ML20155A726

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Comparison of Basic Containment Features Between Indian Point Unit 2,Seabrook Station Unit 1 & WPPSS Unit 1 to Further Justify Not Taking Strain Readings at Seabrook Containment Spring Line
ML20155A726
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point, Seabrook, 05000000, Washington Public Power Supply System
Issue date: 04/07/1986
From: Devincentis J
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
To: Noonan V
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
SBN-993, NUDOCS 8604090260
Download: ML20155A726 (3)


Text

4-W3 9-Wp m

m-m Ul SEABROOK STATION Engineering Office:

1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Apri1Y,19Y6 SBN-993 New Hampshire Yonkee DMelon T.F.

B7.1.3 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:

Mr. Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director PWR Project Directorate No. 5

References:

(a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) PSNH letter (SBN-968), dated March 14, 1986, " Containment Structural Integrity Test", J. DeVincentis to V. Noonan Subj ect:

Containment Structural Integrity Test

Dear Sir:

In our previous letter to you [ Reference (b)] we indicated that the Seabrook Containment Structural Integrity Test was not required to take strain readings at the containment spring line, because it was not required by ASME III, Division 2 code requirements for "non prototype" containments.

As noted in Reference (b), Indian Point (IP) Unit 2 is the prototype for both Seabrook Station and Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) Unit 1 containment structures - all designed and constructed by UE&C. The Seabrook containments and WPPSS unit 1 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.

To further justify our characterization, your staff requested a comparison of the basic containment features between WPPSS Unit 1, IP Unit 2 and Seabrook Unit 1.

Accordingly enclosed please find, as the comparison that identifies those features which show that Seabrook's containment configuration, design and construction are nearly identical to the prototype plant.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours, 8604090260 860407 M

DR ADOCK 05000443 PDR J. DeVincentis, Director Engineering and Licensing cc: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Service List

\\

PO Box 300 Seobrook,NH03874 Telephone (603)474 9521 1

. -~

Dicn3 Curern P0 tar J. Math;wJ, May:r Harmon & Weiss City Hall 20001 S. Street, N.W.

Newburyport, MA 01950 Suite 430

' 0009 Calvin A. Canney Washington, D.C.

2 City Manager Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

City Hall Office of the Executive Legal Director 126 Daniel Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Stephen E. Merrill Robert A. Backus, Esquire Attorney General 116 Lowell Street Dana Bisbee, Esquire P.O. Box 516 Assistant Attorney General Manchester, NH 03105 Office of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Philip Ahrens, Esquire Concord, NH 03301-6397 Assistant Attorney General Department of The Attorney General Mr. J. P. Nadeau Statehouse Station #6 Selectmen's Office Augusta, ME 04333 10 Central Road Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Designated Representative of Mr. Angle Machiros the Town of Kensington Chairman of the Board of Selectmen RFD 1 Town of Newbury East Kingston, NH 03827 Newbury, MA 01950 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 Ar.esbury, MA 01913 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 1 Pillsbury Street Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Concord, NH 03301 U.S. Senate (ATTN: Herb Boynton)

Washington, DC 20510 (ATTN: Tom Burack)

H. Joseph Flynn Office of General Counsel Diana P. Randall Federal Emergency Management Agency 70 Collins Street 500 C Street, SW Seabrook, NH 03874 Washington, DC 20472 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.

Matthew T. Brock, Esq.

Hampe and McNicholas Shaines Madrigan & McEachern 35 Pleasant Street 25 Maplewood Avenue Concord, NH 03301 P.O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Donald E. Chick Town Manager Gary W. Holmes, Esq.

Town of Exeter Holmes & Ells 10 Front Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Exeter, NH 03833 Hampton, NH 03841 l

Brentwood Board of Selectmen Ed Thomas RFD Dalton Road FEMA Region 1 Brentwood, NH 03833 John W. McCormack PO & Courthouse Boston, MA 02109

ATTACHMENT 1 IP-2, WPPSS-1 and SB-1 are conventional steel-lined reinforced concrete containments (PWR). They are nearly identical in configuration, design, and construction. All these containments are made of three basic structural elements - the circular base mat, an upright cylindrical shell, and a hemispherical dome. Comparisons of basic features of these three containments are as follows:

IP-2 WPPSS-1 SB-1 1.

Cylindrical Wall:

a.

Inside Diameter 135'-0" 150'-0" 140'-0" b.

Thickness 4'-6" 4'-6" 4'-6" l

c.

Height from top of base 148'-0" 166'-0" 149'-0" mat to spring line 2.

Hemispherical Dome:

a.

Inside Radius 67'-6" 75'-0" 70'-0" b.

Thickness 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3.

Circular base mat thickness 10'-0" 17'-6" 10'-0" 4.

Diameter of Equipment Hatch 16'-0" 25'-0" 28'-0" Opening 5.

Diameter of Personnel Airlock 8'-6" 9'-0" 7'-1-1/2" Opening 6.

Test Pressure 54 psig 60 psig 60 psig Based on above, it is justified to consider SB-1 Containment as "nonprototype." Being "nonprototype" containment, it does not incorporate the following "new or unusual design features" as defined in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.18:

1.

A dome with a shape other than hemispherical.

2.

An opening larger than 0.2D, where D is the internal diameter of the cylinder.

3.

Two openings with a diameter greater than 0.15D that are separated by a distance of less than 0.2D.

4.

A connection of the cylindrical wall to the bottom slab or to the dome by a sliding joint, a hinge or a combination of sliding joint and hinges.

l 5.

A pattern of main reinforcing other than vertical straight bars and horizontal hoop.

)

6.

An intermediate interior floor connected to the wall.

7.

Any other structural design feature that may decrease the safety margins from those of a containment confirmed by an acceptance test.

_ _ _ '