ML20069E403

Responds to NRC Review of Ultimate Containment Pressure Retaining Capability,Per Section 3.8.1 of SER (NUREG-0853). Use of 1.2 Safety Factor,Reducing Retaining Capability to 63 Psig Agreeable.Confirmatory Issue 6 Should Be Closed

ML20069E403
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	03/15/1983
From:	Wuller G ILLINOIS POWER CO.
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RTR-NUREG-0853, RTR-NUREG-853 L30-83(03-15)L, L30-83(3-15)L, U-0614, U-614, NUDOCS 8303220031
Download: ML20069E403 (3)

Text

. _ . - - . - - 3 _ 4~+--+

Ininnia Power Company $ _6s3(03-15)L 4

500 SOUTH 27TH STREET, P. O. BOX 511, DECATUR, ILUNOIS 62525-1805 Docket No. 50-461 March 15, 1983 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Schwencer:

1 l Subj ect : Clinton Power Station Unit 1 SER Confirmatory Issue #6

Reference:

1) NUREG-0853, Supplement No. 1, " Safety Evaluation Report," dated July, 1982.

2) IP letter 3/11/82, U-0435, G. E. Wuller to J. R. Miller, NRC relating to containment ultimate capacity.

This letter is in response to NRC staff review of the CPS ultimate containment pressure retaining capability as found in section 3.8.1 of the above reference (1). In that review, the staff applied a safety factor of 1.2 to the analysis reducing the ultimate pressure retaining capability from 76 psig to 63 psig. Illinois Power Company (IP) agrees to using the 1.2 safety factor to expedite closure of this issue.

Section 3.8.1 of the above reference furthermore requires IP to confirm test information to verify the ultimate pressure retaining capability of the air lock seals. We obtained the attached information from the air lock vendor. This same information was provided in the reference (2) letter.

8303220031 g3933g gDRADOCK 05000461 PDR

{}0

U-0614 L30-83(03-15)L March 15, 1983 Page 2 We feel this information is sufficient to close SER Confirmatory Issue #6. Please advise if we can provide any further information in this matter.

Sincerely, E

G. E. uller Supervisor-Licensing Nuclear Station Engineering GEW/j mm attachment cc: H. Abelson, NRC Clinton Project Manager N. Chokshi, NRC SEB H. H. Livermore, NRC Resident Inspector Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety

i 1

, e i

i l

. Attachm$

March l ,nth l 03U- 0614 i

NRC Informal Question:

, On the basis of the pressure resisting capacity of the seals,

around personnel lock equipment hatch and other access pene-

! tration indicate what the containment ultimate capacity will be.

CPS Response:

]

The airlock doors and equipment doors are pressure seated. They

are the same basic design and similar materials that have been 4 used on pressurized water reactor plants which would employ a.

higher design pressure for the containment vessel. CB&I has successfully used this type closure on the SNUPPS Containment which was designed for a pressure of 60 psig and tested at 69 psig with no apparent leakage. He would expect that the mmount of leakage through these seals at 76 psig containment

. pressure would be generally within the leakage rate for the t-design pressure (15 psig).

4 The seal material should not degrade for temperatures up to 300 F.

l I

r 4

, _ , _ -_ . . , . . , _~ _

. _ , _ ~ - . . _ _ _ , , _, _ __-. . _ __ _ - . . _ . . . . _ . . . _ . _ ,