ML20141P226
| ML20141P226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1986 |
| From: | Devincentis J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| SBN-968, NUDOCS 8603190164 | |
| Download: ML20141P226 (4) | |
Text
r Serbrook Stction Engin:2 ring Offica l
March 14, 1986 37.1.3 New Hampshire Yonkee Division United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Mr. Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director PWR Project Directorate No. 5
Reference:
(a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444
Subject:
Cont ainme nt Structural Integrity Test Dear Sir Enclosed please find a revision to FSAR Section 3.8.1.7 regarding the Containment St ructural Integrity Test (SIT). This revision deletes the requirement for the taking of strain readings at the containment spring line for Seabrook, because as discussed below these readings are not a ASME III, Division 2 Code requirement for "non-prototype" contain-ments such as Seabrook.
Indian Point (IP) Unit 2 is the prototype for both Seabrook Station and Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) Unit I containment structures - all designed and constructed by UE&c. The Seabrook contain-ments and WPPSS Unit I are considered "non-prototype" as defined in the USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.18 (Appendix A) and Article CC-6212.2 of ASME Code Section III, Division 2.
The IP-2 Containment was fully instrumented per Regulatory Guide 1.18 require ments then applicable.
Ilowever, the requirements in ASME CC-6000 under which Seabrook and WPPSS 1 containments are tested include provision for strain gage instrumentation in the vicinity of the springline. This was not performed for IP-2.
As discussed with Mr. F.
Rinaldi of the NRC during September,1979, WPPSS 1 could be instrumented at the springline to complete the prototype requirements on instrumentation, while accepting IP-2 as the baseline prototype. The WPPSS 1 containment was tested, and the required measurements were made.
Comparisons to predicted strains /
stresses wure satisfactory. Therefore, all prototype measurement req ui re-rents are satisfied.
It is not necessary to repeat these strain measure-nents for Seabrook containments.
The enclosed revision to Section 3.8.1.7 will be incorporated into the FSAR by a future amendment.
0603190164 060314 k
PDR ADOCK 05000443 Y
PDH A
I Seabrook Station Construction Field Offico P.O Box 700 Soobrook. NH 03874
r- -
Paga 2 C ntcinment Structura Integrity Tact Very truly yours, ve ohn DeVincentis, Director Engineering and Licensing Enclosures cc Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Service List l
l i
i l
i
f I
l Diane Curr:n Patcr J. Mathew3, Mayor Marmon & Weiss City Hall 20001 S. Street, N.W.
Newburyport MA 01950 l
Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009 Calvin A. Canney l
City Manager l
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
City Hall l
Office of the Executive Legal Director 126 Daniel Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 l
Washington, DC 20555 Stephen E. Merrill i
(
Robert A. Backus. Esquire Attorney General l
116 Lewell Street Dana Bisbee, Esquire P.O. Box 516 Assistant Attorney General Manchester, NH 03105 Office of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street i
Philip Ahrens Esquire Concord, NH 03301-6397 Assistant Attorney General l
Department of The Attorney General Mr. J. P. Nadeau l
Statehouse Station #6 Selectmen's Office l
Augusta. ME 04333 10 Central Road Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Cavutis Designated Representative of Mr. Angle Machicos the Town of Kensington Chairman of the Board of Selectmen kFD 1 Town of Newbury East Kingston, NH 03827 Newbury, MA 01950 j
e Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire Mr. William S. Lord Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Environmental Protection Bureau Town Hall - Friend Street Department of the Attorney General Amesbury, MA 01913 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 1 Pillsbury Street Senator Gordon J. Humphrey concord, NH 03301 I
U.S. Senate (ATTN: Herb Boynton)
Washington, DC 20510 (ATTN: Tom Burack)
H. Joseph Flynn l
Office of General Counsel l
Diana P. Randall Federal Emergency Management Agency l
70 Collins Street 500 C Street, SW I
Seabrook WH 03874 Washington, DC 20472 l
Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
l Hampe and McNicholas Shatnes, Madrigan & McEachern l
35 Pleasant Street 25 Maplewood Avenue Concord, NH 03301 P.O. Box 360 I
Portsmouth, NH 03801 Donald E. Chick Town Manager Gary W. Holmes. Esq.
Town of Exeter Hob ns & Ells i
10 Front Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Exeter, NH 03833 Hampton, NH 03841 Brentwood Board of Selectmen Ed Thomas RFD Dalton Road FEMA Region I i
Brentwood, NH 03833 John W. McCormack PO & courthouse i
Boston, MA 02109 l
l l
l
gg{; kM kdICNE b dDH Po avd-On*sh No.7 CWd uwWW PubM. Pouer SvPN h1MwS A)3 i " N P*biY P**-
44 g.
SB 1 & 2 Amendment 56 FSAR November 1985 c
a.
Structural Integrity Test (av\\ aveqe Ne*"Ok To demonstrate that the concrete containment structure will respond satisfactorily to the postulated internal pressure loads, a preopera-tional structural integrity test (SIT) will be performed,at 1.15 times the containment design pressure of 52 psig and at # temper-ature gredir.t ;ry
- n;; betecen 50"P and 100"P :n the-luide end err-Ha =M m Wh: a t. id e, be4weevi +ba.
iktsid e. c m d C M ' d t d g ceMMHWe*d (,wiMeM Ott 4McAesuw1t boild@ Hot tb excee6 (a S*F The SIT will be conducted in accordance with the non-prototype requirements of Article CC-6000 of Division 2.t Structural acceptance l
is based on gross deformations (diameter change, vertical growth p
and radial growth at the equipment hatch), concrete crack widths, deflection recovery and post test visual examination of concrete an_d liner. (In d ' tidq, ktraintsrehtinPA at hiNTweNnMftity i hp. INnI% M11 e kin.i Prior to the test, a table of predicted
' gross deformations, crack widths, etc. will be provided as a guide As for verifying satisfactory structural response during the test.
These acceptance criteria will be as follows:
1.
Nn yielding of reinforcement as determined by analysis of crack width and deflection data.
l 48 2.
No visible signs of permanent damage to the structure or liner.
3.
The measured maximum deflections at points of maximum predicted deficction shall not exceed predicted values by more than 30%. This requirement will be waived if the 24-hour recovery is greater than 80%.
4.
The deflection recovery 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after complete depressurization shall be e minimum of 70%.
The instrumentation required to obtain the data required to verify the structutal response will include methods to measure radius and diameter deformation, vertical deformation, deformarion around the large equipment hatch opening and breech-type personnel airlock opening, and crack measurements as required by ASME Section III, l
Division 2.
The data will be obtained without embedding any devices 6t
- in the cylinder or dome. A test report will be provided which will compare test results with predicted and allowable limits and evaluate any deviations.
Before and after the test, the containment will be visually examined to assure that no distress has developed on the concrete or liner.
b.
Visual Examination at Reactor Shutdown As required by Division 2, a detailed visual examination of all
{~
structurally critical areas, including the equipment hatch, personnel air lock and major penetrations, necessary to adequately assess 3.8-45
-