ML101180313
| ML101180313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/2010 |
| From: | Robert Kuntz NRC/NRR/DLR/RAPB |
| To: | Craver P NRC/NRR/PMDA/PISB |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0116 | |
| Download: ML101180313 (38) | |
Text
Craver, Patti From:
Kuntz, Robert Sent:
Friday, March 19, 2010 1:39 PM To:
Craver, Patti
Subject:
FW: Crystal River containment repair plan update Attachments:
2009 Nov 16 - PNSC - Repair UpdateFINAL.pdf From: Kuntz, Robert Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 7:59 AM To: Wrona, David; Auluck, Rajender; Sheikh, Abdul; Holian, Brian; Hernandez, Samuel
Subject:
FW: Crystal River containment repair plan update Here is a presentation that the DORL PM forwarded to me related to the containment delamination. It looks likd from this presentation that they will be removing the layer with the delamination (which is contained between tendons 3 and 4) and repouring. There is no indication how long that will take. Also, some of the boroscopic photos showed some rather large gaps in the concrete (greater than a couple of inches) which is why they aren't going to fill the gap and return to service. As a reminder there is a public meeting Friday morning in O-1 F16/G16 from 9:00 am to noon where this (or something similar) will be presented.
From: Saba, Farideh M' l Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:52 PM To: Chan, Terence; Rezai, Ali; Kuntz, Robert; Graves, Herman; Farzam, Farhad; Orf, Tracy Cc: Brown, Eva; Howe, Allen; Giitter, Joseph
Subject:
FW: Crystal River containment repair plan update See below the updated information from the RII.
Farideh E. Saba, P.E.
Senior Project Manager NRC/ADRO/NRR/DORL 301-415-1447 Mail Stop O-8G9A Farideh.Saba@NRC.GOV From: Franke, Mark1 l7J'*
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:39-PM To: Kennedy, Kriss Cc: McCree, Victor; Reyes, Luis; Lake, Louis; Carrion, Robert; Khanna, Meena; Saba, Farideh; Sykes, Marvin; Wert, Leonard; Munday, Joel
Subject:
Crystal River containment repair plan update I've attached the most recent information from Crystal River on containment repair options.
Summary:
Based on the amount of concrete separation and presence of debris within the delaminated area, the licensee is starting to reject easier repair options. They are now considering complete removal of separated concrete in the area of delamination and concrete repour. This would likely delay startup 2-3 months.
The root cause evaluation is still in progress.
Novemb Rier U6th 200 Cotimn Upat Disuso November 16th 2009 Presented by Garry Miller
~ Progress Energy
SGR Opening Dimensions
@ Liner 23' 6" x 24' 9" I
@ Concrete Opening 25' 0" x 27" 0" i
V jProgress Energy 2
(c) j L2OI
ýF ý -
rf, T
)J wý
ýý,
2:ý q
YLV2FoC(,6
Deamnao Clo se-up C&Progress Energy 4
Locatio of th Dearninti Note - Tendon depiction is for illustrative purposes and is not an exact scale
Condition Assessment Techniques Completed or Planned o Impulse Response (IR) Scanning of Containment Wall Surfaces
" Comprehensive on external exposed surfaces
" Representative sampling inside buildings o Core bores
" Use to cross-check IR results
" Includes visual inspection/documentation of surface inside the bored hole o IWL visual inspection of containment external surface (affected areas) o Dome Inspections
- IR scans in selected area
- Core bore samples in repaired and non-repaired areas
- Physical survey (compared to 1976 results)
Progress Energy 6
p-u I
2 6
3 5
At uttress #5
-- EL 250' IR scans completed per PT-407T:
Blue =no delaminati Pour 16 EL 240' Pour 15 EL 230' Pour 14 EL 220' Pour 13 EL 210' Pour 12 EL 200' Pour 11 EL 190' Pour 10 EL 180' Pour 9 EL 170' Pour 8 SOP OPENINI A
Actual IR scan output data:
Blue = no delamin.
Yellow= transition EL 167' 8"
'I Red = delaminated Intermediate Bldg Roof EL 149' 0" I
Pour 7 EL 150' Pour 6 EL 140' Pour 5 EL 130' Pour 4 EL 120' Pour 3 Drawing scale is not exact EL 110' Pour 2 100' 10' x 60' 13' x 42' IO'x 16' Pour 1
- - EL 90' Progresq-'s Energy 7
A B
C A
B C
A B
C D
E F
G H
K L
M N
0 IR scans completed per PT 407T:
Blue = no delaminatior A
Actual IR scan output data:
Blue = no delamination Yellow= transition Red = delaminated Drawing scale is not exact P
R R
Fuel Transfer Bldg Roof EL 200' 4" D
E F
G H
I J
K L
M N
O P
Q R
S T
U V
W X
y Z
E F
G H
J K
L M
N 0
P Q
R S
T U
v W
X y
Z AA AB AC AD EL 250' Pour 16 EL 240' Pour 15 EL 230' Pour 14 EL 220' Pour 13 EL 210' Pour 12 EL 200' Pour 11 EL 190' Pour 10 EL 180' Pour 9 EL 170' Pour 8 EL 160' Pour 7 EL 150' Pour 6 EL 140' Pour 5 EL 130' Pour 4 EL 120' Pour 3 EL 110' Pour 2 EL 100' Pour 1 EL 90' 8'x 16' EL 160' 10' x60' EL 143' 9'x 12 EL 119' 8'x12T Intermediate Bldg Roof EL 149' 0" Intermediate Bldg Roof EL 149' 0" a1 Progress Energy 8
Buttress
- 2an Butrs #3-Butrs #4 B(arss of No S
Om~
- CA GORE DSinAJMTW4
- ýo W.
T r4.i PW RM 00
Butrs Spn 5
A a
fNv1" 09
-tow CM ti DLMW mm mm 4 conw s
rA.cft StAUE W O R
.N /
SJTT~MW.
TTM 46~u
=.a*=m wi *
- COR SOR WITH DELA4A1 COW DOW NOT DLAWHATI TO SE CORE OED CORE SORE DRU.1-ED POUR 16 EL. 240' POUR 15 EL. 230' POUR 14 EL. 220' POUR 13 EL. 210' SGR OPENING 2r POUR 12 EL. 200 POUR 11 EL. 190' POUR 10 EL. 10' POUR 9 EL. 170' POUR 8 EL. 160' IPk~l IR 7 11
edo Tendon Pattern at time of cutting SGR Opening Energized Tendon Removed Tendon Buttress (typical) ft-ress # 3 M-VA,
ýMs IL
ý i im-i
-A v -hI
ý14 WWI M A
ý Iwm
.14 Of Wý 5M I
ýIws I=
w A 1% ILI I 01 04 M am WN M
-N, PAI -,vuA 4%
'*A i'J'M M. 10 &A. -&-j
-RMMMMM Buttress # 4 EL, 210 ELli ELIM4 12
Root Cause Analysis - PH Metrics Un-refuted Failure Modes as of Nov 9t" 2009 80 -
- External Events 70-Operational Events 6 0
- Inadequate Containment Cutting 50-
- Inadequate Concrete - tendon 40
-interactions
- Shrinkage, Creep, and Settlement 30 E Chemically or Environmentally Induced Aging 20 N Inadequate Use of Concrete Materials 10
- Inadequate Concrete Construction 0 Inadequate Concrete Design due to
-ALI'0 r ro o
ý0
ý'ýo\\\\o
ý'o
-1y"11 LULU;d:I.LIe Z
Proress Energy 13
Roo Cas Anayi FilS aaAcusto o Impulse Response (IR) Scans o Boroscopic Inspections o Core bore holes o Inside the delaminated gap o Visual inspections o Delamination cracks at SGR Opening o Larger fragments from concrete removal process o Containment external surface
- Progress Energy 14
Roo Cas Anayi o Nearby energized tendons lift-off (vertical and horizontal) o Containment ID measurements 0 Strain gauge measurements o Linear variable displacement transducer gap monitoring o Building Natural Frequency (LVDT)
Pmrogress Energy 15
Root Cas Anayi Fil Dt 9Acusto (cntnud o Core bores laboratory analysis
" Petrographic Examination
" Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio
" Density, Absorption, and Voids
" Compressive Strength, Splitting Tensile Strength, and Direct Tensile Strength Progress Energy 16
DESIGN BASIS ANALYSIS mN Progress Energy 17
- Ale, o
180 degree Symmetric model o Symmetry plane @ 150 degrees midway Between Buttress 3 & 4 1 1 & 6 o
Opening, 1/2 Damage & 1/2 Hatch Modeled Explicitly o Concrete Model o Brick elements for all components o Dome and Base modeled independently
" Simplified ring beam and buttress geometry Constraint equations used to join dome and ring girder for meshing efficiency Constraint equation used to model sloped surfaces of the hatch o
Liner Model o Shell mesh with variable thickness.
o Shared nodes with containment inner surface o
Tendon Modeling
" Hoop tendons modeled explicitly for release and re-tensioning o Vertical Tendons modeled explicitly for-release and re-tensioning o Dome tendons modeled independently with forces ported to global model SProgress Energy 18
MPR 3D FEode Mode Fetue (cntnud i
AN ELEMENTS NOV 10 2009 MAT NUM 11:33':30
- i...
1 1 :3 3 :3 0 E19io leet 19 Exterior Elements
MPR 3D FE Model Load Cases o Live and Dead Loads o Wind (110mph @ 30' increasing to 179 mph @ 166'10")
o Tornado Wind (300 mph) o Tornado pressure (external pressure of 3 psig) o Tornado Missiles (35' utility pole or 1 ton car @ 150 mph) o Seismic (OBE - 0.05 and SSE - 0.10) o Temperature Loads o Accident Pressure (55 psig) o Accidental Containment Spray Actuation Press (-2.5 psig) 0 Progress Energy 20
MPR 3D FEode Specfic nalyis o
bePerfrme o Existing Design Cases for Comparison
" Gravity (.95 G) o Internal Dead Load (200 puff)
Tendons (1635 kips I tendon) o Include losses o Internal Pressure (55.0 psi)
- Wind Pressure (0.568 psi) o Seismic Accident Thermal
/*
(1) Root cause must confirm delamination ti (2) Sequence of replacing SGR concrete pi1 repair may be adjusted o Planned Analysis Sequence o Dead Load + Tendons Remove Hoop + Vertical Tendons in SGR Opening Remove SGR Opening Delamination(l)
Remove Additional Hoop & Vertical Tendons Replace the SGR Plug(2)
Repair(2)
Re-tension Tendons SAVE Path Dependent Model for Starting point to Run 5 Controlling Design cases ming ig or Progress Energy 21
Reair Attibte o Incorporates and is compatible with Root Cause Analysis findings o Restores applicable design basis margins o Incorporates Life of Plant Considerations
" Long Term Surveillance and/or Maintenance Requirements
" License Renewal o Constructability
- Progress Energy 22
RearAltraie Conidre o Use-as-Is o Anchorage Only o Cementitious Grout C
o Epoxy Resin
" Delamination Removal and Replacement
&IProgress Energy 23
o Use as Is - Rejected
- Degraded safety related structure o Design margins are reduced o Anchorage Only-Rejected
" Containment and delaminated layer will not structurally perform as monolithic shell c Would function as two independent shells pinned together
- Detensioning is not expected to close the delamination gap (greater than 2" in some places) 0 Would require some competent fill material be added
" Anchorage plate washers (acting to distribute the load) would have minimal separation creating difficulty in the field
" Tendons are not always equally spaced
" Rebar mat interference at targeted anchorage locations Progress Energy 24
RearAltenatve "Cmniiu Grout" o Cementitious Grout-Rejected
- Will not be able to penetrate all of the fissures observed along the delaminated surface o Creates un-repaired weak planes, affecting tensile capacity o Multi-fissure segmented cracking and dislodgement could block adjacent areas from being filled o Mock-up testing to simulate all of the in-situ conditions is problematic o Examples - Cleanliness of surfaces, parallel fissures 0 Would likely require in-situ testing that would be difficult to control in the field
- Progress Energy 25
o Cementitious Grout - Rejected (continued)
" Mock-up test needed to validate tendon duct integrity (leak tightness against grouting injection) o> Test may indicate leak tightness is not assured
" Requires anchorage to resist grout injection pressures( >20
.psig), and this has all of the same difficulties as detailed in the "Anchorage Only" repair o This anchorage system limits access to effectively perform IR scans to ensure complete grout coverage
" Physical properties of grout would require detailed evaluation and/or verification to prior to use
" Many grouts are blended for geotechnical applications
" Tensile strength of typical grouts is significantly lower than epoxy resins 3
~
Progress Energy 26
o Epoxy Resins - Rejected
" Not viable in gaps greater than 1/4" due to exothermic reaction 0 Delamination gaps are well beyond this limit, including > 2" in some locations
" May not be able to penetrate all of the fissures observed along the delaminated surface o* Creates un-repaired weak planes, affecting tensile capacity Raising the injection pressure to improve penetration in fissures
" Anchorage becomes more difficult
" Tendon conduit integrity becomes more difficult Mock-up test needed to validate tendon duct integrity (leak tightness against epoxy injection) 0 Test may indicate leak tightness is not assured 7;17 Ihip Progress Energy 27
o Epoxy Resins - Rejected (continued)
- Mock-up testing to simulate all of the in-situ conditions is problematic
" Examples - Cleanliness of surfaces, parallel fissures
" Would likely require in-situ testing that would be difficult to control
- Requires anchorage to resist epoxy injection pressures (8 to 20 psig), and this has all of the same difficulties as detailed in the "Anchorage Only" repair 0 This anchorage system limits access to effectively perform IR scans to ensure complete coverage I
- Progress Energy 28
Reair Altenatve Reai an Replacemen o Delamination Removal and Replacement - Selected
" Delamination Removal Challenges K Safe removal of delaminated concrete at elevated heights K Avoiding collateral damage to tendon conduits
" Minimize damage to the remaining substrate to minimize concrete bruising and to provide a favorable bonding surface c Requires verification planar fissures are removed
" Requires new radial reinforcement design (anchored to the substrate)
" Will require treatment of planar fissures (if encountered) at periphery IProgress Energy 29
Repair Alternatives Repair and Replacement o Repair and Replacement.- Selected (continued)
" Need to secure and verify same constituents to use the existing qualified design concrete mix (for the SGR Opening)
" Concrete Placement
" Needs to construct ganged forms for placing the pours K Need to determine method to anchor the forms
" Elevations create work execution challenge
) Progress Energy 30
BoocpcPoo Delmnto Ga Dimesion Buttress 3-4, Cell K, Core #55 IButtress 3-4, Cell H, Core #821 Progress Energy 31
Borsoi Photos Delmnto Ga Dimesion Buttress 3-4, Cell Z, Core #78 Buttress 3-4, Cell X, Core #80 OnProgress Energy 32
Booeoi PhotosS D~ebi in the Deaiat a
Buttress 34, Cell H, Core #81 IButtress 3-4, Cell H, COr#8 Progress Energy 33
BoocpcPoo Deri in the Deaino Ga Buttress 3-4, Cell Z, Core #78I Buttress 34, Cell Y, Core #61 SProgress Energy 34
Borsco Photo*sS Fisue inth Delamnatin Ga IButtress 3, CelJ, Core #7 Buttress 3-4, Cell M, Core #17 Pwress Energy 35
Booe oi Photo 5s Fisue inth D
-elmnto Gap Buttress 3-4, Top of SGR Opening Upper Left Corner, Looking West Buttress 3-4, Top of SGR Opening Upper Left Corner Pqm PorsEnerg 36
Questions 37