ML18047A490

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Proposed Tech Specs Requiring Addl Delamination Insp If 5% or More of Installed Tendons Must Be Retensioned to Compensate for Excessive Loss of Prestress
ML18047A490
Person / Time
Site: Palisades Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 07/29/1982
From:
CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML18047A488 List:
References
TASK-03-07.C, TASK-3-7.C, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8208020365
Download: ML18047A490 (3)


Text

  • ~.

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST PALISADES PLANT

( 8208020365 820729.

)

.I PDR ADOCK 05000255 P

PDR

4.5 4.5.8 CONTAINMENT TESTS (Can't)

Dome Delamination Surveillance If, as a result ofa prestressing system inspection under Section 4.5.'4, corrective retensioning of five percent (8) or more of the total number of dome tendons is necessary to restore their liftoff forces to within the limits of Specification 4.5.4, a dome delamination inspection shall be performed within 90 days following such corrective retensioning.

The results of this inspection shall be reported to the NRC.

4.,..32a PROPOSED

4.5 CONTAINMENT TESTS (Con't)

. two weeks (in extreme weather) during this two-year period, a visual inspection-shall be made for stress -indications.

After this time, if no unexpected behavior of the liner plate or penetration assemblies is observed, the surveillance program will be extended at that time.

Containment dome delamination inspections pe~formed in 1970 and 1982 have confirmed that no concrete delamination has occurred.

The possibility that delamination might occur in the future is remote because dome tendon prestress forces gradually diminish through normal tendon relaxation and concrete strength normally increases over time.

To account for this remote possibility, however, an additional delaminiation inspection will be performed in the event that 5% or more of the installed tendons must be retensioned to compensate for excessive loss of prestress.

This inspection would be to confirm that any systematic excessive prestress loss did not result from delamination and that the reterisioning process did not result in delamination.

References *

(1)

FSAR, Section 5.1.2.

(2)

FSAR, Secticin 5.1.8.

(3)

FSAR, Section 14.22.

(4)

FSAR, Section 8.5.4.

(5)

FSAR, Section 6.2.3.

  • ,( 6)

FSAR, Secti6n~5~1.8.4.

(7)

FSAR, Amendment No. 14, Question 5.37.

(8) 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.

4-38' PROPOSED