ML17258A407

Forwards Draft Evaluation of SEP Topic III-7.A Re Inservice Insp Including Prestressed Concrete Containments W/Either Grouted or Ungrouted Tendons

ML17258A407
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	12/28/1981
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
References
TASK-03-07.A, TASK-3-7.A, TASK-RR LSO5-81-12-082, LSO5-81-12-82, NUDOCS 8112310394
Download: ML17258A407 (21)

Text

1

à DI'STRIBUTIOH >CODE: 'SEQQS ICQPIES IRECEIVED:L'TIR.

'ENCL t+

eSIZEe,

~

l,.i7 TITLE: SEP Dist (DrafIt or.Final SER)

NQTES:l copy SEP 'Sect.

Ldr.

p~~

pL o iCOPIES LllTR ENCL 1

1 1

1 05000240 RECI'PIENT ID;,CODE/NARE ORB N5 BC,

'SNAIDER pR ~

iCOP IES

.LT~TR AENCL 1

1 1

RECIPIENT ID,CODE/NA'E ACTION:

AD/SA

.ORB 05 LA e

REGULATOR INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION'TEM. (RIDS)

'AOCBSSION NBR 6112310394

.DQO ~ DATE'1/12/28 NOTARI'ZED; NO, DOCKE'T pAOTL:.50 '200!Robent Emmet tstnna Nuclear plant, UnkIt tz tRocneeter

'0 05000200 "AUTH~ NAME AUTHOR "AFFILIATION

'ORUTCHF IELD E D ~

Operating Reactors Branch,',5

~RBCIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFIL'IATION MAIERgJ ~-5 ~

>Rochester Gas 8 >Electric Cor p>

SUBJEOT: 'Forwards draft evaluation of "SEP ",Tapic III 7,A re 'inservice

,includirig lpnestressed "conc'rete containmeqt w/eilther gr outed or ungr outed, tendons,'INTERNAL:

AEOD IE NRR/DL DEIPY NRR/DL/ADL NRR/DL/SEPB

'SL NRR9/DL/SEPB lRF EXTEIRHALe ACRS DIST EX(2/00)

NRC ~PDR NTI'S 1

1 r3 53 1

1 1

1 2

'2 1

1 10 10 11 11 1

1

'ELD NRR )CNALINA NRR/DL DIR NRR/DL/SBPB PB PF REG FI DIST EX(2/ '

LPDR NSIC 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 25

'25 1

1 1

1 NH oy

~982, ITOTAL NUMBER,OF ~COPIES REQUIRED; UTTR P

ENCL

I

)

~

')

8 ~

II Il a

l I

)

)

II I $

0 j

I'1 I'

I e

~ j'"'<$

ij ' I, jI jf+If If II j If )

'f, 1

')

f q'<$ q If I

)

ee I

If Il j

~ awe II

~

s December 28, 1981 Docket No. 50-244 LS05 12-082 Mr. John E. Maier Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corp.

89 East Avenue Rochester, Ney York 14649

SUBJECT:

SYSTEtIATIC EVALUATION PROGRN TOPIC III-7.A, INSERVICE INSPECTION INCLUDING PRESTRESSED CONCRETE CONTAINHENTS IlITH EITHER GROUTED OR UNGROUTED TENDONS - R.

E ~ GINNA RQQQ@@

~~881>

8 g

Cg@g~~~

Enclosed is a cop/ of our draft evaluation of Systematic Evaluation Program Topic III 7.A.

The evaluation identifies deficiencies in the technical specifications which currently govern the tendon surveillance program at R. E. Ginna.

You are requested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based its evaluation and respond either by confirming that the facts are correct, or by identifying errors and supplying the corrected information.

We encourage you to supply any other material that might affect the staff's evaluation of these topics or be significant in the integrated assessment of your facility.

Your response is requested within 30 days of'eceipt of this letter. If no response is received within that time, we will assume that you have no corn<<

ments or corrections.

Sincer ely, 8ii23i0394 Bii228

)

PDR ADOCK 05000244, PDR Dennis H. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.

5

$44+

Division of Licensing

~yg ni"*'3

<(og)

Enclosure:

As. stated cc w/enclosure:

SEPB:DL S

Kgerring F

a 14(It0/81 er

/81 OFFICE/

SURNAME/

DATE Is ee nex p

NRC FOAM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 SEPB DPerssiiko:

)0 /~/81

~ ~

~ ~ ~ 0 ~\\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~

LI.

SEPB RHei mann u/@/81 Q

PB WRussel f qf /i2'81 ORB¹

~

~

~

~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0

~ 0 ~ 0 ~I ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ Oases

g. /V/81 OFFICIAL R ECOR D COPY 0

¹5 DCru tchfiel d

DL

~\\ ~

~otse G

)nas

/w~P81,

~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ I~ ~ ~\\ ~ ~ ~I~ 0 ~ I~\\

~ (v/

%ooooaes ooos ~ eooeo ~ soo LISOPO: ISS1~~960

v

>>EC>> ~t':

E M ~

4>>a I,

r

~

l e

~

'e

~

~

~ ~

I' h.

a*

=

aC r

~ 'roll p

a l

t ~

\\

4" ~

a v

I a

~ <<Ev afl

~ C.

ee a ~

r Er E 4

~

I

~

e

~ Ee a

4 a l i<<E 4 a'I E a ~ ","

~ tQ I t a

v

~ e

~tet

~P'<~

-va 4

4

'..'E

~

.~

a>>

P I" 0<<

a v-., 4 e

4

~

E>>

~ a 4

a I

I a

l

~ r f

a e

h l

4Q

~.E

't4 >>AC>>

a

)t.3>>a,

~

st

<<CI t, II

~ ~

>>El

~p,8 REqy cs 4

.~o 0

C O

IOl (4

++**+

~

'NITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 December 28, 1981 Docket No..50-244

'LS05-81-12-082 Mr. John E. Maier Vice Pr esident Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corp.

89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

Dear Mr. Maier:

/

SUBJECT'YSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC III 7. As 'INSERVXCE INSPECTION INCLUDING PRESTRESSED CONCRETE CONTAINMEKPj-WITH EITHER GROUTED OR UNGROUTED TENDONS - R. E. GINNA Enclosed is a copy of our draft evaluation of Systematic Eva1uation Program Topic III-7.A.

The evaluation identifies deficiencies in.the technical specifications which currently govern the tendon surveillance program at R. E. Ginna.

You are requested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based its evaluation and respond either by confirming that the facts are correct, or

'by identifying errors and supplying the corr'ected information.

We encourage you to supply any other material that might affect the staff's eva1uation of these topics or be significant in the integrated assessment of your facility.

Your response is requested within 30 days of receipt of this 1etter.. If.no response is received within that time, we will assume that you have no com-ments or corrections.

Sincerely, En'closure:

As stated

~

~

~

~

~

~

ennis M, Crutchfie1d, Chief Operating.Reactor's Branch No.

Division of Licensing cc w/enclosure:

See next page

Mr. John E. Maier CC Harry H. Voigt, Esquire

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. M.

Suite 1100 Washington, D. C.

20036 Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World'Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Jeffrey Cohen New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1, Second Floor Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Director, Bureau of Nuclear Operations State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of.the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road Mest

Ontario, New York 14519 Resident Inspector R.'E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S.

NRC

.1503 Lake Road

Ontario, New York 14519 Mr. Thomas B. Cochran Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

1725 I Street, N. M.

Suite 600

. Mashington, D. C.

20006 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:

EIS COORDINATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. Richard F-Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D. C.

20555

R.E.

GINNA SYSTENATIC EVALUATION PROGRAN BRANCH TOPIC III-7.A TOPIC III-7.A INSERVICE INSPECTION INCLUDING PRESTRESSED CQNCRETE CONTAINHENTS WITH EITHER GROUTED OR UNGROUTED TENDONS I.

Introduction This topic reviews the inservice inspection"program of'11 Category I structures including steel, reinforced concrete and prestr essed concr ete containments.

The objective is to assure that the licensees inspection program will detect any structurally 'significant deterioration of Category I structures in order that the str uctures will be capable of performing their necessary functions.

II.

Review Criteria Review criteria for this topic is Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 2, "Inservice Inspection of Ungrouted Tendons in Prestressed Concrete Con-tainment Structures,"

as interpreted in the Standard Technica1 Specifica-tions dated August 15, 1979.

Also, ISI requirements are described in CFR, Part 50, Appendix J, Part 'V.A.

III. Related Safet

'To ics 1.

Topic III-7.C, "Delamination of Prestressed Concrete Containment Structures."

2.

Topic III-7.D, "Containment Structural Integrity.Vest."

IV.

Review Guidelines J

With the exception of containment, there currently exists no detailed inservice inspection

{ISI) requirements for safety-related structures.

CFR, Part 50, Appendix J,Section V.A, requires a general inspection of accessible interior and exterior surfaces of containment structures for any structural deterioration prior to performing Type A leak tests.

No other guidelines are given.

CFR, Part 50, Appendix J is currently being rewritten in TAP A-23 to clarify ISI requirements.

ASNE,Section XI is currently considering ISI requirements for steel and concrete containments.

The extent to which this section of the code wi11 be implemented on existing nuclear power plants will be determined when the code is issued and receives NRC endorsement, Therefore, the only-applicable portion of this topic is that part dealing with ISI require-ments of tendons in prestressed concrete contaireents with current criteria defined. in Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 2.

Since there has been much discussion and interpretation regarding Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 2 by licensees'nd architect-P engineers, the NRC has recently contracted with Oak. Ridge National Lab-

. oratory (ORNL) to conduct a study and make recommendations con'cerning ISI requirements for prestressed containments.

The purpose is to use ORNLs results to assist the NRC in issuing a revised Regulatory Guide./

,1.35.

The ORNL report is expected to be completed by the end of 1981 and the revised Regulatory Guide 1.35 is expected to be issued by mid to late 1982.

Implementation of the revised Regulatory Guide 1.35 on existing plants will'be determined after the revised guide is issued.

3, V.

Evaluation A.

Background

The containment at Ginna incorporates unique design features.

It relies on prestressed, grouted rock anchors at the base to resist pressure and sei.smic loads.

The grouted rock anchors are attached to vertical, un-grouted tendons in the walls.

The containment only contains vertical prestressing tendons located in the sidewalls; a tota'I of 160 tendons, Only two of the rock anchor couplings are accessible and both are locat-ed in high radiation areas.

There is presently no NRC criteria governing the design and inspection of rock anchors;

however, Regulatory Guide 1.90 describes ISI requirements for grouted tendons.

Although Regulatory Guide 1.90 is not intended to govern the ISI of rock anchors, similarities between the grouted pre-stressed rock anchors and grouted tendons exist and it is presently the only criteria which could possibly be used as guidance to define 1SI requirements for rock anchors.

Regulatory Guide 1.35 describes ISI requirements for ungrouted tendons and governs the ISI of the wall tendons.

'egulatory Guide 1.90 states that the major concern in containments with.

1 grouted tendons is possible corrosion of the tendon steel and that this

. may remain undetected.

Regulatory Guide 1.90 requires a) force monitoring of ungrouted test tendons',

b) monitoring performance oV grouted tendons, and c) visual examination of the structure.

To monitor the performance of grouted tendons, two alternatives are given.

One alternative is to mon-:

h 0

itor prestress loss by instrumenting the wires and sections of the structure.

The other alternative is to monitor deformation of the structure during pressure testing.

At Ginna, the main function of the rock anchors is to act as an anchor point to maintain prestress in the ungrounted tendons.

Regulatory Guide 1.35 requires lift-offtesting of the tendons, visual inspection of critical areas of the structure and wire mechanical tests and inspection.

Should there be unusual relaxation in the rock anchors, this would be detected during lift-offtesting since, when performing the lift-off

,tests,

~ the entire tendon-rock anchor system is being tested.

The containment design is based on an average tendon prestress of 636,

.6 x the guaranteed ultimate tensile strength (GUTS) of the tendons.

During installation, the rock anchors were stressed to.8 GUTS and locked" off at.7 GUTS, resulting in a 14% overstress.

At a meeting held on February 19, 1981 attended by members of the NRC staff, licensee's staff and their consultants to discuss the tendon relaxation at Ginna, calculations were presented giving tendon force, and hence the applied load to the rock anchors, for the design loading combinations.

These calculations were based on, an initial tendon force of 636.

The maximum k

calculated tendon force for the factored load combinations is 660 /tendon.

This results in the rock anchors having been proof-tested at time of installation to a load 28K greater than those obtained from the factored load combinations when the tendon force is 636.

This factor is reduced to llà immediately. after lock-off when the tendon force is.7 GUTS (742 ).

k Also, the licensee has stated that in June

1980, 137 of the 160 tendons o

I r

E

~,,

-f were retensioned to between

.7 to.735 GUTS and were overstressed to 1.06 of this lock-off value.

This results in the tendons heing stressed to-.

19< greater than the loads calculated using factored load combinations

'k

~

'ased on an initial tendon force of 636; Doing the same calculations based on an initial tendon force of.7 GUTS

{immediately after-lock-a 1

off) results in the rock anchors having been proof tested during the 1980 retensioning to a load 3X greater than those calculated for the factored load equations.

In addition to actual rock anchor overstressing,

.three tests were performed on scaled-down rock anchors installed in the vicinity of the Ginna containment to demonstrate grout bond.

Results of the bond tests indicated a minimum factor of safety against slip of 1.8.

After slip occurred, the rock anchor resisted additional load up to 2.6 x the design load in two of the three tests.

In one of the tests, jacking was stopped at 2.08 x the design load to avoid damage to the jack due to excessive slippage.

The minimum bond stresses at slippage in the tests were 250 psi at the rock-grout interface and 130 psi at the wire-grout interface.

The maximum bond stresses experienced by the actual rock anchors in the field occurred shortly after. initial tensioning

{.8 GUTS), resulting in a 171 psi rock-grout stress and 45 psi >sire-grout stress.

Comparing these'st< esses to.the minimum scale test slip stt'esses results in factors of safety against. slip of 1.5 for the rock-grout and 2.9 for the wire-grout.

At tendon f'orces corresponding to factored load conditions, these factors of'afety become 1.6 and

3. 0'when initial tendon force is.735 GUTS (maximum June 1980 reten-sioning value) and 1. 9 and 3.7 when initial tendon force is

. 6 GUTS.

At tendon'ultimate (GUTS), these factors of safety become 1.2 and 2.3.

-r

~

The above indicates i.hat the rock anchors have.margin'to..resist load beyond those calculated using the factored load combinations. 'It also implies that the tendon will fail before the rock anchor,......

The technical specifications at Ginna require a 6.X overstress above liftoffto be performed on all 14 surveillance tendons.

This would verify the ability of the tendons and rock anchors to resist the f'actored loads calculatd to occur during an accident and/or seismic.event since

~ the 6X overstress would induce higher loads than those calculated.

Therefore, Ginna's ISI will be governed by Regulatory Guide 1.35 since the liftofftests would satisfy the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.90 for monitoring the performance of grouted tendons, in this case the-rock anchors.

The resv1ts of the 1977 tests at Ginna indicated a relaxation substantially in excess of those predicted.

Further testing was perf'ormed in 1979 P

~

indicating the same.

As stated above, to obtain the required pr estress, in June

1980, 137 of the 160 tendons wer e retensioned between

.7. and &35.Qf the guaranteed ultimate.,tensile stress (GUTS) which is the original prestress-ing force.

7

'I

\\

This forms a new time zero and ISI was to be conducted at 1, 3, 5 years and every 5 years thereafter, as Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 2 requires.

As a result of the unusual relaxation, RGE is currently, performing tests on tendon wires at Lehigh University to better under-stand the cause of this abnormality.

Results should he available in January 1982.

Currently., there are continuous reading load cells on four tendons as part of the augmented ISI program at Ginna.

The following time frame is applicabl.e to the containment at Ginna:

Prestressing of rock anchors Prestressing of Tendons Structural Integrity Test 6 month ISI 1 year ISI 3 year ISI 8 year ISI

'0 year ISI Retensioning of all tendons

-.New time zero New.l

~.year ISI Fall 1966 March-April 3969 April.1969 October 1969 May 1970 May 1972 June 1977 October 1979 June 1980 July 1981 B.

Current Criteria IJ For the'1, 3,'nd 5 gear inspect>one, current criteria requires the'.

tnspectlon and liftofftesting of 5 vertical tendons randomly and e epr esentattvely distt zbuted,

0 If these'esults inlicate no problems'n the tendons, sample size

=

for the ten year and subsequent inspections is decreased to three vertical tendons.

Visual inspection of tendon anchorage assembly hardware and surrounding concrete is required.

The concrete around the anchorage should be checked during the integrated leak test while the containmeht is at maximum pressure.

Liftofftesting requires measurement of jacking force and elongation and comparison of these to predetermined allowables, Tendon detensioning is required to identify broken or dam'aged wires,

'One wire'from one tendon should be removed for examination for corro-.-

sion and tensile testing.

'Three tensile tests are required for each wire.

Sheathing filler grease must be inspected for grease coverage of the anchorage

system, influence of temperature variations, voids in the trumpet, and requirements imposed by grease specifications, Acceptance criteria are that the prestress force for, each tendon should be "within the limits predicted for the time of the test".

There should be no more than one tendon value outside of these 1imits.

If a

tendon is found outside these limits, one 'tendon on each side should be tested.

If both of these are found acceptable, the low reading 'tendon is considered un'ique and not indicative of a problem; however, if either of these adjacent tendons also reads low or more

~ than one tendon in the entire group of similar (dome, hoop, vertical) tendons reads below set limits, it is considered unacceptable.

All tensil'e test values should'be greater than or equal to the guaranteed ultimate strength of the material..

C.

Testing Requirements at Ginna h

According to Ginna's current technical specifications, 14 tendons. are to -be inspected for broken wires and lift-off,tested.

The inspection intervals are at six months, one year, three years, eight years, and every five years thereafter.

Acceptance criteria are that no more than 38 wires are broken in 14 tendons nor more than six wires in any one tendon.

Should more than 38 wires be broken, all tendons shall be inspected.

If six broken wires are found ia one tendon, four.immediately adjacent tendons shall be inspected There shall be no more than. four broken wires in any of the four tendons.

Accept-ance criteria for the lift-offtests is that the average stress of the 4

14 tendons'hall be greater than.60 of the ultimate stress.

D.

Discussion The tendon surveillance program now in effect at Ginna has deviations I

from Regulatory Guide. 1.35, Revision 2; some of which are unacceptable and discussed below.

For all lift-offtests, acceptable lift-off'test limits were the minimum E

effective design prestress

(.6 GUTS) as the lower limit and no upper limit.

An upper limit is required as it is an indication of an abnor-mality if tendon prestress force is measured too high and also some concrete degradation may occur if tendon prestress is too high.

The 1

lower limit is the force relied on to resist design loads.

e Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 3 and 1.35.1 were issued for comment to clarify the intent of the present Regulatory Guide 1.35.

The intent of Regulatory Guide, Revision 2 is that the limits for each tendon vary with time so that one can identify trends in the rate of prestress loss.

Measured tendon forces for each tendon should be within these limits and not average tendon force.

The objective is to track prestress loss with time so that rates of pre-stress

=loss can be determined and compared to those assumed in design, thus identifying potential problems before they actually occur.

I For Ginna, the number of.tendons to. be tested for lift-offexceeds cur-rent criteria by two to three times.

The test fr'equency at Ginna, although listed in the technical specifications as every 1, 3, 8 years and every 5 years thereafter, has been changed in subsequent correspond-ence to agree with current criteria.

The retensioning establishes time zero and inspections will occur every 1, 3, 5 years and 5 years there-after.

The program at Ginna only addresses wire breakage and lift-off testing and does not address other aspects that are 1isted in Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 2.

The acceptable lift-offrequirement does not meet current criteria because the existing technica1 specifications at Ginna require that the average of the 14 tendon stresses be greater-than a value which remains constant and does not vary with time.

Cur-rent criteria requires that each tendon fall within acceptance limits that vary with time and that the lower bound of the acceptance limits falls above the minimum effective design prestress at 40 years, after correcting for initial losses.

'I.

Conclusions There are some deviations in the technical specifications which govern the tendon surveillance program in effect at Ginna.

The following con-clusions are applicable to Ginna upon the completion of any augmented ISI programs -in effect because of the accelerated stress relaxation problem.

At Ginna, two to three times as many tendons are tested than required by Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 2; however, Regulatory Guide 1.35 does not address rock anchors and one of the items being tested during a

-lift-offtest is the ability of the rock anchor to resist pullout.

Criteria governing the number of rock anchors to be tested does not exist, although Regulatory Guide 1.90 requires, as one alternative, pre-stress monitoring of three vertical tendons.

Since.a substantially greater number of tendons are tested than required by either Regulatory Guide 1.35

-" or 1.90, it is judged that testing 14 tendons at Ginna will be adequate to detect any defects in the rock anchors.

By testing two to three times as many tendons as required by Regulatory Guide l. 35, more.credence is given to the use of an average value.

How-

ever, in.addition to requiring the average to be above the minimum average design prestress level, acceptance limits which var> with time should be established for each tendon.

To assure that each tendon is tracking with time as predicted, aii tenaon lift-offforces should be compared to the time dependent acceptance limits predicted for those tendons.-

4 Because the tendons at Ginna have been retensioned, it is not possible to establish these limits presently, because the behavior of retensioned n

wires is unknown.

The licensee has indicated that one of the results expected from the Lehigh tests currently being performed is the behavior of retensioned wires.

Therefore, the acceptance bands for each tendon should be established shortly after analyzing the Lehigh test results.

Those tendons not meeting the acceptance criteria should be handled as described in Section 7 of Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 2.

The results should be measured as tendon force not wire stress although should wire breakage occur, wire stress must remain below acceptable limits during

'retensioning.

The technical specifications at Ginna do not include the additional consid-erations of. Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 2 and these considerations as described below should be implemented during future tendon surveillances.

Although not in Ginna s technical specif'ications, visual inspection of tendon anchorage assembly hardware was conducted during this last in-spection.

It should be performed during all future inspections.

Concrete surrounding the end anchorage of prestressing tendons lift-off tested dur ing the previous tendon inspections should be visually inspect-ed during the integrated.leak rate tests while the containment is at maximum test pressure.

The surrounding concrete should be viewed for any unusual cracking.

Cracks larger than

.01 inch as described in ASME Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC-6000 should be noted and evaluated.

Any changes should 'be noted and evaluated during subsequent inspections.

Since only two rock anchor-tendon couplings are accessible, it is only

..possible to detension and remove previously stressed wires from these two tendons to inspect for corrosion and perform mechanical tests.

These two couplings are located in high radiation areas.

However, the Ginna

.containment does contain 40 tendons with one surveillance wire per tendon that is not stressed, but is exposed to the same atmosphere as the other tendons.

Inspections and mechanical tests should be performed on one of these wires per inspection as described in Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 2, Section 5 with the corresponding acceptance criteria described in Section 7.

Although testing and inspecting these non-stressed wires would not exactly duplicate testing and.inspecting stressed wires, it would give indications of possible deleterious effects of the stressed wires.. Also, additional margin exists at Ginna regarding material acceptability because 14 tendons are being tested and because of the wire breakage requirement described below.

Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 2, does not give specific criteria re-garding wire breakage; however, it states that identification of broken wires in a tendon is required.

At Ginna, there has been no wire breakage and therefore, if wire breakage'were to occur now, it may be indicative of an abnormality.

In future tests, any wire breakage noted should be included in the inspection report with reasons for the occurrences, Inspection of the filler grease should be performed during future inspec tions as described in Section 6 of the same Regulatory Guide, After each inspection, a report should be submitted to the NRC descri,bing the results of the inspection.

In the report, lift-offtest results and their corresponding acceptance l.imits should be shown,

The Technical Specifications at Ginna should be changed to the current Standard Technical Specifications modified to agree with this SER where differences from the Standard Technical Specifica-tions are relied upon.

~ I

~

m,4 1a.~~a 4

1