ML102920291
| ML102920291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/2009 |
| From: | George Thomas NRC/NRR/DE/EMCB |
| To: | Abdul A, Ashar H, Robert Carrion, Farzam F, Master A, Sheikh A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC/RGN-II |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0116 | |
| Download: ML102920291 (38) | |
Text
Sengupta, Ab~hijit From: Thomas, George Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:28 AM To: Carrion, Robert; Masters, Anthony; Farzam, Farhad; Ashar, Hansraj; Sheikh, Abdul Cc: Khanna, Meena; Lake, Louis
Subject:
Presentation made to PNSC Attachments: 2009 Nov 16 - PNSC - Repair UpdateFINAL.pptx Attached FYI is the presentation Mr. Garry Miller (CR3 Containment Delam PM) made to the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee, which approved the recommendation made for repair as "Remove and replace delamination". Please do not distribute.
George Thomas Structural Engineer NRR/DE/EMCB 301-415-6181 GeorRe.Thomas2@nrc.gov I
- ~1' 9409oc
Crystal River Unit #3 Presentationto PNSC Containment Update & Discussion of Repair Options November 16th 2009 Presented by Garry Miller SProgress Energy
Steam Generator Replacement (SGR) Opening (between Buttresses 3 and 4)
SGR Opening Dimensions
@ Liner 23' 6" x 24' 9"
@ Concrete Opening 25' 0" x 27" 0" U Progress Energy
Hydro-Demolition & Liner Removal Sequence 3
Delamination Close-up 4 &IProgress Energy
Location of the Delamination Note - Tendon depiction is for illustrative purposes and is not an exact scale N
- 3. 0 0 01ijOO
-6 Vf 1!410 7
5
Condition Assessment Techniques Completed or Planned Impulse Response (IR) Scanning of Containment Wall Surfaces w Comprehensive on external exposed surfaces w Representative sampling inside buildings Core bores w Use to cross-check IR results w Includes visual inspection/documentation of surface inside the bored hole IWL visual inspection of containment external surface (affected areas)
Dome Inspections w IR scans in selected area w Core bore samples in repaired and non-repaired areas w Physical survey (compared to 1976 results)
%/
(!. . w Progress Energy
Containment "Unfolded" - Buttress 2 to 5 UpdatedNov 16 th, Mosaic IR Overlay scale is approximate Buttress #2 Buttress #3 Buttress #4 Buttress #5
EL 250' I Pour 16
--- EL 240' E Pour 15
--- -- - EL 230' FRscans completed Pour 14 I I I
per PT-407T: --- EL 220' Blue = no delamination J Pour 13
- - EL 210' N Pour 12
- -Pou-------EL 200' P I Q SGR OPENING Pour 10
- - - EL 190' U Pour 10
EL 180' Actual FRscan output Pour 9
EL 170' data: Aux Bldg R oof Pour 8 Blue = no delamination EL 167' 8" --- EL 160' Yellow= transition Pour 7 Red = delaminated Intermediate Bldg R oof Pour 6 EL 140' EL 149' 0" Pour 5 EL 130' Pour 4 Drawing scale EL 120' is not exact Equipment Hatch Pour 3 EL 110' I/
Pour 2 EL 100' 10' x 60' 13' x 42' 1'x 16' Pour 1 90' 7
Progress Energy
Containment "Unfolded" - Buttress 5 to 2 UpdatedNov 16th 2009 M
Buttress #5 Buttress #6 Buttress #1 Buttress #2
.. -------- -EL 250' IIIPour 16
-- - - EL 240' E
I F I E Pour 15
-- -- EL 230' ii H Pour 14 G I I 220' R scans completed I K I K-- L I J L+/-
0+-
per PT 407T: 210' Blue = no delaminatlo 0 N+/- Pour 12 EL 200' Fuel Transfer Bldg R oof I R Pour 11 EL 190' EL 200' 4" T Pour 10 EL 180' Actual IR scan output W Pour 9 data: EL 170' Y I Y AA I Pour 8 Blue = no delaminatioi 8' x 16' EL 160' Yellow= transition Pour 7 B AC AL EL 150' Red = delaminated 10' X60' Intermediate Bldg R oof Intermediate Bldg Roof Pour 6 EL 149' 0" ---- EL 140' EL 149' 0" Pour 5 Drawing scale ---- EL 130' is not exact Pour 4 EL 120' EL Pour 3
EL 110' Pour 2
-- EL 100' Pour 1 EL 90' 8
Progress Energy
Core Bores Buttress spans 2 4- 5 (as of Nov 14th 2009)
B~ifjrI#
7 I L T Bts #4I 16 i' 10 A B C A B C A B D E F D E 56 F 16 D E H1 H, G H I I.
G H 10 G
L PO13, J , K L SJ*I K L I' J K
'II M
%M. : : 050 M N 0 r M N P%
SGR OPENING R L P Q P Q R U PO*V5 S T U 4 U S T
&S V
- W X V W x V W
- I , .*V;.
scm Pr.
AG AC I .... -9,
~060E T0*IORE EQUIPMENT K HATCH
-0 PUNT
%CJ0
- 1 ... 1*04..,
I' RBCN-0014 RBCN-0015 RBCN-0010 RBCN-0014 RBCN-0015 RBCN-OO1O
Core Bores Buttress Spans 5 1 - 2 (asof Nov 14th 2009)
ButessI# Buttress # LBttess# LF
-s Yf ALW2 346 U 7
=,.
A B C A B C A B C
.1
- I D E F I. D E F D E F PamV 4 '1.
G H 1 G H 67 1 G H '83 I POUR14
,24 62 J K 3 L42 J K L J K L POUR13 N 1 0 3 M N 0 M N 0 M 644 POURC FUEL TRANSFER P Q 6 R P BUDG. ROOF P a R POUR, EL 20"4" 42 Q S T U S T U *i. P5*15C I.
R V W X V W x IOURV Y Z AA Y z AA POUR#
AB AC AD INTERtdEDIATE BLDG, R"O AB AC INTEPMEOLATE BSUM.ROOF AD POURS I6 POR C:*'iiW EL 14WoW EL IM41P COREP 10 3113
-Alw POR P016*
POURS SCAUETO0RI1 POURS
.4.
-- ajkv RBCN-0011 RBCN-0012 RBCN-0013 POW, SLOW1
Core o/
AA B' POUR 16 Borings EL. 24'W POUR 15 EL. 230' POUR 14 EL. 220' 19SGR POUR 13 OP0IG07 EL. 210' Aam POUR 12 EL. 200'
EL. 190 TO SE CORk BOREW CORE 40fif C 14bL4D POUR 10 EL. 180' POUR 9 EL. 170' POUR 8 EL. 160' oiWAt. 40( 147U AQ 52 11 K ,00 A PCt IR 7
Tendon Pattern EL 22w Tendon Pattern at EL 214Y time of cutting SGR Opening
-Energized Tendon Removed Tendon EL 16 I'
Buttress (typical) II I I I III I i ijIiIjIII Ii II I It 12 I
Root Cause Analysis - PII Metrics Un-refuted FailureModes as of Nov 9th 2009 80 a External Events 70 Operational Events 60
" Inadequate Containment Cutting 50
" Inadequate Concrete - tendon interactions 40
- Shrinkage, Creep, and Settlement 30 " Chemically or Environmentally Induced Aging 20 " Inadequate Use of Concrete Materials 10 "]Inadequate Concrete Construction
" Inadequate Concrete Design due to 0 High Local Stress 0' 0' 0' 0Z' 0N b '~'~ N'~ K'~ \)P.IV
\-)P 13 Progress Energy
Root Cause Analysis Field DataAcquisition
- Impulse Response (IR) Scans
- Boroscopic Inspections
- Core bore holes
- Inside the delaminated gap
- Visual inspections
- Delamination cracks at SGR Opening
- Larger fragments from concrete removal process
- Containment external surface 1Ae,*
1"5" V Progress Energy
Root Cause Analysis Field Data Acquisition(continued)
. Nearby energized tendons lift-off (vertical and horizontal)
- Containment ID measurements 0 Strain gauge measurements
- Linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) gap monitoring
- Building Natural Frequency 15 Progress Energy
Root Cause Analysis Field Data Acquisition (continued)
Core bores laboratory analysis w Petrographic Examination w Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio w Density, Absorption, and Voids w Compressive Strength, Splitting Tensile Strength, and Direct Tensile Strength
'U J Progress Energy
DESIGN BASIS ANALYSIS 17
_* Progress Energy
MPR 3D FE Model Model Features 180 degree Symmetric model w Symmetry plane @ 150 degrees midway Between Buttress 3 &4 / 1 &6 w 1/22 Opening, 1/2 Damage &1/2 Hatch Modeled Explicitly Concrete Model w Brick elements for all components w Dome and Base modeled independently w Simplified ring beam and buttress geometry w Constraint equations used to join dome and ring girder for meshing efficiency w Constraint equation used to model sloped surfaces of the hatch Liner Model w Shell mesh with variable thickness w Shared nodes with containment inner surface Tendon Modeling w Hoop tendons modeled explicitly for release and re-tensioning w Vertical Tendons modeled explicitly for release and re-tensioning w Dome tendons modeled independently with forces ported to global model 1.
q * !W Progress Energy
MPR 3D FE Model Model Features (continued)
ELENENTS AN NOV 10 2009 MAT NUN 11:33:30 19 IhneE 19 xtro hi'k Eeet Elements BetExterior
MPR 3D FE Model Load Cases Live and Dead Loads Wind (110mph @ 30' increasing to 179 mph @ 166'10")
Tornado Wind (300 mph)
Tornado pressure (external pressure of 3 psig)
Tornado Missiles (35' utility pole or 1 ton car @ 150 mph)
Seismic (OBE - 0.05 and SSE- 0.10)
Temperature Loads Accident Pressure (55 psig)
Accidental Containment Spray Actuation Press (-2.5 psig) 20 FProgress Energy
MPR 3D FE Model Specific Analysis to be Performed Existing Design Cases Planned Analysis for Comparison Sequence w Gravity (.95 G) w Dead Load + Tendons w Internal Dead Load (200 puff) w Remove Hoop + Vertical Tendons w Tendons (1635 kips / tendon) in SGR Opening u Include losses w Remove SGR Opening w Internal Pressure (55.0 psi) w Delamination(l) w Wind Pressure (0.568 psi) w Remove Additional Hoop & Vertical Tendons w Seismic w Replace the SGR Plug(2) w Accident Thermal w Repair(2) w Re-tension Tendons w SAVE Path Dependent Model for Starting point to Run 5 Controlling Design cases (1)Root cause must confirm delamination timing (2) Sequence of replacing SGR concrete pi1ig or 21 repair may be adjusted SProgress Energy
Repair Attributes Incorporates and is compatible with Root Cause Analysis findings ReDEN i gppBflBinwnSo 9bn Hiugir oa d Steps Incorporates Life of Plant Considerations w Long Term Surveillance and/or Maintenance Requirements w License Renewal Constructability
,d!,,
o,,Progress Energy
Repair Alternatives Considered Use-as-Is Anchorage Only iCementitious Grout Epoxy Resin Delamination Removal and Replacement 23 wProgress Energy
Repair Alternatives "Use-as-Is" and "Anchorage Only" Use as Is - Rejected w Degraded safety related structure w Design margins are reduced Anchorage Only- Rejected w Containment and delaminated layer will not structurally perform as monolithic shell u Would function as two independent shells pinned together w Detensioning is not expected to close the delamination gap (greater than 2" in some places) u Would require some competent fill material be added w Anchorage plate washers (acting to distribute the load) would have minimal separation creating difficulty in the field u Tendons are not always equally spaced u Rebar mat interference at targeted anchorage locations Ir-RProgress Energy
Repair Alternatives "Cementitious Grout" Cementitious Grout - Rejected w Will not be able to penetrate all of the fissures observed along the delaminated surface u Creates un-repaired weak planes, affecting tensile capacity w Multi-fissure segmented cracking and dislodgement could block adjacent areas from being filled w Mock-up testing to simulate all of the in-situ conditions is problematic u Examples - Cleanliness of surfaces, parallel fissures u Would likely require in-situ testing that would be difficult to control in the field Oa Progress Energy
Repair Alternatives "Cementitious Grout" Cementitious Grout - Rejected (continued) w Mock-up test needed to validate tendon duct integrity (leak tightness against grouting injection) u Test may indicate leak tightness is not assured w Requires anchorage to resist grout injection pressures( >20 psig), and this has all of the same difficulties as detailed in the "Anchorage Only" repair u This anchorage system limits access to effectively perform IR scans to ensure complete grout coverage w Physical properties of grout would require detailed evaluation and/or verification to prior to use u Many grouts are blended for geotechnical applications u Tensile strength of typical grouts is significantly lower than epoxy resins
- ..IJ
,3 Progress Energy
Repair Alternatives "Epoxy Resin" Epoxy Resins - Rejected w Not viable in gaps greater than 1/4"due to exothermic reaction u Delamination gaps are well beyond this limit, including > 2" in some locations w May not be able to penetrate all of the fissures observed along the delaminated surface u Creates un-repaired weak planes, affecting tensile capacity w Raising the injection pressure to improve penetration in fissures u Anchorage becomes more difficult u Tendon conduit integrity becomes more difficult w Mock-up test needed to validate tendon duct integrity (leak tightness against epoxy injection) u Test may indicate leak tightness is not assured 07 Progress Energy
Repair Alternatives "Epoxy Resin" Epoxy Resins - Rejected (continued) w Mock-up testing to simulate all of the in-situ conditions is problematic u Examples - Cleanliness of surfaces, parallel fissures u Would likely require in-situ testing that would be difficult to control w 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 u This anchorage system limits access to effectively perform IR scans to ensure complete coverage SProgress Energy
Repair Alternatives Repair and Replacement Delamination Removal and Replacement - Selected w Delamination Removal Challenges u Safe removal of delaminated concrete at elevated heights u Avoiding collateral damage to tendon conduits u Minimize damage to the remaining substrate to minimize concrete bruising and to provide a favorable bonding surface u Requires verification planar fissures are removed w Requires new radial reinforcement design (anchored to the substrate) w Will require treatment of planar fissures (if encountered) at periphery 90 M F"801, Progress Energy
Repair Alternatives Repair and Replacement Repair and Replacement - Selected (continued) w Need to secure and verify same constituents to use the existing qualified design concrete mix (for the SGR Opening) w Concrete Placement u Needs to construct ganged forms for placing the pours u Need to determine method to anchor the forms u Elevations create work execution challenge 30
... Progress Energy
Boroscopic Photos DelaminationGap Dimensions 31 Progress Energy
Boroscopic Photos DelaminationGap Dimensions 32 Progress Energy
Boroscopic Photos Debris in the DelaminationGap 33 wProgress Energy
Boroscopic Photos Debris in the DelaminationGap 34 Progress Energy
Boroscopic Photos Fissuresin the DelaminationGap 35 Progress Energy
Boroscopic Photos Fissuresin the DelaminationGap 36 V Progress Energy A
Summary &Questions Questions 37