ML102920509
| ML102920509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/2009 |
| From: | Geoffrey Miller Nuclear Generation Group, Progress Energy Florida |
| To: | Office of Information Services |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0116 | |
| Download: ML102920509 (7) | |
Text
Crystal River Unit #3 Presentation to PNSC Containment Update & Discussion of Repair Options Steam Generator Replacement (SGR) Ope (between Buttresses 3 and 4)
November 161 2009 Presented by Garry Miller
,,J Progress Energy ening SGR Opening Dimensions 0 Liner 23' 6" 2W' 9" 0 Concrete Opening 25'G'. 2T0 SProgress enlly Delamination Close-up Hydro-Demolition & Liner Removal Sequence 1 F7 7F 3 F Location of the Delamination L
4 0.
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 i Core bores w Use to cross-check IR results w Includes visual inspection/documentation of surface inside the bored hole i IWL visual inspection of containment external surface (affected areas) i Dome Inspections
" IR scans in selected area
" Core bore samples in repaired and non-repaired areas
" Physical survey (compared to 1976 results)
Q Prooress berarq
Containment "Unfolded" - Buttress 2 to 5 Updated No, 16'" Mosaic IR Overlay scale is approximate Etu-s -2 G.-s 03 03 no Burs 05 ALL Core Bores Buttress spans 2 4-5 (as of Nov 1400 2009) i i. _ :iiiiiiiiiiiiiiill iiiiil~ i --.
Containment "Unfolded" - Buttress 5 to 2 Updae.a 10o I' 2000 n,,-t oSNS Outs#
5..- r::ess,1 B
Core Bores Buttress Spans 5 1 - 2 (as of Nov 141" 2009) 77-0
~
F
Root Cause Analysis -
P11 Metrics Un-refuted Failure Modes as of Nov 9gh 2009 Root Cause Analysis Field Data Acquisition 80 E~telnl Events 70 Opyrtiol-l Eelrts 60 40 MI--orOOo
- Im*elraeqrtoe Corrrr-tndonll~llCi~
40 fl e Shrinknge. Creep..nd Serrkl nt 30 Chreich "r EnoioonreWneRY tri~trcoddAgingr 20 natdeqtuare Use Wr Concrete
'0 h0-l(lt ¢nrl eign d-e 1.
0 Hi0htLo I Stress A
Progirss liergy Root Cause Analysis Field Data Acquisition (continued)
- 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 SProgress brqy Root Cause Analysis Field Data Acquisition (continued)
- Nearby energized tendons lift-off (vertical and horizontal)
- Containment ID measurements
- Strain gauge measurements
- Linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) gap monitoring 0 Building Natural Frequency N&...
Progress EQergy i Core bores laboratory analysis
. 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 I"40 b*Progress Eitorgy DESIGN BASIS ANALYSIS
-e-MPR 3D FE Model Model Features 180 degree Symmetric model w Symmetry plane @ 150 degrees midway Between Buttress 3 & 4 / I & 6 w 1A Opening, Ia Damage & 1/2h Hatch Modeled Explicitly Concrete Model
" Brick elements for all components r Dome and Base modeled independently
" Simplified ring beam and buttress geometry o 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
, Shell mesh with variable thickness w Shared nodes with containment inner surface Tendon Modeling
" Hoop tendons modeled explicitly for release and re-tensioning
" Vertical Tendons modeled explicitly for release and re-tensioning o Dome tendons modeled independently with forces ported to global model o
~
progress Energy
MPR 3D FE Model Model Features (continued)
- LE*
AN MPR 3D FEE Model Specific Analysis to be Performed I Existing Design Cases I Planned Analysis for Comparison Sequence 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)
, Delamination(l)
Wind Pressure (0.568 psi) w Remove Additional Hoop & Vertical Seismic Tendons Accident Thermal Replace the SGR Plug(2) w RepairiM Re-tension Tendons w SAVE Path Dependent Model for Starting point to Run 5 Controlling Design cases
(/
1 Rtt°IO u se r usc ¢onr, ti aminaun*3 u mlw r
Ito 1eplan c
SGR
- rlug, marrar tervosrgv Repair Alternatives Considered Use-as-Is Anchorage Only I Cementitious Grout I Epoxy Resin Delamination Removal and Replacement 123Pgress Enetgy MPR 3D FE Model Load Cases I Live and Dead Loads I Wind (110mph @ 30' increasing to 179 mph @ 166'10")
I Tornado Wind (300 mph) i Tornado pressure (external pressure of 3 psig) i Tornado Missiles (35' utility pole or 1 ton car @ 150 mph)
I Seismic (OBE - 0.05 and SSE - 0.10)
Temperature Loads I Accident Pressure (55 psig) i Accidental Containment Spray Actuation Press (-2.5 psig)
~$Pr-lfessitarg Repair Attributes i Incorporates and is compatible with Root Cause Analysis findings IReDaigvll* W!9 tta,9 t Hgirlboad Steps Incorporates Life of Plant Considerations
. Long Term Surveillance and/or Maintenance Requirements w License Renewal I Constructability Repair Alternatives "use-as-Is" and "Anchorage Only" I Use as Is - Rejected w Degraded safety related structure
. 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 dilficulty in the field
" Tendons are not always equally spaced
" Rebar mat interference at targeted anchorage locations
~. ltr~ress F t~y
Repair Alternatives "Cementitious Grout" i 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 25 Progteas Energy Repair Alternatives "Cementitious Grout" I 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 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 IGG N; Progress Etengy Repair Alternatives "Epoxy Resin" i Epoxy Resins - Rejected w Not viable in gaps greater than /" 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
" Anchorage becomes more difficult
" Tendon conduit integrity becomes more difficult w Mock-up test nee ded to validate tendon duct integrity (leak tightness against epoxy injection) u Test may indicate leak tightness is not assured 27~
ProgressErnegly Repair Alternatives "Epoxy Resin" i Epoxy Resins - Rejected (continued)
Mock-up testing to simulate all of the in-situ conditions is problematic
" Examples - Cleanliness of surfaces, parallel fissures m
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 etj~ý
~Progresst ben Repair Alternatives Repair and Replacement I Delamination Removal and Replacement - Selected w Delamination Removal Challenges
" Safe removal of delaminated concrete at elevated heights
" Avoiding collateral damage to tendon conduits
" Minimize damage to the remaining substrate to minimize concrete bruising and to provide a favorable bonding surface
" Requires verification planar fissures are removed Requires new radial reinforcement design (anchored to the substrate) w Will require treatment of planar fissures (if encountered) at periphery Repair Alternatives Repair and Replacement I 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
" Needs to construct ganged forms for placing the pours
" Need to determine method to anchor the forms
" Elevations create work execution challenge
,s 00 Progress Enetgy Progress Energy
Boroscopic Photos Delamination Gap Dimensions Buttress 3-4, Cell K Core 55 Buttress 3-4 Cell H, Core #82 S, Progress Eqrgy Boroscopic Photos Debris in the Delamination Gap Sotss 3-4, Cell H, Core f1u.]
B tess 3 4 Cel H Core 82]
133 C Nrorss Energy Boroscopic Photos Fissures in the Delamination Gap Buttress 3-4 Cell J Core #7 Buttress 3-4, Cell M, Core #1
- N.b
, Prn*]ress Energy Boroscopic Photos Delamination Gap Dimensions
[*,*s*.4*ce,,**:,**] [
ss 3-4, tellX, Core, #80 Boroscopic Photos Debris in the Delamination Gap SButress 3-4, Ce~l Z,Core If 78 ]
[Butress 3-4, Cell Y, CoreM6, Boroscopic Photos Fissures in the Delamination Gap Butes 3-4. Top of SGR Opening ]
Buttress 3-4. Tp of (3R Opning UprLeft Corner Looking West t
Upr Le."Cme
- G*
Pmress Energy