Section Keyitems Considered No,[2l Criteria Addtl. A In the Audit roach Not info. NA Remartyi gg gg g ' Conser- Unconser-votive votive

, 4.3 (Cont.)

portions of systems that are replaced and for new systems.

4.4 Service Limits and Design Procedures shall See definition be based on the for Service B&PV Code,Section III, Limits in Division 1 including Section 4 of addenda up to Summer 1977 Beforence 2.

Addenda [3], specifically:

a. Class NC V containment vessels: Article NE-3000 (3]

i

b. Linear-type component (Class 2 and 3) support -

with three i i

modifications to the Codes

- For bolted connections, the 8  ; @ TNERE IS No 3 requirements of ,

DNDetAYsoM 0F j '

Service Limits A ANY BokTE t>

and B shall be doNNECTioN applied to Service Limits C and D

! without increase in the allowables above Qose applicable to Service levels A and B;

- NF-3231.1 (a) i

[3] is for primary @

) plus secondary

) stress ranger l

i .

~

NRC Contract No.NRC 0341-1D L Franklin Research Center FRC Project No.C5506 Page A Division of The Frankhn Inssture FRC Assignment No.9 20th and Race Streets. Phde.. Pa.191031215) 448-1000 FRCTask No. 309 ,I Plant Name P E at M f U N I T 2.

TablJ 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark 1 Containment Long-Term Program Criteria Addtl. Licensee Uses

' Section Keyitems Considered Alternate Approach -

No. [2] in the Audit Not info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vative vative

$ TMggg 1.$ No

- All increases in 8 sspcArsoN CF allowable atross ANY SCLTED permitted by Subsection CoHN EC T ION NF [3] are limited by Appendix XVII-2110(b)

[3] when buckling is a consideration.

1. T'estWS ATTACNED

c. Class 2 and 3 piping, PIPIN (.r To BE pump, valves, and AuDirge LATE R.

internal structures (also Class MC) 5.3 The components, component t I AIR LCAD8NG *N loadings, and service level Tha YoRuS 85 casignments for Class MC NE6LECTEP f

[3] components and internal SINcE ,$ R V A N D Ctructures shall be as Pbet swgLL l defined in Table 5-1 of EvgNTS AM.E  !

Reference 2. AC5sJMED To l Col NC IDE 5.4 The components, component t loadings, and service level I casignments for Class 2 and l Class 3 piping systems I shall be defined in hble i 5-2 of Reference 2.

5.5 he definition of operability is the ability to perform required mechanical motion and functionality is the cbility to pass rated flow.

a. Active components M shall be proven operable. Active components shall be

, considered operable if Service Limits A or B or more conservative limits (if the original design criteria

. required it) are met.

AN ~ NRC Contract No. NRC43 81130 UUUU Franklin Research C:nter FRC ProjectNo. C5506 A Dwson of The Frank!mInmaute FRC Assignment No.9 Page FRC Task No.

20th and Race Streets. Phde.. Pa. 19103 (215l 448 1000 5oq 1 Plant Name FERMI UNIT 2 g4 Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program

~

Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Licensee Uses No,12) Addtl. Alternate Approach In the Audit Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. r- Ummt.

5.5 (Cont.)

I

b. Piping components shall 4 # Torus Arrugsg '

l be Proven functional in PIPING To BE I

a manner consistent AuclTED urgg with the original design criteria.

6.1 Analysis guidelines provided herein shall apply to all structural elements identified in item 1.2 of this table.

gjug Qw

a. All loadings defined in V see subsection 3.2 of setf. ASee' &Section

1. W ".3 33 of.this table.

2 3.c Reference 2 shall be 'F considered.

^"ex"*A D

b. A summary technical M.

report on the analysis shall be subaltted to the NRC.

6.2 The following general guidelines shall be applied to all structural elements i analyzed:

a. Perform analysis V SEE S ECT.

NIE'*Y* W according to guideline l'a orJ. i h'A'0 222 .

defined herein for all CF loads defined in IDR AFPSS (5]. (Fbr loads *'8 A considered in original design, but not redefined by LDR, previous analyses or new analyses may be used.)

ggg

• 1.1 a.C n M4I 'M

b. Only limiting load combination events need y sect.

232 #A eMMW CF be considered. APrm.

Osa A

M%iPTdEaEEE m [dsdf.A2'!ETIM. 2NE 61E2[dk[e3h.-

l j franklin Research Center NRC Contract No. NRC 0181-130 FRC Project No.C5506 PsGe A o we.on of The Frankhn Insenute FRC Assignment No. 9 2th and Race Sesets. Phda.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRC Task No. 309 gI Plant Name PERMi UNIT 2.

1 is 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long Term Program Keyltems Considered Criteria " *** ~

i Addt: *

• l in the Audit Not Info. NA Remarks Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vetive vative 1.is.en4at$ rs.h8*

(Cont. ) SEE S acT.

, gj,p,y

,cg. g;, ysyx

,,3 222 gg

0. Fatigue effects of all A

operational cycles chall be considered. gp g .

gg Arrm V

d. No further evaluation Din A cf structural elements I f:r which combined i offect of loads defined i 13 LDR [5] . produces ctresses less than 104 cf allowable is - .

rcquired. ' Calculations demonstrating -  ;

conformance with the lot rule shall be l provided. '

O. Damping values used in V dynamic analyses shall b3 in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 [6).

's 1 Structural responses for loads resulting from the combin: tion of two dynamic ph nomena shall be obtained

! in the following manner:

/1.5sesaad W&

c. Absolute sua of stress components, or SEE 1 .AP-

,; ,,a; p , I 1

PGNDIA

b. Cumulative distribution A function method if / Sitt,T. / i absolute sua of stress '

221 )

components does not satisfy the acceptance criteria.

'tbru3 cnalysis shall conciot of:

NRC Contract No. NRC 03-41 130 MUUUU Franklin Research Center FRC Project No.C5506 Page FRC Assignment No.9 A Desen of The Frankhninentvie FRC Task No. 304. gg 20th and Race Sesets. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 Plant Name frER Mt UNif 2.

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of MarkiContainment Long-Term Program Licensee Uses Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl. Alternate Approach In the Audit Not Info. NA Remarks -

No. [2]

Met Met Reqd. Conser- votive Unconser-votive 6.4 (Cont. )

y saa

a. Finite element analysis secf:

for hydrodynamic loads 212 (time history analysis) Ano and normal and other 2. l.s loads (static analysis) 97 making up the load ArptH.

combinations shall be DIN-4 performed for the most highly. loaded segmept of the torus, including the shell, ring, girders, and support.

V Lice 44 W ho d

b. Evaluation of overall {EE g7 8

3 7, k odiMg effects of seismic and 2112.I.3 other nonsymmetric sp Ang loads shall be provided Ap . ;.g.4 using beam models (of m er$ CP at least 180* of the A APPW torus including columns -01'A and seismic restraints) A by use of either dynamic load factors or j

time history analysis.

y L.i c t + r**y ' *

c. Provide a non-linear . SEE g g,d,Moy time history analysis, IECI' using a spring mass 2' model of torus and gg support if net tensile Dix A' forces are produced in columns due to upward '

phase of loading.

1. # Tonus Armsp

d. Bijlaard formulas shall be used in analyzing PIPIN 6 To OE each torus nozzle for Auo TIED LAran

,effect of reactions produced by attached piping. If Bijlaard formulas are not

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

g n , _ _ __ __ _ - - - - - - -

NRC Contract N 9..NRC 03 41-130 g(,U Lill '

Fr"nklin Research Center FRC Project No.C5506 Page A Divemon of The Franklin Insmute FRC Assignment No.9 20th and Race 5 reets. Phde.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 FRCTask No. 309 l7 Plant Name setRMI UNIT 2 Table 21. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program ,

Criteria Addtl. Licensee Uses lection Keyitems Considered Alternate Approach -

No.[2] in the Audit '

Not info. NA Remarks

. Met Met Reqd. Conser- Unconser-vative vative

~

6.4 (Cont. )

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

6.5 In analysis of the vent system (including vent penetration in drywell, vent pipes, ring header, ,

downcomers and their intersections, vent column cupports, vent-torus '

bellows, vacuum breaker penetration, and the vent deflectors), the following '

i guidelines shall be frilowed

c. Finite element model V shall represent the most highly loaded portion of ring header shell in the "non-vent" bay with the downcomers i attadted .

b. Finite element analysis V shall be performed te evaluate local effects in the ring header shell and downconer intersections. Use time history analysis for pool swell transient and equivalent static analysis for downconer lateral loads.

i

• I

. . n. - -

NRC Contract NI. NRC 0341-130 00 Fr.nkrin a. .rch Center FRC Project No.C5506 Page A DMsion of The FrankhnInstaute FRC Assignment No.9 20th and Race 5ersets. Phda.. Pa.19103 (215) 4481000 FRC Task No. M lg Plant Name 3rE R.vti U NI 7" 2 Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark IContainment Long Term Program Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Atidtl. Ucensee Uses No. [2] in the Audit Alternate Approach Not info.

Met Met Reqd. Consor. Unconser-6.5 (Cont.)

c. Evaluation of overall effects of seismic and other nonsymmetrical loads shall be provided using beam models (of at least 180* of the vent system including vent pipes, ring header and column supports) by the use of either dynamic load factors or -

time history analysis.

/ VENT bEFLECTOR

d. Use beam models in as INet.uDED IN THE analysis of vent deflectors. ovERALL MODE.2 l

e. Consider appropriate f

superposition of i reactions

• from the vent deflectors and ring 1 headers in evaluating  !

the vent support ,

j I

columns for pool swell. e

j 6.6 a. Analysis of torus /

internals shall include )

the catwalks with )

supports, monorails, and miscellaneous int.ornal piping. )

b. It shall be based on V hand calculations or simple beam models and dynamic load factors and equivalent static analysis.

~

1 9

'~

NRC Contract No.NRC CM1133 FRC Project No. CS5ra < . pag 3 Ed Franklin Research Center A Dvis.on of The Frankhn insenute Ff1C Assignment.No.9 2(kh and Rue Streets. Phde.. Pa. 19103(215) 448 1000 FRCTask No. 309 lq Plant Name FEst*46 MNif 2 Table 21. Audit Procedure for Utructurs! Acceptance Crtteria of Mark 1 Containment Long-Terrn Program

~

Critetta Addtt. Licensee Uses section Keyitems ConaldJred Alternate Approach

~

No.[2] in the Audit Not info. NA Rsmaha .

Met Met Reqd, Conser. Unconser- J vetive vetive I 6.6 (Cont. )

c. It shall conaider h h Mekast 4 h Service Inval D or E .

I '

when specified by the .

structural acceptance IO W 8 *'t f s ,

criteria using a , hem 88N 'd 8

simplified nonlinear het em*;cl e*I-analysis technique te bt s'yodad (e.g. , Bigg 's Ne thod) .

6.7 Analysis of the torus cttached piping shall be performed as follows:  ! '

%TQRUG ATTACHED

c. Designate in the Pi PIN (r To BE summary technical - AuptTED i ATE R report submitted all piping systems as essential or non-essential for each load combination.

b. Analytical model shall

• represent piping and ,

supports from torus to '

first rigid anchor (or where effect of torus ,

motion is insignificant) .

c. 11:e response spectrum M or time history analysis for dynaalc /

effect of torus motion at the attachment point, except for piping systems less than 6" in diameter, for which equivalent static analysis (using appropriate amplification fpetor) may be performed.

o

._ . _ _ _= . . . _ _ - - - .-

1 .' .. . , . . . . . . ....-...../

+

, yb NRC Contract No.NRC 03 41-130 u JUU Franklin Research Center FRC Project No.C8800 Page A DMoon of The Frankhn inseaute FRC Assignment No.9 20ih and Race Sareets. Phde.. Pa.19103 (21514481000 FRCTask No. 309 g 1 --- PlantName FE'R*41 UNIT 2.

Table 2-1. Audit Procedure for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark 1 Containment Long-Term Program Section Keyitems Considered Criteria Addtl. Agg No. [2] in the Audit Not info. NA Remarks -

ge ug g, Conser- unconser-

, votin votin I. >

ti.7 (Cont.) b

, gg we,,,,

d. Effect of anchor PlPING TC 8E f displacement due to Auoergo LATER. l

• torus motion may be i neglected from Bguation '

! 9 of NC or ND-3652.2 [3]

P .if considered in Equations 10 and 11 of 4

NC or ND-365 2.3 [3 ] .

6.8 Safety relief valve discharge piping shall be .

analysed as follows:

a. Analyse each discharge / 6EE U L***** Y line. sect. d M. .N 2 Z.l teame, hr de**ES i b. Model shall represent To 8k Md8*a 2 2 1, piping and supports, z.2 6 2 2 6 23 +2' 0 l from nossle at main Amp W 2 31  ;

l.

steam line to discharge in suppression pool, 231 Lia  % MO g ,- o g-and include discharge .

- device and its supports. #[g g' ' #f SRY bi b' 'h'I

.,' s.&hf.u.L o y i

Q'd i:. NRC

c. For discharge thrust ,

loads, use time history analysis.

gggA Generic Abp"O

d. Use spectrum analysis / '

j or dynamic load factors {

j for other dynamic loads. j

.i k

i l

vi f

4

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

- , - - 'E se .

NRC Contract No.NRC 43 41130 l Page g,

.du FranklinResearchCenter FRC Project No.C8000 FRC Assignment No.9 Aommen elThe Frenh6=Insense shh and Race so.eu. Phas.. Pe.19103 (21544a.noco FRC M No. M y Plant Name FENI UNIT 2 Table H. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Mark l Containment Long-Term Program i -

R ejl m a t. Anair.is R=*emen=

t ,

StructuralElement .-.  % Remarks di111Idll1110 V V I

s. Torus shell with associated y V' V V I penetrations, reinforcing rA,wJ,

,,, ggg,.J[

g g,g

fe , les J. con di d ie m i

cttachments y / / V / / 16A E W IBA E V

b. Torus shell supports to qW e*% T d lL.

tho building structure y / / Z-2 2-12 [7]

s. Vents between the drywell 2 cad the vent ring header 2..[Adudsiw&Sh.i

! \ A me n d LA. / i (including penetrations y ggg.,y  !

V / V y / DBAE -fe% 3

d. Region of drywell local to d TMla, vent penetrations

/l l W 2-2 2-12.[7J V / V

e. Bellows tK. tween vents and torus shell (internal or caternal to torus) y y/ / / / 3 3.fA A d 4 =ss- e.q V

f. Vent ring header and the

[Il* WA j j y / for D O A I

g. Vent ring header suppo::ts 6 to the torus shell O'M 3*

T41A. 2 *2 8 I*02(7.)

h. Vacuum treaker valves 4 M y de n *

• e-cttached to vent penetra-tions within the torus

(::hore applicable)

1. Vacuum breaker piping. M M + * * * * * **"# ^#

tystems, including vacuum P8P8N

• 76 M br:aker valves attached Assoirgo LATER.

t to torus shell penetrations and to vent penetrations caternal to the torus .

(where applicable)

j. .iping P systers, including 4 M' * * *

• 4

• pWEps and valves internal to the torus, attched to th3 torus shell ec.0/or weat penetrations

. , ._ _ _ _ a --_a v

NRC Contract No. NRC 03 41-130 Ps0#

O FRC Project No.CSIOS FRC Assignment No.9 UUUU Fr:r.klin Research Center U A Dwoon of The Frenneninsm* FRCTaskNo. 304 3hh and Race Seese. PNia.. Ps.19103 (21N 448-1000Plant Name Pr p,gH j WIT 2 Table M. Audit Summary for Structural Acceptance Criteria of Marki Containment Long-Term Program Analysis Requirements ,

INnts I! 1 Remarks StructuralElement dl ! 11IJ!!L!!101 t.

All main steam system safety / V V V h# @ 85#hms 8' 85-denuic 4))veA1 l

rolief valve (SRV) piping te b e Q ,w w e.(,

by & Ng.c .

L. Applicable portions of the

• following piping systems:

, 4 + * .m *

(1) Active containment , #

system piping systems (e.g. , emergency core cooling . system (BCCS) suction piping and other piping required ^

to maintain core cooling after lossef-coolant accident (IDCA))

Piping systems which

• dr *

(2) provide a dryttell-to-wetwell pressure dif-forential (to alleviate pool swell effects)

• - *-

• s5 14 (3) other piping systems, i including vent drains

+ + * *' *

.w-

• 4 l a. Supports of piping systems mentioned in previous ites -

/ vV VW

n. Vent header deflectors / V V including associated hardware IAd"M 4hti V V V V /

,g D. Internal structural y 4 g clements (e.g., sonorails, catwalks, their supports) chose failure might impair Mr MM v aki d h.a yer the containment function Gr DBA75

4' A i~

1 ,

• T&& -2 '?- 2 h[7]

2- - - > -

'T .

TER-C5506-309 Table 2-3. Non-Piping Structural Elements STRUCTURAL EIJIMENT ROW ,

External Class MC

^

Torus, Bellows, 1

,_ External Vent Pipe, Drywell (at Vent),

Attachment Welds, Torus Supports, Seismic Restraints Internals Vent Pipe General and 2 Attachment Welds At Penetiation '

3 (e.g., Header)

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

Downconers General and 6 Attachmen*. Welds i Internals supports 't Internals Structures General 8 Vent Deflector 9

- M __ -__-- . - . . . . . . . _ _ _ . .-. _

O 7, - -

- _ . s__ _ 1 - _ _ _ _ _-- :-

' 1]

TER-C550 6-309 Table 2-4. Piping Structural Elements

~

STRUCTU R L ELIMENT ,

RDW Essential Piping Systems With IR/D n 10 With SR 11 Nonessential Piping Systems With IaA/o u -

12 With S R ,

13 O

e e

O e

S nklin Research Center ___, __ . _ _ .._.__ _____ _.. ___.______.___ ~ _ _ , . - . , - . _ . . - - - , - - - _ - _ - .

3- _

u . ._. . __

r l TER-C5506-309

[

f 2. AUDIT FINDINGS h A detailed presentation of the audit for Fermi Unit 2 and a summary are f provided, respectively, in Tab 3es 2-1 and 2-2, which contain information with ..

[ regard to several key items outlined in the audit procedur's (8]. The following Factions indicate the areas that required justification for _

i noncompliance with the criteria and/or additional information necessary to ' -

t

( indicate if the criteria are met. The Licensee was required to provide l information required in the questions for each of the items. Based on the

Licensee's responses, it is concluded that the Licensee's analysis conforms to the requirements of the criteria with regard to the key items audited except -

for fatigue analysis of SRV piping where the generic approach used by the f t

! Licensee is satisfactory subject to the NBC approval. ..

7 i 2.1 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER -

[ 2.1.1 The PDA report [7] does not indicate compliance with the criteria requirement that a beam model representing at least 180* of the torus, -

! columns, and seismic restraints should be analyzed to consider the k effect of seismic and other lateral loads. (The Licensee's response j has resolved this concern.)

2.1.2 P' roper justification is not provided'to indicate the applicability of

[ test results based on which only 20% of the total mass of water is s E assumed to contribute to lateral seienic loads in the suppression g chas.ber. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

i

2.1.3 Proper justification is not provided for the modal correction factors

[ given in Sections 1-4.2.3 and 2-2.4.1 of the PUA report (7] which are f used to convert forced vibration response to free vibration response.

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

2.1.4 In the analysis for the suppression chamber support columns, the effect

! of bending moments has not been included, and there is no indication of l any interaction formula used. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

o

[ 2.1.5 Although net tensile forces are indicated in the columns (Table 2-2.5-2 i of Deference 7), there is no indication that the Licensee performed a nonlinear time history analysis as required by the criteria. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

h [ 00011 Franirlin Rmenrch Center

_ _: m. -

_m_r1 l

L TER-C5506-309  !

2.1.6 The PGA report [7]. indicates on page 2-2-94 that the allowable stresses in the suppression chenber components and the vertical support system are based on a'173*F temperature as compared to 100*F temperature for _

'the vertical support system baseplate. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

2.2 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE (SRV) PIPING ANALYSIS -

2.2.1 Section 5-2.2.3 of the PDA report [7] indicates that the peak responses resulting from safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and IACA loads are combined using the square root of a sum of the squares (SRSS) technique, which does not conform to the criteria requirement that the responses should be combined using the absolute sum method or the cumulative distribution function method. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

2.2.2 The fatigue evaluation given in Section 5-2.4.3 of the PDA report [7] is based.on Mark 1's fatigue equation, which is less conservative than the fatigue curve given in' Figure XIV-1221.3(c)-1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code (Section III Division I, Appendix IIV [3]) l for the range of cycles less than 2 x 10g . (This concern is resolved subject to t.he NEC approval of the generic app:oach.)

2.2.3 The PDA report [7] indicates (page 5-2.103) that the alternating stress due to dynamic loads is combined with stresses due to dead weight thermal loads and pressure loads using an equation similar to equation 11 of ASIS B&PV Code,Section III, Subsection NC [3]. The actual method of combining the stresses is not indicated. (This concern is resolved subject to the NBC approval of the generic approach.)

2.2.4 The PUA report [7] provided the maximum stress cycle factors (R) used for the SRV piping under different loads without.[ explaining how these factors were obtained. (This concern is resolved subject to the NBC _

approval of the generic approach.)

2.2.5 The PGA report [7] does not provide the values for the dynamic load factors used in calculating the SRV discharge loads shown in Tables 5-3.2-1 to 5-3.2-3. (The Licensea's response has resolved this concern.)

2.2.6 The PGA report [7] does not indicate the results of analysis of bolted or welded connectirens associated with the SRV piping. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

2.3 GENERAL

2. 3. l' The PGA report [7] indicates that additional fluid masses are lumped along the length of the ring beam and quencher beam (page 2-2.103) and a - --

-2s-

TER-C5506-309 submergsd lengths of the SRV piping, T-quencher, and supports (page 5-3.49) without providing the details of or justification for the method of lumping the mass of fluid. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.) ,

2.3.2 Table 1-4.3-1 of the PDA report 17] indicates that several loads required to be considered by WUREG-0661 [1] are not included in the analysis as shown in Table 1. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.)

2.3.3 Section 4-2.5 of the PGA report [7] dealing with internal structures does not present all the information necessary to demonstrate code compliance. In particular, it is not clear that weld stresses at the points of attachment of major components to the torus shell were investigated according to code requirements. (The Licensee's response has resolved this concern.) ,

2.'3.4 Tables 2-2.5-3 and 2-2.5-7 cf the PGA report [7] indicate that calculated stresses are very close to the allowables with regard to the torus shell. Similarly, Table 3-2.5-6 of the PDA report indicates that the calculated stresses in tne weld are very close to the allowables, and Table 4-2.5-1 indicates that calculated stresses for the. catwalk vertical hanger support are very close to the allcwables. Although this does not signify'any deviation from the criteria [2], this discussion is included as a matter of precaution.

k g i b.II

. ~.. .:.:.:.. ... . . . . .

e . s_. .

l TER-C5506-309

3. EEFERENCES

1. NUREG-0661 .

" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program ,

't mesolution of Generic hchnical Activity A-7"

-Office of Nuclear anactor Regulation USNBC July 1980

2. NEDO-24583-1

" Nark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" General Electric.Co. , San Jose, CA October 1979

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

" Nuclear Power Plant Components" New York: 1977 Edition and Addenda up to Susmer 1977 .

4. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

5. NEDO-21888 movision 2

" Mark I Containment Program Load De'finition Report" General Electric Co., San Jose,' CA ,

November 1981

6. NBC *

"Daging Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants" October 1973 Regulatory Guide 1.61 i

7 .~ Enrico Perni Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report, Volumes 1-5 Prepared by MUTECE Engineers, Inc.

April 1982

8. Technical Evaluation Report Audit Procedure for Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Structural Analysis Franklin Research Center, Philadelphia, PA June 1982, TER-C5506-308 - I I

l 4 ,ww-w ,--w,,, -w.,.,

. ~.. . . .;..:..... r ..... .

,,-- o

a. :n . .w w . %. .

TER-C5506-309

3. REFERENCES i

1. NUREG-0661

" Safety Evaluation Report, Mark I Containment Long-Term Program .

Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-7" Office of Nuclear Beactor Regulation USNBC July 1980

2. NEDO-24583-1

" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" General Electric Co. , San Jose, CA October 1979

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

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

4. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regclations

5. NEDO-21888 Revision 2

" Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" General Electric Co., San Jose, CA November 1981

6. NBC *

"Daqing Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants" October 1973 '

Regulatory Guide 1.61 i

7.' Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report, Volumes 1-5 Prepared by NUTECE Engineers, Inc.

April 1982

8. Technical Evaluation Report Audit Procedure for Mark I Containment Long-Term Program Structural Analysis Pranklin Research Center, Philadelphia, PA 1 i

June 1982, TER-C5506-308 4 -2 8- i