ML20247C597
| ML20247C597 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1989 |
| From: | Johnson T WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247C593 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905240524 | |
| Download: ML20247C597 (39) | |
Text
,. ,
l[ .. .
l' 1'
l' i i
CONTAINMENT LINER PLATE LEAK CHASE CHANNEL PRESSURE BOUNDARY at POINT BEACH UNITS 1 & 2 APRIL, 1989 Prepared by: ec/[f,O//[
Reviewed by: __ _
Approved by: ((
(/
.\
P
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0- INTRODUCTION 1.1
SUMMARY
1.2 IMPLICATIONS OF VENTING LCCs 1.3 RETURT OILTECTIVE 2.0 BASES FOR JUSTIFICATION 3.0 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS l
3.1 INITIAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 3.2 PRESENT LINER PLATE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 3.3 COMPARISON - FSAR VS. ASME CODE 3.3.1 Plant FSAR 3.3.2 ASME Code 3.3.3 Comparisons 3.4 APPLICABILITY TO LCC SYSTEM 4.0 PERFORMANCE HISTORY 5.0 QUALITY VERIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION RECORDS 5.1 GENERAL 5.2 FABRICATION VERIFICATION 5.3 BUTT WELD AND LCC LEAK TESTS 5.4 ASSESSMENT 6.O STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF LCCs 6.1 ANALYTICAL APPROACH 6.2 LOADING 6.3 MATERIALS v
i
7.0 EXTERIOR LCC/ LINER PLATE ANALYSES 7.1 ANALYTICAL MODEL 7.2 LOADING 7.3 LCC FORCES AND DISPLACEMENTS 7.4 COMPARISONS WITH DESIGN CRITERIA 8.0 INTERIOR LCC ANALYSES 8.1 LOADING 8.2 ANALYTICAL MODEL 8.3 RESULTS OF ANALYSES l
9.0 LEAK-TIGHT INTEGRITY '
10.O OVERALL ASSESSMENT 10.1 PERFORMANCE HISTORY 10.2 QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION 10.3 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION 10.4 LEAK-TIGHT INTEGRITY
11.0 CONCLUSION
S !
REFERENCES i 1
l l
l l i l
l i
11 j
(I I.
LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1. Interior LCC Descriptions Table 6-1. Load Summary in Terms of Relative Strain Table 6-2. Liner Plate and LCC Element Physical Properties Table 7-1. . Spring Element Properties Table 7-2. Parametric Evaluation Matrix Table 7-3. Comparison of Maximum LCC element response values with capacities for CASES 1-5 & 7 Table 8-1. Summary of Interior LCC Section Analyses LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Typical Interior LCC Sections Figure 3-2. Typical Exterior (Dome) LCC Sections Figure 7-1.
Mathematical Model for Dome Liner Plate Section Figure 7-2. Resistance Functions for Liner Plate Component Springs Figure 8-1. Typical LCC Loading and Models lii
4 PBLCC-5 CONTAINMENT LINER PLATE LEAK CHASE CHANNEL PRESSURE BOUNDARY AT POINT EEACH UNITS 1&2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The leak chase channel (LCC) system is an integral part of the liner plate system which forms the pressure boundary on the inside surface of the containment structure. The LCCs are formed by welding steel channel, angle, plate, or split pipe sections over butt welds joining liner plate sections together or over welds at intersections of penetrations or other openings through the liner plate. Initially, the LCCs provided a means to pressure test the liner plate or penetration welds for leaks.
The Point Beach Unit 1&2 liner plate systems are unique in that they are fully leak-chased (LCCs installed over all liner plate butt welds) even though these units are built in a low population density area. Fully leak-chased liner plate systems have been required only in high population density areas. For other sites, such as Point Beach, installation of LCCs is usually limited to areas of limited accessibility such as in the concrete covered base slab and pit areas. At Point Beach, the decision to fully leak-chase the liner plate systems was based on a concept of leak testing butt welds by pressurizing the LCCs in lieu of l
' Integrated Leak Rate Tests (ILRTs). This mode of operation was not implemented, however, the liner plate remained fully leak chased.
The original liner plate analysis and design considered only the liner plate and its anchorage system for structural and leak-tight integrity. As a consequence, structural and leakage benefits afforded the liner by the LCCs were not included in the initial liner plate system assessments. It was recognized that the LCCs would improve the performance of the containment by t
l providing a double barrier to potential leaks at the liner plate welds.
l l
Due to evolving interpretations of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J i
(Reference 13), it was subsequently recognized that the requirement to test the qualified leakage barrier was not being strictly met during periodic Type A testing. The qualified liner plate welds are not tested since they are either covered or backed by a sealed LCC system. It was determined that one of the following courses of action would be necessary to address the issue:
1 l
4
- 1. Vent the leak chase channels prior to the Type A test and reclose them after the test:
2.
Vent the leak chase channels prior to the next Type A test and leave the LCCs open after the test; or l 1
- 3. Perform an analysis of the leak chase channels and {
liner plate to show that the system meets the j requirements of the qualified leakage barrier for all i design basis events.
Option 3 was chosen for the reasons discussed in Section 1.1. It was determined from the review of pressure tests, leak tests, quality control and quality assurance, material properties and ,
construction records, analytical reviews, and laboratory testing I that the system consisting of the liner plate and leak chase channels satisfied appropriate performance requirements.
1.1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION As previously noted, three alternative courses of action were identified. The first option would be to vent the LCC test volumes prior to performing a Type A test. This option provides for testing the qualified liner welds during the ILRT while preserving the existing liner plate configuration between ILRTs.
Venting the LCCs would require opening vents with abgropriate verification for approximately 200 test volumes in each unit.
Each LCC test volume would also require administrative controls to ensure subsequent closure. In addition, many of the vents for l
the LCC sections are located on the dome of the containment and on upper wall sections which are not normally accessible. This option was not selected due to safety and practicality concerns.
The second option is similar to the first, except that the LCC test volumes would be left open after the Type A test, rather than closed. While this option overcomes the safety and
! practicality concerns of option 1, it would reduce the existing l leak path barriers for the liner plate from two to one. It was concluded that this approach would diminish the original safety margin afforded by the LCCs and is therefore undesirable.
The final option, to qualify the LCCs as part of the liner system, was chosen as the best alternative. Successful qualification would allow conducting ILRTs without the requirement to vent the LCCs, while maintaining the additional leakage barrier of the existing LCC system.
2
1.2 REPORT
SUMMARY
The objective-tf this report is to summarize and further discuss i the investigations and testing described and documented in Reference 1 (Evaluation of Containment Liner Plate Leak Chase Channel System for Point Beach, Units 1 and 2 dated June 1986).
The design, construction, and performance requirements of the liner plate and LCC systems are reviewed. Supplemental information and comparisons are also provided.
It is concluded from these reviews and investigations that the containment liner plate and leak chase channel systems satisfy all performance requirements and will withstand all the design basis events. While it is not practical to evaluate the as-built system against current ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes, the existing design is within the intent and safety margins expressed by the current codes. We conclude that Appendix J, Type A leak rate tests of the containments without venting the leak chase channel system, is an appropriate method of testing this system.
2-0 BASES FOR JUSTIFICATION This justification is based on demonstrating LCC compliance with the initial liner plate design requirements in addition to satisfying the intent of current code requirements as suggested in Reference 15 (NRC regulations and ASME pressure vessel code requirements). The major issues addressed in this report therefore include the following:
- 1. Demonstration of compliance with the intent of pressure boundary requirements for the liner plate system with respect to:
initial functional design requirements current code requirements.
- 2. Demonstration of reliability of the liner plate-LCC system by:
checking performance history verification of construction quality control
{ 3. Demonstration of satisfaction of intent of initial and j current structural design criteria by:
reanalysis of the liner plate system including the effects of the LCC system
- checking stress and strain levels and structural integrity of individual LCC's 3
~
testing of liner plate-LCC assemblies to confirm structural response characteristics and structural and leak-tight integrity.
- 4. Assessment of leak tight integrity.
i 3.0 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Initial Desian Requirements The initial design criteria for Units 1 & 2 liner plates are given in the Point Beach Nuclear Plant FSAR (Reference 2 -
Section 5.1.2 pg. 5.1-40). The primary design objective is to provide a barrier to preclude leakage in the event of accidental release of radioactive contaminants inside of the containment structure.
i The specific functional design criteria applied to the containment liner plate to meet the specified accident leak rate conditions are reiterated as follows:
- 1. That the liner is protected against damage by missiles coincident with the loss-of-coolant accident;
- 2. That the liner plate strains are limited to allowable values considerably below those that have been shown to result in leak-tight vessels or pressure piping;
- 3. That the liner plate is prevented from developing significant distortion;
- 4. That all discontinuities and openings are adequately anchored to accommodate the forces exerted by the restrained liner plate, and that careful attention is paid to details of corners and connections to minimize the effects of discontinuities.
Appropriate sections of the 1965 ASME Code (Reference 3) are cited in the FSAR for general guidance for some liner plate and metal components in the original specifications.
It should be noted that the 1965 ASME Code addresses only metal containment vessels (Subsection B for Class B Vessels) . The ASME Code was not expanded to cover concrete containments with liner plates until publication of ASME Section III Division 2 (Reference 4) in 1974. Therefore, the 1965 code can not be expected to be in complete agr;cment with more recent code revisions, particularly with respect to liner plate requirements.
4
94 3.2 Present Liner Plate Desian requirements Present NRC guidelines for concrete containment structure liner plate design are contained in SRP 3.8.2 and SRP 3.8.1 (References 7 and 8), which, in turn, references the ASME Pressure Vessel Code, ASME Section III, Divisions 1 and 2 (Reference 5 and 6) for steel and concrete containment structures, respectively.
SRP 3.8.1 for concrete containments (Section I.1) states that requirements for steel components which resist pressure and are not backed by concrete are covered by SRP 3.8.2 which in turn cites ASME Sect III Division 1 requirements for steel containments.
The same provision is contained in ASME Section III, Division 2 Article CC-1120 which again refers design for the unbacked condition to Division 1. A comparison of the present ASME code to the original liner plate and LCC specification requirements is given in Section 3.3.
I 3.3 Comoarison - FSAR vs. Present ASME Code 3.3.1 Plant FSAR Code documents cited in the plant FSAR (Reference 2) as directly applicable to liner plate design include Section III of the 1965 ASME Code, the 1963 ACI Code and the 1963 AISC steel Specification (References 3, 9 and 10 respectively). The ASME Code is referred to for metal components (such as penetrations) and liner plate strain limits. The ACI Code and the AISC specification are referred to for liner plate and penetration anchorage to concrete.
The 'not backed by concrete' criterion is implied in the FSAR but is not called out specifically. This inference can be drawn from sections referencing metal components, penetrations and thickened liner plate sections around penetrations and at transition sections. Conventional structural analysis procedures are specified with provisions for the structural response characteristics of some components to be established by testing.
To comply with these requirements, the liner plate was analyzed and designed in terms of strain limits and acceptable deformations. Liner plate anchors were assessed in terms of available strain energy capacities (which may be determined by liner plate anchorage tests).
5 I
l
. J J
3.3.2 Present ASME Code 1
Division 2 of the code calls out the ' backed by concrete' l criterion directly (Article CC-1000, subsection CC-1120). {
a The liner plate is required to be assessed in terms of allowable l stresses and strains (Table CC-3720-1) . Liner plate anchorage is )
assessed 3730-1). The in terms of experimental use of allowable loads and strain results limits (Table to evaluate the CC- j capacities of components is also permitted (Section cc-3610 and {
j 3710).
3.3.3 Comparisons From the forgoing it is seen that the design requirements of the Plant FSAR (Reference 2) compares favorably with present applicable sections of the ASME Pressure Vessel Code (Section III Divisions 1 Subsection MC for metal containments and Division 2 for concrete containments) with respect to liner plate design.
Some minor difference in design allowable (strain limits) and acceptance parameters (e.g. forces and strains vs. strain energy comparisons) are noted. However, essentially the same attributes are being considered (strength and inelastic deformation capacity).
3.4 Acolicability to LCC System Examination of the LCC system reveals that none of the LCCs would fall into the category of ' pressure retaining components not backed by concrete for load carrying purposes' criterion. The intent of this requirement (as interpreted) is to ensure the capability of metal components not backed by concrete to resist direct pressure loads in combination with other concurrent loads without overstress, fatigue failure, excessive leakage, element rupture or breech of containment.
The interior LCC configurations as shown in Figure 3-1 and described in Table 3-1 are either backed directly by concrete or are supported directly on pressure retaining metal components designed in compliance with the Plant FSAR and i 1965 ASME Code. These components (e.g. items 10 and 13 in FAgure 3-1) do not rely on structural support from the LCC but provide structural support for the LCC. Although these components could theoretically be assessed using Division 1 of the code, the loading and functional requirements for these LCCs would be essentially the same as for the other concrete backed interior LCCs on the cylindrical portion of the containment. These LCC sections are therefore more appropriately assessed using Division 2.
6
The exterior LCCs on the containment dome liner plate sections (ca shown'in figure 3-2) are directly backed by concrete.
Therefore, the design of both the interior and exterior LCCs would more logically fall under the appropriate sections of Division 2 (Reference 6), for liner plates, rather than Division 1 (Reference 5), for metal containments (as suggested in References 14 and 15).
The interior LCCs are subject to primarily containment pressure and strain induced loading but do not provide anchorage for the liner plate or its appurtenances. Therefore they are assessed in terms of strength and strain limits (e.g. Tables CC-3720-1 and CC-3730-1 of Reference 6).
The exterior LCCs would engage the containment shell concrete when subjected to liner plate movements (from structural and thermally induced strains) which would induce loading similar to that for the liner plate anchors. Therefore, they are assessed in terms of strength and deformation limits (e.g. Table (CC-3730-1 of Reference 6 or strain energy in Reference 2).
In addition to the foregoing structural requirements, the leak-tight integrity of both the interior and exterior LCCs should be demonstrated in order to qualify the LCC system as part of the containment pressure boundary.
l 7
7 L
Table 3-1. Interior LCC Descriptions Section Aeolication Location 1 1/4-inch liner plate butt weld Shell and lower dome 2 Liner plate thickness transition Shell - near butt weld penetrations 3 Electrical penetration Shell
-to-thickened plate welds 4 Transition shell-to-cone liner Near base plate butt weld 5 Cone section thickness and angle Near base transition butt weld 6 Cone-to-base butt weld At base 7 1/4-inch liner plate butt weld Base 8 1/4-inch liner plate butt weld Base at base-to pit inside corner 9 1/4-inch liner plate butt veld Pit at basa-to-pit inside corner 10 Seal weld on equipment hatch Shell 11 Pipe cone-anchor "*id (main Shell steam and feedwater pipes) 12 Same as Section 11 except at Shell weld to thickened liner plate 13 Construction vent closure weld Top of dome 8
o
- a I-l 13 A *
- 2 r
9 ' 12 l 2 i 4 .
- 11 ~
. r=
\s n "'. -
\
Pipewall f 0 L .
10 .
E1. B'-0" (typ.) 5 .-
. =
f( . / ( \W '
s 7 6 M
\* i E1. 6'-6" i
9 1 --
, f rA . -
a
-m Figure 3-1 Typical Interior LCC Sections
~
Cutward Curvature Inwsrd Cr.r/ature LCC ..
1/4" P1 c=.= .
N '
3/16 V 4-1 '.' -
EXTERIOR LCC
- 7 -
1/4" P1 ,
\
, c _ _ _3 LCC i.- ,,
t.*_ * '
d
~1 i= 3/4" Sch 80 Pipe 1/2" Pipe Plug TEST PIPE EXTERIOR LCC Figure 3-2 Typical Exterior (Dome) LCC Sections l
l
\
I 4.0 PERFORMANCE HISTORY The liner plate systers at Point 3each Units 1 & 2 have performed successfully and without any identified leaks for the past 16 to 18 years. The performance of similar liner plate systems at other plants (identified in Table 3.1 of Reference 1) has also been excellent with no liner plate leakage problems subsequent to the initial ILRT reported.
The 49 plants with similar liner plate systems represent over 500 reactor-years of operating experience and a total of about 200 Integrated Leak Rate Tests (ILRTs) 150 of which h,Je been performed after commencement of commercial operation (based on an average of 3 ILRTs per 10 years per unit, in accordance with Reference 13). This amount of operation and testing experience without any significant liner plate leakage problems indicates ,
that liner plate systems such as those installed at Point Beach are historically reliable and trouble free.
l l
5.0 OUALITY VERIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION RECORDS 5.1 GENERAL Verification of existing construction records included reviewing documents such as shop drawings, fabrication drawings, welder qualification records, weld test and inspection records, certified material test reports (CMTRs) and leak test records (for liner plate welds, penetration welds and the LCC system) for compliance with design drawings and purchase, fabrication, erection, inspection and testing specifications (e.g. Reference 12).
5.2 FABRICATION VERIFICATION Fabrication verification included review of fabrication drawings, bills of materials, CMTRs and inspection records for compliance with the specifications and design drawings. All of the documents reviewed indicate that the materials, fabrication and inspection of the liner plate, LCC system and other appendages were in compliance with the design drawings and specifications.
5.3 BUTT WELD AND LCC LEAK TESTS Review of construction field sketches (FSKs) indicated that the liner plate butt welds and LCC system were 100 percent pressure tested after the liner plate welds were vacuum box tested (in accordance with Reference 12). The FSKs identify the completed welds, their location and the boundaries and results of the leak 9
l
- l tests. The FSKs also identify the LCC welders with respect to the welds and their locations although documentation of welder qualification -was not included on the FSKs. The documentation reviewed indicates that a substantial level of quality control was required.
5.4 ASSESSMENT 1
The construction records indicate compliance with the design I drawings and specifications, which are in turn in agreement with !
the plant FSAR and the 1965 ASME Code (References 2 and 3). The )
quality control program in force during construction appears to !
have been rigorous with provisions and requirements similar to 4 those presently required for liner plate fabrication and construction (References 6 and 8).
The results of some of the construction quality attributes reviewed and a comparison with initial and present design requirements are summarized as follows:
Attribute Initially Presently Comoliance Soecified Soecified Indicated Ref 2 & 3 Ref 6 & 8 Acceptable yes yes yes Materials CMTRs Rqd yes yes yes Qualification yes yes yes of Welders and procedures Weld Examination Visual Inspect.
Liner Plate yes yes yes LCC System yes yes yes Nondestructive Liner Plate yes yes yes LCC System no no no Vacuum Tests Liner Plate yes yes yes LCC System no no no Leak Tests Liner Plate yes yes yes LCC system yes yes yes 10
4 The LCC system was purchased and fabricated under the same specification as the liner plate (Reference 10) with similar overall quality requirements, including material and welder qualification.
Therefore, from the foregoing comparisons, both the liner plate and LCC systems are shown to be in compliance with initial requirements and to also satisfy the intent of current fabrication and construction requirements.
l l
11
6.0 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF LCCs Structural analyses were performed (Reference 1) to evaluate the internal forces, stresses, strains and displacements of the LCCs in the liner plate system and to assess the effect of the presence of the LCCs on the structural behavior of the liner plate system. These analyses are discussed and summarized herein along with comparisons of results with initial and present design criteria. They show that the LCC and liner plate system calculated stress and strain values are within the original design criteria and also satisfy current ASME code requirements (per Reference 6).
6.1 Analvtical Aceroach The analytical approach utilized to assess the structural performance of the various LCC sections for this study depended on the manner in which the LCCs were loaded. Each LCC was placed into one of two major categories. In the first category (typical of the dome sections - see Figure 3-2) the LCCs project outward and interact with the containment structure concrete when relative displacements occur between the liner plate and the concrete (exterior LCCs). The second category includes all other LCC sections which project inward and do not interact directly with the concrete (interior LCCs) as shown in Figure 3-1.
In the first category, the loading on the LCC is a rather complex function of interactions with other elements of the liner plate system as well as with the concrete. Analyses in this case involved computer solutions of mathematical models representing the interacting system of elements. Parametric evaluations were made to account for variations in material properties.
l j
In the second category, the loading could be defined more locally, involving only the LCC section and the elements to wnich
) it is attached. In this case, the more critical loading occurred in areas with little or no relative displacement between the liner plate and the concrete. The analyses were less complex involving solution of forced displacements of the LCC sections due to induced strains in the attached members combined with the effects of directly applied pressure loading (where present).
I Although this type of loading also occurs in the exterior LCCs, it was found to be the controlling case for only the interior LCCs. Conventional structural analysis techniques with minimum specified material properties were used for evaluations. No parametric evaluations were required.
l l
l l 12 1
~
6.2 Loadina The loads used in these analyses were obtained from the plant FSAR (Reference 2) and are summarized in terms of pressures, temperatures and relative strains in Table 6-1. Many of the loads i are presented in terms of relative strains since the LCC and f liner plate loading is primarily a function of relative strain or '
displacement between the supporting metal ccuponents or the containment structure concrete. In the controlling load combination given in Table 6-1, the accident pressure, Pa, was taken at full value or as zero, whichever produced the most j severe loading condition.
6.3 Materials The material specification and physical properties for liner plate and LCC element used in the analyses are summarized in Table 6-2. The minimum, mean and maximum strength values used in the parametric analyses are also included.
l-13
TABLE 6 LOAD
SUMMARY
IN TERMS OF RELAT8VE STRAfN Relative Strain (u)(1)
Shell Shell Notation Description Dome (4) _ Meridig,nal Hoop D Dead load - (Near (2) -38 +9 base of shell)
AP Differential pressure t5 22 t6 (2 psi)
Pa Accident pressure +138 +51 +185 (60 psi) i E' Seismic (DBE-near (2) -30 217 shell base)
Ps Prestress -207 -61 -273 S Shr*,nkage -103 -103 -103 C Creep -190 -97 -190 To Operating thermal -325 -325 -325 (Avg AT = 50*F)
Ta Accident thermal -1470 -1470 -1470 (Tmax = 286*F, Te = 60*F)
U(3) D + Pg + 5 + C + Pa -1832 -1748 -1859
+ Ta + E' (1) Strains given in microstrain, u, units lu = 10
- in./in.
i (2)Very small strain level ignored in analyses
- (3) Controlling load combination l (4) Values given are for both hoop and meridional directions 1
I
TABLE 6 LINER PLATE AND LCC ELEMENT PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
?
Stranath Properties Yield Ultimate Elongationll)
Component ASTM Grade Range (ksi)
(ksi) (%)
Liner plate A 442 60 Min 45 60 (1/4-inch Mean 50 65 thick) Max 55 70 ASTM 32 60-80 20 Liner plate A 516 60 ASTM 32 60-80 21 (1/2 to 1-inch A 516 70 38 70-40 17 thick) 1 LCC sections A 36 Min 36 58 2 x 9/16 x 3/16 Mean 45 70 channel Max 61.6 80 ASTM 36 58-80 20 LCC section A 36 ASTM 36 58-80 20 1 x 1 x 3/16 angle LCC section A 36 ASTM 36 58-80 20 1/4-inch plate A 442 60 ASTM 32 60-80 20 A 516 60 ASTM 32 60-80 21 A 516 70 ASTM 38 70-90 17 Anchor angle A 36 ASTM 36 58-80 20 3 x 2 x 1/4 Pipe A 53 A ASTM 30 48 >20 A 333 1 ASTM 30 55 28 A 333 6 ASTM 35 60 24 LCC weld filler A 233(2) 50-60 62-72 22 material A 559(3) 60 72 22 (1) Percent elongation values given are for 8-inch gage length test specimens except for ASTM A 53, Grade A, pipe and weld material which are for 2-inch sage length specimens.
(2) Designation discontinued, compares to current AWS Specifications E 60KI and E 70KI.
(3) Designation discontinued, compares to current AWS Specification ER 70S-I.
j
)
7.0 EXTERIOR LCC/ LINER PLATE ANALYSES 7.1 Analvtica Model A typical exterior LCC dome liner plate section and a mathematical model representing this section are shown in Figure 7-1 along with identification of each element. Parameters used to define the component resistance functions are defined in Figure 7-2. Values used in the parametric analyses are listed in Table 7-1. Resistance functions for the plate and anchor angle sections were obtained from Reference 2. Resistance functions for the LCCs were determined from a test program specifically designed and conducted in support of this investigation. A description and evaluation of these tests are contained in Reference 1.
7.2 Loadine The controlling loading condition (for the LCCs and adjacent angle anchors, AAs) occurs when the bent plate section, BP, with inward curvature occurs in first full (15") liner plate span adjacent to the LCC while other liner plate sections (short plate, SP, and long plate, LP) retain outward curvature.
Loading was applied by introducing relative displacements between the liner plate sections and the ar.chors (including LCCs) based on the strains listed in Table 6-1.
Definitions of Icad cases with respect to the parametric values for the various element types are given in the parametric evaluation matrix shown in Table 7-2.
7.3 LCC Forces and Displacements The maximum calculated LCC forces, Rm, and displacements, Xm, for the various cases are summarized in Table 7-3. The test defined ultimate values (Ru and Xu) are given.
In addition to directly comparing forces and displacements, comparisons are given in terms of force ratios, Rm/Ru, displacement ratios, Xm/Xu, ductility ratios, Xm/Xy, and strain energy safety factors, SFe, which are defined as the ratio of the strain energy at ultimate displacement to the strain energy at the maximum calculated response, Um.
7.4 Comparisons With Desian Criteria The plant FSAR uses SFe values to assess liner plate elements.
Although the acceptance criteria in the FSAR are subjective (no definite numerical value specified), acceptable values of SFe should be greater than 2. As can be seen from Table 7-3, the lowest calculated value of SFe for the LCC is 11.3 for Case No. 1 14 l
l l
l
which substantially exceeds the minimum acceptable value. It is therefore concluded that the exterior LCC design is in compliance with the intent of the liner plate design criteria contained in the FSAR.
~
The ASME Code specifies an allowable maximum displacement of 0.5 times the ultimate displacement for displacement limited loads (Table CC-3730-1). Table 7-3 shows a maximum calculated displacement ratic (Xm/Xu) of 0.156 (again for Case No. 1) which is considerably below the maximum acceptable value of 0.5.
It is therefore concluded that the LCC design satisfies the intent of both the plant FSAR and the ASME Code criteria.
15
. 1 97 a 1 -
E
- g. ,,s.3 4 , w-n" - -
4 e 13 g ., i
. n q qZ1 7 7 .
_s ,
y, -
Pent Plate tome Liner Plate Section LCC AA tbV 14 j /
- SP 2%WW'I' ' in gMit A'" .V ^
,V
,%^ - cx 2 4 5 6 7 1 y AA 12j '"
AA u u u 13 15 j- 16j .' 17b 18h u*
Mathematical Model Element 3D Description LCC 1 Leak Chase Channel EP 1 Bent Plate (L = 7h")
SP 2.d,1 9 Short Plate (L = 7\*)
LP A2 Long Plate (L = 15*)
AA Ug Angle Anchors Figure 7-1 Mathematical Model for Dome Liner Plate Section
Kb g
~n Y. /l 3*
K, 0
0 Xy Xu Displacement Resistance Function for LCC, Straight Plate and Angle Anchors i
4: x
% I Yb t
e -
Ru O K=
0 ,
O Xy Xu Displacement l
Resistance Tunction for Bent Plate Figure 7-2 Resistance Functions for Liner Plate Component Springs
'mBEE 7-1 Sprirq Elenant Prtparties Cw d. Element SL-gG SL-yut Pruperty Value (3)
JD Faun-ity (1) (2) Iow (L) Maan (M) Hi$1(H)
Isak Chase 1 Ro (k) 2.124 2.528 Channel 2.876
' Ry (k) 2.261 2.716 3.113 (I.CC) Ru (k) 5.226 7.31 9.582 Xy (in) 0.00398 0.00462 0.00518 Xu (in) 0.09001 0.11750 0.14612 Ka (k/in) 567.6 587.5 600.9 Kb (k/in) 34.47 40.66 45.90 Bent Plate 2 Ro (k) 3.40 3.78 4.16 (BP) Ry (k) 2.97 3.30 3.63 l Ru l (k) 1.15 1.52 1.90 Xy (in) 0.02286 0.02540 0.02794 Xu (in) 0.120 0.120 0.120 Ka (k/in) 130.0 130.0 130.0 Kb (k/in) -18.80 -18.80 -18.80 Short Plate 3.4 Ro (k) 11.20 12.44 13.69 (SP) 5.10 Ry (k) 11.25 12.5 13.75 Ru (k) 15 16.25 17.5 Xy (in) 0.01059 0.01177 0.01294 Xu (in) 0.761 0.762 0.763 Ka (k/in) 1062 1062 1062 Kb (k/in) 5.00 5.00 5.00 I.org Plate 6.7 Ro (k) 11.20 12.44 13.69 (LP) 8.9 Ry (k) 11.25 12.5 13.75 Ru (k) 15 16.25 17.5 Xy (in) 0.02118 0.02353 0.02589 Xu (in) 1.521 1.524 1.526 Ka (k/in) 531 531 531 Kb (k/in) 2.50 2.50 2.50 Anchor Angle 11.12 Ro (k) 4.054 4.113 4.125 (AA) 13.14 Ry (k) 4.2 4.2 4.2 Ru (k) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Xy (in) 0.01932 0.01222 0.01073 Xu (in) 0.125 0.125 0.125 Ka (k/in) 217.4 343.8 391.3 Kb (k/in) 7.57 7.09 7.00 (1) for element location see Figure 7-1 (2) for definition of tarns see Figure 7-2 (3) Iow, Mean, and High vw.4=irnd to mininum, mean and mimm naterial sL ,fdl values given in Tables 6-2
ll 7 LE LE LE M1 ME I I E LE LE 6 LE LE M1 LE ME HE LE LE es
' sce eii r 5 LE i tt M1 LE LE ME I I E LE LE trr ree epp poo M14 LE LE LE ME HE LE LE urree r ppss p ni l ll aapvo v 3 aiisq M1 LE LE LE ME I I E LE LE ireerr rren ett taaccl M21 LE LE LE ME HE LE LE ammiia r n ttv r hss o wagaa m 1 oeilEPr IMI f l e M1 LP LE LE MP HP LP LE
=====C P0 LM1 EPI f 1 S1 1
1 P 1 1 P LP MP I I P I I P HP
) ) )
3 4 5 P
I 9 1
1 P 1 1 P LP MP 1 1 P HE 1 1 P
( ( (
P8 I
1 1 P 1 1 P LP MP 1 1 P I I E 1 1 P I
P 7 1 1 P 1 1 P LP MP HP I I E 1 1 E P6 I
1 1 E 1 1 E LP MP I I P I I E HE U E E S 5 LE ME 1 1 1 1 I
I E 1 1 E I I
E x P i
S 4 1 1 E iE l LE ME 1 1 E 1 E 1 E
r 1 1 1
t -
m p 7 l
S 3 LE LE LE ME I E LE LE e e n I n r o n u i
t a g a
u F2 I
e l
a e set ege e l e v )) at atns E C i
c O1 I
(( LP GlPlaA P
al Pro n
r k t oi t-- t r gh t
)) )) )) )) )) ))
m nonca
- 12 34 34 34 34 34
))
34
))
34 T ehonc DSlAo l
(( (( (( (( (( (( (( ((
=
h C= = = = r l e l lamlinase laelas ase OPPPMfo l l t as ama I BSI in i i i i i n m o. ro r r u ro r r, n r ro ep e s ep e ep mN e% bes t s t s t t s t t t 2
7 l D EI ueR l
a e MR a
M ae eM MR a =
M E= M a
l R
)
1
(
)
2
(
e l
b e.o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b
I
' OwN II l lllllJl llll l
TAM E 7-3 Wrison of Maxista ICC element response values with capacities for CASES 1-5 & 7 (SeeiTable 7-1 for definiticm of eleinent properties)
Case 1 2 3 4 5 7 Naterial L H L M H L
,m siis P P P P P P Ro 2.124 2.876 2.124 2.528 2.876 2.124 Ry 2.261 3.113 2.261 2.716 3.113 2.261 Ru 5.226 9.582 5.226 7.310 9.582 5.226 Rm 2.608 3.416 2.489 2.876 3.228 2.482 Xy 0.00398 0.00518 0.00398 0.00462 0.00518 0.00398' Xu 0.09001 0.14612 0.09001 0.11750 0.14612 0.09001 Xm 0.01404 0.01177 0.01058 0.00856 0.00767 0.01038 Rr:VRu 0.4991 0.3565 0.4762 0.3934 0.3369 0.4749 XnvXu 0.1560 0.0806 0.1175 0.0729 0.0525 0.1153 Um 3.526 2.272 2.655 1.852 1.479 2.605 Uu 22.597 28.201 22.597 25.420 28.201 22.597 Eu 0.327 0.903 0.327 0.572 0.903 0.327 Em 0.029 0.030 0.020 0.017 0.016 0.020 SFe 11.262 30.517 16.198 33.098 56.620 16.602
{
1 l
8.0 INTERIOR LCC ANALYSES
(
Typical interior LCC applications are shown in Figure 3-1 and described further in Table 3-1.
8.1 Loadina The LCC sections receive direct containment internal pressure load (60 psig accident pressure controls) in addition to forced displacements due to the strain in the structural elements (liner plate, penetrations, etc.) to which the LCC members are attached.
The maximum relative liner plate strains used in the interior LCC analyses are given and discussed in Section 6.0. These strains reflect average strains in the 1/4-inch-thick liner plate. These strain levels are altered locally in the vicinity of liner plate thickness changes, penetrations, bracket locations, etc. These local changes in strain levels have been accounted for in the LCC analyses.
Strain levels due to other applied loads (such as pipe reaction strains at Section 12) have also been accounted for.
In addition to direct pressure loading, the LCC members are subjected to both induced axial strains along the axis of the LCC) and lateral displacements at the attachment points to the supporting structural elements (e.g., liner plate or penetration).
The axial strain in the LCC is comparable to the strain in the supporting element in the axial direction of the LCC. The lateral displacement of the LCC member support points is a direct function of the distance between the support points and the support element strain transverse to the LCC axis. Additional relative lateral displacements are induced by the Poisson effect associated with the axial LCC strain. These forced lateral displacements induce internal forces and moments into the LCC member cross section which responds to these displacements essentially as a rigid frame (flexural continuity at corners and support points).
The response to direct pressure loading will again be essentially
, as a rigid frame (or arch as in the case of pipe sections LCCs in Section 10 of Figure 5-6).
The axial LCC stresses and strains will be comparable to those of the support element in the axial direction of the LCC. In no internal LCC case can they be more severe. Therefore, further analyses in the axial direction is not required. (The adequacy of all supporting elements has previously been determined in original plant documents and is therefore out of the scope of this investigation.)
16 l
b 1
4 8.2 Analvtical Model The LCC sections were modeled as rigid frames welded to the supporting elements such as shown in Figure 8-1. Pressure loads and relative support displacements were applied and the frames solved for internal forces and bending moments utilizing conventional structural analysis techniques.
For analytical purposes, the supporting structural elements were assumed to remain elastic. This is the most severe case since any yielding of the support members would diminish internal LCC moments and forces. In canes where inelastic response was predicted, ductility ratios based on strain levels and plastic section strengths were calculated.
8.3 Results of Analyses The results of the analyses of the selected internal LCC sections are summarized in Table 8-1.
The calculated moments at the critical section reflect the response to the forced displacements plus a direct accident pressure of 60 psig. For all cases, the critical section was through the throat of the fillet welds. Critical stresses were
(
reached at the supports or at the joints between 1/4-inch LCC plate sections.
The throats of the 3/16-inch fillet welds were the most critically stressed areas because they have the thinnest cross section with a section modulus of about half of that for the next thinnest LCC sections used (leg of 1 x 1 x 3/16 angle section).
The weld metal is typically stronger (minimum yield stress of 50 ksi) than the ASTM A 36 LCC members (minimum yield stress of 36 ksi) by a ratio of 1.39. This material strength difference was insufficient section modulus. to counter the two-to-one minimum difference in The LCC sections were found to remain elastic (based on plastic section strength limit) for all cases except for Sections 3a and 3c with calculated ductility ratios of 1.03 and 1.94 respectively.
The resulting maximum ductility ratio of 1.94 for section 3c corresponds to a support displacement of 0.00674 inches, a strain of 0.003 in/in and a safety factor based on strain energy (STe) of 47. An ultimate strain of 0.10 in/in (50% of the minimum specified elongation - 20%) was used for estimating the ultimate strain energy capacity.
The STe value of 47 is much greater than acceptable values of 2.0 or greater.
17
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . - 1
The calculated strain level of 0.003 in/in is much less than the 0.05 in/in value allowed by the ASKE Code in Table CC-3730-1 (50%) of ultimate strain for displacement limited loads).
Based on the foregoing analytical results and comparisons, the interior LCC sections satisfy the structural design requirements of the FSAR and the ASME Code with considerable reserve deformation capacity.
l 18
ra ea E D _T_ O T_ O _
,_, EEETJ+T' 2 ,-
gg {"~g p LCC Pal I' [ LCC l
~
lP a a! l
,l ~J t J Al l, l2 ; LP
/ * ".'-
1 ] f,. , tp for d ' " ~~f s ' M.4x13 f..f a 7.*
- LCC LOAD LCC LOAD
_ .g. . .
Pa Pa LL_LL
,,- uL_L_L_L_L_E_L_
-o.r__ ..l
. _ _ _ _ p,
/ ' I u_I 's l_ ' 'N
's
, j-- ; p
- p I, ,- . 42 Pa_,.,
l-*I /
I'~~l \
\ l *-
r-t I i__ _..-_ _i i kr '
p,- , r-*.
_A, A 1 ,,,
..._ _ i__ - 4- -
MODEL MODEL Figure 8-1 Typical LCC Loading and Models i
- s TABLE 8 SLM4ARY OF INTERIOR LCC SECTION ANALYSES l i
Critical # '
Calculated LCC Ols nt Section(2) ,,,,,,,(3) Ra 10 Moreer. (In.) location (In. 3/in.) m Notes I C 2x9/16x3/16 0.002418 (5) 118 <l (8) each leg i
2 C 2x9/16x3/16 0.002046 (5) 100 <l (8) each leg 3a(10) l-l/4x3/8 PL 0.00216 (5) 703 1.03 (9) !
3-l/2xt/4 PL 9 l-l/2-inch leg j
3b(10) 1-1/2xt/4 PL 0.00216 (5) 48.6 <l (8) 3-1/2xl/4 PL f I-1/2-inch l*g 3c(III l-l/2xt/4 PL 0.00674 (5) 384 1.94 (9) 3-l/2xl/4 PL f I-l/2-inch leg 4 See Note 12 5 L lxlx3/16 0.00231 (5) 193 <l (8) each leg 6 L lxlx3/16 0.00160 (5) 121 <l (8) each leg 7 C 2x9/16x3/16 0.00160 (5) 79 <l (8) sech leg 819 L lxix3/16 0.00160 (5) 121 <l (8) vert. leg >
10 2-1/2-inch 0.00113 (5) 10 <l (8) diameter pipe each support section il 2-l/2-ir.ch 0.00144 (6) 16 <l (8) diameter pipe each support section 12 2xt/4 PL 0.0019 (7) 60 <1 (8) 3xt/4 PL f 2-inch leg 13 C 2x9/16x3/16 0.00238 (5) 116 <l (8) each leg Notess (I) For location and description of LCC sections see Table 5-1 and Figure 5-6.
(2) The critical section for all LCCs was through the throat of the 3/16-inch fillet I welds. These welds have a moment cepecity of 198 in.-lb/in. based on W plastic section modulus and a yleid strength of 45 ksi (0.9 f y, where f = 50 kai - mir.imum (3) ASTN-specified value). See Table 5-2 for liner plate and LCC ysical properties.
Calculated moments are based on assumed elastic behavior. Where calculated moments exceed 198 in.-lb/in. as discussed in Note 2, a ductility ratio greater than 1 is indicated. Calculated moments reflect h combined effect of forced displacements plus an internal accident pressure of 60 psi.
(4) The ductility ratio is N ratio of N maximum calculated displacement to the yield displacement based on the section strength discussed in Note 2. Linear behavior to (5) yield is assumed.
(6) At 3/16-inch fillet weld joining LCC man 6er to liner plate (see Note 2).
(7) At 3/16-inch fillet welds at split pipe-to-I-inch cone joints. I (8) At 3/16-inch fillet weld joining t/4-inch LCC plates.
(9) Section remains elastic.
(10)Section at weld (s) plastic (tim > 1), all other sections remain elastic.
For LCCs associated with a single isolated electrical penetration or for LCC sections (III closest to the edge of the thickened plate for multiple electrical penetration clusters.
For LCCs associated with multiple electrical penetration clusters located away from (interior) thickened plate edge).
(12)LCC section Whavior is essentially N same as for Section I. Out-of-plane reaction f resisted by m bedded channel section, t
l i
9.0 TRAK-TIGHT INTEGRITY Leak-tight in egrity is a specified requirement for the LCC system (Specification No. 6118-C-7, Reference 12). Reference 12 requires that the LCCs be soap bubble tested and pressure decay tested under a test pressure of 70 psig. Any leaks discovered were required to be repaired until all LCCs successfully passed the leak tests.
I confirm that theseConstruction requirementsrecords were met.discussed in Section 5.0 i
l Additional leak tests (Reference 18) wars performed in support of J this investigation to confirm leak-tight integrity under severe transverse load conditions (test descriptions and results are summarized in Appendix B of Reference 1). The tests demonstrated that the LCCs (and the 3/16-inch double pass fillet welds) retained their leak-tight integrity throughout the test loading which produced lateral deformations (in the 2-inch channel sections) in excess of 0.149 inches. This corresponds to a joint rotation (over 15 at the attachment welds on the order of 0.265 radians degrees).
The maximum calculated resisting force per unit width for the dome section LCCs is 3.42 k/in. (Table 7-3, Case 2). This corresponds to an elastic LCC steel displacement of 0.00475 inch (based on steel LCC elastic stiffness of 720 k/in. from Appendix B of Reference 1) or 3.2% of the measured deformation producing no leaks.
The maximum calculated leg displacement (forced) for interior 2-inch channel LCCs is 0.002418 inch (Table 8-1, Section 1). This corresponds leaks.
to 1.6% of the measured deformation producing no The maximum rotation for other interior LCCs is 0.0045 radians (Table 8-1, Case 3c, a 0.00674-inch displacement on a 1-1/2-inch-long leg).
This corresponds to 1.7% of the measured rotation (at weld) producing no leaks.
l The dome LCC, Load Case 2, at 3.2% of the measured no leak displacement is therefore the controlling condition with respect to deformation or rotation.
The test data combined with the calculated displacements show that there is considerable margin between calculated displacements and the leak tight displacements verified by testing. The tests were conducted with a 70 psig internal pressure in the LCCs. Although the test loads and displacements were substantially higher than design loadings, the channel and 19
9/
liner system remained leak tight.- Therefore, no leakage is expected at th,e relatively low calculated displacement levels.
Tht'LCC system design is thus shown to satisfy the containment pressure boundary. leak tight criteria for both the plant FSAR and the ASME Code (e.g. Section CC 3700).
10.O OVERAT.T. ASSESSMENT Assessment 1sf the acceptability of utilizing.the LCC system as part of the pressure boundary is based on satisfyi'y the intent of both the initial FSAR requirements'as-well as carrent requirements (USNRC SRPs and the ASME Code). This has involved investigation of several factors such as:
- a. Liner plate system performance history
- b. QA/QC measures during construction
- c. Construction records indicating evidence of conformance with drawings and specifications
- d. Structural behavior and severity of loading on LCCs
- e. Confirmation of leak-tight integrity by tests, analyses, quality control and historical records The results of this investigation with respect to the above factors are summarized and evaluated in the following subsections.
10.1 Performance History The performance history summarized in Section 4.0 indicates that 49 plants have similar liner plate systems. In over 500. reactor years of combined operating experience at these plants.over 150 post-startup ILRTs have occurred with no known leaks in either the liner plate butt welds or the LCCs. Some of the plants (such as Surry Units 1 and-2 and North Anna Units 1 and 2) are operated at subatmospheric pressures which essentially constitutes over 34 years of liner plate system leak testing under a continuous partial vacuum.
In other cases such as Beaver Valley Unit 1, the plant was operated with the LCC system pressurized to approximately 80 psi.
This constitutes a. continuous leak test of the LCC system as-well as the liner plate butt welds.
10.2 Quality of Construction j
20 J
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . _ }
. i 4.
Specification 6118-C-7 (Reference 12) for! furnishing, fabrication, delivery, and erection.of.the containment structure liner plate and accessory steel contains similar requirements for both the LCCs and the liner plate and attachments. For example:
- a. Mill certifications are required for material
- b. Welders and weld procedures must be qualified
- c. Inspection requirements are specified
- d. -Pressure boundary welds (e.g., LCC fillet weldt 'nd liner plate butt welds) are required to be doubie pass welds.
- e. Vacuum box testing is required for the liner plate butt welds while both pressure decay and soap bubble leak tests are required for the LCC system.
A review of construction records shows that the specified quality control measures were enforced and the required testing and inspections were performed (see _ Section 5.0) . Also, Bechtel design and vendor drawings appeared to be in agreement.
Therefore, it is concluded that the liner plate and LCC system were constructed, inspected, and tested as designed and specified.
10.3 Structural Evaluation Tests reported in Reference 18 and summarized in Appendix B of Reference 1, confirm the load and deformation capacities of the LCCs. The_least LCC factor of safety based on strain energy (and test-defined capacities) for external LCCs (embedded in concrete) was determined in Section 7.0 to be greater than 11. This value reflects the most severe loading and materials properties combinations. The most severe conditions for the interior LCCs resulted in a ductility ratio of 1.94 (Section 8.0) and a safety factor based on strain energy of 47. These relatively large calculated safety factors, along with conservative analytical assumptions, would rule out loss of function through structural distress associated with the postulated loading conditions. The structural analyses show that overall structural safety margins for the liner plate system are improved by the presence of the LCCs, particularly in the done section.
The analyses and tests demonstrate that the LCCs are rugged components and will function as integral parts of the liner plate system.
10.4 Leak-tiaht Intearity 21
r
?'
The Leak-tight integrity of the LCC system was confirmed by test during construction (Section 5.0). The combined liner plate -
LCC system leak integrity has been confirmed in subsequent integrated _ leak rate tests. Additional leakage tests were performed as part of this study which confirm leak-tight integrity under severe load and deformation conditions (Reference 1 and 18). These tests are also discussed in Section 9.0.
All tests, analyses, and quality control and historical records indicate that the liner plate LCC systems will retain their leak-tight integrity under the most severe postulated loading conditions.
11.0 CONCLUSION
S Considering the positive aspects of all the foregoing factors, it is concluded that the liner plate LCC system is qualified to function as a part of the containment structure pressure boundary. Satisfaction of the intent of both the initial and current design, construction and performance requirements is demonstrated and the LCC liner system can be satisfactorily tested with an Appendix J Type A leak rate test without modification or venting.
22
- l e
l REFEPTXi21 ,
1
- 1. Rotz. J.V., and M. Reifschneider, Evaluation of Containment Liner Plate Leak Chase Channel System for Point Beach Units 1&2, Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, June, 1986
- 2. Plant FSAR, Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2
- 3. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code - Section III, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1965 4.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code - Section III Division 2 - Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ACI/ASME Joint Committee), 1974 5.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code - Section III Division 1 Subsection NE - Class MC components, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1986 6.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code - Section III Division 2 - Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Contal'ments, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ACI/AShE Joint Committee), 1986
- 7. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Standard Review Plan (SRP 3.8.2) - Steel Containment, USNRC NUREG-800, Rev.1, July 1981
- 8. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Standard Review Plan (SRP 3.8.1) - Concrete Containments, USNRC NUREG-800, Rev.1, July 1981
- 9. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, (ACI 318-63) American Concrete Institute, May 1963.
- 10. Specification for Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel For Buildings, April, 1963
- 11. AISC Manual of Steel Construction, Part 5, Specification for Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Latest Edition
- 12. Specification for Furnishing, Fabrication, Delivery, and Erection of Liner Plate and Accessory Steel for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units No. 1 & 2, Wisconsin Michigan Power Co., Bechtel Corp. for Westinghouse Electric Corp.,
Rev 1, Jan. 1968 23
- )
i
- 13. Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, 10CFR Part 50, Appendix J
- 14. Letter, W.H. Svenson (USNRC) to C.W. Fay (WEPCO),
Subject:
Containment Leak Chase Channels, September, 15, 1988
Subject:
Meeting Summary (TAC Nos.
63152/63153, January 11, 1989
- 16. T.E. Johnson and B.W. Wedellsborg, ggntainment Buildine Liner Plate Desian Report. Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-1, Revision 1 (December 1972), Bechtel Power Corporation
- 17. Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors, 10 CFR 50 Appendix J, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (September 1980)
- 18. Hiltunen, D.R., et al, Test Report on Static Load Tests on Liner Plate Leak Chase Channel Assemblies, University of Michigan Civil Engineering Department for Bechtel Power Corporation, December 1985
' 24 l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _