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:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Thomas, George Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:28 AM Carrion, Robert; Masters, Anthony; Farzam, Farhad; Ashar, Hansraj; Sheikh, Abdul Khanna, Meena; Lake, Louis Presentation made to PNSC 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 Presentation to 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
&I Progress Energy 4
Location of the Delamination Note - Tendon depiction is for illustrative purposes and is not an exact scale
- 3. 0
-6 1ij 0 0 OO N
1!410 Vf 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 I R 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 Updated Nov 16th, Mosaic IR Overlay scale is approximate Buttress #2 Buttress #3 Buttress #4 E
FR scans completed per PT-407T:
Blue = no delamination Actual FR scan output data:
Blue = no delamination Yellow= transition Red = delaminated Drawing scale is not exact I
I I
J N
Buttress #5 EL 250' I Pour 16
- EL 240' Pour 15
-- - EL 230' Pour 14
- EL 220' Pour 13
- - EL 210' Pour 12
- -Pou------- EL 200' Pour 10
- EL 190' Pour 10
EL 180' Pour 9
EL 170' Pour 8 EL 160' Pour 7 P
I Q
SGR OPENING U
Aux Bldg R oof EL 167' 8" Intermediate Bldg R oof EL 149' 0" Equipment Hatch Pour 6 EL 140' Pour 5 EL 130' Pour 4 EL 120' Pour 3 EL 110' Pour 2 EL 100' Pour 1 90' I/
10' x 60' 13' x 42' 1'x 16' Progress Energy 7
Containment "Unfolded" - Buttress 5 to 2 Updated Nov 16th 2009 M
Buttress #5 Buttress #6 Buttress #1 E
I F
I E
ii H Buttress #2
-EL 250' IIIPour 16
- EL 240' Pour 15
-- -- EL 230' Pour 14 220' I
G I
I R scans completed per PT 407T:
Blue = no delaminatlo Actual IR scan output data:
Blue = no delaminatioi Yellow= transition Red = delaminated Drawing scale is not exact K
I 0
K--
N+/-
L I
J L+/-0+-
Fuel Transfer Bldg R oof EL 200' 4" I
R 210' Pour 12 EL 200' Pour 11 EL 190' Pour 10 EL 180' Pour 9 EL 170' Pour 8 T
W Y
I 8' x 16' Y
AA I
EL 160' 10' X60' Intermediate Bldg R oof EL 149' 0" B
AC AL Intermediate Bldg Roof EL 149' 0" Pour 7 Pour 6 EL 150' Pour 5 EL 140' EL 130' EL 120' Pour 4 EL Pour 3 EL 110' Pour 2
-- EL 100' Pour 1 EL 90' Progress Energy 8
Core Bores Buttress spans 2 4-5 (as of Nov 14th 2009)
B~ifjrI#
7 I
L T Bts #4I 16 i'
10
- r A
B C
A B
C D
E F
G H,
H1 J,
K L
M N
0 P
Q R
S T
U 4
V W
x Y
E 56 F
16 G
H I
SJ*I K
L
' I I 050
%M.
M SGR P%
OPENING R
&S U
V W
X Y
- Z AA rL I.
I'
- I_
A D
E G
H J
K M
N P
Q S
T V
W
- 4 B
L PO 13, 10 U
PO* V5 x
POUR 0
- I,
.*V;.
I P
I
.... -9, 1*04..,
INTERMEDLATE BLSG. ROOF EL. 14,0" AE AF AG y
T0*IORE ~060 E
%CJ0
-0 PUNT AUX. BLDG. RO EL. 15T-4 EQUIPMENT HATCH I'
RBCN-0014 RBCN-0015 RBCN-0010 RBCN-0014 RBCN-0015 RBCN-OO1O
Core Bores Buttress Spans 5 1 - 2 (as of Nov 14th 2009)
ButessI#
ALW2 Buttress #
7 L Bttess#
LF Yf
-s
=,.
346 U
A B
C D
E F
G H
1
,24 J
K 3 L42 M
N 1
0 3
.1 I
I.
4 '1.
I.
A B
C A
B C
P 42 Q
R FUEL TRANSFER BUDG. ROOF EL 20"4" D
E F
G H
67 1
J K
L M
N 0
P a
R S
T U
V W
X Y
E F
G H '83 I
62 J
K L
644 M
N 0
P Q 6 R
S T
U V
W x
Y z
- i.
PamV POUR 14 POUR13 POURC
- POUR, P5*15C IOURV POUR#
POR POURS
-AlwPOR P016*
POURS POURS ajkv
- POW, SLOW1 INTERtdEDIATE BLDG, R"O EL 14WoW INTEPMEOLATE BSUM. ROOF EL IM41P I6 C:*'iiWM COREP 10 3113 SCAUETO0RI1
.4.
RBCN-0011 RBCN-0012 RBCN-0013
Core Borings Aam
TO SE CORk BOREW CORE 40fif C 14bL4D AA B'
19SGR OP0IG07 o/
POUR 16 EL. 24'W 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' oiWAt.
40(
147U AQ 52 11 K
,00 A
PCt IR 7
Tendon Pattern Tendon Pattern at time of cutting SGR Opening
-Energized Tendon Removed Tendon EL 22w EL 214Y EL 16 Buttress (typical)
I' II I I IiijIiIjIII Ii III IIII It 12 I
Root Cause Analysis - PII Metrics Un-refuted Failure Modes as of Nov 9th 2009 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
a External Events Operational Events
" Inadequate Containment Cutting
" Inadequate Concrete - tendon interactions
- Shrinkage, Creep, and Settlement
" Chemically or Environmentally Induced Aging
" Inadequate Use of Concrete Materials
"] Inadequate Concrete Construction
" Inadequate Concrete Design due to High Local Stress 0'
0' 0'
0Z' 0N N'~
b
'~'~
K'~ \\) P \\-) P
.IV Progress Energy 13
Root Cause Analysis Field Data Acquisition
- 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,*
V Progress Energy 1"5"
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 gap monitoring
- Building Natural Frequency (LVDT)
Progress Energy 15
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 J Progress Energy
'U
DESIGN BASIS ANALYSIS
_
- Progress Energy 17
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 MAT NUN AN NOV 10 2009 11:33:30 19 IhneE xtro Eeet 19 hi'k BetExterior Elements
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)
FProgress Energy 20
MPR 3D FE Model Specific Analysis to be Performed Existing Design Cases for Comparison w Gravity (.95 G) w Internal Dead Load (200 puff) w Tendons (1635 kips / tendon) u Include losses w Internal Pressure (55.0 psi) w Wind Pressure (0.568 psi) w Seismic w Accident Thermal (1) Root cause must confirm delamination ti (2) Sequence of replacing SGR concrete pi1 repair may be adjusted Planned Analysis Sequence w Dead Load + Tendons w Remove Hoop + Vertical Tendons in SGR Opening w Remove SGR Opening w Delamination(l) w Remove Additional Hoop & Vertical Tendons w Replace the SGR Plug(2) w Repair(2) w Re-tension Tendons w SAVE Path Dependent Model for Starting point to Run 5 Controlling Design cases ming ig or SProgress Energy 21
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 o,,Progress Energy
,d!,,
Repair Alternatives Considered Use-as-Is Anchorage Only iCementitious Grout Epoxy Resin Delamination Removal and Replacement wProgress Energy 23
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 RProgress Energy Ir-
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
,3 Progress Energy
- ..IJ
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
... Progress Energy 30
Boroscopic Photos Delamination Gap Dimensions Progress Energy 31
Boroscopic Photos Delamination Gap Dimensions Progress Energy 32
Boroscopic Photos Debris in the Delamination Gap wProgress Energy 33
Boroscopic Photos Debris in the Delamination Gap Progress Energy 34
Boroscopic Photos Fissures in the Delamination Gap Progress Energy 35
Boroscopic Photos Fissures in the Delamination Gap V Progress Energy A
36
Summary & Questions Questions 37