ML20041G376
| ML20041G376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Counsil W CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-06-01, TASK-6-1, TASK-RR LSO5-82-03-082, LSO5-82-3-82, NUDOCS 8203220158 | |
| Download: ML20041G376 (3) | |
Text
s
- g)
Marcn 17,1982 Docket No. 50-213 LS05 03-082 o
j DCE)y;,:9,h
~
C Mr. W. G. Counsil, Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operations 1,m
/q' D $ 7pgg d.21 Connecticut Yankee Power Company a,
s 3
Post Office Box 270 c
in ect,b 3
7 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 I
Dear Mr. Counsil:
W
SUBJECT:
SEP TOPIC VI-1, ORGANIC MATERIALS AND POST-ACCIDENT CHEMISTRY -
HADDAM NECK We have reviewed the safety analysis for SEP Topic VI-1 provided in your letter dated February 9,1982.
In order to complete our review of this topic, we have found that we require further information.
Please provide your response to the questions listed in Enclosure 1 within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not re-quired under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief i
Opere, ting Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing
~
sae O/
cc w/ enclosure:
68f/
See next page
.gSggfpf 8203220158 820317 DR ADOCK 05000213 i
PDR 1
1
../.1P8....k.
. 0.RB.#5....h
.0
.. AQr% -
omcc) SEP 1....
SURNAME) h
.i
!.N.,
,,, []4,,,
$,$,Q,,),,,,,,,h,f[,Q,p,f, D C,r...,.,,
e,1,d,
,,G,h,n.
3dl.82........
.3/&lE2...
... 31.d./.6.R...
.... 3/.11/.82,..
,,,7M./.82.,,,
3.M,@L,
oarr )
)
Nac ronu aia now nacu ano OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usomsn.-me
Mr. W. G. Counsil l
i
)
CC Day, Berry & Howard Counselors at Law One Constitution Plaza Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Superintendent Haddam Neck Plant RFD #1 Post Office Box 127E East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Mr. Richard R. Laudenat Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Russell Library 119 Broad Street Middletown, Connecticut 06457 Board of Selectmen Town Hall Haddam, Connecticut 06103 State of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management ATTN: Under Secretary Energy Division 80 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06115 U. S. Environmenta1 Protection Agency Region 1 Office ATTN: Regional Radiation Representative JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Resident Inspector Haddam Neck Huclear Power Station c/o U. S. NRC East Haddam Post Office East Haddam, Connecticut 06423 Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 1 Office of Inspection and Enforcement 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 m
SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC VI-l HADDAM. NECK REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ORGANIC MATERIALS
- 1) Your evaluation states that concrete surfaces have been painted with Dupont Corla epoxy enamel.
Is the Dupont epoxy based on aromatic or aliphatic polymers?
- 2) You stated the containment liner is coated with Amercoat vinyl enamel and primer.
What type of vinyl resin does the paint contain (example:
vinyl chloride)?
- 3) Your evaluation states that paints are periodically inspected and touched-up according.to currently accepted standards.
Provide your commitment to visually inspect the condition of coatings according to the procedures specified in ANSI N101.2-1972, N101.4-1972 and N5.12-1974, during the next major power outage and subsequently atia frequency of not less than once every 3 years.
POST-ACCIDENT CHEMISTRY
- 4) Your evaluation states that the pH of water inside, the containment fol-lowing safety injection would be approximately 5.0 and that this condi-tion would cause minimal corrosion.
Branch Technical Position MTEB 6-1 states that the post-accident containment spray water.should have a minimum pH of 7.0 in order to reduce the probability of stress corrosion cracking of austenitic stainless steel components.
Provide the basis for your conclusion that a pH of 5.0 would cause mi6imal corrosion.
- 5) As part of your justification, provide an analysis of chloride leaching from materials inside the containment following an accident which may cause wetting of these materials from pipe leaks or containment sprays.
Evaluate the chloride concentration in the sump water up to 30 days following an accident which initiates containment spray. Justify your conclusion that chloride stress corrosion cracking of austenitic stain-less steel material is unlikely under design basis accident conditions.
.