ML18092A368: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 11/08/1984
| issue date = 11/08/1984
| title = Forwards Reactor Containment Bldg Second Inservice Integrated Leak Rate Test & Types B & C Surveillance Test. Testing Conducted Under Differential Preoperational Test Condition,In That Some Monitor Channels Plugged Shut
| title = Forwards Reactor Containment Bldg Second Inservice Integrated Leak Rate Test & Types B & C Surveillance Test. Testing Conducted Under Differential Preoperational Test Condition,In That Some Monitor Channels Plugged Shut
| author name = LIDEN E A
| author name = Liden E
| author affiliation = PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. OF NEW JERSEY
| author affiliation = PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. OF NEW JERSEY
| addressee name = VARGA S A
| addressee name = Varga S
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)
| docket = 05000272
| docket = 05000272
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Nuclear Department November 8, 1984 u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Off ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing Washington, D. c. 20555 Attention:
{{#Wiki_filter:PS~G*
Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch, No. l  
Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Nuclear Department November 8, 1984
: u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Off ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing Washington, D. c.             20555 Attention:         Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch, No. l


==Dear Mr. Varga:==
==Dear Mr. Varga:==
CONTAINMENT INTEGRATED LEAK RATE TEST NO. 1 UNIT SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-272 Attached as Enclosure 1 is a report on the second inservice Containment Integrated Leak Rate (Type A) Test for Salem Unit No. 1. The test was performed during the 24 hour period ending August 12, 1984 in compliance with Appendix J of 10 CFR 50 and Plant Technical Specification 4.6.1.2. The conclusion of the report is that the containment leakage rate meets the acceptance criteria of Appendix J and the Technical Specification.
 
Included in the report is a summary of local leak rate (Type-B and C) tests conducted since the first inservice Type A test. One condition of the Unit No. 1 inservice testing was not exactly the same as the original preoperational test condition, in that some liner,plate monitor channels were plugged shut during the inservice test. The Energy People 95-2168 (80M) 11-82 Mr. Steven A. Varga 11/8/84 Justification for this condition was previously provided with the test report for the Unit No. 2 CILRT performed in May 1983, as submitted in our letter dated October 13, 1983, and is also applicable to Unit No. 1. For your information, the determination previously pubmitted is provided below: Determination Although the containment liner test channels (monitor channels) were originally designed for testing the leak tightness of the liner seam welds, they were designed as safety related, Seismic Category 1. The monitor channels, as such, are capable of withstanding all upset loading tions, as well as all test loads, without any loss of function or impairment of the performance of the containment liner. Although the monitor channels were not originally designed as part of the pressure boundary, our evaluation shows that they are capable of performing this function, and in so doing, provide additional containment leak protection.
CONTAINMENT INTEGRATED LEAK RATE TEST NO. 1 UNIT SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-272 Attached as Enclosure 1 is a report on the second inservice Containment Integrated Leak Rate (Type A) Test for Salem Unit No. 1.       The test was performed during the 24 hour period ending August 12, 1984 in compliance with Appendix J of 10 CFR 50 and Plant Technical Specification 4.6.1.2.                       The conclusion of the report is that the containment leakage rate meets the acceptance criteria of Appendix J and the Technical Specification.
This tion leads to our determination that a valid Type A leak rate test can be performed whether the monitor channels are open or plugged shut. The maximum stress in the liner plate that would cause the maximum stress in the monitor channels is a tensile stress which is a result of the 47 psig integrated leak rate test of the containment (see the following table). This case induces a higher tensile stress in the liner plate than the design basis accident.
Included in the report is a summary of local leak rate (Type-B and C) tests conducted since the first inservice Type A test.
The reason for this is that there is no temperature rise associated with the test condition.
One condition of the Unit No. 1 inservice testing was not exactly the same as the original preoperational test condition, in that some liner,plate monitor channels were plugged shut during the inservice test.
The Energy People 95-2168 (80M) 11-82
 
Mr. Steven A. Varga                           11/8/84 Justification for this condition was previously provided with the test report for the Unit No. 2 CILRT performed in May 1983, as submitted in our letter dated October 13, 1983, and is also applicable to Unit No. 1. For your information, the determination previously pubmitted is provided below:
Determination Although the containment liner test channels (monitor channels) were originally designed for testing the leak tightness of the liner seam welds, they were designed as safety related, Seismic Category 1. The monitor channels, as such, are capable of withstanding all upset loading condi-tions, as well as all test loads, without any loss of function or impairment of the performance of the containment liner.
Although the monitor channels were not originally designed as part of the pressure boundary, our evaluation shows that they are capable of performing this function, and in so doing, provide additional containment leak protection. This evalua-tion leads to our determination that a valid Type A leak rate test can be performed whether the monitor channels are open or plugged shut.
The maximum stress in the liner plate that would cause the maximum stress in the monitor channels is a tensile stress which is a result of the 47 psig integrated leak rate test of the containment (see the following table). This case induces a higher tensile stress in the liner plate than the design basis accident. The reason for this is that there is no temperature rise associated with the test condition.
Compressive stresses are created by the high temperatures associated with an accident condition, which overcome the tension in the liner. The stresses listed in the following table have been divided by the apropriate capacity reduction factor, which is 0.95 for tension. Our original computations for the liner plate indicate that there would be no inelastic buckling of the plate.
Compressive stresses are created by the high temperatures associated with an accident condition, which overcome the tension in the liner. The stresses listed in the following table have been divided by the apropriate capacity reduction factor, which is 0.95 for tension. Our original computations for the liner plate indicate that there would be no inelastic buckling of the plate.
(' .... *-'-" Mr. Steven A. Varga 11/8/84 This table gives the stresses for the reinforcing bars and liner for various loading conditions and was previously provided to the NRC as additional information to the SAR. RE BARS. r.INER DOME WALL DI!:iC. AT DOME WAr.L ' Mer id. Hoop Mer id. Hoop @ FON OPNG Me rid. Hoop Me rid. Hoop l? +9.7 '+19.J +9.5 +22.5 +19. o +31.0 +ll.O +11.8 +ll.2 +21. l l.l5P +12. 6 +22.2 +12. 7 +26.l +23.0 +35.5 +13.0 +15. 3 +14. 4 +25. 0 P+'I +27.4 +37.0 +28.3 +31.2 +36.5 +36.0 -7.3 -6.5 -13.3 -5. l l. SP+'I +4.2. 5 +52.2 +45.0 +49. o +57.0 +51.2 -3.0 -2.2 -9.3 +l.O P+T+E +28.6 +40.3 +30,5 +31.5 +39.0 +42.8 -9.0 -14.6 -23.9 -6.4 l , 2 5 P+'I+l
 
* 2 5 E: +37.0 +49.5 +40.5 +41.3 +Sl.O +s3.5 -a.s -9.3 -25.7 -4.6 P+T+l. OE I +29.2 +41.4 +31.2 +32.3 +40.0 +43.8 -9.7 -10.4 -27.7 -6.9 Note: E stands for design earthquake, E' stands for maximWl1 credible earthquake and P is the condition for 47 Plus (+) is tension, minus (-) is compression.
(' ....
The above table is based on yround accelerations of O.lOg for the design earthquake and 0.20y for the maximum credible earthquake.
Mr. Steven A. Varga                                                             11/8/84 This table gives the stresses for the reinforcing bars and liner for various loading conditions and was previously provided to the NRC as additional information to the SAR.
Where creep of concrete reduces the stresses in the rebars or the liner it was not considered for conservatism.
RE BARS.                             r.INER DOME
where creep increased the stress it was included to obtain the maximum stress. The channels were checked for stresses due to test conditions by subjecting them to the of an exterior pressure of 47 psig and the movement of the channel legs due to elongation of the liner plate, in both meridional and hoop directions.
            ~
The results show that the channels are not overstressed.
WALL     DI!:iC. AT       DOME           WAr.L l?            '       Mer id. Hoop Mer id.
'-*--Mr. Steven A. Varga 11/8/84 Since the channels are not overstressed for the test condition, and this is the most severe loading case, we conclude that the Type A tests can be conducted with the monitor channels either open or plugged shut and meet the requirements of Appendix J, 10 CFR 50. Should you have any questions; please do not hesitate to contact us. Enclosure Sincerely, Manager -Nuclear Licensing and Regulation C Mr. Donald c. Fischer (with Enclosures)
                                      +9.7 '+19.J
                                    +12. 6
                                                      +9.5
                                              +22.2 +12. 7 Hoop @ FON  OPNG Me rid.
                                                            +22.5 +19. o +31.0 +ll.O Hoop Me rid.
                                                                                        +11.8 +ll.2 Hoop
                                                                                                        +21. l l.l5P                                         +26.l +23.0 +35.5 +13.0     +15. 3 +14. 4   +25. 0 P+'I                   +27.4   +37.0 +28.3   +31.2 +36.5 +36.0   -7.3     -6.5 -13.3     -5. l l . SP+'I               +4.2. 5 +52.2 +45.0   +49. o +57.0 +51.2   -3.0     -2.2   -9.3     +l.O P+T+E                   +28.6   +40.3 +30,5   +31.5 +39.0 +42.8   -9.0   -14.6 -23.9       -6.4 l , 2 5 P+'I+l
* 2 5 E: +37.0   +49.5 +40.5   +41.3 +Sl.O +s3.5   -a.s     -9.3 -25.7     -4.6 P+T+l. OE I             +29.2   +41.4 +31.2   +32.3 +40.0 +43.8   -9.7   -10.4 -27.7     -6.9 Note:     E stands for design earthquake, E' stands for maximWl1 credible earthquake and P is the condition for 47             p~ig. Plus (+) is tension, minus (-) is compression.
The above table is based on yround accelerations of O.lOg for the design earthquake and 0.20y for the maximum credible earthquake.                   Where creep of concrete reduces the stresses in the rebars or the liner it was not considered for conservatism.             where creep increased the stress it was included to obtain the maximum stress.
The channels were checked for stresses due to test conditions by subjecting them to the ~ombination of an exterior pressure of 47 psig and the movement of the channel legs due to elongation of the liner plate, in both meridional and hoop directions.               The results show that the channels are not overstressed.
 
Mr. Steven A. Varga                               11/8/84 Since the channels are not overstressed for the test condition, and this is the most severe loading case, we conclude that the Type A tests can be conducted with the monitor channels either open or plugged shut and meet the requirements of Appendix J, 10 CFR 50.
Should you have any questions; please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
                                  ~A.~~av Manager - Nuclear Licensing and Regulation Enclosure C   Mr. Donald c. Fischer (with Enclosures)
Licensing Project Manager Mr. James Linville (with Enclosures)
Licensing Project Manager Mr. James Linville (with Enclosures)
Senior Resident Inspector}}
Senior Resident Inspector}}

Latest revision as of 08:17, 3 February 2020

Forwards Reactor Containment Bldg Second Inservice Integrated Leak Rate Test & Types B & C Surveillance Test. Testing Conducted Under Differential Preoperational Test Condition,In That Some Monitor Channels Plugged Shut
ML18092A368
Person / Time
Site: Salem PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 11/08/1984
From: Liden E
Public Service Enterprise Group
To: Varga S
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML18092A369 List:
References
NUDOCS 8411140338
Download: ML18092A368 (4)
v • d • e


Text

PS~G*

Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Nuclear Department November 8, 1984

u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Off ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing Washington, D. c. 20555 Attention: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch, No. l

Dear Mr. Varga:

CONTAINMENT INTEGRATED LEAK RATE TEST NO. 1 UNIT SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-272 Attached as Enclosure 1 is a report on the second inservice Containment Integrated Leak Rate (Type A) Test for Salem Unit No. 1. The test was performed during the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period ending August 12, 1984 in compliance with Appendix J of 10 CFR 50 and Plant Technical Specification 4.6.1.2. The conclusion of the report is that the containment leakage rate meets the acceptance criteria of Appendix J and the Technical Specification.

Included in the report is a summary of local leak rate (Type-B and C) tests conducted since the first inservice Type A test.

One condition of the Unit No. 1 inservice testing was not exactly the same as the original preoperational test condition, in that some liner,plate monitor channels were plugged shut during the inservice test.

The Energy People 95-2168 (80M) 11-82

Mr. Steven A. Varga 11/8/84 Justification for this condition was previously provided with the test report for the Unit No. 2 CILRT performed in May 1983, as submitted in our letter dated October 13, 1983, and is also applicable to Unit No. 1. For your information, the determination previously pubmitted is provided below:

Determination Although the containment liner test channels (monitor channels) were originally designed for testing the leak tightness of the liner seam welds, they were designed as safety related, Seismic Category 1. The monitor channels, as such, are capable of withstanding all upset loading condi-tions, as well as all test loads, without any loss of function or impairment of the performance of the containment liner.

Although the monitor channels were not originally designed as part of the pressure boundary, our evaluation shows that they are capable of performing this function, and in so doing, provide additional containment leak protection. This evalua-tion leads to our determination that a valid Type A leak rate test can be performed whether the monitor channels are open or plugged shut.

The maximum stress in the liner plate that would cause the maximum stress in the monitor channels is a tensile stress which is a result of the 47 psig integrated leak rate test of the containment (see the following table). This case induces a higher tensile stress in the liner plate than the design basis accident. The reason for this is that there is no temperature rise associated with the test condition.

Compressive stresses are created by the high temperatures associated with an accident condition, which overcome the tension in the liner. The stresses listed in the following table have been divided by the apropriate capacity reduction factor, which is 0.95 for tension. Our original computations for the liner plate indicate that there would be no inelastic buckling of the plate.

(' ....

Mr. Steven A. Varga 11/8/84 This table gives the stresses for the reinforcing bars and liner for various loading conditions and was previously provided to the NRC as additional information to the SAR.

RE BARS. r.INER DOME

~

WALL DI!:iC. AT DOME WAr.L l? ' Mer id. Hoop Mer id.

+9.7 '+19.J

+12. 6

+9.5

+22.2 +12. 7 Hoop @ FON OPNG Me rid.

+22.5 +19. o +31.0 +ll.O Hoop Me rid.

+11.8 +ll.2 Hoop

+21. l l.l5P +26.l +23.0 +35.5 +13.0 +15. 3 +14. 4 +25. 0 P+'I +27.4 +37.0 +28.3 +31.2 +36.5 +36.0 -7.3 -6.5 -13.3 -5. l l . SP+'I +4.2. 5 +52.2 +45.0 +49. o +57.0 +51.2 -3.0 -2.2 -9.3 +l.O P+T+E +28.6 +40.3 +30,5 +31.5 +39.0 +42.8 -9.0 -14.6 -23.9 -6.4 l , 2 5 P+'I+l

  • 2 5 E: +37.0 +49.5 +40.5 +41.3 +Sl.O +s3.5 -a.s -9.3 -25.7 -4.6 P+T+l. OE I +29.2 +41.4 +31.2 +32.3 +40.0 +43.8 -9.7 -10.4 -27.7 -6.9 Note: E stands for design earthquake, E' stands for maximWl1 credible earthquake and P is the condition for 47 p~ig. Plus (+) is tension, minus (-) is compression.

The above table is based on yround accelerations of O.lOg for the design earthquake and 0.20y for the maximum credible earthquake. Where creep of concrete reduces the stresses in the rebars or the liner it was not considered for conservatism. where creep increased the stress it was included to obtain the maximum stress.

The channels were checked for stresses due to test conditions by subjecting them to the ~ombination of an exterior pressure of 47 psig and the movement of the channel legs due to elongation of the liner plate, in both meridional and hoop directions. The results show that the channels are not overstressed.

Mr. Steven A. Varga 11/8/84 Since the channels are not overstressed for the test condition, and this is the most severe loading case, we conclude that the Type A tests can be conducted with the monitor channels either open or plugged shut and meet the requirements of Appendix J, 10 CFR 50.

Should you have any questions; please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

~A.~~av Manager - Nuclear Licensing and Regulation Enclosure C Mr. Donald c. Fischer (with Enclosures)

Licensing Project Manager Mr. James Linville (with Enclosures)

Senior Resident Inspector

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18092A368&oldid=2410881"