ML072770851
| ML072770851 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/18/2007 |
| From: | Tamburro P Exelon Nuclear |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-219-LR, AmerGen-Applicant 16, C-1302-187-5320-024, FOIA/PA-2009-0070, RAS 14223 CC-AA-309-1001, Rev 2 | |
| Download: ML072770851 (183) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:"RA5 / L.L~ c*. US. NU*LE"A REGULATORY COMMISSION Do"cet NO.SQ )0 9 Official Exhibit No. OFFERED b-Applcan renor -APPLICANT'S E;XH. 16 E I
- N C Staffr0!i:;
kell ENuclear]. olmi~ammon Witns/ae'A výJCý WIHRW C-A3910 Nue wRt f*Tain: ( 4 . E* W Revision2 Design Analysts (Major Revision) Last Page No.' 1 of 1.24- /l'3 Analysis No,: C-1302-187-5320-024 Revision: 2 2 tf :,/i/
Title:
O.C. Drywell Ext. UT Evaluation in Sandbed DOCKETED ECIECR No.:', 06- 01078 Revision: 5 0 USNRC Station(s):' Oyster Creek Component(s): October 1,2007 (10:45pm) Unit No.:' 1 OFFICE OF SECRETARY Discipline: Mechanical RULEMAKINGS AND Descrip. Code/Keyword: _°_ _ ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Safety=QA Class:' Q System Code:" 187 Structure: - Drywell CONTROLLED DOCUMENT REFERENCES "____ Document No.: FrornTo *Document No.:. FromlTo GE Report Index 9-3 From ...- _.... _.. _.-. _. GE Report Index 9-4 *. From GE Letter Report PC-0391407 From Is this Design Analysis Safeguards Information? ý Yes [l No. s If yes, see SY-AA-101-106 Does this Design Analysis contain.Unverified Assumptions?" Yes ] No S if yes, ATIIAR#:_ This Design Analysis SUPERCEDES: I" N/A In its entirety. Description of Revision (list affected pagesfor partials): See the Summary of Change. Sheet, which is attached. Preparer Peter Tamburro . .3/26W)7
. . . .. SltNam . . Date Method of Review. 21 Detailed Review F 'teoma OeCaluI latons attached) -" Testing []
Rikviewer:' r - - Review Notes: 2' n en ntreviewl@ Peer-rp Calculation was reviewed for adequacy of methodology, new data entry accuracy, and spot checking of mathematical computations. A comparison with previous revision was made. Based on my review and successful resolution of technical comments, I find the F m e calculation acceptable. (For Externa AnetymseOnly) External Approver: 24 gA Print NAWne & mN&e Date Exelon Reviewer: Pint Name I
. I m " .
Is a Supplemental Review Requi Exelon Approver: " 3-: d! . IO j 47 GOCLROO030676 'Fem Plate =sF-cY-oao
TITLE O.C. Drywell Ext. UT Evaluation in Sandbed REV
SUMMARY
OF CHANGE APPROVAL DATE
,, I ,,
b,.7 A complete revision to incorporate 2006 data of the same Pete Tamburro
- 2. inspection locations. In addition the calculation section for each bay now includes a spatial evaluation of the data. Also the calculation section for each bay now includes an additional evaluation with respect to the amount of material that is less than 0.736" and its location with respect to the original calculated stress locations.
40 xý' *I~S. Lil It N0036O(1/99) OCLROO030677
Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT: ........... ............................. ......... ............. 4.................................. 2.0 SUM MARY OF RESULTS: ............................. ............................................................................... 4 3.0 REFEREN CE: .............................................................................................................................. 6 4.0 ASSUM PTIONS AND BASIC DATA: ..................................................................................... 6 5.0 DESIGN INPUTS: .................... .......... ............................... ..... ......... ................. ............ 6.0 METHODSOFANALYSIS:................................10 7.1 METAODSTONAY#I:.. ....... ....... .. ............................ 0 7.3 UTEVALUATION BAY#........... ........................................... . ....... 205 7.3 UT EVALUATION BAY #3- ........................................................................... ..................... . ..... 4. 35 7.5 UT EVALUATION BAY #5: .............. .............. .......... 4...........................
.............. 40 7.9 UT EVALUATION BAY #7: .................................. ............. ................................... 4.
7.9 UJT EVALUATION BAY #9 ......... .......... * .. ............... ... .................
; ................. ................... .. 48 7.11 UTEVALUATIONBAY#11:............*......... .................................................... . ............ 52 7.13 UT EVALUATION BAY #13:: ....... ............. ... 56 7,15 UTEVALUATIONBAY #15: .. ..... ...................................... I-. ............ 70 7-17 UT EVALUATION BAY #17: ..................................................... . .............. .. ............................ 80 7.19 UT EVALUATION BAY #19:..... .............................................. 90 Appendix A: Sumn ary Of Measurements Of impressions Taken From Bay # 1.3 (3 pages)
Appendix B- Buckling Capacity Evaluation For Varying Uniform Thickness Through The Whole Sandbed Region Of The Drywell.(5 pages) Appendix C: Pictures Showing Condition Of The Drywell In The Sandbed Region (9 pages) Appendix D: 1992 NDE Inspection Sheets for the Diywell.Sandbed Region (51 pages) Appendix E 2006 NDE Inspection Sheets for the Drywell Sandbed Region (10 pages).. Appendix F - 1992 Letter Describing-the Drywell Surfaces, Reference 3.6 (3 pages)). Appendix G - Figure 3-11 through 3-13 of GE Index Report 9.5 refer 3.4 (2 pages) 0CLR00030678
1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT: The purpose of this calculation is to evaluate the Ultrasonic Test (UT) thickness measurements taken in the sandbed region during the 14R outage. (1992) in support of the O.C. drywell corrosion mitigation project. These measurements were taken. from the outside of the shell. Access to the sandbed region was achieved by cutting ten holes completely; through the shield wall from the torus room.. These 1992 inspections began with visual inspections to identify the thinnest areas in each bay. UT measurements were then performed on the thinnest points within each area. In. October 2006 the majority of these areas were UT. inspected a second time. The locations were found using the data sheets from the 1992 inspection.
- In addition, revision 2 of this, calculation develops representative areas and thicknesses for each bay.
This calculation is not intended. to develop corrosion rates based on comparison of the 1992: and 2006 UT data, This is due to uncertainties and inconsistencies between~ the 1992 and 2006 external UT readings. Reference. 3.8 provides an assessment of corrosion rates in the sandbed from 1992 to 2006 utilizing regularly.monitored locations .from inside the drywell- Reference 3.8 concludes. that there were no observable corrosion rates in the sandbed between 1992 and 2006. Reference 3.8 also performs a "worst case" analysis of the external data. reviewed in this calculation and concludes that even When assuming the worst apparent. material loss (which.. is not credible), none-of these locations would corrode to: less the minimum require thickness prior to 2008, which is the next schedule inspection of these areas. 210.
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS: This calculation demonstrates that the UT thickness measurements for all bays meet the required minimum uniform and. local thickrnesses.. This was performed by evaluating the UT measurements for each bay against acceptance criteria general buckling, Mforlocal bucking, and primary membrane plus bending stresses. All UT measurements for bays 3, 5, 7, and 9 are all greater than the uniform acceptance criteria and therefore acceptable (see table.2-1). All UT measurements for bays 11, 15, and 17 are all greater than the uniform acceptance criteria, except for one measurement in each bay. Further evaluation of these three areas show that they meet the local criteria and are therefore acceptable (see table 2-1). All UT measurements for bays 1, 13 and 19 are evaluated using uniform and local criteria and found to be acceptable. The results are acceptable (see table 2-1). 0CLR00030679
TABLE: (2-1)
SUMMARY
OF.1992 AND 2006 UT EVALUATIONS Notes: 1) This value is the average of all Individual UT readings. -
- 2) This value is the average of recorded thicknesses in: a local area not greater than 36" by 36".
- 3) This value is the thinnest of all individual: UT readings in that Bay.
0 C~) 0'- 0, 'y . 00 "0
3.0
REFERENCE:
3.1 Drywell sandbed region pictures (Appendix C). 3.2 An ASME Section VII.Evaluation of the.OysterCreek Drywell for Without Sand Case Performed by GE - Part 1 Stress Analysis, Revision 0 dated February, 1991 Report 9-3. 3.3 An ASME Section VIII Evaluation of the Oyster Creek Drywell for Without Sand Case Performed by GE - Part 2 Stability Analysis, Revision' 2 dated November, 1992 Report 9-4. 3A ASME.Section HI Subsection NE Class MC Cmponents 1989. 3.5 GE letter report."Sandbed Local Thinni-ng and Raising the Fixity Height Analysis S (Line. Items 1:and 2.In Contrant PC-O391407)'" dated December 11, 1992. 3.6 GPUN Memo 5320-93-020 From K. Whitmoreý to J. C. Flyna: "Inspectionr of Drywell Sand Bed Regiori and Access Ho.le",.. Dated January 28, 1993. 33.7 Theory of Elastic Stability, by Stephen P. Timoshenko and James M. Gere, Second Edition, Engineering Societies Monographs, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1961. 3.8 Cal.culation C-1302-187-E3-10-041, Rev. 0 Statistical Analysis of Drywell Vessel Sandbed Thickness Data 1.992, 1994, 1996, and 2006. 3.9 "TDR 1108 "Summary Report of Corrective Action Taken From Operating Cycle 12 through 14R. 3.10 ASME Section VIII, 1962 Edition. 4.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND BASIC DATA: 4.1 Raw UT measurements 'for each bay are presented in Appendix D and-. summarized in the body of calculation. 4.2. References 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5 have been design-verified and are assumed correct. 4.3. The average of a series of thinnest UT readings within an area results in a conservative estimate of the average thickness of the area.. This concept is illustrated in figure 4.3-1 OCLR00030681
RouLgh Surface Fioure 4.3 3-" Outside The Drywell offlhe Dywell Distance between two locally thin areas Theb average of the.thinnest readings' in locaUl - thin aren.. is a conservative estimate of the average thickness of, the area between the two locally thin areas. Locally Thin Thcin Area 2. UT Reading at thinnest point in Area 2 UT.Reading at V thinnest point in Area 1I Inside Ile'Drywvell 0CLR00030682
5.0 DESIGN INPUTS: 5.1 Observations of the outside surface of the drywell shell. indicate a rough surface. with varyiing peaks and valleys. In order to characterize an average roughness representing the" depth difference of peaks and valleys, two impressions were made 1992 at the two thinnest UT measurements for bay 13 using Epoxy putty. Appendix A presents the calculation of the depth of surface roughness using the drywell shell impressions taken in the roughest bay.. Two locations in bay 13 were selected since it is the rougheat bay. Approximately 40 locations within the two. impressions, were imeasured for depth and the average plus one standard deviation was calculated, A value of 0.200 inch was used in this calculation as a
- conservative depth of uniform roughness, for the.' entire outside surface of the drywell in the sandbed regiom This is-defined as Tou&:
5.2 Drywell Design Pressure 44-0 psig, Oyster Creek, UFSAR Revision 13, Section 3.8.2.8, Page 3.8-61. Drywell Design Temperature = 292°F, OysterCreek, UFSAR.Revision 13, Table 3.1 i-I 5.3 The required sandbed shell thickness.for the Design Pressure and Temperature is defined in paragraph ASME B&PV Code, Subsection NE; paragraph NE-3324.4, Spherical Shells, as: t P= R Where:P Design Pressure 2S - 0.2P R Inside Radius of the Shell = 420 inches. S = Maximum Allowable Stress, SA 212 Grade B
= 19,300 psi (From ASME B&PV Code Section VIII.
1962 Edition and Reference 3.2, Section 2.2) 5.4 Drywell Sandbed buckling design thickness is 0.736 inches. Taken from References 3.3, and 3.5. 5.5 Analytical design inputs are taken from References 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5z 5.6 The 1992 UT data is provided in appendix D. 5.7 The 2006 UT data is provided in Appendix E. 5.8 In 2006 Inspectors located the majority of the same areas by using the 1992 NDE Inspection Data Sheets. Since many of the inspected locations were ground down in 1992 to develop a smooth surface, the bulk of the locations could be found by observing small flat convex areas in contrast to surrounding the surfaces that were rough- The data is-provided in Appendix E. OCLROO030683
Subject Caic No; Rev. No. Sheet No. . O.C. Drywell Ext. UT Evaluation in Sudbed C-1302-187-5320-024. 2 9 of 183 Originator Peter.Tamburro ... Date21ate Reviewed by. .. Date Jalien Abramovici These readings Were.not intended for corrosion rate trending due to uncertainties and inconsistencies between the 1992 and 2006 UT readings. These uncertainties include: a) The roughness of the inspected surfaces due to the previously corroded surface of the shell in.the sandbed regions b) The different UT technologies between 1992. and 2006. c) UT equipment instriment uncertainties and d) The poor repeatability in attempting to. inspect the exact. same unmarked locations over time Never the !less. a conservative evaluation was performed in which the.worst case difference between 2006 and 1992 values were evaluated to ensure that the next scheduled inspection is appropriate (reference 3.8)... OCLRO0030684
Subject Cae No, Rev. No.. Sheet No. -O.C. p IIlExL UT Evaluation in Sandbed C-1302-187-5320-024 .10 of- 183 Orig*iator Date Reviewed by Date Peter Tamburro 3/21/07 Julien Abramovici 6.0 METHODS OF ANALYSIS: Acceptance Criteria The requirements of section 6.1 and 6.3 shall bermet or the requirements of section 6.2 and 6.3 shall be met.: 6.1 Sandbed General Uniform Wall Criteria: Criteria:The Drywell Vessel in the:Sandbed (between elevations 8' 11V2"and 12' 3") shall have an average thickness greater than the uniform general thickness of 0.736" or meet the requirementsofsection 6.2. This acceptance criteria is based upon GE Reports 9-3 and 9-4 (Ref. 3.2 & 3.3) as well as other GE studieS (Ref. 3.5). The GE reports used a projected uniforms thickness of 0.736 inches in thi sandbed area. This area is defined- to be from the bottom to top of the sandbed, i.e., El. 8!-l J%" to El. i2T-3 and extending circumferentially onefuil bay. Individual readings less than 0.736! may be acceptable as long as the'average thicknesses' for surrounding area is greater than 0.736" and there are no individual VT readings less than 0.490 inches. Areasl.up ito 36" by 36" may be evaluated to the uniform criteria by-. averaging thinnest readings within the area.
-Therefore, if all the UT measurements for thickness in one bay are greater than 0.736 inches the bay is evaluated to be acceptable. Also if the average thickness of adjoining readings (within an area as large as 36" by 36").is greater than 0.736" then that area is acceptable.,
Also "Evaluation Thicknesses" calculated per section 6.4 may compared to the uniform. acceptance criteria of 0.736". Where the above evaluationt methods '.cannot meet this aceeptance criteria, a more.
.. detailed evaluation for local buckling shall be performed pet section 6.2.
6.2 Local Wall Criteria For Buckling: Criteria:An evaluated areafor local buckling shall not be largerthan 36".by 36" wide. The center ofthe area shall be no largerthan 12 "j'b 12 "and shall be.on average 0.636" thick or greater.The surrounding36" by 36" area centered on 12." by 12" area shall be on average thicker than the transitionfrom 0.636"" to 0.736 OCLRO0030685
This criteria is schematically shown below. Figure 6.2-1 0.736" 0.636" 12" -- 12" Profle 0CLR00030686
The studies in Reference 3.5 do not reflect actual drywell shell -conditions but are used as assessment tools for areas of the sandbed region that have reduced thickness. The methodology used in.these studies is provided in reference 3.5 with excerpts provided here. The studies contain a-two-step eigenvalue formulation procedure to perform linear elastic buckling analysis of the drywell shell with local areas of reduced thickness. The.first step is a static analysis of the structure with all the anticipated loads applied. The structural stiffness matrix, [K], the stress sti ffiless matrix, [S], and the Applied stresses, developed and saved from this static analysis. A buckling pass is then run to solve for the'lowest eigenvalue or load factor, A, for the whole stnrture at which elastic buckling can occur. This load. factor, or eigenvalue is a multiplier forthe applied stress state or applied load at which.the onsetof elastic buckling will theoretically occur. All the applied stresses in the structure are scaled equally by the load.factor. This analysis technique is applied to the drywell pie slice finite element model,.with a reduction in thickness of 0.200 nches (below the-design buckling thickness of 0.736") in a local area of 12 x 12 inch6sin the sandbed region, tapering to the original thickness over an additional 12 inches, located -to result in the largest reduction in load factor -possible. This location is selected at. the point of maximum deflection .ofthe eigenvector shape associated with the lowest buckling load. The theoretical load factor / eigenvalue for.this case was reduced by 9.5% from 6.14 to 5.56. It should be noted that this reduction of 0.200 inches is over a 144 square inch area of the shell while the actual surface area including the tapering of the thickness is 36 by 36 inches or 1,296 square inch area with thicknesses that are below the 0.736 inch buckling design thickness. This additional tapered area and its reduced thicknesses also contributed to the 9.5% reduction in load factor. In addition, a second buckling. analysis was perforned for a wall thickness reduction.of 0.636 inches over the one square foot area. The results of this case reduced the load factor and theoretical buckling stress by 3.9%.iin Reference 3.5. The center of the thinned area was located close to the maximum displacement point in the buckling analysis with uniform thickness 0.73 6" as per Reference 3.5. The actual surface area including the tapering of the thickness is a 36 by 36 inch.or 1,296 square inch area with thicknesses that are below the buckling design thickness. This additjonal tapered area and its reduced thicknesses also contribute to the 3.9% reduction in load factor stated previously. The total loss in volume, compared to the same. area with a thickness of 0.736", is 72 cubic inches. For this calculation only the second.case, which is more conser~vative, is to be used as acceptance criteria. Actual individual thicknesses readings within the 12" by 12" area may be less than 0.636" as long as the individual readings are greater than 0.490" (section 6.3) and the average thickness over the entire 12" by. 12" area is greater.area. than 0.636". The same rational is applicable to the by 12" transition region outside the 12' OCLROO030687
Calc No. Rev. No. Sheet No. O.C. Drfwefl Ext UT Ev~ahaton in Sandbed. C4302-187-5320-024 2. 13 of 183 Reviewed by Date Peter Tainbunv . /16 Julien Abramovici The actual UT. readings and their spatial relationship will be compared to the acceptance. criteria by plotting the profile of the areas and the recorded thicknesses overlaid on the criteria. This concetptis- shown on figure 6.2-2. Profiles Will be developed in two directions, one in the vei-tical direction and the second in the horizontal direction. Fifture 6.2.-2 "1)Dotte(d lines are thickness which have not been
'measured bWt are greater than measuTred areas.
The solid lines are acttual.re'orded thickness for each area. Therefore plotting the recorded UT Readings which are the thinnest at each location provides a conservative 2estimate of the thickness of the region.
.2) Ie distance between areas: and their spatial relationship was obtained from the original data sheets.
I 0..736? Area 1 12 Area 3. o *. I.................................
- 3) Thisline isthe I profile of the criteria 12" 125" 12" OCLR00030688
6.2.1 Correction for the Location of the Locally Thin Area. The above criteria based on a 3" by 36" area was developed from sensitivity studies (reference 3.5) using tie original ANSYS model which modeled the Drywell Vessel. The sensitivity studies placed the 36'" by 36" grid on the area of the model. that had the highest buckling stresses. This atea is located between the centerlines of the vent lines. Areas below the vent lines had.less compressive stresses. Therefore locally thin areaslocated under a vent lines will have more margin than'the same locally thin areas located between the centerline of the vent lines. This is shown in figure 3-11 and 3-13 of the original GE studY (reference. 3.4). These figures show the calculated compressive stresses from the original .finite element modeling of the Drywell Vessel for the bounding case. In particular, figure 3-13 shows that the circumferential stresses in the bounding case vary from approximately 4300 to 5400 psi under the-vent line to approxinately 6500 psi at the centerlipe between the vent lines). Therefore it is concluded that there is at least 20% additional margin in areas that are below the centerlines of the vent.line. These figures are attached in Appendix G. 6.2.2,Cumulative Effect of Locally Thin Area. To Buckling A-l. inspected locations with UT measurements below 0.736 inches.have been determined to be in isolated locations less than 2A/2 inches in diameter. The effect of these very -local wall thickness areas on.the buckling.of the shell. requires someft discussion of the buckling mechanism in a shell of revolution under an.applied axial and lateral pressure load. To begin the discussion we will describe the buckling of a simply supported cylindrical shell under the influience of lateral external pressure and, axial load. As described in.Chapter II of Reference 3.7, thin cylindrical shells buckle-in lobes in both the axial and circumferential directions. These lobes are defined as half wavelengths of Sinusoidal -functions. The functions are governed by the radius, thickness and length of the cylinder. If we look at a specific thin walled cyli ndrical shell both the length and radius-would be essentially constants and if the thickness was reduced locally then this reduction would have to be significant -and over a 'maj6rity of the lobe so that the compressive-stress in the lobe would exceed the critical buckling stress under the applied loads, thereby causing the shell.to buckle locally. This is demonstrated in Reference 3.5 where a 12 x 12 square inch section of the drywell sandbed region is reduced by 100 mils and a local buckle occurred in the finite element eigenvalue extraction analysis of the drywell. Now reviewing the stability analyses provided in both References 3.3 -and 315 and recognizing that the finite elements in the sandbed region of the model are 3" x 3", itis clear that the circumferential buckling lobes for the drywell are substantially larger than the 2 Y2 inch diameter very local wall-areas. This combined with the local reinforcement surrounding these local areas OCLROO030689
Subject Caol No. IRev. No. Sheet.No. .O.C. ,bDw0lExt. UT Evatualion in Sandbed: C-1302A87-5320-024 . 2 154.of 183 Originator "Date Reviewed by Date Peter Tambirro . 3/21/07- JMlien. Abrmovici and the spherical shell being close to the constraint provided by the concrete supporting structure indicates that these areas will have no impact on the buckling margins in'the shell. It. is also clear from Reference 3.5 that for the first .case a.uniform reduction.in thickness of 27%/ over a one square foot area followed by a transition zone would only create a 9.5% reduction in the load factor and theoi-etical buckling load of the drywell. Although this reduction of 27% is only over a 144 square inch area of the shell, the actual surface area including the transition zone to the0.736 inch bucklingdesign thickness is a 36 inch by 36 inch or 1,296 square inch area.. This area of reduced thickness was located in the portion of the sandbed considered most susceptible to buckling, the tmidpoint of a bay between two vents. In-addition, a second case was performed (Reference 3.5) for a wall thickness reduction f 13.5% or a thickness of 0.636 inches-over a.one square foot area followed by a transition zone from 0.636 inches to 0.736-inches.. Again, although this reduction from 0.736 inches to 0.636 inches is over a 144 square inch area of the shell, while the actual surface area including the tunsitiion zone to the buckling design thickness is a 36 inch by 36 inch or a 1,296 square inch area. This second buckling analysis resulted in. a 3.9% reduction in'the load factor. The total loss in.volumei, compared to the same area with a thickness of 0.736", is 72 cubic inches.
- OCLROO030690
6.3 Very Local Wall Criteria - Primary Membrane Plus Bending Criteria: An.individualUT reading shall:be greaterthan 0.490". The required sandbed shell thickness for the Design Pressure and Temperature is defined in paragraph ASME JB&PV Code, Subsection NE, paragraph NE-3324.4, Spherical Shells, as: PR t Where: P = Design Pressure 2S - UP R = Inside Radius of the Shell .'420 inches S = Maximum Allowable Stress, SA 21:2 Grade B
= 19,300 psi (From ASME B&PV Code Section VIII 1962 Edition and Reference 3.2, Section 2.2).
Substituting values in the equation we have: (44.0psigX420.0" t-,(9,300psi)_- t==( 0.2(44.0psig)=0.79ice 0.4789 inches This acceptance criteria for primary membrane plus bending stresses is based on ASME B&PV Code, Section 111, Subsection NE, Class MC Components, Paragraphs NE-3:2i3.2 Gross Structural Discontinuity, NE-3213.10 Local Primary Membrane Stress, NE-3332, ]Openings not Requiring Reinforcement, NIE-3332.2 Required Area of Reinforcement and NE-3335.1 Reinforcement of Multiple Openings. The. use of Paragraph NE-3332.1 'is limited by the requirements of Paragraphs NE-3213.2 and NE-3213-10.. In particulariNE-32!3.l0 limits the meridional distance between openings without reinforcement to2.54-R-. Also Paragraph NE-3335.1 only applies to openings in shells that are. closer than 2 times their average diameter. The implication of these paragraphs' is that shell failures from primary stresses produced by design pressure cannot occur provided openings in shells have sufficient reinforcement. The current design pressure of 44 psig for the drywell requires a thickness of 0.479 inches in the sandbed region of the drywell. Therefore, the requirements for primary membrane plus bending stresses,: specified by the above code sections are not required for very local wall thickness as long as all measured thickness are greater than 0.479 inches evaluation presented in the calculation. In summary 0.479 inches can be considered the uniform general criteria for primary membrane plus bending stresses and there are no proximity requirements as long a -all UT readings are greater than 0.479". OCLROO030691
Subject Cale No. Rev. No. SheetNo. O.C. Drywell Ext. UT Evaluation in Sandbed C-1302-187-5320-2024. " 2 17 of 183 Origiater Date. Reviewed by Date Peter Tamburro 3/21/07 ulkien Abramoviel Therefore the Drywell Vessel.in the sandbed vessel could be uniforily 0.479' .thick and still withstand the design pressure of 44 psig and meet code stress allowable. Revision 0 of the calculation.associated this acceptance criteria with a value of 0.490" and not 0.479r. Also this acceptance criteria was mistakenly attributed to primary -membrane plus bending stresses (pressure) and local buckling criteria, and was limited to a12 'A"diameter area. However review of the basis for the criteria (as described above) shows that this criteria only applies to primary membrane plus bending stresses and not buckling. In addition as documented above, the 0.479" value is a uniform thickness requirement value for primary membrane plus bending stresses. Therefore the 2 1/2/" diameter area restriction and proximity restrictions to other locally thin areas (greater than 0.479") is not applicable to this criteria. However for purposes of maintaining historical consistency and to ensure additional conservatism 0;490" will remain as the value for this as acceptance criteria in this calculation, 6.4 Development of "Evaluation Thickne.s" This -detailed evaluation is based, in part, on visital observations of the shell surface plus a knowledge of the inspection process. This evaluation arrives a meaningful value for the general sandbed shell thickness for use in the assessment to the: uniform and local buckling aceeptance criteria. -This meaningful value is referred to as the "Evaluation Thickness". It is coimputed by accounting forthe depth measurements taken around the areas with the thinnest centers in 1992 and considering the roughness of the shell surface. The pit depth measurements were performed over a 1 inch band around points that were less than 0.736 inch. Therefore that resulting Evaluation Thickness is an estimate of the average thickness of the 2 inch diameter area around the.individtial thinnest reading. 6.4.1 Estimates the Surface Roughness The factor that estimates the surface roughness is first discussed. The surface of the shell has. been characterized as being 'dimpled" as in the surface of a. golf ball where the dimples are about one half inch in diameter (Appendix C). Also, the surface contains
- some depressions 12 to. 18 inches in diameter not closer than 12 incbes apart; edge to edge (Re' 3.6). Appendix A presents the calculation of the depth of surface roughness using the drywell shell impressions taken in the roughest bay. Two locationsin bay 13 were selected since it is the roughest bay.. - Approximately 40 locations within the two impressions were measured for depth and the average plus one standard -deviation was calculated to be at 0.186 inches. A value of 0.200 inch was used in this calculation as a conservative depth of uniform dimples for the entire outside surface of the drywell in the sandbed region.
6.4.2 Estimate of Area Surrounding the Thinnest UT Reading The inspection focused on the thinnest portion of the drywell, even if it was very local, i.e., the inspection did, not attempt to define a shell thickness suitable for structurat evaluation. Observations indicate that some inspected spots are very deep. They are much deeper than the normal dimples found, and very local, not more than I to 2 inches in diameter. Typically these observations were made after the spot was surface prepped 0CLR00030692
for UT measurement. This results in a wide dimple to accommodate the UT probe and is slightly deeper than originally found. The depth of these areas was measured within a 1" band with a depth gauge and straight edge at 0O, 45', 900 and 135" around these inspected dimples, The depths obtained were averaged with respect to the tops of the locally.rough areas. These depths are referred'to herein as the AVG micrometer measurements. As these AVG micrometer measurements are very. local in nature their effect on the structural response of the drywell to applied loads is. very limited. A more meaningful. shell thickness for the .dryweUl structural response. to applied loads is the general shell thickness near the UT measured indications. This, can be obtained on -a smooth shell exterior surface by adding the UT measured' thickness at the bottom of the indication and the AVG micrometer measurements of the indication depth. But because the exterior of . the drywell shell. in the sandbed region is very rough and dimpled the measurement. described above would result in general shell thicknesses near the;indications over a 2 V2" diameter area (See Figurte 6.1). To deteamine a conservative'general shell thicknessat the locations of interest Design "Input 5.1 of this calculation is subtracted from the combination of the UT measurement and the depth micrometer readings. This. thickness is then used to determine the drywell shell susceptibility. to buckling. by comparing it to the uniform and local buckling. acceptance criteria. This thickness is referred -to as the "Evaluation Thickness" and can be attributed to an approximate 2" diameter area around the UT reading and is computed as follows. T (evaluatiori) UT (measurement) + AVG (micrometer) - Trough where: T (evaluation) General shell thickness used for the evaluation UT (measurement) thickness measurement at the area, (location) AVG (micrometer) average depth of the area relative to its immediate surroundings Trough = 0.200 inches a conservative value of depth of typical dimple on the. shell surface. See Design Input 5.1. After this calculation, if the thickness for analysis is greater than 0.736 inches, the area is evaluated as acceptable. If not, the area must meet the criteria in section 6.2. The procedure was originally performed on the 1992 UT inspection date and repeated on the 2006 data. Both sets of results are documented. OCLROO030693
FIGURE 6.4-1 Tltn --U+AVGw.- T rT+A VG Micrometer OCLR00030694
-7.0 CALCULATIONS:.
7.1 EVALUATION OF BAY #1
SUMMARY
The outside surface of this bay is rough and full of dimples similar to the. outside surface Of a golf ball. This observation is made by the inspector who located the thinnest areas in. 1992. The 2006 inspections confirmed this observation (references 3.6). This inspection focused on the thinnest areas of the drywell, even if it was very local. The shell appears to be relatively uniform in thickness except for a band of corrosion which looks like a.
"bathtub" ring, located 15 to 20 inches below the vent pipe reinforcement plate, i.e., weld line as shown in Figure 1-1. (Figure 1-1 is not to scale). The graphical presentation in Figure I1i of measured indications is extracted from Appendix D, Calculation Pages 71 to 76. Based on the inspectors observations the bathtub ring is 12 to 18 inches wide and about 75 inches long located in the center of the bay. Beyond the bathtub ring on both sides, the shell appears to be uniform in thickness at a conservative value of 0.800 inches.
Above thi bathtub ring the shell exhibits no corrosion since the original lead primer on the vent pipe/reinforcemeat plate is intact. -Measurements 14 and '15 confirm that. the thickness above the bathtub. ring is at 1.154 inches starting at elevation 11.'-00".. Below the bathtub ring the shell is uniform in thickness where no abrupt changes in thicknesses are present. Figure 1-2 plots areas that are thinner than 0.736" in 2006. Figure !-2 is to scale with respect to the distances between the readings. 7.1.1 Local Readings Less Than The Uniform Criteria Table 1-1 below provides individual UT readings for 1.992 and 2006. These readings are the thinnest single readings within each locally thin area. All readings are confined to areas less than 2 W." inches in diameter. Shaded readings are less than the uniform crieeria of 0;736 inches and must be further evaluated. These areas and their location are shown on figure 1-2. The figure presents the areas with readings less than 0.736 inches as , squares and areas with readings over 0.736 inches as triangles.. Areas 14 and 15 were selected to confirm that no .corrosion had taken place in.the area above the bathtub ring. Table 1-1 also provides the results of the 2006 inspection. Table -lBay # I thinnest UT Data 0CLR00030695
- U.Z4U3 U. 12si 9
10 0.805 0.839 ... 0.754 10 0.824*.. 12-13 0J92 _ 14 1.147 1.157 15 .= 1.156. 1.160 16'. 0.796 0.795. 17 0.860 0.846 18 0.917 0.899 19 0.890 0.865 21
.. 20 .0.965... 0.912 22 0.852 0.854 23 0...850 0.828 Avera&Lg 0.822. 0.801 7.1.2 Bay #1 Very.Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Pressure Only)
The table shows that all readings are greater than the criteria of 0.490". The thinnest reading was in area 3, was 0.665 inches in 2006. 7.1.3 Bay 1 Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Local Buckling) The values in Table 1-1 are the thinnest individual readings found in the. areas. For purposes of this calculation all these areas will be'considered to be 2 1/2z" in diameter. Eight areas (1, 2, 3, 5,.7, 11, 12, and 21) shown in Table.1-1 have individual measurements below 0.736 inches in 1992. Therefore the depth measurements were performed on these areas in 1992 (Table 1-2). At each location, micrometer readings were taken at the 0, 45, 90, and 135 degree orientation. The following. table provides a summary of the depths in each azimuth. Table 1-2 Bay. 1 AVG Micrometer Calculations
*I . I . I I U.ZU I U.2Ut'- U.1U"2 I T' 2 0.143" 0.133" 0.143" " 0.154" "0.143" OCLR00030696
Example Of Calculation in Table 1-2 (AVG Micrometer),1 DI_& Dls, +D1-90 + D 1I3P 4"
-(AVGMicrometer) . 0.272"+0.204"+0...206'+0.185" 0217" 4.
Where: D .
'D NMicrometer Depth Reading for location I at 0 degrees taken from Appendix D, Calculation Page 74, etc.
The following table provides (per section 6.4) the "Evaluation Thickness" at the locally thin areas. Shaded. areas are less than the uniform acceptance criteria of 0.736" and must be evaluated further. Table 1-3 Summary Of Measurements Below 0.736" OCLR00030697
Example of Calculation in Table 1-3 . T(Ew,,tion)l =UPT(Mea,6). + (AVG Micrometer), -T" Where'UT(M*,*-,*) = 0.720" Taken from Appendix D, Calculation Page 71, Location 1
,T,*= 0.200" See Design Input 5.1 and Section 6, Acceptance Criteria, General Wall.
o0.720"+0.217"-0.2007= 0.737" Areas 6 and 13 were not characterized in 1992 since'the individual thinnest readings within the areas were greater than 0.736". However in 2006 these reading were less than 0.736'. Therefore the thinnest individual readings are evaluated per section 6-2. This is conservative since no credit is taken for the surrounding thicker material around the thinnest reading (see assumption 4.3). 7,1.3.1 Are;is 3, 5, and 12 Table 1-3 show that the resulting "Evaluation Thickness" of areas 3, 5 and 12 are jeater than 0.736 inches: and are therefore acceptable. 7.1.3.2 Evaluation of Area 13 Refer to figure 1-6.. Area 13 has a single reading of 0.719". This location is next-to areas 4 (0.738"), 5 (0.680"), 9 (0.754"),.ad 1.9 (0.856"). The "Evaluation Thickness" of area 5 is 0.793" ard. therefore this location is aceeptable. These five areasrare bounded, by a 23" by 16" area. Since five single points were. determined by the inspectors to be the thinnest within this area, the average of these individual readings is a. conservative estimate of the average thickness of the 16" by 23" area. (see assumption 4.3). The average of these five readings is 0.751"1 which, is greater than 0.736". 7.1.3.3 Evaluation ofAreas 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 21 Area 2, which has an individual reading of 0.690", was combined .with neighboring areas 7 (0.669"'), 11 (0.711") and.21 (0.712") (see figure 1-3). These four areas can be captured in a 14" by 18" area that has an average thickness of 0.696". The average thickness value for areas 2,. 7, 11, and 21 were then located in relationship to areas. 1, and 6 (see figure 1-3).-Figure 1-4 and 1 -5 show the profile of the 36" by 36" area. with the thickness of areas 1, and 6 and the average thickness of areas 2,7,11 and 21 overlaid with a curve depicting the acceptance criteria. Figure 1-4 shows the profile along the horizontal axis and figure 1-5 show the profile along the vertical axis. The figures show that the average thicknesses are greater than the criteria. 0CLR00030698
Subject O.C. Drvwell Ext. UT Evaluation in Sandi Please note that Figure 1-4 does show that the two locally thin areas come close to the edges of the 36" by 36" acceptance criteria envelope. However since these areas are significant smaller than the analyzed area and since the.two areas are actually located at an azimuth of the drywell that sees less stress (7.1.3.4) the approach to the envelope is judged to be inconsequential. 7-. 3-4 Combined Effect of The 10: Areas on Buckling There are several conservative factors associated with the size and the location of the locally thin areas which cannot be quantified but are judged to be substantial in demonstrating that the measured thickness are adequate. These are described below. 7.1.3.4.1 Refer to figure 1-7. The locally thin area -for this bay that is less than 0.736 inches is located directly under the vent line, The local buckling criteria (section 6.2) is based on sensitivity studies that placed a 36" by 36" locally thin grid on the area of the firfite element model that had the highest buckling stresses. This area is located between the centerlines of the vent lines (+66" to - 66 as shown in figure 1-2). Areas below the vents lines had less compressive stresses (- 36" to +36"). Therefore locally thin areas located under a vent lines will have more margin thlan the-same localj. . Lhin areas located between the centerline of the vent lines. Review of the original GE study (see -appendix F) shows that. stresses under the vent line are at least 20% less then the stresses between the centerline of the vent lines, Therefore the necessary wall thickness to maintain the required safety factor forportions of the vessel under the vent lines is substantially less (by at least 20%) than the calculated required uniform thickness of 0.736". 7.1.34.2 A second factor is the cumulative size of the ten locally thin areas, which is significantly much smaller than the analyzed 36" by 36" area (see the figure in section 6.2). The total volume of this 36" by 36" area when compared to the volume of a similar
.36" by 36" area with a uniform thickness of 0.736" correspond to a reduced volume of 72.0 cubic inches.
The cumulative volume of all ten locally thin areas is about 1.7 cubic inches (see the table below).. Area Thinnest reading Equivalentvolume loss of 2 V2 inches diameter area inside the area with thickness equal to thinnest readings (Colunm 2) (inches) when compared to a uniform thickness of 0.736 inches (Column 2) (0.736.-.Column 2)* 3.142*(2.5/2)**2 1 0.710 0.128 2 0.690 0.226 3 -0.665 .0.349 5 '0680 0.275 6, 0.731 " 0.025 7 0.669 0.329 0CLR00030699
Area Thinnest. reading- Equivalent volume loss of 2 %/ inches diameter area inside the area with thickftess equal to thinnest readings (Column 2) (inches) when compared to a uniform thickness of 0.736 inches (Column 2) (0.736 -:Column 2)* 3.142*(2.5/2)**2. 11 0.711 0.123 12 0.722. ..0.069 13 0-719 0.083 21 .0.712 0.118 Total .1.723 Therefore the comparison of the "as found" volume reduction, which is about 1.723 cubic inches, to the "analyzed" volume reduction of.72 cubic inches leads to the conclusion that: the effecton the buckling l1ad.factor is negligible. In additioa'since the rmajority of the vessel.in this bay is thicker than 0.736",,the thicker areas will reinforce the locally thin areas. For example approximately 7210 square inches of surface area in this bay (of a total of 9072 square inches) is 800 mils or thicker (refer to figure 13-7), When compared to same surface area with a thicknesm of 0.736" there is a. total increase in volume of at least 460 cubic inches. (e .g 460 = (0.8-0.736)* 7210). This additional volume will reinforce the locally thin areas. 7.1A Bay #1 General Wall Thickness Criteria (Buckling) Outside the "Bathtub Ring" Refer to figure 1- I Taking the average of the UT measured thicknesses of areas 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19,22 and.23 gives a. average thickness of 0.824 inches in 1992 and 0.802 inches 2006 for the shell below the bathtub ring. Based on this a conservative mean thickness of 0.802 inches, is estimated to represent the evaluation thickness for this bay outside the bounds of the bathtub ring. Therefore it is concluded that these areas are acceptable based on the thickness exceeding the buckling design thickness for the sandbed region of 0.736 inches using the results of Reference 3.3. Above the bathtub ring the shell exhibits no corrosion since the original lead primer on the Vent, pipe/reinforcement plate is intact- Measurements 14 and 15 confirm that the thickness above the bathtub ring is at 1.154 inches starting at elevation. 1 "-00". In the "Bathtub Ring" Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, and 21 are confined to the bathtub ring as showh in Figure 1-1 and 1-2. To determine the general shell thickness in the bathtub ring area of this bay the evaluation thicknesses for each of the. areas defined above are averaged together. An example -of a typical calculation of the general wall thickness defined as the evaluation thickness is presented below foe clarity: An.average value of the evaluationi thicknesses presented in Table 1-3 for this bandis as follows; OCLROO030700
Area. Evaluation Thickness (1992) Evaluation Thickness (2006) 1 0.737" .0.727" 2 0.659" 0.633" 3 0.852" 0.812" 4-* NA 0.738"* 5 0.823" 0.793" 10* NA 0.824" 11 0.726" 0.723" 12 0.825" 0.823" 13* NA " 0.719"* 20#.. NA 0.q1272* 21 0.737" 0.714" 0
*Average = 0.766" Average:; 0.765"
- Note for area 4, 10, 13: an 20 the actual 2006 UT measurement were used since these areas were not characterized in 1992.
Again given that the average, evaluation thickness of the shell in the bathtub ring area exceeds the buckling design thickness of 0.736 inches the shell rea within the bathtub ring is'also acceptable using the results of Reference 3.3. 7.1.5 Conclusion Figure 1-7-illustrates representative areas and thicknesses in this bay as follows: Area B - This is a 23" wide and 16" high.area, which is at least 0.751" thick. This thickness is.based, on the thickness of the Bathtub Ring (refer to section 7.1.3.2)4 Area C - This is a36"by 36" area which is at least 0.696 inches thick. This thickness is based on the evaluation in section 7.1.3.3.. Area D- The remaining areas of the Bay are 0.800 inches thick or greater. This thickness is based on the evaluation in section 7.1.4. Area E- This isa I." wide by 18 "high area which and is at least 0.765 inches thick. This thickness is based on the thickness of the Bathtub ring (refer to section 7.1.4). OCLROO030701
Therefore this bay meets the acceptance criteria based on the following:
- 1) All individual readings are greater than 0.490 inches.
- 2) Except for Area C, the entire bay has thickness greater than 0.736.inches.
.3) Area-C (which is limited to an area of 36" by 36") meets the acceptance criteria in section 6.2.
OCLR00030702
Figure 1-1DATA NOTES:
- 1. All 'Locaton" measurements from Intersection of the DW shell and vent coilla fillet welds.
- 2. Pit depts are average of four repdings taken at 0/46a"WJ9/1*° withIn !, band surrounding g9ound spots. Only measured whers remaining wall thi.
was below 0.7W. Ell MW U MELL
'.19 23S--
OCLR00030703
mI III Figure 1-2 C-1302-187-5320-024 Bay 1 2006 Rev 2, Page 29 Spatial Relationship Of Locally Thin Areas Center Line Of Vent Line +13" Inches U) U= Area modeled In GE Study Squares are less than 0.7360 Area moSeed 0 (Refo 3.5) Triangles are greater .then 0.736"
... .(Ref. (e 3.t) 3.5)
C) C0
0 Figure 1-3 Bay 1 Locations 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 21 Evaluation Thickness Inches 0 5 40
-20 a) U:
0
-;30 -
3.- 0O 0. 0 C-) r-=
;0 736 M11 Boundary t
Profile on Figure 1-4 C-1302-187-5320-024 Rev 2, Page 30 03 .0 0 0 (3,
Figure 1-4 Bay'1 Horizontal Profile (Evaluation Thickness versus Local Buckling Criteria) 900 pow 800 J9 700 FE
.600 500
-10 0 10 20* 30 40 i 6 Criteria -m- 1 .-G-6 -. averae 2, 11,21- and C0-1302-187-5320-Q24 0C-, Inches Along Vessel Rev 2,- Page 31 0')
Figure 1-5 Bay 1 Vertical Profile (Evaluation Thickness versus Local Buckling Criteria) LQcatIons 2, 7,: 11 and 21 average 696 mils over a 7'" by 4area 900 Location 6 731 Mile 1 7____Mils/___Location 800 727 Mils C 0ý 700 AV 600 Local Buckling Criteria 500
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 Verictial Inches
'- 636 Criteria, a-- 1 -- Average2,7,1 1,and2c -i-.-._6 C-1302-187-5320-024 Rev 2, Page 32 0
0 0-70 CA) -.3
Figure 1-6 Bay 1 locations 5 and 13 Evaluation Thickness 0 I T - I _ 5 -50 -45 -40 -35. -30 -25 . -20 -.15 -10 -5 0
,5 13 Locations 4,5, 9, 13 and 19 680 Mils I
719 Mils z. 4 738 Mils average 751 mile over a 23".-by 16" area
-20.
U-,Now.- 0) 0 U . U1 754 Mils 19.
.8685 Mile
-60 =
C-1302-187-5320-024 Rev 2, Page 33 0 Inches I'- C 0 CO (0
Figure 1e7 Bottom Vent Line Bay 1 2006 Bottom Vent Line
.C-1302-187-5320-024 Pentration Pad Rev 2, Page 34 Representative Thickenesses Center Line Of Vent Line + 13" .-,
-4 4 -72 -60 -48 11 -24 -12 !2" 24 16 48* 60 72 ` i t E) This Is a 18' high (Y This comer Is at I
direction) by 17" wide (X direction) area and has :a X=-7" andY = -13. I representative thickness of Edge of 72" vent 0.765". lines A) This corner I Is at X= -47" and Y=-22. C B) This is a 23" wide (X direction) and 16"high (Y direction) area and I I D) Re maining area outside the has a representative thickness of three boxes Is 0.800" thick or 0.781 ".I greatEer Edge of 72" vent I I lines U ,A. All X and Y dimensions are referenced from 13 inches to the right of centerline of the-vent line (X direction) and the bottom of the Penetration Reinforcement Pad (Y diWension). Reference NDE Data sheets 92-072-12 page 1 of 2 and 1R2ILR-022 page 2 of 2. 0 C) 0'- 0 C>) (0 Co
Subject .. No. C-3Cate Rev. No. Sheet No. O.C. Drywell Ext. UT Evaluation in Sandbed .C-132-187-5320-024 2 35 of 183 Originator Date Reviewed by. Dite Peter Tamburm' - 3/21/07 Jhie* Abramnovi.. 7.3 UT EVALUATION BAY #3
SUMMARY
The outside surface of this bay is rough; similar to bay one, full of dimples compaiable to the.
-outside surface of golf ball. (references 3.6). This observation was made by the inspector who located the thinnest areas for the UT examination. The shell appears to be relatively uniform in' thickness except for a bathtub ring.8 .to 10 inches wide approximately 6 inches below- the, vent header reinforcement plate. The upper portion of the shell beyond the.band exhibits no corrosion where the original.red lead primer is still intact.
7.3.1 Local Readings Less Than The Uniform Criteria
- Eight areas were selectedlto represent the thinnest areas based on the/visual observations of the
- shell surface (Table 3-I and Fig. 3-1). These areas .are' a deliberate attempt to produce a minimum: measurement. Table 3-1 shows measurements taken to measure the thicknesses of the drywell shell.using a.1D-meter. The results indicate that all of the areas have thickness greater than the 0.736 inches. Therefore, the uniform 'criteria is.met throughout the bay and it is.
- concluded thit-the bay is acceptable.
0CLR00030710
Subject *Cale No. O.C. Drywell Ext UT Evaluation in Sandbed C-130 2-1 Originator Date Reviewed by I Peter Tambu*ro 3121/07 1 Julien Abramovici I These areas and their location are shown on figure 3-2. Table 341 Bay # 3 Thinnest UT Data I 0-795 0.795 I. 2 1.000 0.999 3 0.857 0.850 4 0.898 0.903 5" 0.823- 0.819* 6 0.968 0.972 7 0.826 0.816
& 0.780. 0.764 Aver-Ago 0.8685 .7.3.2 Bay #3 Very Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Pressure Only).
All individualreadings were greater than the acceptance criteria of 0.490". The thinnest reading was 0.764" in area 8 recorded in 2006. 7.3.3 Bay 3 Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Local Buckling) The results indicate that all of the areas have thickness greater than the 0.736 inches. Therefore the uniform criteria is met throughout the bay and the use of the local wall thickness criteria for buckling is not required. 7.3.4 Bay 3. General Wall Thickness Criteria (Buckling) The UT measurements presented in Table 3-1 equal an average of 0.868 inches in 1992 and 0.865" in 1992. Therefore, it is concluded that the bay is acceptable based on the bay evaluation thickness exceeding.the buckling design thickness for the sandbed region of 0.736 inches using results of reference 3.3. OCLR00030711
I1 Subject Caic No. Rev. No. SheetNo. O.. Diy"w1! Ext. Ur Evaluation in Sandbed 0-1302-187-5320-024 2 37 of 183 Originator ' .". . .I Date Reviewed by Date Peter Tambuao . . .3121107 Julien Abramovici 7.315 Conclusion It is concluded that Bay 3is iaeceptable since all individual UT readings in 1992 and 2006 were greater than the uniform acceptance criteria. Figure 3-2 illustrates the representative thicknesses in this bay, which is 0.865 inches or greater (refer to section 7.3.4). OCLROO030712
Figure 3-1 BAY #3 DATA NOTES:.
- 1. All "LocationO measurements from Intersecton of the DW shell and vent-collar fillet welds.
2
- 8. ~4. .0 S
0
.7 DW 8*
bInELL FIGURE (3) 0CLR0OO307I 3
Figure 3-2 Spa RBay 3n2006 Spatial* Relati .onship.Of Loicai.ify Thin Areas Inches a) Squares are less than 0.736" Triangles are greater then 0.736" 0 C-1302-187-5320-024 Rev 2, Page 39 C) 0 0 w C,,
7.5 UT-EVALUATION BAY 5
SUMMARY
The outside surface of this bay is rough and very similar to bay 3 except that the local areas are. clust&eed at the junction of bays 3 and 5, at about 30 inches above the floor. The shell surface is full of dimples comparable~to the outside surface of a golf ball (references 3.6). This observation. is made by the inspector who located the thinnest areas for the UT examination. The shell appears to be relatively uniform in thickness. Eight. areas were selected to represent the thinnest areas based on the visual observations of the shell surface (see Fig. 5-1). These areas are a deliberate attempt to produce a minimum measurement. Table 5-1 shows these thickness values. The results indicate that all of the areas have thickness greater than the 0.736 inches. 7.5.1 Local Readings Less Than The Uniform Criteria The individual thinnest UT measurements for locally thin areas are presented in Table 5-1. All 1992 and 2006 reading were greater than 0736 inches. Therefore, the uniform criteria is'met throughout the.bay and itis concluded that the bay is acceptable. These areas and their location are shown. on.figure 5-2 Table ..i1 Bay # 5 Thinnest UT, Data 1 0.970 0.948 2 1,040 0.955 3 1.020 0.989
" 0(.948, 4 0.910 5 0.890 0.880 6 1.060 0.981 7 0.990 0.974
- 1_007
*8 1.010 Average 0.986 0.960 7.5.2 Bay #5 Very Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Pressure Only)
All individual readings were greater than the acceptance criteria of 0.490". The thinnest reacting was 0.880" in area 5 recorded 2006. 7A5.3 Bay 5 Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Local Buckling) OCLROO030715
The results indicate that all of the areas have thickness greater than the -0.736 inches, Therefore the uniform criteria is met throughout the bay and the use of the local wall thickness criteria for" buckling is not required. 7.5.4 Bay #5 General Wall Thickness Criteria (Buckling) The UT measurements presented in Table 5-1 equal an average of 0,986 inches in 1992 and 0.960" in 2006. , Therefore, it is concluded that the bay is acceptable based on the bay evaluation thickness exceeding the buckling design thickness for the sandbed region of 0.736 inches using results of Reference 3.3. 7.5.5 Conclusion 'It is concluded~that Bay 5is acceptable since all individual UTreadings in 1992 and 2006 were greater than the uniform acceptance criteria. Figure 5-2 illustrates the representative thicknesses in this bay, which is 0.960 inches or greater (refer to section 7.5.4). 0CLR00030716
Fire 5-1 BAY #5 DATA NOTES:
- 1. Inthis bay DW sell (bMt) weld Is-about 8' to the right of C/L ot vent tube. Therefore - all measurements were taken from a line drawn on shel which approx.
coincide with vent.tube C/L
- W-
.S EL
.4 5.4 2 '3 8 7 FIGURE (5)
OCLROO030717
Bay U 5 2006 Spatial Relationship Of Locally Thin Areas. Inches I J I** Ii . .. i7*
-4 60 36 16 12 24 36 48 60 72
-18 CO The average for the
* * =entire bay Is 960 mils or greater
-42 A .A Squares are leon than 0.736" C-1302-187-5320-024 Triangles are greater then 0.736" Rev. 2 Page 43 0
C-) C3
Subject Rev. No. Sheet No.
*Caic No.
'C-1*302-1S 7:5320-024 I1O.C. Drywel Ext UT Evaluation in Sandbed 2 44.of 183 Origiator ' Date Reviewed by Date Peter Tamburro 3/21/07 Julien Abramovici 7.7 UT EVALUATION BAY 7
SUMMARY
The observation of the drywell surface for this bay showed uniform dimples in the corroded area, but they are shallow compared to those in bay 1. Thebathtub ring seen in the other bays was not very prominent in this bay (references. 3.6). This observation is made by the inspector who located the thinnest areas for the UT examination.: The shell appears to be relatively uniform in thickness. Seven areas were selected to represent the, thinnest areas based on the visual observations of the shell surface (Fig. 7-1). These areas are a deliberate attempt to produce a nminimum measurement. Table 7-1 presents thee values.
.7.7.1 Bay 47 Local Readings Less Than The Uniform Criteria The individual thinnest UT measurements for locally thin areas are presented in Table 7-1. All 1992 and 2006 readings are greater than. 0.736 inches. Therefore, the uniform ,criferia is met throughout the bay and it is concluded that the bay is acceptable.
These areas and their location are shown on figure 7-2. Table 7-1 Bay # 7 Thinnest UT Data I 0.920, - NA 2 1,016 NA 3 0.954 0.956* 4 1.040 NA 5 1.030 __" I 6 1.045 1.02* 7 1.000 1.002* Average 1.000. 0.995
*- These were the thinnest documented readings on the 2006 data sheet.
7.7.2 Bay #7 Very Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Pressure Only) All individual readings were greater than the acceptance criteria of 0.490". The thinnest reading was in area 1, was 0.920 inches in 1992. 7.7.3 Bay 7 Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Local Buckling) The results indicate that .all of the areas have thickness greater than the 0.736 inches. Therefore the uniform criteria is met throughout the bay and the use of the local wall thickness criteria for buckling is not required. OCLROO030719
7.7.4 Bay #7 General Wall Thickness Criteria (Buckling) The UT measurements presented in Table 5-1 equal an average of 1.000 inches .in 1992 and 0.995" in 2006. Therefore, it is concluded that the bay is acceptable based on the bay evaluation thickness exceeding the buckling design thickmess for the sandbed region of 0.736 inches using results of Reference 3.3. 7.7.5 Conclusion It is concluded that Bay 7 is acceptable since all individual UT readings in 1992 and 2006 were greater than the uniform acceptance criteria. Figure 7-2 illustrates the representative thicknesses in this: bay, which is 0.995 inches or greater (refer to section 7.5.4). OCLR00030720
Subject Calc No. Rev. N. Sheet No. O.C. vyeil Ext. UT Evaluaiionin Sandbed C-1302-187-5320-024 2 46 of"183 Originator Date Reviewed by Date Peter Tamburro - 3/21107 Juliet Abramoviei FigureS74 AY #7 DATA NOTES:
- 1. All measurements from th intersecuon of DW shell (butt) and vW collar (fillet) weld&.
6
- 7. .5 4
~DW 2
21! SHELL S 0-. FIGURE (7) OCLROO030721
Figure 7-2 Bay 7 2006 Spatial Relationship Of Localy Thin Areas Inches
.1 -4 -72 -60 -a -36. -24 -.
26 - 12 24 34 48 60 72 A AL 0 The average for the entire bay Is 995 mils or greater 0- A Squares are less than 0.73W' C-1302-187-5320-024 Triangles are greater then 0,736" Rev.2, Page 47 0 C-C) 0 0
Subject Cale Ni.x Re. No. Sheet No. O.C. Dryw~i EXL UT Ev48afion in Sandbe & C-130.2-187-5320-024 .2 48 of- 83 Originator Date Reviewed by Date Peter Tamburro 3121107 Julien Abramovici. . 7.9 UT EVALUATION BAY #9
SUMMARY
The observation of the dryweli shell for this bay was very similar.to bay 7 except that the bathtub ring was more evident in this bay (references 3.6). The shell appears to be relatively uniform in thickness except for a bathtub ring 6 to 9 inches wide approximately 6 to 8 inches below the vent header reinforcement plate, The upper portion of the,shell beyond the band exhibits no corrosion where the original red lead primer is still intact. Ten areas were selected to represent the thinnest areas based on the visual observations of the shell. surface (Fig. 9-1). These areas are a deliberate attempt to. produce a minimum measurement. TTable 9-1 shows readings taken to measure the thinnest thicknesses of the drywell shell. 7.9.1 Bay #9 Local Readings Less Than The Uniform Criteria .The individual thinnest UT. measurements are presented in Table" 9-i. All 1992 and -2006 readings'are greater than 0.736 inches. Therefore; the unifornm criteria is met throughout the bay and it is concluded that the bay is acceptable..! These areas and their location are shown on figure: 9-2. Table 9-1 Bay # 9 Thinnest UT Data
- 2. 0.940 0.934 3 0.994 0.989
-4 __.0__0__1.016 __
5 .0.985 0.964______ 9 .0.932 0.823 10 0.980 0.955 Average 0.915 0.905 7.9.2 Bay #7 Very Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Pressure Only) All individual readings were greater than the acceptance criteria of 0.490". The thinnest reading was in area 8, was 0.781 inches in 2006. OCLRO0030723
7.9.3 Bay 7 Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Local Buckling). The results indicate that all of theareas have.thickness greater than the 0.736 iirches. Therefore the uniform criteria is met throughout the bay and the use of the local wall thickness criteria for
- buckling is not required.
7.9.4 Bay #7 General Wall Thickness Criteria (Buckling): The UT measurements presented in Table 9-1 equal an average of 0.915 inches in .1992 and 0.905"in.006. Therefore,it is concluded that-the bay is acceptable based on thebay evaluation thickness exceeding the buckling-design thickness for the sandbed region ýof 0.736 inches using results of Reference 3.3. 7.9.5 Conclusion It is concluded that Bay, 9 is acceptable since all individual UT readings in 1992 and 2006 were. greater-than the uniform acceptance criteria. Figure 9-2 illustrates the representative thicknesses in this bay, which is 0.905 inches or greater (refer to section 7.9A). OCLRO0030724
tI i Figure 9-1 A 9DT NOTES: OW show(t) and wantCO ( 0964a "Wletwd. (n g .7' 'SHE2 10 0l FIGURE (9) OCLR00030725
Figure 9-2 Bay 9 2.006 Spatial Relationship Of Locally Thin Areas Center Line Of Vent Line Inc-
-60 -48 -36 '24 -12 12 24 38 48 60 72
-I ' -72
-6 A
-18 A A A A U) 0 A.
-C The average for the entire bay Is A 905 mils or greater C-1302-187-5320-024 Squares are less than 0.736" Rev. 2, Page 51 0(D Triangles are greater then 0,73569 C) 0 0
04 0)
7.11 UT EVALUATION BAY #11
SUMMARY
The outside surface of this bay is rough, similar to bay 1, fill of uniform dimples comparable to the outside surface of a golf ball. The shell appears to be relatively uniform in thickness except for local areas at the -upper right corner of Figure 11-1, located at about 10 to 12 inches below the vent pipe reinforcement plate.- 7.11.1 Bay #11 Local Readings Less Than The Uniform Criteria Eight areas were selected to represent the thinnest local areas based on the visual observations of the shell surface (Fig. 1-1). These areas are a. deliberate attempt to produce a minimum. measurement_ (references 3.6). Table I1-i shows readings taken to measure the thicknesses of the. drywell shell.. Area I as. shown in Table 11-1, has a reading.less than -0736 inches. Inspector observations indicate that this area: was. very deep and not more than 1 to 2 inches in liameter. The depth of area relative td its inmnediate surrounds was measured at 4 locations round the spot and the average is shown in Table 11-2. These areas and their location are shown on figure. 11-2. The figure presents the areas with readings less. than 0.736 inches as squares and areas with readings over 0.736 inches as triangles. Table 11-1 Bay 4I! Thunnest UT Data
.3 0.832 4 0.755 0.75]
5 0.831 0.823 6 0.800 0.756 7 0.831 0.817 8 0.815 0.825 Average 0.792 0.78" 7.11.2 Bay #llVery'Local!Wall Thickness Evaluation (Pressure Only) All individual readings were greater than the acceptance criteria of 0.490". The thinnest reading was in area 1, was 0.700 inches in 2006. 7.11.3 .Bay 11 Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Local Buckling) One area (area 1)shown.in Table 11-1 had a individual measurement below 0.736 inches in 1992 and in 2006. Therefore the depth measurements were performed. in 1992 (Table 11-2). The calculated "Evaluation Thickness" for both the 1992. and 2006 are greater than 0.736" and therefore meet the acceptance criteria. OCLR00030727
The calculation of the average depth for Bay 11, Area 1 is as follows:. Table 11-2 Surnmary of Measurements Below 0.736 Inches 7.11.4 Bay i11 General Wall Thickness Criteria (Buckling) The UT measurements presented in Table II-I equal an average of 0.792 inches 'in 1992 and 0.783" in 2006.- Therefore, it is concluded that the bay is acceptable based on the bay evaluation thickness exceeding the buckling design thickness for the sandbed regivn of 0.736 inches using results ofReference 3.3. M7.115 Conclusion It is concluded that B~ay 11.I is acceptable since all butone individual LUT readings in 1992 and 2006. were greater than the uniform acceptance criteria. The calculated "Evaluation thickness" of the one remaining area is greater than then 0.763" criteria Figure 11-2 illustrates the representative thicknesses in this bay, which is 0.383 inches or greater (refer to section 7.11.4). OCLROO030728
Figul-1 BAY #I4 DATA NOTES:
- 1. All meamurmmot ftom Inta ftn*of tho DW shall (butt) end vwiI collar tflfi.t)w*lda..
- 2. Pit dopt go averap of four 1.adsdga taken at
%15/l02/35 within 10 band aurroundlng the ground- spti. T s moalssurmaat was only
'on wAll thkknou woo balow 0.7".
suW. 3a I SHELL
.4 8 *2 R5 *.7 93 FIGURE (11) 0CLR00030729
WIN m Figure 11-2
.Bay 11 2006 Spatial Relationship Of Locally Thin Areas Center Line Of Vent Line riches
-72 -60 -48 -36 -24 -12 12 24 36 48 60 72
-18 A [
U)
- 6) The average for the ,
entire bay Is C) 0.783 Inches or greater -30 A A A
-- I -
Squares are less than 0.736" C-1302-187-5320-024 Triangles are greater then 0.736" Rev. 2, Page. 55 0 0) 0 CA)
7.13 EVALUATION OF BAY #13
SUMMARY
The outside surface of this bay is rough and full of dimples similar to bay 1. This observation was made by the inspector Who located the. thinnest areas thereby biasing the remaining wall' measurements to the conservative side (references 3.6). This inspection focused on the thinnest areas,, even if very local. The variation in shell thickness is greater in this bay than.inthe other bays. The-bathtub ring below the vent pipe reinforcement plate was less.prominent than was seen in.other bays. The corroded areas are about 12 to 18 inches in diameter and are at 12 inches apart, located in the middle of the sandbed. Beyond the corroded areas on both sides, the shell appears to be uniform in thickness at a conservative value of .0.800". Near :the vent pipe and reinforcement plate the shell exhibits no corrosion since the original-lead primer on the vent pipe/reinforcement plate is intact. Measurement 20 confirms that. the thickness above the bathtub ring, is. at 1.154 inches. Outside the bathtub ring the shell appears to be fairly uniform in thickness where no abrupt changes in thickness are present. 7.13.1 Local Readings Less Than The Uniform Criteria The table below provides individual UT readings for 1992 and 2006. These.readings are the thinmest. single reading within each locally thin area. All reroimgs.are confined to areas less than 2 1." inches in diameter. Shaded readings are less than the unifOrm criteria of 0.736 inches and must be evaluated. The 1992 individual UT readings for areas.6, 10, 11, 14, and.19 were less than the corresponding 2006 values, For a4l other area the 2006 value were less than the 1992 values. These areas and their location are shown on figure 13-2. The figure presents the areas with readings less than 0.736 inches as squares and areas with readings over 0.736 inches as triangles. Table 13-1 Bay # 13 Thinnest UT Data
".: 2/2A. . . .. . ..
111A 3 : .4 . 0.923. 4.. ::9 5, .... 0.873 " 6/6A 7/7A. 8/8A- --- 9
- _ . 0.924 0.915 10I10A * **L
" 0.741" * *.
11/1IA* 12 . 0.885 ."0.886 13 0.932 "0.814 14 "- 0 .8 6 8 " ; . 0.8 7 OCLROO030731
16 0.829 0.814 17 0.807 NA 1& 0.825 NA 19 0.912 0.91.6
.20 .j 1.170 NA Average 0.810 0.786
- In 1992 two UT measurements were performed on these locations. The first was the thinnest reading within the. location and the. second was intefided to provide a value for thickness of the
.immediate area surrounding the thinnest point. 7.13.2 Bay #1 . Very Local Wall Thickness .Evaluation (Pressure Only) The table shows that all readings are greater than the criteria of 0.90". The thinnest reading was in area 7, was 0.602 inches in 2006. .7.13-3 Bay 13 Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Local Buckling) Nine areas shown in Table. 13-1 have individual measurements below 0.736 inches in 1992. Six areas shown in Table 13-1 have individual measurements below 0.736 inches in 2006. Figure 13-2 shows the areas of these areas. Inspector observations indicate that these areas were not more than I to 2 inches in diameter. The individual thickness 'values in Table 13-1 are the thinnest individual readings found in these areas. For purposes of this calculation all these areas will be considered to be 2 YS" in diameter. In 1992 for areas 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 15 the measured thinnest UT reading was less than 0.736". Therefore micrometer depth -measurements were performed on these areas to better characterize the thickness of surrounding area. -At each location, micrometer readings were taken at the 0, 45, 90, and 135 degree orientation, The following table provides a sunmmary of the depths in each azimuth. Table 13-2 Bay 13 AVG Micrometer Calculations OCLROO030732
Table 1-3 provides. (per section 6.4) the "Evaluation Thickness" at the locally thin areas. Based on the 2006 data, areas 6, 8, 10 and 15 are greater than.the uniform acceptance criteria of 0.736" and are therefore acceptable. Areas I and 2 were not found in 2006. However the 1992 '"E4valuation Thicknesses" for these two areas are significantly larger than 0.736". Shaded areas (5, 7, and: 11) have resulting evaluation thicknesses less than- the uniform acceptance criteria of 0.736" and must,be evaluated in further detaiL The 2006"Evaluation Thicknesses"- of a.l three areas are less than the 1.992 values. Therefore only the 2006 "Evaluation Thicknesses!' will be addressed in the remainder of this section. Table 13-3 Summary of Measurements Below 0.736 Inches 7.13.3.I Evaluation of Area 5 Refer to figure 13-6. Area 5 has a single reading of 0.708" in 2006. This area is next to areas 10 (0.741P") and. 14 (0.870'). These three areas are bounded by a 8" by 12" area. Since these, single points were determined by the inspectors to be the thinnest within this area, the average of these three thicknesses is a conservative estimate of the average thickness of the area (see assumption 4.3). OCLROO030733
Subject JCaleiN " ev. NO. Sheet No. O.C. Drywell Ext ,i*T Evaluation in Sandbed - C-1302-187-5320-0024 , v.2 . 59 o 183 Originator Date Reviewed by Date Peter Tamnburro 3121/07 Julien Abramovici The average of these three reading is 0.773", which is greater than'0,736". Therefore area 5 meets the 0.736" uniform criteria. 7.13.3.2 Evaluation of Areas 7, 8, and 11 Areas 7, 8 and I I were evaluated together in a single 12" by 12" area (see figure 13-2 and 13-3) and compared to the local buckling criteria established in section 6.2. Area 7 has a single reading of 0.602".that is less than 0.636" (the thickness criteria.for the. 12" by 12" area). This area was combined with areas 8 (03704") and 11 (0.669"). These three areas are bounded by a 12" by 12" area.. Since these single points were determined by the inspectors to be the thinnest within this area, 'the average of these three thicknesses is a conservative estimate of the average thickness of the 12" by; 12" area (see assumption 4.3). -The average of these three readings is 01658", which is greater than local buckling criteria of 0.636'. Therefore areas 7, 8 and 11 meet the local buckling criteria. Figure 13-4 and 13-5. show the profile of the 36" by 36" area with average of 7, 8 and 1I. minimum thickness overlaid on the curve depicting the acceptance criteria. Figure 13-4 shows the profile along the horizontal axis and figure 13-5 shows the profile along the vertical axis. 7.13.3.3 Combined Effect of Locally Thin Areas oa Buckling There 'are.several conservative factors associated with the size and the location of the locally thin areas which cannot be quantified but are judged to be substantial in demonstrating that the measured thickness are adequate. These are described below. 7.13.3.3.1 Refer to figure 13-7.ý The locally thin area for this bay that is less than 0.737 inches. is'located directly under the vent line. The local buckling criteria (section 6.2) is based on sensitivity studies that placed a 36" by 36" locally thin grid 'on the area of the finite element niodel that had the highest buckling stresses. This area is located between-the centerlines of the vent lines (+66" to -66 as shown in figure 13-2), Areas bel6w the vents lines had less compressive stresses (-36?' to- +36").. Therefore locally thin areas lcated under a vent lines will have more margin than the same. locally thin areas located between the centerline of the vent lines. Review of the original GE study (see appendix F) shows that stresses under the vent line are at least 20% less then the stresses between the centerline of the vent line. Therefore the necessary wall thickness to maintain the required safety factor for. portions. of the vessel under the vent lines. is substantially less (by at least 20%) than the calculated required uniform thickness of 0.736"'. 7.13.3.3.2 A second 'factor is the cumulative size of the nine locally thin areas, which is significantly much smaller than the analyzed 36" by 36" area (see the figure in section 6.2). The total volume of this 36" by. 36" area when compared to thevolume of a similar 36" by 36" area with a uniform thickness of 0.736" correspond to a reduced volume of 72.0 cutbic inches. The cumulative volume of all nine (in, 1992) locally thin areas is less than 2-086 cubic inchtes (see the table below). OCLROO030734
Table 13-4 Area Thinnest, reading Equivalent volume loss of 2 1/2/2 inches diameter area inside the area vith thickness equal to thinnest readings (Column 2) (inches) vhen compared to a uniform thickness of 0.736 inches (Column 2) " 0.736 - Column 2)* 3 ;142"(25/2)**2 1 0.672 0.314 2 0.722. 0.069 5 0.718 . 0.088 6, 0.655 0.398 7 0.618 . 0.579 8 0.718. 0.088 10 ' .728 0.039 11 C 685' 0.250 15' "0.683 0.260
.. _" ' Total - - ...086 Therefore, the comparison of the "as found" volume reduction which is less than 2.086 cubic inches to the "analyzed" volume reduction of 72 cubic inches leads to the conclusion that- the
- effect on the buckling load factor is negligible.
In addition since the majority of the vessel in this bay is thicker than 0.736", the thicker areas will reinforce the locally thin areas. For example approximately 7730 square inches of surface area in this bay (of a total of 9072. square inches). is 800 mils or thicker (refer to figure 13-7). When compared to same surface area with a thickness of 0.736" there is a total. increase in volume of at least 495 cubic inches. (e .g 495 (0.8-0.736)* 7730). This additional volume will reinforce the locally thin areas. 7.13.4 Bay #13 General Wall Thickness Criteria (Buckling) Outside the "Bathtub Ring" Refer to figure 13-4. Measurement 20 confirms that the thickness above the bathtub ring is at 1.154 inches. Below the bathtub ring the shell appears to be fairly uniform in thickness where no abrupt changes in thickness are presentL Taking the average of the UT measured thicknesses of areas 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 gives a average thickness of 0.824 inches in .1992 and 0.802 inches 2006 for the shell below the bathltub ring, Therefore it is concluded that these areas are acceptable based on the thickness exceeding the buckling design thickness for the: sandbed regior of 0.736 inches using the results of Reference 3.3. OCLR00030735
In the "Bathtub Ring" Areas 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are confined to the.bathtub ring as shown in Figure 13-1 and 13-2.' To determine the general shell thickness in the bathtub ring area .of this bay the evaluation thicknesses for each of the areas defined above are averaged together. An average value of the evaluation thicknesses presented in this band is as follows. Table 1375 Area 1992 Evaluation Thickness 2006 Evaluation Thickness 5 0.735" 0.725" 6 0.756" 0.759" 7 0.673" 0.657" 8 0.796". 0.782"
'10 0.739" 0.752"
.11 0.74 1 ).7-25"
.14 0.868" 0.870" 15 0.756" 0.739" Average 0.758'A Vage = 0.75"1 The table shows an average evaluation thickness of-greater than 0.758 inches in 1992 and greater than 0.751 inches in 2006 for the bathub ring. These results are based on UT' readings and average micrometer readings for only the thinnest area. UT readings and micrometer readings Were generally not taken forlthe remainder of the shell, which were greater than 0.736 inches. In reality,. the remainder of the shell is much thicker than the above results.
Again given that the average evaluation thickness of the shell in the bathtub ring area exceeds the buckling design thickness of 0.736 inches the shell area within the bathtub ring is also acceptable Using the results ofReference 3.3. 7.13.5 Conclusion Figure 13-7 illustrates representative areas and thicknesses in this bay as follows: Area B This is a 18" high by 60 inches wide area, which is at least 0.751" thick. This thickness is based on the thickness of the Bathtub ring (refer to section 7:13.4). Area C - This is a 12" by. 12" area(within area B) is at.least 0,658 inches thick. This thickness is based on the evaluation in section 7.13.3.2. OCLROO030736
Cale No. Rev. No.- . VnU. O.C. Dryweli Ext. UT E'~atuation in Sandbed C-1302187-53204324 2 62 of 183 Originator Date Reviewed by Date Peter Tainburro 3/21/07 MJuien Abraniovici Area D- The remaining areas of the Bay is 0.800 inches thick or greater' This.thickrel s is based on the evaluation in section 7.13.4. Therefore this bay meets the acceptance criteria based on the following:
- 1) All individual readings are greater than 0.490 inches.-
*2) Except for Area C, the entire bay has thickness greater than 0.736 inches.
- 3) Area C (which is limited to an area of 12" by 12") meets the acceptance criteria in section 6.2.
0CLR00030737
Fgur 13-- "AY #13 -DATA NOTES: I. All measurements from Intersection of the DW shell (butt) and vent collar (filial) welds. 2i Spots with suffix (e6g. IA or 2A) were locatd close to tho spots in question'and were ground Carefuly to remove minimum amount,of metal but adequate enough for UT.
- 3. Pit depths *e average'of four readings taken at' 0/4S°/90/135° within 1 disfante araund ground. spoL Taken only where remanilng wall showed below 0.736".
/* *, 17 DW '+
1$;*.
- J .7 414 , 13. "E.
5l .18 ,03 12-, *10 .9
. 19 OCLROD030738
W C-I1302-18.7-5320-024
ýFigure 13 -2 Lo~c:all' Off 200e.l.a.ti.si Thin Areas .
Rev. 2, Page 64 Spal Relationship
.Spatial 13R. cy T Areas Inches E4 Cale o
i. Area Modeled _ ______ Area
.... in GE Study
... .... are
. Squares ,736 ......
. .less than 0.736" Area Modeye In: GE. Study -
(ret. 3.5) Triangles are greatei then 0.736" (ref, 3,5) 0 0 00 Ci) C( (0
Figure 13 -3 Bay 13 C-1302-187-5320-024 C Rev. 2, Page 65 Points 7, 8 and 11 0 30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5
-5
.7
-10 602 Mils 636 Mil Boundary
-15 ca
-20
-25 704 MIls 7L 2 -
. amma . . - -mmAll m 0
-30 a WE 11 0-
-35 669 Mils
-40
-45 +.,,,
Profile on Figure "3-4 N 736 Mil ýBoundary Inches 0 C) C) F-03 C)
Figure 13 -4 C-1302-1!87-5320-024 Bay 13 Points 7, 8 and 11 Rev. 2, Page 66 Horizontal Proffle 800 CO G) 0 Co 700 0 0 C 0 S-Sc I-600 30 -20 -10 0 Horizontal Inches
-Criteria sG-WAveraj 0
o; C., C) 0i C)
Figure 13 -5 C-i1302-187-5320-024 Bay 13 Points 7, 8 and 11 Rev. 2, Page 67 , Verticai Profile
.800-The average. of the area 7, 8, and 11 is 658 Mils Oa 700 -
0 600 Local Buckling Criteria
.1
-50 -40 -30 10 0 Vertical Inches
.- 636 Criteria ===Average 0
0 C) 0 C)
,I3
Figure 13-6 Bay 13 2006 Representative Thicknesses 0 i.. I. 0 -5 0. 5 10 20 25 30 14
-10 870 Mils 1 5 708 Mils 10 (0
-20 0
Locations 5 10 and 14 10 average 773 mila over an 8" by 741 MINs 12" area. C-1302-18.7-5320-024 Rev. 2, Page 68 0 Inches 0-
F C-1302-iB7-5320-024 Bay 13- 2006 Rev, 2, Page 69 Figure 13-7 Locally Thin Areas Bottom of Penetration Reinforcement Pad Center Line Of Vent Line
/
I ~ .. ~~
. . . . . .. . 95 60 72.
-48 -16 -24 -12 I V 12 48 t 4 -72 Edge of 72" vent
-60 I. -6 Edge of 72" vent I lines lines -
This corner is at X= -27 and Y = -13 This corner is at B). Bathtub Ring 18" high (Y.direction) by 60"
/
X= w25.and Y = -15 I wide (X direction) with a representative C) This 12 by 12" area thickness of 0.751 inches has a representative
-42 thickness of 0.658 mils D) All areas outside the I boxes are 0.800" or greater I
All X and Y dimensions are referenced from the centerline of i, "ientline (X direction) and the bottom of the Penetration Reinforcement Pad (Y dimension). Reference NDE Data sheet 92-072-24 page 1 of 2 and 1LR-010 page 2 of 2. 0 r-C3) 0 04 4*.
7.15 UT EVALUATION ABY.,15
SUMMARY
The outside surface of this bay is rougk, similar to bay 1, full of uniform dimples comparable to the outside suifiae of golf ball. The bathtub ring seen in the other bays, was not very prominent in this bay (references 3.6). This observation is made by the inspector who located the thinnest areas for the UT examination. The upper portion of the shell beyond the ring exhibits, no corrosion where the original red lead primer is still intact. The shell appears to be-relatively uniform in thickness. 7.15.1 Bay #15 Local Readings Less Than The Uniform Criteria Eleven areas were selected&to represent the thinnest areas based on the visual observations of the shell surface (Fig. 15-1). These areas are a deliberate, attempt to, produce- a minimum measuremer.. Table 15-4 shows readings taken to measure the thinnest thicknesses of the drywel shell. The results indicate that all of the: areas have thickness greater than the 0.736' inches, except one area in 1992 and another area in 2006. Inspector observations indicate that these areas were veiy deep and not more than 1 to 2 inchts in diameter. The depth of area relative to its immediate surrounding was measured at 4 azimuths around the spot and the average is shown in Table 15-1. These areas and their location are shown on figure 15-2.. The figure presents the areas with readings less than 0.736 inches as squares and areas with readings over 0.736 inches as triangles. Table 15-1 Bay # 15 Thinnest UT Data 4 0.795 0.791 5 -0.850 0,817 6 0.794 0.7 15 7 0.808 0.805
- 8' l "'0.170" 0.760 9
S10 '._._60 ,, 0._37 11 0.825 0.798 Average 0.816 0.788 0CLR00030745
7.152 Bay #15 Very Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Pressure Only) All individual readings were greater than the acceptance criteria of 0A90". The thinnest reading wasin-a l, was 0.711 inches in 2006. 7.153 Bay 15 Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Local Buckling) Table 15-2 Summary of Measurements Below 0.736 Inches 9 0.72 I .12 0,33r 9.2w I 0-859" I 7.15.3 1 7.15.3.1 Evaluation of Area 9 The caculated "Evaluation Thickness" of area 9 in 1992 and -2006 are greater than 0.736". Therefore this area meets the acceptance criteria. 7.15.3.2 Evaluation of Area 1 The individual thinnest reading for area I in 1992 was greater than 0.736'. Therefore this area was not -characterized with a micrometer and depth measurements are not available. This. area cannot be evaluated using the "Evaluation Thickness". However the 2006 reading was less than 0.736".- Therefore area I was evaluated against the local buckling criteria per section 6.2. Area 1 has asingle reading of 0.711" in 2006. This single point was determined by the inspectors to be the thinnest within this area. Figure 15-3 plots area I and all other recorded areas.close :by.
- Figure 1.5-3 overlays a 36" by 36'"area on theselocally thin areas. The center 12" by 12" of the area is overlaid on top .ofarea. I.
Figure 13-4 and 13-5. shows the profile of the 36" by 36" area with the area thickness overlaid on the curve depicting the acceptance criteria. Figure 13-4 shows the profile along the horizontal axis and figure 13-5 shows. the profile along the vertical axis. These figures show .that the local buckling criteria is met. 7.15.3.3 Combined Effect of Locaily Thin Areas on Bucking There are several conservative factors associated with the size and the location of the locally thin areas which cannot be. quantified but are judged to be substantial in demonstrating that the measured thickness are adequate. These are described below. OCLRO0030746
7.153.3.1 Refer to figure 15-7. The locally thin area for this bay that is less than 0.736 inches is located under the vent line. The local buckling criteria (section 6.2) is based, on sensitivity studies that placed a 36" by 36" locally thin grid on the area- of the finite element model. that had the highest buckling stresses. This area is located between the centerlines of the vent lines (+66" to - 66 as shown in-figure 15-2). Areas below the vents lines had less compressive stresses. Therefore locally thin areas located under a vent lines will have more margin than the same locally thin areas located between the centerline of the vent lines. Review. of the original GE study shows that stresses runder the vent line are at least 20% less then the stresses between the centerline of the vent lines. Therefore the necessary wall thickness to maintain the required safety factor for portions of the vessel under the vent lines is-substantially less (by at least 20%) than the calculated required uniform thickness of 0.736". 7.15.3-3.2 A second factor is the cumulatiiv- size of ihe locally thin areas, Whichý are . significantly much smaller than the analyzeu 3C' by 36" area (see the figure in. section 6.2). The total volume of this 36" by 36!" reawwhen compared to the volumeof a similar 36" by 36" area with a uniform thickness of 0.736" correspond to a reduced volume of 72.0. cubic inches. The cumulative volume of two locally thin areas is 0.219 cubic inches (see the-table below). Table 15-3 Area -Thinnest reading Equivalent volume loss of 2 1/2/z inches diameter area inside the area' .vith thickness equal to thinnest readings (Column 2) (inches) " hen compared to a uniform thickness of 0.736 inches (olunin 2) '0.736 - Column 2)*.3.142*(2,5/2)*'2
.1 " 0.711 0.133 9 0.72 0.085
'Total 0.219 Therefore the comparison of the "as found" volume reduction which is less than 0.219 cubic inches to the "analyzed" volume reduction of 72 cubic inches leads to' the conclusion that the effect on the buckling load factor is negligible.
In addition since the majority of the vessel in this bay is thicker than 0.736", the thicker areas will reinforce the locally thin areas. For example approximately 8925 square inches of surface area in this bay (of a total of 9072 square inches) is 788 mils or thicker (refer to figure 15-7). When compared to same surface area with a thickness of 0.736" there is a
.total increase in volume of at least 464 cubic inches. (e .g 464 (0.788-0.736)* 8925).
This additional volume will reinforce the locally thin areas. OCLR00030747
- _tc~r lIWIIUlUOT' .,,huuI" junecn px~fnrnov*'...c _
7.15.4 Bay #15 General Wall Thickness Criteria (Buckling) The UT measurements' presented in Table 15-1 equal an: average of .0.815 inches in 1992 and 0.788" in 2006. Therefore, it is concluded that the bay is acceptable based on the bay evaluation thickness exceeding the buckling design thickness for the sandbed region of 0.736 inches using results of Reference 3.3. 7.1535 Conclusion Figure 15-7.illustrates representative aeas and thicknesses in this bay as follows:.: Area A - This is a 12" high by 12 inches wide area, which is at least 0.711" thick. This thickness is based on section 7.15.3.2). Area D- The remaining area of the Bay is 0.788 i c-les thick or greater. This thickness is based on: the evaluation.in section 7.15.4.. Therefore this bay meets the acceptance criteria based on the following: 1)All individual radings are greater than 0.490 inches..
- 2) Except, for Area A, the entire bay has thickness greater than 0.736 inches.
- 3) Area A (which is limited to an area of 12"by 12") meets the acceptance criteria in section 6.2.
OCLROO030748
Figure 15-1 NOTES:
- 1. All measummrneqt ircm ntersectiori 01the DW shell and vent collar @1fill) welds.
- 2. Pit deofth are. avereae of Nout radIngs taken At CM01901Vwithin 14 ilhhaince Around grund qmbTaenonly when remaining wall ftbees shown below: O.3V.
8. B-* 5..
.0 2 SHELL 11 j~
'p .7 4 4 30 0
a FIGURE (15) 0CLR00030749
Figure 15.2 Bay 15 2006 Spatial Relationship Of Locally Thin Areas Evaluated area C-1 302-187-5320-024 Rev. 2, Page 75 Areal In 15-3 Area Modeled Area Modeled. In the GE. In the GE Study (ref. 3.5) Study (ref. 3.5) Squares are less than 0,736" 0 Triangles are greater then 0.736" C:) I-. 0) 00 0n C)4
Figure 15-3 Bay 15 Locations 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 21 Evaluation Thickness 5. 0 0 1.0 1.5 20 25 30 35 4C 45 1 15 711 MItS w
-10 0 -15 C 0
M Mils 11 U_. U
-m -20 4
791 Mlis
-25 79,3M., -636 Mil Boundary
-30
-35 736 Mil Bodary
-40 Profile on Figure 15-4 C-1302-1.87-5320-024 Rev. 2, Page 76 0 inches C1 CA)
Figure 15-4 Bay 1 Horizontal Profile (Evaluation Thickness versus Local Buckling Criteria). 1000 0 900 U 800 a) U, 0 700.
.2 Local Buckling Criteria -.
I- 600 500 0 10 20 30 40 50 Horizontal Inches C-1302-1.67-5320-024 1-636 Criteria 13 Point m Rev. 2, Page 77 0 0 o C) 0 P0
Figure 15-5 Bay 1 Vertical Profile (Evaluation Thickness versus Local Buckling Criteria) 1000-. 0 900-
%tw 800 4- - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ __ _
S-700 600 - Local Buckling Criteria 500 I
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 Vertical. Inches
..... C-1302-187-5320-024
[--636 Criteria H Points -.Rev. 2- Page 78 0 t-0 0 60 0 -4 .
Figure 15-6 Bay 15 2006 Bottonmof Penetration C-1302-187-5320-024 Locally. thi~n Areas Reinforcement Pad Rev. 2, Page 79 Center Line Of Vent Line 4 -72 -60 .48 A -24 -12 12 24 48 60 72 I I .68- *I" This comer Is X=+ 17 and Y= -9' Edge of 72" vei it I -18 .I lines Co U) U I A) 12" by 12" area that Is C -30 711 MIlS I I ml All area outside box are 788 mils or greater I -421 I I
- Edge of 72" vent I lines i
All X and Y dimensions are referenced from the centerline of the vent line (X 0 direction) and the bottom of the Penetration Reinforcement Pad (V dimension). F-- Reference NDE Data sheet 92-072-21 page 1 of. I and IR2ILII-015 page 2 of 2 C-)
- 0 C
- )
-.4 0l 4-4
7.17.1 UT EVALUATION BAY #17
SUMMARY
The outside surface of this .bay is rough, similar to bay 1, full of uniform dimples comparable to the outside suirface of golf ball (references 3.6). The shell appears to be relatively uniform in thickness except for a band 8 to 10 inches wide approximately 6 inches below the vent header reinforcement plate.: The upper portion of the shell beyond the band exhibits no corrosion where the-original red lead primer is still intact. 7.17.1 Bay #17 Local Readings Less Than The Uniform Criteria Eleven areas were selected to represent the thinnest areas based on the visual observations of the shell surface (Fig. 17-1). These areas are a deliberate attempt to produce a minimum measurement. Table 17-1 shows readings taken to measure the thinnest thicknesses of the drywell shell. The results indicate that all of the areas have thickness greater than the 0.736 inches, except one area. Area 9 as shown in Table 17-1, has a reading below 0.736 inches.' Inspectors' observations indicate that this area is very deep and not more than I to 2 inches in diameter. The depth of area relative to its immediate surroundings -was measured. at 4 areas around the spot and the average is shown in Table 17-1. Table 17-1 shows that one area was less than 0.736" in 1992 and another area in 2006. All other areas were greater then 0.736". These areas and: their location are shown on figure 17-2. The figure presents the areas with readings less than 0.736 inches as squares and areas with readings over 0.736 inches as triangles. Table 17-1 Bay # 17 Thinnest UT Data 1 0.916099 2 ___ ._______0 _ 3 0-898 0.894______ 4 0.951 0.963
- 5. 0.913 0.822 6 0.992 -0.909 7 0.970 0X970 8 0.990 0.960 9 - 4 0.970 10 0.830 0.844 11 0.770 NA Average 0.918 0.890 7.17.2 Bay #17 Very Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Pressure Only)
All individual readings were greater than the acceptance criteria of 0.490". The thinnest reading was in area 2, was 0.663 inches in 2006. OCLR00030755
7.17.3 Bay 17 Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Local Buckling) Table 17-2. Summary of Measurements Below 0.736 Inches 9 0.720' 0.970" 0.351". 0.200 0.871" 1.121" 7.1.3,.i 1I.50" 0.6654'. . 7.17.3.2 " 7.17.3.1 Area 9 The calculated "Evaluation Thickness" of area 9 in ý992 is 'greater than 0.736". Therefore this area meets the acceptance criteria. Since the 2006 UT measur-,ment was much greater than the 1992 value a corresponding "Evaluation Thickness" for 2006. was not considered and only the 1992 value used for the evaluation-7.17.3.2 Area 2 The 1992 value for area I is not considered credible. The basis for this statement is that the corresponding corrosion rate would have* to be 35 mils per year for the 1992 value to be credible. This amount.of corrosion would have been observed by the visual coating inspections. Especially since the corrosion byproducts, which are between 5 to 10 times less dense than the carbon steel, would create a blister in the area which would be about 2 V'" in diameter. However the 'Worst case" evaluation was performed in reference 3.8 by applying a 35 mil per year rate on the thinnest- reading found in 2006 (location 7 and in bay 13 which is 602 mils). The evaluation showed that that location would not corrode to the less than the very local criteria (490 mil) prior' to the next committed inspection, which is 2008, The individual thinnest reading for area 2 in 1992 was greater than 0.736". Therefore this area was not characterized with a micrometer and depth measurements are 'not available. This area cannot be evaluated using the "'Evaluation Thickness". Therefore area 2 will be evaluated against the local buckling criteria per section 6.2. Area 2 has a single reading of 0.663" in 2006. This single point was determined by the inspectors to. be the thinnest within this area. Figure 1.7-3 plots area 2 and all other close by areas recorded. in 1992 and 2006. Figure 15-3 overlays a 36" by 36" area on these areas. The center 12" by 12" of he area is overlaid on top of area 2. OCLR00030756
SSb.ctCa Revo.No. Sbeet No. 0,C, Drywell Ext. UT Evaluation in Sandbad C-1302-187-5320-024 2 82 of.183 Originator Date Reviewed by Date. Peter Tamburro 3/21/07 Julien Abramovici Figure 17-4 and 17-5 shows the profile of the 36" by 36" area with the single thickness overlaid on the curve depicting the acceptance criteria, Figure 17-4 shows the profile along the horizontal axis and figure 17-5 shows the profile along the vertical axis. These figures show that the local buckling criteria is meL 7.17.3.3 Combined Effect of Locally Thin Areas on Buckling There are several conservative factors associated with the size and the location of the locally thin areas which cannot be quantified but are judged to be substantial in demonstrating that the measured thickness are adequate. These are described below. 7117.3.3.1 Refer to figure 17-7..The locally thin area'for this bay that is. less than 0.736 inches is not located between the centerline of the vent lines. The 1.2" by 12" locally .thin areaTh is locate approximately loa bukln rie. at +20. to +56" of the ve*nt liie. s tij The Local buckling critera (section 6.2) is based on sensitivity studies that placed-a 36" by 36" locally thin grid on. the area. of the finite element model that had the highest buckling stresses. This area is located between the.c-enterlines of the ver' lines (+66" to - 66 as shown in figure 17-2). Areas between +20" to +56" from the vents lines had less compressive stresses. Review of the original GE study (see appendix F) shows that stresses in this.region are at least 10-/a less then the stresses between the centerline of the vent lines.. Therefore the necessary wall thickness to maintain the required safety factor for portions of the vessel under the vent lines is less (by at least. 10%). than the calculated required uniform thickness of 0.736". 7713.3.2 A second factor is the cumulative size of the two locally thin areas, which are" significantly much smaller than the analyzed 36" by 36" area (see the figure in-section. 6.2). The total volume of this 36" by 36". area when' compared to the volume of a similar 36" by 36" area with a uniform thickness of 0.736" correspond to a reduced volume of 72.0 cubic inches. The cumulative .volume of two locally thin areas is less than 0.634 cubic inches (see the table below).- Area Thinnest reading Equivalent volume loss of 2 iinches diameter area inside the. area vith thickness equal to thinnest readings (Column 2) (inches) hen compared to a uniform thickness of 0.736 inches (Column 2) M736 - Column 2)* 3.142*(2.5/2)**2 2 0.633. 0.549 9 0.720 .0o085 Total 0.6.34 Therefore the comparison of the "as found".volume.reduction which is less than 0.634 cubic inches to the "analyzed" volume reduction of 72 cubic inches leads to the conclusion that the effect on thebuckling load factor is negligible. OCLR00030757
In addition. since the majority of the vessel in this bay is thicker than 0.736", the thicker areas, will reinforce the locally thin areas. For example approximately 7776 square inches of surface area in this bay (of a total of 9072 square inches) is 892 mils or thicker (refer -to figure 15-7). When compared to same surface. area with a thickness of 0.736" there is a total increase in volume of at least 1210 cubic inches. (e .g 1210 = (0.892-0.736)* 7776). This additional volume, will reinforce the locally thin areas. 7.17.4 Bay # 17 General Wall Thickness Criteria (Buckling) The. UT measurements presented in Table 17-1. equal an average of 0,918 inches in 1992 and 0.892" in 2006. Therefore, it is concluded that the bay-is acceptable based on the bay evaluation -thickness exceeding the buckling. design thickness. for the sandbed region of 0.736 inches using results of Reference 3.3. 7.17.5 Conclusion Figure 17-7 illustrates representative areas and thicknesses in this bay as follows: Area A - Thisis a 12" high by 12 inches wide area, which is at least 0.663" thick. This thickness is based on section 7.17.3.2). Area B - This is a 36" high by 36 inches wide area surrounding area, which is at least 0. 850" thick. This thickness is based on section 7.17.3.2. Area CG The remaining area of the Bay is 0.892 inches thick or greater. This thickness is, based on the evaluation in section 7.17.4. - Therefore this bay meets the acceptance criteria based on the following:
- 1) All individual readings are greater than 0.490 inches.
- 2) Except for Area A, the entire bay has thickness greater than 0.736-inches.
- 3) Area A (which is limited to an area of 12" by 12").meets the acceptance criteria in section 6.2.
OCLROO030758
Figure 17-1 MY 17DI
- 1. All russuramfl~lbents 110 moat~toI OT 111 OW 2.Pit depthu. 2m s~avgo of four yeadN~I tabm at CV4.W 135h vdlhlu 11distance urund gon wpotL ralkan only~ whamu~rimzr~j.4 thlictknool waabto111O ~.7W 2SHELL I,
10
.1
.7 4
Il ,b, FIGURE (17). 0CLR00030759
Figure 17.2 C-1302-187-5320-024 Rev. 2, Page 85
.ay 17 200.6 Spatial Relationship: Of Locally Thin Areas Evaluated area Area 17-3 Inc U 4 -72 -60 -46 -36 -24 -12 AL 24 Y3 72 " I, Center Line Of Vent Line .
2 2 A A 633: MIls A 5 9 CO 720 Mils 6U -30 A A
-42 Local Area El ~
Modeled by Local Area. GE (ref. 3.5) Squares arejless than 0.736". Modeled by Triangles.are. greater then 0.7"6"' GE (ref. 3.5) 0 0 C-03
..4 C~)
m
Figure 17-3 Bay 17 Locations 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 21 Evaluation Thickness C-1302-187-5320-024 Rev. 2, Page 86
.15 636 Mi1 Boundary 10 5
0 0 5 10 15 50 60
-5 19 5
C, -10 822 Mils. 6
-15 909 Mile U 1 0
3
-20 894 Mils 909 Mile
-25
-30 4
-35 IN 963 Mile
-40 736 M11 Boundary 0
Inches t Profile on Figure 15-4 0 C)
Figure 17-4 Bay 17 Horizontal Profile (Evaluation Thickness versus Local Buckling Criteria) 1000 U, 0 900 (I) C 800 (0 C 700
.2 600 500 0 10 20 30 40 50 .60 Horizontal Inches C-1 302-187-5320-024 jamOMM636 Criteria a P.int Rev. 2, Page 87 0
C-0 0 0
-4 C)
N)
Figure 17-5 Bay 17 Vertical Profile (Evaluation Thickness versus Local Buckling Criteria) Figure 17-3 1000-900-(I)
*Cp 800-0=
W 700-1- 600-500-
-40 -30 -20 -10. 0 10 Vertical Inches 636 Criteria H.. Points C-1302,; 87-5320-024 Rev. 2, Page 88 0
C-) 0 0 A,1
Figure 17-6 C-1 302-187.5320-024 Rev. 2, Page 89 Bay 17 2006 This corner is Botto iof Pnenetration Reinforcement Pad Locally Thin Area X=+ 32 and Y= - 2 This corner Is Xz+ 20 and Y= + 10 7.
-60 -i -24 -12 12 60 72
-72 -48
-6 Center Line Of Vent Line I I
0
-18 I I Co Edge of 72" vent I 0 I
-c U
lines I C I A) 12" by 12' areathat is I 663 Mils U I. C) Remaining areas outside I B) 36" by 36" area boxes are 892 mile or greater surrounding area Is 850 mils I I
. N AD X and Y dimensions are referenced from the centerline of the vent line (X direction) and the bottom of the Penetration Reinforcement Pad (Y dimension). Reference NDE Data sheet 92-072-04 page I of I and 0
1R21LR.021 pae 2 of 2. C) 0 4 0)
7.19 UT EVALUATION BAY 19
SUMMARY
The outside surface of this bay is rough and very similar to bay 17. Areas 1 through 7 as shown in Table 19-1, were ground carefully to minimize loss of good metal. The shell surface is full of dimples comparable to the outside surface of a golf ball (references 3.6). This observation is made by the inspector who located the thinnest areas for the ULT examination. The shell appears to be relatively unifbrm in thickness. Ten areas were selected to represent the thinnest areas based on the visual observations of the shell surface (Fig. 19-1). These areas are a deliberate attempt to produce a minimum measurement. Table 19-i shows readings taken to measure the thinnest thicknesses of the drywell shell. The results indicate that all of the areas have thickness greater than the 0.736 inches. 7.19.1Bay,#19 General Wall (Sandbed Region) Thickness Evaluation Table 19-1 shows that no areas were less than 0.736" in. 1992 and three areas in 2006. All other areas -wer,3 greater then 0.736". Since the area were greater than 0.736" in 1992 depth measurement were Pot perforr -edin 1992. Thertiore these area will be evaluated per section 6.2. These areas.and their location are shown onA figure 19-2., The figure presents the areas with readings less than 0.736 inches as squares and areas with readings over 0.736 inches as triangles. Table 19-1 Bay # 19 Thinnest UT Data 4 0.940 NA 5 0.950 0.883 6 0.860 NA 7 .0.969 0.820 8 0.753 9 0.776" " . . . 10 0M790 0 11 _ NA Average 0 .895 0.____01__ 7.19.2 Bay #19 Very Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Pressure Only) 0CLR00030765
All individual readings were greater than the acceptanice criteria of 0.490". The thinnest reading was in area 11, which was 0.712 inches in 2006. 7.19.3 Bay 19 Local Wall Thickness Evaluation (Local Buckling). Table 19-2 Summary of Measurements Below 0.736 Inches NAvailabe NA S.0.71- NA NA 7.19.3.3 I 7.19.3.1 Evaluation of Area 8 Refer to figure 19-2. Area 8 has a single reading of 0.721". This area is next to areas 1 (0.867"). These two areas are bounded by a 16" by 6" area. Since these single points. were determined by the inspectors to be the .thinnest within this. area, the average of these two thicknesses is a conservative estimate of the average thickness .of the. 16" by 6" area-(see assumption 4.3). The average of these three readings is 0.794", which is greater than 0.736". Therefore area 8 meets. the 0.736" uniform criteria.
.7.19.3.2 Evaluation of Areas 9 and 11 In 2006 area 9 had a single reading of 0.728 and area 1 had -a single reading of 0.712". These single points were determined by the inspectors. to be the thinnest within this areae Figure 19-3 plots area 9 and 11 along with area 10, which is 0.736". Figure 19-3 overlays a 36" by 36" area on these locations.
Figure .19-4 and 19-5 shows the profile of the 36" by 36" area .withthe single thickness overlaid on the curve depicting the acceptance criteria. Figure 19-4 shows the profile along the horizontal axis and figure 13-5 shows the profile along the vertical axis. These figures show that the local buckling criteria is met. Please note that Figure 19-4 does shows that the two locally thin area - come close to the edges of the 36" by 367 acceptance criteria envelope. However since these areas are.significantly smaller than the analyzed area and since the two areas are actually located at an azimuth of the drywell that sees less stress (7.19.3.3) the closeness to the envelop is judge to be inconsequential. Also these areas were found to be thinner than 0.736" at different times. 0CLR00030766
Most likely the 2006 data is more representative, which means that there-is only one area in this bay, which is less than 0.736 inches. 7.19.3.3 Combined Effect of LocallyThin Areas on Buckling There are several conservative factors associated With the size and the location of the.locally thin areas which cannot be quantified but are judged to be substantial in demonstrating that the measured thickness are adequate. These are described below. 7.19.3.3.1 Refer to figure 19-7.. The locally thin area for this bay that is less than 0.736 inches is located directly under the vent line. The focal buckling criteria (section 6.2) is based on sensitivity studies that placed a 36" by 36" locally thin grid on the area of the finite element model that had the highest buckling stresses. This-area isý located between the centerlines of the vent lines (+66" to - 66 as shown in figure 19-2). Areas below 'the vents.lines had less compressive stresses. Therefore locally thin areas located under a vent lines will have more margin than the same locally thin areas located between the centerlihie of the vent lines. Review of the original GE study (see appendix F) shows that stresses under the vent line are at least 20% less then the. stresses: between the centerline of the vent lines. Therefore the necessary wall thickness to maintain the required safety factor for portions of the vessel under the vent lines is substantially less (by at least 20%) than the calculated required uniform thickness of 0.736". 7.19.3.3.2 A second factor is the cumulative size of the locally thin areas, which are significantly much smaller than the analyzed 36" by 36" area (see the figure in section 6.2). The total volume of Uis 36" by 36" area when compared to the volume of a similar 36" by 36" area with a uniform thickness of 0.736" correspond to a reduced .volume of 72.0 cubic inches. The cumulative volume of two'locally thin areas is less than 0.251 cubic inches (see the. table below). Area. Thinnest reading Equivalent volume loss of 2 Y2 inches diameter area inside the area . ith thickness.equal to thinnest readings (Colunf72)i (inches) ihen compared to a uniform thickness of 0.736 inches (Column 2) '0.736 - Column 2)* 3.142*(2.5/2)**2 S8 " 0.721 0.080 9 0.728 0.043 10 0.736 0.000 11 0.712- 0.128 Total 0.251 0CLR00030767
I Subject O.C. Drywell Ext. UT Evaluation in Sandbed. Originator Date Calc No. I C-1302-187-5320-024 Reviewed by Rev. No. 2 Sheet No. 93 of,183 Date Peter Tamburro 3/21/07 Julien Abramovici Therefore the comparison of the "as found" volume reductionwhich is less than 0.251. cubic inches to the '"analyzed'" volume reduction of 72 cubic inches leads to the conclusion that the effect on the buckling load factor is negligible. In addition since the majority of the vessel in this bay is thicker than 0.736", the thicker areas will reinforce the locally thin areas. For example approximately 7680 square inches of surface area in this bay (of a total of 9072 square inches) is 800 mils or thicker (refer to figure 15-7). When compared to same surface area with a thickness of 0.7366" there is a total increase in volume of at least 490 cubic inches. (e .g 490 (0.800-0.736)* 7680). This additional volume will reinforce the locally thin areas. 7.19.4 Bay #19 General Wall Thickness Criteria (Buckling) The UT measurements presented in Table 17-1 equal an average of 0,885* inches in 1992 and 0.801" in 2006. Therefore, it,is concluded that the b',- is acceptable based on the bay evaluation thickness exceeding the buckling design. thickness for the sandbed region of 0.736 inches using results of Reference 3.3. 7.19.5 Conclusion Figure 19-7 illustrates representative areas. and thicknesses in this bay as follows:. Area A:- This. is a. 16 inches high by 6 inches wide area, which is at least 0.794" thick. This thickness is:based on section 7.19.3.2). Area B - This is a 36" high by 36 inches wide area is at least 0.720" thick. This thickness is based on section 7.19.3.1. Area C- The remaining area of the Bay is 0.800 inches thick. This thickness is based on the evaluation in section 7.19.4 or greater. Therefore this bay meets the acceptance criteria based on the following:
- 1) All individual readings are greater than 0.490 inches..
- 2) Except for Area B, the entire bay has thickness greater than 0.73 6 inches.
- 3) Area C (which is limited to an area of 36" by 36") meets the acceptance criteria in section 6.2.
OCLR00030768
Subject .""' .Cal -... C No.o.R . . Rev. No. Sheet No. O.C. D -ell Ext. UT Evaluation in.Sandbed C-1302-187-5320-024 2 94 of 183 riginator PeterT tmbuiio te 3T2a107
" . Reviewed by.
Julien Abramovici Date Figure 19-1 tP54AY #19 DATA. NOTES: I. M~ measursun'uwr m iur mIdrsin tion of the OW 10mmI bith") &Md vent callax phcl) wfilda 9. DO DW3
- 7. 1 .4
'2 FIGURE (19) 0CLR00030769
I - ' "."T ms
- _Bay*P 19 . 2'O C 1302 185320 02 Figure 19-2
* '.Bay Bay !9 2 06C-1302-187-5320-.024 192006. Rev 2, Page 95 Spatial Relationship Of Locally. Thin Areas Evaluated area Area 19-3 U)
A Local Area Modeled by Squares are less-than 0.736" Local Area by Triangles are greater then 0.738" Modeled: GE (ref. 3.5) 0 GE (ref. 3.5) C) 0 -4 0
Figure 19-3 Bay 19 Locations 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 21 Evaluation Thickness A fl U ~ u,-- -~-I I I I I I i I S I" I I 1-5 0 5 10 - 5 20 253035 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5
-10 I 5 0 10 736 Mils 8
721 Mils 9
-15 728 Mils -
U -20 m 71] Fl
,,ij'age.of I and.
is 794 mils over 0) C 16" by 6" area
-25 CL LL.
11 712 Mits
-30
-35 1
867 Mils C-1302-187-5320-024 Profile on Figure 19-4 Rev. 2, Page 96 0 C) CJ) -4
Figure 19-4 Bay 19 Horizontal Profile (Evaluation Thickness versus Lcgal Buckling Criteria) 1000 W 900
.C 800
.%No 700 600 Local Buckling .Criteria 500
,22 -12 .-2 8 Horizontal Inches C-i 302-1 87-5320-024
---"*636 :Criteria is Point Rev. 2, Page 97 0
0r'- 0)
-3 -4 0
Figure 19-5 Bay.19 Vertical Profile (Evaluation Thickness- versus. Local Buckling Criteria) I UUU 0 0} WE900 0i 800 0) 0) 700 600 Local ýclkinq Criteria 500
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 Vertical Inches C-1302-187-5320-024
.- 636 Criteria 0 Points Rev. 2, Page 98 0
C) 0r-" 0 CA) 04
Figure 19-7 Bay 19 2006 C- 1302-1.87-5320-024 Rev. .2,. Page 99 Locally Thin Areas Corner of this Bottom of Penetration area is X=+60 and Y=-14 Reinforcementad I 24 4 -72 -60 -48 24 Corner of this area I is X=-21.6 and Y=0 I B) 36" by 36" area* has thickness of ,720 mils I I C', I 0 U Edge of 72" vent. I ,JLJ
*1 A) - 6" wide (X direction).
lines I .16" and high (Y) direction, I I .area has thickness of 1-42~ I 794 mils two C) Area outsulde the Edge of 72" vent boxes are 800 mils I lines I I mm=ý% AUl X and Y dimensions are referenced from the centerline of the vent line (X direction) and the bottom of the Penetration Reinforcement Pad (Y dikiension). 0 Reference NDE Data sheet 92-072-02 page 1 of I and .!R21LR-020 page2 of 2. 0 0C) 00
-,4 -,4 .r*
Appendix A: Summary Of Measurements Of Impressions Taken From Bay #13 (3 pages total) OCLR00030775
SSubject Ca:cN Sheet No.. SO.C. Drywell Ext. UT Evaluation in Sandbed C-1302-187-5320M-024 14.2of 183 Originator Date Reviewed by Date Peter Tamburro 3/21107. Julien Abramovici The purpose of this appendix is to chaeterize the depth oftypical uniform dimples on the shell surface; This depth is used in acceptance criteria to quantify the evaluation thickness for an area where the micrometer readings are available. Two locations in bay 13 were selected since bay 13 is the roughestbay. Impressionsbof dryweU. shell surface using DMR_503 Epoxy Replication Putty manufactured by Dyna Mold Inc were made. These impressions were about 10 inches in diameter and about 1 inch thick The UT locations 7 and 10 in bay
.13 were identified in each of these impression as the refence points. This is a positive impression of the.
drywell shell surface. The depth of the typical dimples were measured as follows; READING DEPTH #10 DEPTH #7 (Location) (inches) inches). I .,0.150 0.0,075. 2 0,000 0, 10 3 0,200 03135 4 0.140 0.200 5 0.150 o0o0o 6 0.040 0.000 7 0.150 0.170 8 0.010 0,205 9 0.134 .. 10 0.145 0.145 11i. 0.118 0:064 12 0.105 0.200 13 0.125 0.045 14 0.200 0.180 15 0.135. 0.105 16 0.100 - 17 0.175 0.035 18 0.175 0.015 19 0J55 0.190 20 0.175 0.055 21 0.175 0.305 22 *.0.135 0CLR00030776
Location #10: MeanValue 0.131 Standard Deviation = 0.055 Mean Value + OneSi). = 0.186 Location#7: MeanValue =0118 Standard Deviation = 0.082 Mean Value + One S.D.. 0.200.' Therefore, a value of 0200 inches was used as the depth of uniform dimples for the entire outside surface ofthe drywell in the sandbed region.. OCLR00030777
Appendix B: Buckling.Capacity Evaluation For Varying Uniform Thickness Through The Whole Sandbed Region Of The Drywell (5 pages total) Based Upon GE Buckling Analysis (Ref&ce 3.3) Note: Tables on sheets 53 to 56 are not used in this calculation and are provided for historical purpose only from Rev. G. OCLR00030778
CALCULATION OF BUCKLING MARGIN - REFUELING CASE, NO SAND - GE OYCR1S&T - UNIFORM THICKNESS t=0.736 Inch. LOAD fTEM PARAMETER UNITS VALUE FACTOR
***DRYWELL GEOMETRY AND MATERIALS 1 Sphere Radius, R (in) 420 2 Sphere Thickness, t "(in.) 0.736 3 Material Yield.Strengtb, Sy (ksi). 38 4 Material Modolus of Elasticity,. E (ksi) 29600 5 Factor of Safety, FS 2
- BUCKLING ANALYSIS RESULTS 6 Theoretical Elastic Instability Stress, Ste (ksi) 46.590 6.140
***STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS 7 Applied Meridional Compresive Stress, Sm (ksi) 7.588 5.588 8 Applied Circumferential Tensile Stress, Sc (ksi) 4.510 3.300
*** CAPACITY REDUCTION FACTOR CALCULATION 9 Capacity Reduction Factor, ALPHA" 0.207 "
10 Circumferential StressEquivalent Pressure, Peq (psi) 15.806
- 11. X'Paraneter, X= (Peq/8E) (d/t)"2 0.087
.12 Delta C (From Figure-) - 0.072 13 Modified Capacity Reduction Factor, ALPHA,J, mod 0.326
.14 Reduced Elastic.Instability.Stress, Se (ksi) 15,182 2.001
**PLASTICITY REDUCTION FACTOR CALCULATION 15 Yield Stress Ratio, DELTA=Sc/Sy 0.400 16 Plasticity Reduction Factor, NUi 1.000 17 Inelastic Instability Stress, Si =NUi x Se (ksi) 15.182 2.001 S8 *** ALLOWABLE COMPRESSIVE STRESS CALCULATION 18 Allowable Compressive Stress Sal= SI/FS (ksi) 7.591 1.000 C) 19 Compressive Stress Margin, M-(Sall/Sm -1) x 100% (%) 0.0 cJ,.
-4 Q0
CALCULATION OF BUCKLING MARGIN -REFUELING CASE, NO SAND - GE OYCRFST01 - ,NIFORMTHICKNESS t- 0.776 Inch LOAD" ITEM PARAMETER 1 . VALUE 3FACTOR
- DRYWELL GEOMETRY AND MATERIALS 1 Sphere Radius, R (i) 420 2 Sphere Thickness, t (in.) 0.776 3 Material Yield Strengtw , Sy (ksi) 38 4 Material Modolus of Elasticity, E (ksi). 29600 5 Factor of Safety,.FS 2.
*** BUCKLING ANALYSIS RESULTS 6 The6retical Elastic Instability Stress, Ste (ksi) 49.357 6.857
***STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS 7 Applied Meridional Compressive Stress, Sm (ksi) .7.198 5.588 8 Applied Circunferential Tensile Stress, Se (ksi) 4.248 3.300 CAPACITY REDUCTION FACTOR CALCULATION 9 Capacity Reduction Factor, ALPHAI 0.207 10 Circumferential Stress Equivalent Pressure, Peq (psi) 1:5.697 11 XParameter, X= (Peq/8E) (d/t)'2 0.078 12 Delta C (From Figure-) . 0.066 13 Modificd Capacity Reduction Factor, ALPHA1 ,mod 0.316 14 Reduced Elastic Instability Stress, Se (ksi) 15.583 2.165
- PLASTICrrY REDUCTION FACTOR CALCULATION 15 Yield Stress Ratio, DELTA=SeISy 0.410
- 16. Plasticity Reduction Factor, NUi 1.000 17 Inelastic Instability Stress, Si =NUi x Se (ksi) 15.183 2.165 0 *ALLOWABLE COMPRESSIVE STRESS CALCULATION
) 18 Allowable CoMpressive Stress Sal = SV/FS (ksi) 7,592 .1.082 X 19 Compressive Stress Margin, M-(Sall/Sm-i) x,100& (%) 8.2 OD "~1 t-o
Subject No. Rev. No. Sheet No. O.C. Dryell Ext. UT Evaluation in Saftdbed* C-302-187-5320-024 2 106 of 183 Originattor, Peter Tamburro " Date 3/21/07 Reviwed by. Julien Abraiovici . Date I CALCULATION OF BUCKLING MARGIN -REFUELING CASE, NO SAND-OPUN EVALUATION FOR UNIFORM THICKNESS t"0.8o0 Inch USING THICKNESS RATIO. LOAD ITEM. PARAMETER" . UNITS ,FACrOR VAJLUr
*** DRYWELL GEOMETRY AND MATERIALS 1 Sphere Radius, R 420 OCS) .
2 Sphere Thickness, t (in-) 0,800 3 Material Yield Strength, Sy (ND 38
.4 Material Modolus-of Elasticity, E 29600
.5 Factor ofSafety, FS 2
. BUCKLING ANALYSIS RESULTS
- 6. .Theoreica Elastic Instability Stress, Ste 50.884 7.288
***STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS 7 Applied Meridional Compressive'Stress, Sm 6.982 5.588 (ksi) 4.120 8 AppliedCircurnferential Tensile Stress, Sc 3.300
- CAPACITY REDUChiON FACTOR CALCULATION 9 Capacity Reduction Factor, ALPHAI 0.207 10 Circumferential Stress Equivalent Prmssue, Peq tpsi) 15.697
.11 XParneter, X=(Pe8E) (d/t)2 0.073 12 Delta C (From Figure-) 0.063 13 Modified Capacity Reduction Factor, ALPHA,1, mod 0.311 14 Reduced Elastic Instabily Strems,. Se (ksi) 15.824 2.266
- PLASTICMY REDUCTION FACTOR CALCULATION
- 15. Yield Stress Ratio, DELTA=Se/Sy 0.416 16 Plasticity Reduction Factor, NMR 1.000 17 Inelastic Instaility Stress, Si = NUi x Se 15.824 2.266 0
- ALLOWABLE.COMPRESSIVE STRESS CALCULATION 18 Allowable Compressive Sress, Sail = SI/PS (%) 7.912 1.33 19 Compressive Stress Margin, M-(SaII/Sm -1) x 100% 13.3 C)
C)
CALCULATION OF BUCKLING MARGIN - REFUELING CASE, NO SAND - GPUN EVALUATION FOR UNIO*RM TI-CKNESS t= 0.850 Inch USING TMCK3kISS RATIO LOAD ram ARAMETR UNIIS YVALUE FAcroR DRYWELL GEOMETRYANDMATERJALS 1 Sphere Radius, R 420 2 Sphere Thickness, t *0850 3 Material Yield Strength, Sy OIL) 38 4 Material Modolus of!Elasticity, E 29600 5 Factor of Safety, FS .2 BUCKLING ANALYSIS RESULTS 6 Theoretical Elastic.Instaility Stress, Ste 0ksi) 54.063 8.227
***STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS 7 Applied Meridional Compressive Stress, Sm (ksi) 6.571 5.588 8 Applied Circumnferential Tensile Stress, So (ksi) 3.878 3.300
- CAPACITY REDUCTION FACTOR CALCULATION 9 Capacity Reduction Factor, ALPHAI 0.207 10 Circumferential Stress Equivalent Pressure, Peq (psi) 15.697 11 X'Parameter, X= (Peq/8E) (d/t)A2 0.065
- 12. Delta C (From Figurc- ) 0.057 13 Modified Capacity Reduction Factor, ALPHA,1, mod 0.300
.14 Reduced Elastic Instability Stess, Se 16.257 2.474
*** PLASTCITY REDUCTION FACTOR CALCULATION 15 Yield Stress Ratio, DELTA=Se/Sy 0.428 16 Plasticity Reduction Factor, NUi 1.0L0 16.257 2.474 17 Inelastic Instability Stress, Si '--NUi x Se (ksi)
ALLOWABLE COMAPRESSIVE STRESS CALCULATION 0 18 Allowable Comprieve Stress, Sa* =SIXS 8.128 1.237 0 0u 19 Compressive Stress Marn,M-(Sal!Sni-)x 100% 23.7 0 0 N~) 0,
This page was left blank intentionally OCLROO030783
GPU Nuclear I Sand Bed Rtoioh - TyWat cor4*w towo on inioa: -f-mity., Corsesion proliJct on dfyweiJ Veste4 OCLR00030784
Bay #,13 - N'V she~h~- plu~g, The plug isktWAW~in fthinkd*O 0f.thip WOstW~- rv4ý area of ime .ef The ptug shomwe nob s§igna voowsion, 4;1 OCLR00030785
GPU Nuclear Day WI- Loukhrig at the worst corrCided areao inshelgl na Mpt tA e C /rIrhng. The ground sppts sea$mtere comspand MnOT sWo 2062% '23
.a( *~
(i-st
- .tt2~~ -a--
Say #13- lower Mid polion of ft D.w .he*shong UT sp 5.6 ax 10. Ttk4close up photo SttoWS the rouga.ess of the corroded sudace and . ow each UT spot has been picked up in.the deep valleys tereby biasing the renya~ting wall readings.t *t con, itosde sev 0CLR00030786
CAz CD ta.
- 2*
'-I WE p
0 0r-0* 0o 4
GPU Nuclear
~-
.4.
- p.-.
;r iiay.JVI . Note iti e tyio wLae4-t-{Y. qw '" -A17MI corrodw S4)d1 V4
- .4 .
- ---= . * .. ,, .,
Bay #13 - Lop"ki*.toward Bay #5 - Lowet left comrm sawtwg UT so #7,12 , 1 .
.This close up Oas captured the peaks and valljs of Mtie eeodedt shei- m vivid ,etail.
Later NO*.inspe*.i*m fivepo -DIt, bpelein pOeaks and valleys in the -0.25, - .4*' OCLR00030788
"0 C
z 0 SBay :#15 . ,oingd tward Bayi #13 sthwing portior atf Bay #19 - Note the or1PInat LeUd prdmer on vent tube OD OtW shelI and caondcele floor, O.er .emovel-otfI Sc debtili
-strdce.The "Tub RIn;" was less pVolWtoht en the she in I sand Irst. The concpete Rejor in this by Is one at ihe o th~s bay exc~pI a orodion h, toyw left .oMer. Also te.l bbtler ones, However - Nale (1)no dcsza~ge channel and.,
presence bfflead primer or, vemi coflarlrng plate. *. cratered holes ne.r shelf mtir 0 0., co 0*- .
.-. -I,.-.
-~ ~ b
- ~~-* I-say 1 L~ainmg tWWrd Bay #11 co ct YIo* le$ Sho~ftuT spots toded suirface This pti .to.asmzhowi ftho diWo 4ittbe concrtute ftow. Itappears Elay I#13 - Looking toward Bay #15 -This hOito caPfczes the zonr~ete to~r-condition andc a Dortiori CObiner She'l cq~Oded surface in very great delail.. -theflow.iti this area OCLR0O030790
GPU Nmuclear b-:. ~v~- f~nshed.ft . vesw wfth two top WMAt --owaing mwatffwa appUwd Drn fter flOw has been refum;)Lýe OCLROO030791
Appondbh D: NOE tnspectkionSheets for thm Diywel Sandbod Reg.ip (52-pagos OWY) OCLROO030792
GPU N~uclear
%~q~
0CLR00030793
GPU Nuclear
#:~Q a
~~~~~mpomV T t lo ;t u
~oW~- ~AA-< -- __ ____ ____
7__-. 4*UYf)ý Awm*
'no Tyo biwip"4 :"Wvif t
A-3 .- - _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ OC LROO030794
GPU: Nuclear V.--
. ~ U' 7.~ - -&, L LiA iT _______E OCLROO030795
-.f
. .1, ,-..* K ctrcez San' -. -r
'S.
t C-o~t O~ ffies e~ a' c~t Mam ear - jt A'. *. .i'a 1' a
.t tn/AC 6Cr A~A
,I!
OCLR00030796
I~Dora WKW 46,104 Ta* 2dI;iOV1 Tmi' I'wt 4J'"-"Ito P~o4~dur~g4 ~ -9 ee N6 4 PI 44g 0 C) I-00Q 0
-4 4
co
FEMRv.
~ 40.1*00160# u lp-ohot4
~~M~~~t~~~?
Pný'wa2J ______________ PAU -I- ~- j df,ý A~-4I 0 - 6t. Co 0 C0 0 0) c4c to
ssData ;*fe tw*~ 100 In:~ ;J,ss wA P~.dWT, u:C-~f' 7 1O. ~. *ý4I.*5w EXOMW~
&a$ kf~g Tha~initt~~Pw?
10 1 0 C') Ln -.. p~~,'/~q~A 0,, 0@ mftwodbv: !AA J. A.-L. - ~ .--
. . p2m ,ý-S-OYA 1 Mp dR-Z,-
Afl.'~S *~;m
00* U'iw Q**0 * , i*** I~~" Iým 2 w--io'3/4~~~fL 1 I A.. 4'Il ai f-- -~ -I,~ V ~ -. I VX1. 0 r-0
- 0 0
00 0* C) 0C
76rao~kT A PTceh VA. WC THýDaw i At. 1IJ'ti6 7;hnp ave~db~- LAlt 0 C-, .1 0 0 00
i
.4 V it... . -~ -.
FI.. ..... Q~n~Jj~ i~Lhy FZCILU F "~'Th ~ 0CLR00030802
- W' Lj~
G) z vI
~ Dt on
~
_wn 1&M1EJ U~~ft~~sanA
.'bq W~2 Nppow.-
aa b~ 34 O2t F ogA CD
.0 That 0k~tfOo: ~7 0.-
Eiwmfxa I~af , .11 / er&l-- 1~ZFtAs ~c _____ 1~vii~hiiw 13U~A~r~A ~ 9 - jP"'-OAarL.f. - , f-V8(l S~Arm I
* ~4~44A~ i 1w#~i~#t A
- K ~
Ii 1 ~j~-)'~s*~! $ 0 le$~ t V -~ 4k1'~V1~ o 7ý7, 7
~
~ ~ I I I a a d A 0 Ii ~ , i z 4 -
I .' C) f
- I 00 0
0 4 OCJa 0, i 00 CA
out. Owiz~io Ths Orr~. Ok Tea unww4aa. gfý Pwrmw w-.z6 040Ow
"..-t ,IL -alk rali z', !-i.,-~a ;j 0c I
pg. -a I , , i ... ..... V~ow3 t zC C, ID I~Aft:o -w meiIm~ j~T Uhra~ vieThfp~nO~
=law-4
~
Theo~m~ %MI ~~W~2LF1~ W -J
~f~T*.
Ca~.A..2L.J cat 0*~~~~~~ ~ f4~. ~ ~ : ~t.f* K ~'/div~.~
! ~4* 1~- ~4 ~U ft
[ 0~ IlL I
~ ii I
'3
~ '3 1-i~
~4ca~t F 4 4;-
0 p v1~~ t I ~ ~
~ ~..
t I ~ 0
~I .!
~ j
~ 3 M
I-0 0 I.
*i*~
-~.. ...
I
~--.
....'/TTA'
.0*:;'*,*
~'
~
I~tVi. ~F] I 33 L,,
0 C12
'a z
fri~TI CD I
'ret Fl 2 cal rJxi:
Rko~ ~~~ ____.__.._.._.. C., I 4-e-1 I i~ II a 4~* I 1'
~
I ~ I t t 1. ~ 6~ p 0 0 C')
-I 0*
0
~'~V7~' 1 1 t.
0 CA) 0o CD
0 I C z F 0& C 0 I04V A_'V 521 S. 1, L. j4. K K"""" r) """ '. 'I". r 4-I. 2I 4-fry
- dI~v~~ 4 VA
* *I 1'
0 I o ** ~t
'I ~4'~ 4 I4 41 r i
I- f 0 0 AL II
~
0 0 A
} '44.
I:. w w CO C,, 0-- Aa 00 03 *LL 0j
. IC
*7 *~4 A A ' '
0 C) 1~c. 0 0co ~
~O~2 ~fJ~ 4LT1~J -o C
z C)
-g I:
0 C,,
-.1
-4 AI 0
C) c0 C) C) 0 CA) 0
3~i G)
'0 C
z C,
~.11 0
Th&wq r
~- -- P Th~rroaq42'
- Ii
~
4y1~ CA L.J ci IAI.
~
0 C)
~Poo 0
il 1=2 0,
- 4 /
0J C.ORA% CA) 00 0ýýWhw)
C
-o z
C Uhrasonlc~f h, tz-1Qlaa C, CD
.9 t~3~
i~3i, 0 o Li Ut ft I Om ft
.LA rGm -Z-ooq Wt 0
C)
-i CC)
C4 10 z c 0* Apl 41 mu 0 Outt ~ Z.M1 t LA. OiL.4fl..~Scat Blh.Tmp. K 0*!!0 1 LOOrPt 0 C) C* C- Nll 0w O1 N,
-o C
z im- r tri1k L he C,
&1:-ilT' r":I- w~imftw.~
t iA P#~s ~#ci~ -~ 0
- r -.
Is L *
- 4 eý ........
ra~t~fl. .~h..~
.0-0
.; j low*e -P~ ~jL pmpN 'i-
[Ii
*1,
*Ii .1
-~ ... ~ j.4 %~4j~~j I 00 41 ~
~i ~r~i 4 11II I
~1 4
~*
CA~ 0c) - IS K: . ... i~ 4 ou I' 'I' ~' 0 00 -. CA)
GPU Nuclear
~Ar OT M.. I' 'S ~ ...A.
- ___~SPOT~~
M-TJ ~p E OCLROO030814
GPU Nuclear
-- _--*1, ---
I rl: f~#U. ________ r-r - -~" --- a------
ýA Li I___ _ _ _ _ _ _
- ~~(~x~~p ~~ -A' - ~~a~-L OCLROO030815
0o zC 0 0 WE zr1i I I. tmJ 1w
-1/4!
0 C) r-00 0 C,, 0Y)
o-C) Ct, C 0 0 10M It z Sketch Farm twith goo) (D low-Iy ~. j.4.rVj z 4 a. IL '4 6f AM1 11 L L
Co cfl C0 mV. C3 0 G~)
-o C
U4.ac4~eW hk~ThnDOW~ shst z
~~~~t two. 4 ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ 0
-a Tw~t ~tdaawl.C t~i -I T h~~~L5* ~tY ew" TAM:g +/- #&a.
w4 l
-4 M14 I
p Lj if f*'
ýNO4J 4v
*,R od t I wo~ . . ., ... ., .
tj iKew1 4.,
~j. A" * "- *" . ' 1,', I; V.
4 IXI
.4 '4 0
C) 0
-4N - -. I C,,
(D
0 G) C 1.5 zC I 0
- 0.
to.
-J a
W. 0 C) r-- 0 0 4 A'.~LJ p 4ut 00 N.)
- 0oo, 0
C.0 O$~ Bitit-WN -- C 0 C) 0cxO
0
- 2. Qa I.
0. to 0 C 0C) 0 0
C z C, I 0 C) r-" 0 co 0w 0 OD*
C CA r~g~ 0 Da0 0 F CD IOU o i 0 C) 0 0c-
0
-Ca 0
C z 4* wilm" 0 WIWI I 0 SIAZ -a
*1 A --m.
WKE ipdm . .. .
ýr POO
-0 tip ere oom lb cofts ,
lb p . I.,
.d.
/ .d~
'4 '-~.'~
lb
-, . * .1,
.j~ LA ~ - ~
0 p - I-. 40 C) C-a w C) IL i*I if ~0 ~JL1+/-+/-~+/-~ ~4~m 03 I
0
-I C) mu C
z 13c. fl! flc s_ _ Eow(MO) NrJ ii 0-C C) 03 St
.~~ .. ...... t 0Fa11t a It a
{~~1'~ C' a. if
'cc it'c .iA m44l ts AI
'A
- I. Ot-)4-61 77L. u L' *fl-'
*p 0
C) C-XI 0 0 0 C,, co 0*
CA UPa
~~QZ~~~f I4~'s T~ocrp~¶ ~~ Ar rAjV hWI:1
~aw~~S~44~
4q~ 4 SynM. - ~d r~ 0g 4,14. Af~~~$ rlp Ai. mn
NM O I - . P ~~~~~~~ 1 k e s D ~ ~ ~ ~ Shmt A Pim llo 'li 1,4l wig**: 4 POW..~Z #W ". -e 4rm 0 oa tak~. 0 ni? -l* :rkaZ aP w~d~ O~~~ 8Pp~pxw. ~ tn 4 m .jz SAp,£8 0 I-0D 0 0 tiii 00 0,
0' I
-3 m POOl:
T~Qsk raI
~~4C 4 /44o Uif0~0IC
-jt.
h1 paOaI o".u Z 17 CD Rroc~PiA81 12~e 0 TE~~~Q4~ ~ ___I w CI7j~ -
"M*
i . .10r. el-I.I.,
...... ... I
~aL0~St44~#ft11 ew-~ -
ir' A In I.E ti-1-11 .. D m w
.4 LA 4
p C', 0 C-) 0 00 w
-~ ,-
a, -
* / *~
0 II - - to
-0U C
zC. Osloot~
~oit~ThiO%~t~6 C, CD 2 actflt* ! ý A#W . 6, .
.. ~2 Ths1 A~ ~ - h~kN4 4~Da~t ,z7'7
'Exo*mlcnee ~ T~ '
-~ ~ I Ad.
Eua~IIIe 1SL2'{4
-. ~~~~~ roa* -f ilf..
/9i-d
'1 mc.
; 1 44 P. '5
- 13 0
* 'I 4 1K pq 0
0 0 00
*. . . ~ *3/4'.~ *"
1iz;11E~ I.,.-e 0 C) 0o . .. .. .. . CA
I0-w ICA C)
-o C
-I zC C,
IfliUNUQJSV n~ rw I -IWetokAt FwOj grddi a, 5,
, **.. l*. -.--. . .* *":
.~~~~~~~~ .... -a
*S.
ft S 4' it 96 Fn
. .. V
"; -i::: 7""*"'J:i
-14 4A.
;":rt"'7 1"-"" 7 1 :7 2 2i :
t ji be Ci 0 . "" '. " ,. . .. ".. ."' " I . t.j d'
'-, '-t 0
0 CA)
. .. .. . . " ..r" 0
0, Ct) co CA)
6,o~ 10. Ni~caSE
~e~s
~
C~~t~~p.Desc~ 4Q~- ~ I W! ~1 - u~ TAllt S~twtnf~ ~A C.. f / A ap um /il. 4W -A,------- Pw IA-- NOn
C.)
-o i
- 9 pi C j Llslwoo.rUi8011 406M Raw 2:
C C,
-i P~op.4u.)Slow Ae. t rpm I!
~nndYog 4-PAK__
_ _ bE e .97 T c F r' COT, ~ ~ L~ lp'?,l irý4 IrO C6 I
'4 ti*
W14, I np 0* co 00* ; .. I. aI A' f1c4.
.t Ifir is ca 1001" '0 .-
-..T ,4RFAIWýý
*. . - .. . .., . *., .% * ., ,. . .... . .. . . , ... . . .. . .* =. ,i t ___________
pflt ~ - -~ ~ 4~4VO~
. ," .kI.... . . .. * .. . . .. .. . .. .
,44
" . .. . . . . * . i :.-
c~p~D~s~ j4~t 4 #$~A# 4~ I-l"
- In ~ 4~fJ rju M A! . ý . ,E L" 4.. ~
ru~uI"wr,~., ~7A~~-p~J4 O~?!~i!. -~
. 1 . ."' -,
- .ý 1-j
~+/-4u .Sb
~ ;* U7 Thqmi*w~g8ft~~ P~ft 0~ I.
6~~/ I -i~1 I., 0 C) I-0 0 I, 0 'A" 3*.~i4, - . CD 0 I ~ LUWUt~ w gJ~~ ~ C.o Pk
C z 0 0 Ii laA.L~~zx A I~K -w To1Wp Pe-: Th~t~if~Bj 6. _____ EitM~m- ~rTO
^
I.~~ ....~~
.~ Ž j - I
~ ) ~,
r 4jt5 L
*Ek p
.1, e.
~r.2 *jI '~Vi ~Vi~'~
7..j~
~ I .~AI 0
0 0 ~o. 0 CA)
- 3 ~~
.* ~. ~5 7
~i~Mk~I 1 0 r Y~.pwu~ w . -
OD, CA)
4dOO va~mj. Im" w.po~r hAibral pill.hm.it - C) CD Sig1 ~Ig -Liz~
-g. -
IDA..
-I, 1_00 .hAM l o'! -
a
~ejR -at*
rioti~e~ - - - - tj~ L'~ _ __ ýM__ 0 2ip 4;4 C) 0 0 ý, 1. ý 0)
146C Htlm 0
-U
°f~1#4sisIear caffhmtlait IheM C z
~r~jv~n Snt~+
,t*
I C) Goln Si~ Im
,*..*'.:.-*.,.;..::*'*--*" :.'" ." ... :":." .* :. ::,..." "....* t~J ~
~wp ~ 1.
P
. ml.
Awph
- 1:!7 n
+/-
. --~. ...
Uloff £O ; hiiyr:1 Og JF iftD
~.i. -, ~- -~
~
r * *AIU I .... * "*-_*"" -'*" ," :" : - 7.:.* * .ZZ*..:-'*-'* '* 4-
ý14 orovo#.
tftne~qIna i 1 -%mý,Who L 0 I ~ I -.--.-. I r* 0 a- Lq"4.6-0 c,) -.o
NOi~4 0
~Nuo~ C~Ub#~Ubn jj~~:~
0Fe C z 0 I- 0
-a.d -C -
7 -77..
'9 In~ri~e~U Bofl)iwp Virh ~ll
*M G
~8fst
'A
.,-~ . . .... * . . - .:. .. ". . . . !!A ' % t.., '. : .
~wee~ fZ~Wi i.I ... . .. .. . .
Oo~s* Ugip /~A'/h I~t jnaw~ -- ~ - r-~TrT1 low. .! ,o "~ f-I-f-P-I-I. 4-4 i.
.Uri P5Ma _2 ___ C..,. 00
,'2.4 ...
n* ..
.~- 'i-i T-1 "- . ". """" " ' S
-~ ~ I Rev~
I t' 1~m I- 4IJ~tIIH~~~ms 1~p~ni ~
~C2 IE~
'4.
+
I
-~
-a J
1-i ~z
-~
00
** i*.* 2**
!~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ ~* ~ -,... .............. . . 3 * . . ..
Alf -t Fe-A L.- t'J CI- .. . . . '. I. I, -. . . . .*. . . . =* ] . ,' I]
-J
G)
.6 C=
A&~ ýt HT
~~r~wi~
.: - -aoe.u-lot ~ g~P_ __ _ _
.*p v* d :0tcu, 'a-
~1ieluvy~lt S~lftW "w"
2~4. 1)~!# NU~ ~se~j vi-0 C0 0 . .- ..-. . . .. . . . . . .. . C~) CA) co
Compp D~ ~
- r. OW: A 7 rri mr~am~im{fI&-
-~~
41-1__
.'. . .4.
CDI I~ Ram1
I - 0... ....
fo sbat O" C voo
#:Age; ftzk 0Y.0 COO In rrA
0 C) q3. zC 0. LA tr 0 C) 00 CD (J) - I. 0:)
G) PitVertlical Hor~ontal 10902value us008MS
,- : M :-" 5 h, - _.
5624 7032 0001 0-690 A-0.710 .071s ___..__.. . 0.705 0 ,724 0722 ___________
-098048 RD -_*_._,0.805 0.783. .....
.. .91036 L38..O .- . . . . . -
20 032 R23 0.8 0:8,42 *_._...___________
"l D23 . a R12a- " " .0.714i0" 077ip" " "
=2 D24 D L5 9 2 . p e . *'" U"e1o 22.
D" Dt13 .L40
*S24 h s 7-9 1.i719
.792 0e S 14 =2 . Rlsý . :4 1.147 . .. . _ .
20016 _- ______ _ 09-65'
-ote--Per d~ls*rna~o with0.860 .- o .i ... ...a
,-.,-I 03raL2 v80r9 0.c1w7
--* 22 W" 24-R3. .. 0.890 0.86 .
2007- Ft1rom"61 -s NOE Data Sheets. 92-M?-12 page I o1 I .*. L
~A t4j ,
*NDE Data Sheets 92.-072-18 pge, 1.of I!.
NDE Deta Sheetse 92-,072-10 page 1 of 1 .**-_ .,
*AMl horizonal measuremn'lts taken 1.31 to the ri*ht oftha c, ntsdtrw Of thle reklfot"Zm6M rft (00").
*A il verdo measurmemnts telcin from boftorn vento nozo, at f ibm 13bw. w,..
0 C) f-- Note., Per diasussion WOftkh f, fbtle POW fl ww taxen ki bu of18, baeed. anstaface 0"awet ,*" " " * * - 00 cx, .9 .P6
0U BAY 3
- ~~ I i
- 1 " "
1016R63 .795 0.795 i
- M*- <4-8 "9 m.
- ...0.857
.R33. TA' . -
S 025 R .I : . ,
- o* 8
<"- 18O82 D
-*.SiD
!034 6 DI4
*2, LN ' .
MXDEai Sheeb 028Y*-14 pWgI tf I P'ww PM~ ba b~B bu.d lS 0 C-) 0 0 0 C) 00
(0 CD 0 C) C-0 0* BAY 5
"4
-I nt ,Vf I i ~ fl. W *mW4 vann
-oi value , , * . . _ __mr_
- .. L -u 038 l . . .. 0*97 I .... 0 8 up.9.4d8.9 2RoR7 i04 ' jRough uface. dn .99§ "3 2 4 RIO 1.02 0.989 u p:gdn. ,04*
'4 41 L7 .. - _ftO6 0.948 Rough tso dished I- * -~ 4- - - - -- 1~~~~~~~ --
5 D42 LlI- U.89 U.6a Koturn SUrrace S0647 . R5 . . ... 08 .981 ua 1.018 dn 1.014 S 7D48 L0.99 -0974RougL surface left,99 h ,/A
* , , . 101 ,.
Nate: up, dn, left &right redilngt were taken 11r from recorded 2006 value reading. Rough surface limited taking additional readings.; Reference above,
=Vertical and horizontal measurements taken frott top of coating on long seam 62u to fight
"=Verticaland horizontal measuremenrto-taken from bottom of noze at 6 o'clock position Reference NDE Data Sheets 92-072-16 page 1 of 1 I-'
of the bay,. I - Reference off the weld 6 to,2ft right of the centerilne 2 The original date sheet is not clear as to whether this point Is.to the right Or left of te weld. Therefore NDEshall verify this dirmenslon. .. a=. Note: per diacsi.lon with Engineering, single point readings were taken In fau of a, batsed on surface curvaturn. N 10,-
0 C,, BAY 7 C A-I I V-0-1 021*2
~D 11.018
"~ ~.lima.
*0.
~
4010 R. 2
~L.. ~
m4 1.03
~... ~ .
L2 *i.
- __ NIA ud not Io s smt_..
VIA Couldno 96 1;04* Ii area
.966 0.98s l O upldk r.n.- d frm 1.0o to 1..*Q
~*"_.*
23ug i.0r ***.-.. .1 U zC 0 C, nma4 o"W.W ME Ou,froM Data Qbtglnd of.. .24. .. I
*1 I:2%
C6
-----tm_ - = - - . .. ,. tA 0
X I', L "-Is
BAY9 - . Point Vertical Horizontal 1992 value Value* Comment '4 1 029 R32 0.96 0.968 ' -lis
- - I - I - -0 - -
3 D20 Ri 0.99 .4 0,989 '-_-__....__ _
- U.,
4'D27 R15 1.0271.016
, 035 L5 : " " 00 0.964 ..... .."
6 D13 L30 . 082 0.802 7 D106 L35'. -0.825 0.82 __ ..... _-_"_'_ _ 8'021 '08ý 0.791 ..781
;, 7-~Di~ L53
. V0 32 _.._ _..._o_ - .. _:__0d.823.
-- ID..
.. .D.... ,,3.0 Data obtained from NDE Data Sheets 92-072-22 pag I of Note: per discussion with Engiieeft, single pomnt rewigr w*o, tk*n in lfcua of 8, based '
on sOrfMce.wwar, .'.-4 .-
,. " . C* .
0 C) 0 OD C,, 0) I -
.0f z
BAY 11 0 Point Vertical Horizonal 1992 value .2006 Value - Comments ti I 2 525 R290 R32,
*075 0.
0.7000
.O60
_0.705 0.
- 3 D21 L4 0.832 0.83 -. i 4 D24- LB 0.75. 0,751 -
S 65032 L14 0.831 0,823 8027 L22- 0.8 0,756 70D31 .R26 W1331. 0.817 No R13 0.85 0.825 " ._ _ _ Data obtained from NDE.Data Sheets 92-072-10 page I of I Note: per discussion wvth .Snginwlg shbgIe pcht readings were taken In lieu of 6, besed on surface cUrvatur.. 0 00 C) 0 OD 0 0o
'p 0 00 BAY 13 IV C:
0z EL I-' ~ I W94 0. 0 f R44-. R418 02 Iu U 0.72 0.!
-a i*nD28ro I1 U 02 OfW Di gtm0.gug614bprl 3b ~ n., O r2L uJ~Z is 2%
00 8 -4 1.' I C,, 0 C-) F-0 0 0 CA) cn Cii C) 00
W" w G) C BAY 15
"' L"...3 T ~ Vakie 4 t~dmJ.
D12.
-W0 2022 '
33 R21 RT7i, 0.829 0.932
'0..
O.835 _______________ D4 30 - R7. 0.795
- 0,791 '. --__ _ " --". _ .__
50Z8 7 __0 0.85- 0.855 UPto6 B55
.. .. * -eD.- ., ,D.7 , : 7* 0.",'7 o60 * +-ar . . .
010 024
- _ ... .. 10 024 - ,LAep... o 610, M V...0 9 - :
1+- : . .. Ommm"Mt
-S Data Obtubed from
- m meea..M-21 m.a pw I'o N:~~~w Mwvu o.d2mu v&ws mntiw -we ~aww~mtwigua. 'I, N
0 0 co I-
\I0 04 00 0
0 zir-rn "I-I
=.
t
.I 0
.Note: measrmweilthi v~rd ohm CL to A=oo 6O' po*t VeivnW 12 Value Value Corments
.. .. ...: .. 1. '012 * :;R50 ;0g6*
A91*. 0.0 ':* * ** *. .. ... 53 2 D 916 . . . R40 0%6 ,.... 1.150 0.e98 ---- 0 .894,.. ,481 up ,705. dn. 83 . .. 4 034' R24 0.951. 0.963 _
".6 * , '. - 6 D 17 : RR 0 0.0 92 . ... 0..822
. 0 .9913 .0.9 09 ..... : ,_ ' .. . . . .........
7 DIB L14 - - 0.970 . 970 _ -_,_ ,_ . ...... . 8 D 34 L.46. 0 ,9 9 0 0.98 0 -_ 9 .0 2 1 0 .7 2 0 0.9 7 0 .. . . .
"' .. 1.1 NWA- " N/A ... NIA .-- 0-844:,
.,. D .. .
Note:onmeasurements take fr omo-bs b. c---Ie18" below vent line. " Locations 8,9, & 3 .lookto be un-prepped flat areas of the original surface. All left, right measurements taken from O8left of liner long seam Data obtained from NDE Data Sheets.92-072-08 pagei of i I U oI Note: :Per discussion with Engineering, single point readings wre taken I lieu of 6, based on surface curvature. z
- 0. 0
00 0 __J 0 KX ~ A BAY. 19, 0 d.
-- - -m Poin. t __ I "'1 1992M1. . Valo- ]._*_,i, D30 R.O 3
32 0.904 __.__9_ee__7 2 D52 ,R58.. 0.924-- .92 2L.050dn.907 3 D33 R40 0955 0.932 up.894 dn.905 4,D32--, R1 .0.94 N/A COUld not lcate area
.0
. D31 R3 0F95 U04932 up .83 dn .897
- " - i.
. I . ]kLl*-i IP .Ikl / A.
- TZIt Could not locate area L ItJ -- -- 11 ".*..I*/Di i aa t- -
IJPi,II.8' I *L:.Im
- tM;-J i=q[* 4P I-I lid.I/ill r-Jii'*i
*ý4 . * "Sr & II.
C an .912.. AIJU 'Ad
- ,. .. -d " ... U.14aJUd.1 - " n 747 I.J*O l'tlJ
. . .. -r-I - . - M. " I . U. It ISU i Up .7289n A
-in n-16 L n -'J'-Tl* X.
.745
,846 I 0.738 gp. 738 dn
-N/Al Dfta obtained frm "
. NDE Data Sheets 92.-07 13a0 1of I NDE Data Sheets 92-072-07 page :1 of I Note: Per discussion -Ith Engineering, single point readings were taken In lieu of 8, based on surface curvature.
-This value isn" clear form the orlginal'detashoet -NDIEtto verify this value.
Note: per discussion with Engineerfng, single point readings were taken in lieu of 6, based on surface curvature. CU 0 4t U, Az/ac
0JNuclear Memorandpm.
Subject:
INSYECr1ON OF DRYWELL SAM M Daft January 28. IM9 REGION ANIY ACCE9SS RoI X4_ L. civil,/Strwturol"hitacts Vp. 1ocation: korrig Corp. -Ceta " C.' Fly= tnapi, Special *.roject rrojotto . .ireerin
- As requtsced by"y~vk I conducted t*o visual inspecletis ok ts dry*all sand bed re;orn aýd several 'of te access holes. On Decenber 22!: 192.
I entered Bays. 3.. 5 a-4d 17. FrZom Inside these bays. I coruld -sea sll, or portions of 1. a*., 7, 15. 17 a4d 19. On awazry 21, 1993, 1 ent.*sed
.3aya 13, 15 and. 17. From i-side. these bo*y. I could see all: o. portion of Bays 11.1, 130 13. 17 end 19. At the. timeato the first irpectiýA, bays L, 3. 5, 17 and 19 had been cleanad of sand ank cortosion Material.: p concrete repair or drywell. cating had begun" At the time -of the second inspection. Bays 1. ,13 and 15 had been cleaned of sand and' corrostmi waterial. Prier haW beep placed on the floor in 'preparit.on -Of epxy placement. Howavor. no concrete- rcAper or -drywell coaatin had be*=n In those bays. .Days.M7en1 bad Nmen couplete". The epoxy floor, had ben installed and the drywell had beoe coatad Following is a. sgmexy .. C my observations during these two inspectio*"
The drywell shell is, sound metal witb no block mateie1, run-or laminations. There ar* no appareat cracks or. dIscontlnuiqea The
*shell Is cberacteried by a rough surface full of: dimplev sadbu teo the outside su-rfae of a golf ball. The dimples ar of varybn sizes- but most are less them 1/' in die.wr. The shell appe.ra
. to be relatively uniform in thickness except as' nmted bel*v (a) Above the elevation of the bottom of the hols -through the concrete shield wall for the vent pipe (approximately .f belle
. -.- '.the. vens pipe reinforcement ring to drywell shel;l weld).
corrosion is mnuch less than blow that elev-tim- Therefore,. there Is an obvtim s change in thicknese at this elevation. (b) . There are two strip's around ,the vessel just below the vent pipe holes described In (a) above which are slightly thin**r than the general area- of the shell. Thes. strips have been described as 'bathtub rinýgx.~ MU/WP/MEMo/2D93-020/1. F 0CLR00030854
GPU Nuclear Subject OC.-Drywall Ext UT Evaluation in Sandbed , CakNo. C-1302-187=532 ,-424 1,Rev.No. 3 No. 180 of I13 I Originator Date Reviewed by Date PetetTam*o. 3121107 J, . -. aae#.eI .lyn rjcsEgneigPojc~ 5320-.93-02 0 Pa 1t 2 *. . . (cl In addition, to the dimples, there are spots that appear to be thinner then the general'area.. The dimples; In'the surface occur *n these thit, spots to the sam degree as In t"h rest of the corroded portIci of the sahe:*I. The lthi*m spotar" typically: a foat t* 1P in diametar and probably comprise about 206t of the corroded area. In general, except It Bay 13. the this spots Are lot readily 9pparoet. . T- 'a'dr, a .or6e fttalle4 cbaracterizAtion is: diffic.ult V*. the othr*Bay4 (see.
'(d) be1jg), I coul& not doetermine vismally which, of-the thin spots are the bnneqt. Howevar. due to the rall differances
'eVt.eesn. #&&"thick4 area" end the othino areas., -md the. amou*.
of zet43 rezioved in preparation fur tba Ut tieasuram&it it is highly likely that the thickness readings reportad -in the
!UT weasureaento encompass the thinnest spote in the sheUl.
( D)" o to the resudlt of rte thiciiasd ineae emenis, a more detalled.vsua] ,inspection was condhcte. of -the, dryvell shell in Bay .13. The couditioni observed during the: inspe*tIo Of" Bay 1-3 are aummazrized below. The varia-tl nIst=*i. ae Is greater iL. 2 ."13 than in
- the other bBYB.
4
~The
' lthl.W spots are about a feet r4Io:1 izi diameter and a a= te lemt"-, n. apart' ý(edg to edp., or 2 :to 2-le -ft. center to centar). Some spote are thinner than otheM.. Again. 1,could not determine preciaslIy vWis spqts are the thinnest. However, duo to the mount at M.eta3. removed toý . pefo"m ri Ur -neesurementat the.
reported thdchnessa in all l'k.clhood envelp the smallest thukft"G" in the 4ben.. The thin 6pots comprise but 20k. the total are of th corroded portlan. of the sh*U_ They a"e spread thro.ugbout t*he'ba: but. era closer together (about l1ft. apart) In die otiuidty of the vent pipe and fuxither. aPart towad 'the frame.. All of the observations. diaeussed. above apply i general to *ll portions of the d"ell shall in the sandhed are H0owevevr. 'AV 1.3 any of the. -other observed bsays.. In eddit-lo, the abrupt change .1 thicknrss at tle elevacioo described in (a) -above is more pronounced I in Bay 13 than in otber bays vbich vere inspecte& 'In fact, in.be other bays. the thin, spots axt not apparent unleam a zoncerted effort ia made to locate thbU. " ue to t ., tt .* zo.e deta1led " claractarizetioss. Is not drawn for the othe*r bay*. After cleaning and coating, the drywell shell is sound. metal with no - .
*apparent cracks, lamiation*g, scale or rust. The surface to dimpled, but does not have severe changes In thickness which would repslt in signIfIcant stress risers.
.. *.7P/MM0/2012 0 /fl2. . .2 OCLROO030855
J'. C. Plynn M anagert Special Projects, Engineering Projeets Januar 2P, ' I page a
, *,, , , . ,, ; ..... ,,-j
- 2. Concrete Floor-in. the Sand aied The floor of rhe sand bed was found to be uneven and unfirndsed. A number of small and some large voids were found In the floor of ,the sA3W bed. In- manyr places., the reinforcing bars placed to foi* th.
drainaga channel in the floor are explosed. The deepest void observed in the floor li about 200 deep and about 3#=4# ong. This void U, located sdjacten to-the drywell shell. & number of smaller V014-were also observed. A more complete end accurate recording of voids and sed reinforcing sa contained in MiCEs 92-leg and 93 *T062. The i rlnor.ýug in' expm genzerally sound. vith very littLe. evident apparent." After repaLie, the fleor ii 6ound. smootW and tesillzen. Me. configuration Vill lead to rapid draining of the sand bed- should water enter the arae. in addition, the slope provide.d will prewveL water from standing adjacezt. to the drywall -shall.
- 3. Concrete in Shield *ail. Frars a*nd Access Holm "
A number: of small fissure.s, cracks and voids, were observed In the. drywal sand bed access holes. In addition, a number of voids -a4.d areas of exposed xeinforceemqut were observed iu the shield wall. *n the sand bed reglm.. The voids in the sand bed area and accese hol". are documentee iL MN '93.wXý. The voids obzerved in the concrete comprise -an insignificant percentage of t. area of the shie2.d-valls. All woide are localiz"d and isolated. and do not ippear tb bh associated with any concrete- cracking or spalling. Al -exposed; concretedis sound and free of sign of degradation. Exposed hars appaar to be soubd and genetrally free of co*9*eoisio Ti the are"s where reinforcing .. expoed, the renforcing. appeax tto. : consistent with the reinforced concrete design drawimp. No areas were observed i-ich caused any concern with 'regard to stii-etural adequacy of the shield vaIl. concrete frames or the Reactor 3u"14rig. This completos the record af oheervattoes from sy inspection of the drywall sand bed regio. If you hav. any questions or need additional information, please Le*t me know. Thitmara
/ee Exesion 7546 cc: A. R. BaIg Engineer. Engineering Projects.
J. J. Colitz -. Director, Engineering ProjectS "J. H.. Horton MecHanical Analysis Hsnag -. S. K. Saha - Engineer Engineering & Design D..G. Slear - Director, Engineering.& Desig. S, .C. Tuaminel. - Manager. Engineering Mecbanis X_ Yekta - Engiuieer. Engineering & Design FK*9flMP/M20O~93-02*eP OCLROO030856
AffSV' 4.4A OCT.20 1902 141-42 ..3 GTEP-I 84U -082.22 ZV -- I28~ i. sap
-2.B3.42s t~c~ y~y~1 it~o~a ~ -=2fue1n asy 0
Appendix I G Figure 3-11 f rom reference 3.4 Figure 3-11 C0 0 0 0 - OYSTER~ CREEK *fRV~tLL A~ALYSXS ~ ~O~AiD ~ I l 0 "4
F .NSVS 4.4A ftT 20 1092 BTER- I Am .1sa zV *-I Lo -~ CENkF l hieox% 4332
ý5457 o .0- LOWvD~w1 circamr~tWP~ta A*esss - Refuro.)a Care C) 00}}