ML19329A584
| ML19329A584 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1971 |
| From: | Case E US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001070580 | |
| Download: ML19329A584 (2) | |
Text
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
huv Z s l'!i
$-fb$
Peter A. Morris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing DUKE PO'JER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR REACTOR CONTAI The Duke Power Company's Oconee Unit Or.e repert, Structural Integrity
.ng, October 29, 1971, Test Report of the Reactor Containment Bui has been reviewed and evaluated by the Structural Engineering Branch.
The evaluation is enclosed.
Origir.at Siptt By E.G. M Edson G. Case, Director Division of Reactor Standards
Enclosure:
Evaluation Report l
ec w/ encl:
l S. Hanauer, DR R. Boyd, DRL R. DeToung, DRL D. Skovholt, DRL R. Maccary, DRS A. Schwencer, DRL Distribution
~
A. Dromerick, DRS Suppl. Doc. No. 50-269 M F. Schauer, DRS DR RF DRS RF SEB RF bec: E. G. Case L
. j%..
Q
...... N/A orr a,
J ek-accary Car
.t 1
S auer: ewe un,...11:22 -71..
. 11 W -31
,11..h 71:
11-7h71..
g h
m-
- /
von = 4=c.m u.m
- '078580 gl L
e EVALUATION _ REPORT
_OCONSE NUCLEAR STATION ACCEPTANCE
. REFERENCE Duke Power Company, " Structural Integrity Te t R s
Containment Building," October eport of the Reactor 29, 1971.
_ DISCUSSION The above cited report described the general di mensions of the Oconee Unit One containment; the strain, deformation, and load measurin g devices installed for the test; the test procedures and pressure cycle; and marized the results obtained from the test.
3 sum-I The results obtained were (1) compared with analytical predictions the Turkey Point and Point Beach containment, and (2) thos The results displayed s.
showed the containment performance essentially as predicted.
Its perfor-mance was also similar to those of the two previo Items that were notable by their absence frously tested containments.
m the report, however, were.
(1) the gaging experience with embedded gagi cracking of the dome.
ng and (2) the state of surface In view of previous experience, these item heve been addressed in rather detailed terms s should
_ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM1ENDATIONS 4
The report should be expanded to include a di scussion of the performance of embedded gaging and a description of the surfac I
Assuming favorable resolution of these two ite condition of the dome.
ems, the summary and con-clusions presented in section two of the report ar e considered valid.
--cU
!