ML20072E391

Tendon Surveillance Program Engineering Evaluation Rept for Fifth Tendon Surveillance Insp Period

ML20072E391
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	06/20/1994
From:	Don Krause, Marcellus M GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY GILBERT ASSOCIAT
To:
Shared Package
ML20072E390	List: 3F0894-03, Forwards Crystal River Unit 3 Tendon Surveillance Program Engineering Evaluation Rept for Fifth Tendon Surveillance Insp Period ML20072E391
References
NUDOCS 9408220231
Download: ML20072E391 (99)

Text

.

1 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 TENDON SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE FIFTH TENDON SURVEILLANCE INSPECTION PERIOD Originated By: 7/ddd uf//no A Reviewed By:

b Repon Date:

A [vc /994 Gilbert / Commonwealth Reading, Pa.

9408220231 940812 PDR ADOCK 05000302 O

PDR

a

.-sy aw.

+

._h-Ju Page 2 TABLE OF CON'IENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE TABIE OF CONTENTS 2

1.0 D(TRODUCTION 4

2.0 REGUIATORY ISSUES AND LICENSING POSITIONS 4

3.0 TENDON SELECTION 6

4.0

'IENDON PHYSICAL CONDITION TESTS 8

4.1 ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLYINSPECTION 8.

4.2 PHYSICAL CONDITION TESTS II 5.0 INDIVIDUAL TENDONS IRT OFF FORCE EVALUATION 13 5.I EVALUATION FOR COMPilANCE WITH APPROVED TECHNICAL SPECIFTCATION CRITERIA 14 5.2 EVALUATION FOR COMPIJANCE WITH REG. CUIDE 1.35 14 6A

'IENDON GROUPS AVERAGE FORCE AND TREND EVALUATION 19 6.1 DOME TENDONS IJFIDFF FORCE EVALUATION & TRENDS 20 6.2 HOOP TENDONS LIFTOFF FORCE EVALUATION & TRENDS 20 6.3 VERTICALTENDONS LDTOFF FORCE EVALUATION & TRENDS 2I 6.4 IRTOFF FORCES OVERAIL EVALUATION & TRENDS 22 7A

'IENDON EIX)NGATION 3I 8A TENDON REIATED CONCRETEINSPECTION 31 9A CORROSION PROTECTION SYSTEM 32 10.0 EVALUATION OF OTHER NONCONFORMANCES 35 IIA CONCLUSIONS 36 12A REFERENCES 39

. 4 "J" E!E"Ai,c.

Page 3 TABLES TITLE PAGE TABLE 5.0 FIFTII SURVEILLANCE RESULTS 17 TABLE 5.2 FORCE DEVIATIONS ATTENDON ENDS 18 TABLE 6.0 GENERAL TENDON HISTORICAL DATA 23 TABLE 6.1

SUMMARY

OF DOME TENDON FORCES 24 TABLE 6.2

SUMMARY

OF IIOOP TENDON FORCES 26 TABLE 63

SUMMARY

OF VERTICAL TENDON FORCES 29 FIGURES FIGURE 6.1 DOME GROUP TREND OF LOSSES 25 FIGURE 6.2 HOOP GROUP TREND OF LOSSES 28 FIGURE 63 VERTICAL GROUP TREND OF LOSSES 30 APPENDICES APPENDIX A PREDICTED FORCE VS TIME CURVES (39 Pages)

APPENDIX B AVERAGE NORMALIZED LIFTOFF FORCES AND NORMALIZATION FACTORS (3 Pages)

APPENDIX C TENDON WIRE SUMMARIES FOR DOME, HOOP AND VERTICAL TENDON GROUPS (7 Pages)

APPENDIX D EVALUATION OF REPLACED BULK FILLER (3 Pages)

APPENDIX E PLOTS OF INSPECTED HOOP TENDONS UP TO AND INCLUDING THE FIFTH SURVEILIANCE (8 Pages)

.o n sa/ d* u"E S IIE E mc..

g --

~

Page 4 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 TENDON SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM ENGINEERING REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The fifth tendon surveillance for the Crystal River Unit 3 Reactor Building post tensioning system was performed during the period from November 1,1993 to January 4,1994. This l

particular surveillance occurred during the seventeenth year after the CR3 structural integrity test, which took place in November,1976. All work for the entire length of the surveillance period was completed while the plant was at full power operation.

The surveillance contractor, VSL Corp., performed the actual inspection activities at the CR3 site. Florida Power Corporation (FPC) controlled and monitored all activities.

Gilbert / Commonwealth, Inc. (G/C) provided engineering support before, during, and after the surveillance period. The VSL Report, identified as Reference 1 herein, presents the results of the various inspection activities performed during the surveillance period.

Work was performed according to the requirements of FPC Surveillance Procedure SP-182.

Laboratory tests of material samples, including tendon wires and bulk filler grease, were performed and these results are also included in the VSL report.

The purpose of this report is to evaluate and summarize the results of the surveillance with respect to the requirements for the CR3 Tendon Surveillance Program. Various nonconformances are summarized in the VSL Report, Appendix 5. Results found to be outside established acceptance criteria and not previously accepted, are reviewed and dispositioned in their respective sections within this report.

All work performed for this surveillance is evaluated based on the acceptance criteria as presented in US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.35, (RG) Revision 3, issued in July 1990, and incorporated into Surveillance Procedure, SP-182. (RG implementation date for CR3 is January 2,1994.)

2.0 REGULATORY ISSUES AND LICENSING POSITIONS Since the completion of the fourth tendon surveillance for CR3, the two Regulatory Guides applicable to tendon surveillance were formally issued in July,1990. These include the following:

CR3 FTH SURVEILLANCE

. GILBERTCOMMONWEALTH, INC..

Page 5 l

l US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 3 Inservice Inspection of Uncrouted Tendons in Prestressed Concrete Containments.

US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.35.1, Revision 0 Determinine Prestressine Forces for Inspection of Prestressed Concrete Containments.

In addition to the above two regulatory guides, the ASME document related to the tendon surveillance of concrete containments was also issued.

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, Subsection IWL Rules for Inservice Insnection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, issued in 1989 and updated in 1992.

Engineering preparation work for this surveillance included the completion of two engineering studies for review and evaluation of the CR3 tendon surveillance program against the requirements and acceptance criteria of the above Regulatory Guides and ASME document.

Refer to References 6 and 7 for additional information. These studies were performed so that positions and acceptance criteria could be developed for use in the CR3 surveillance procedure and in other tendon related documentation.

Establishing the acceptance criteria for this particular surveillance was also complicated by the concurrent evolution of the FPC Technical Specification Improvement Program (TSIP), as well as the positioning of the FPC Tendon Surveillance Program with respect to the new Regulatory Guide and ASME requirements. Revision 10 of the surveillance procedure SP-182 was used for an interim period pending the approval of the TSIP by the NRC.

At the start of the surveillance, Technical Specification (TS) positions, Sections l

3.6.1.6/4.6.1.6, Amendment 29 were applicable and remained applicable until 1/2/94. Final implementation of the revised Technical Specification position came on 1/2/94 after most of I

I the surveillance activity was con:nlete.

Under the new TSIP Program, the revised TS Sections applicable to the tendon surveillance program are Sections SR 3.6.12,5.6.2.7 and 5.7.2, Amendment 149. These positions all reflect the FPC commitment 'n NRC Reg. Guide 1.35, Rev 3. Final acceptance criteria was i

built into Revision il of SP-182 to meet the requirements of both the original TS, and the acceptance criteria as presented in the new Revision 3 of RG 1.35.

This engineering report evaluates the results of the surveillance against the requirements of the original TS at the time of the surveillance (up to 1/2/94), as well as the requirements of RG I

1.35, Revision 3 and the final approved TS.

Ok3FTHBI1tVRILLANCE

. CILBERTKX)M MONWEALTit INC..

b

Page 6 3.0 TENDON SELECTION Consistent with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 135, Revision 3, eleven tendons were selected for inspection and testing during this surveillance period. This group of tendons represents 2% of the total tendon population as required by RG 1.35. The original Technical Specification Section 4.6.1.6.1 also requires the same sample size of eleven tendons, including 3 dome,3 vertical and 5 hoop. The selection process involved the consideration cf the following criteria:

A.

Tendons were selected to be random but representative of the entire tendon population. Samples were picked to represent the areas of containment that were not previously surveyed and that were accessible.

B.

Representative samples were selected to represent the respective groupings of tendons, including D100 series, D200 series, etc.

C.

Control tendons previously selected were retained.

D.

Except for the control tendons, tendons were selected which were not previously tested.

E.

Tendons in the range from 0 degrees to 120 degrees are in the proximity of the plant main steam vents. With the plant operating at power, work in this area would be to dangerous and would pose a significant safety hazard to workers on scaffold in the immediate and adjacent areas. Therefore, this area was excluded from the scope of this surveillance. Note however that most of the CR3 surveillances were performed during outages and that the exclusion of this zone for this surveillance did not bias the representative sample of the overall tendon population.

F.

Documentation was researched and inquiries made of FPC personnel to determine if there were any leaking or problem tendons which should be included in the scope of this surveillance. None were found necessary for inclusion.

G.

Tendon historical data sheets were reviewed and the number of effective wires reviewed and considered. A tendon with the minimal number of effective wires was not selected for detensioning or as a control tendon.

H.

The reduced force dome tendons are not in the selected population since their prestress forces are significantly less than all other tendons.

I.

Accessibility for the surveillance equipment was considered in walkdowns by FPC and bidders.

.ca E b"d %" Uliime.

v

Page 7 As the surveillance was performed during normal plant operation, there was no heavy load consideration required for tendons over the fuel pool area, as is necessary during a surveillance performed in a refueling outage.

The tendons selected for this fifth surveillance include the following:

DOME IlOOP VERTICAL D138 35H1 34V6 C D215 C 42H1 56V15 D D224 A 46H29 C 61V14 D231 D 46H47 D 34V23 A 62H8 46H3 A C = ControlTendon D = Detensioned Tendon A = Alternate Tendon At the start of the surveillance, the alternate dome tendon, D224, was substituted in place of the selected tendon, D138. This was necessary as the removal of the upper section of the plant vent stack would have been required to access D138. A substantial effort involving the use of another crane would have been required and at a significant cost.

During the actual inspection period, it was determined necessary to add three more hoop tendons to the inspection and testing process due to low prestress forces in hoop tendons.

These tendons include the following:

i IIOOP 46H28 46H30 46H21 Tendons 46H28 and 46H30 were added to the scope of the surveillance since they are the adjacent tendons of 46H29, which had an average liftoff force less than 90% of the base acceptance criteria (RG 135, Rev. 3) for that tendon. Tendon 46H21 was selected to investigate the extent of the low prestress condition of hoop tendons in the vicinity of 46H29. The tendon is representative of mid height of the containment and had not been previously retensioned. It was also selected as a replacement control tendon, since it was decided to detension the original control tendon,46H29, for further evaluation. Tendon 46H21 was inspected in the first surveillance and therefore, has some documented performance history for use as a new control tendon.

.ouS5fr7ceL"EEimc..

F Page 8 Predicted tendon prestress force curves were prepared for all of the selected tendons, an alternate tendon from each tendon group, and for adjacent tendons on each side of the selected tendons. These curves were included in the latest revision of Surveillance Procedure, SP-182.

4.0 TENDON PilYSICALINSPECTION 4.1 Anchorage Assembly Inspection Tendon anchorage assembly components, including stressing washers (anchorheads),

buttonheads, bearing plates, and shims were all inspected by VSL during the surveillance.

Table 3 of the VSL Report summarizes the results of the inspection for corrosion at each of the tendon ends. These results are based on the Enclosure 14,15 and 16 documents for each tendon, included in the VSL Report.

Inspections found a few instances of corrosion levels exceeding the established acceptable levels. These conditions are discussed below.

Stressine Washers (Anchorheads)

Corrosion on the stressing washer is of particular concern as it may indicate the presence of moisture and oxidation within the sealed end cap. Corrosion levels of 3 or less are acceptable without additionaljustification per SP-182. Inspection results tabulated in the VSL Report, Table 3, indicate a total of five instances where corrosion levels of 4 or 5 were observed on stressing washers on the following tendons:

D231, field end 56V15, field and shop end 35H1, field end 42H1, field and shop end 46H21, field end.

A pining condition existed on localized areas of the above stressing washers, with no signs of active oxidation or buildup of crust or rust. This condition was typically observed and noted on the documentation for all the above stressing washers. The condition was similar to surface casting voids and not due to corrosion. No free moisture was observed within the sealed end caps of any tendon. The bulk filler grease covered all tendon stressing washers except for the shop (top) end of vertical tendon 56V15. As this tendon was fully detensioned, it was later refilled and topped with replacement grease.

It is suspected that the indicated conditions on the stressing washers have existed since original installation. This is supported by the fact that the anchorheads were well covered with bulk grease and that current grease testing confirmed the grease met the acceptance criteria. The observed conditions do not indicate abnormal degradation and will not affect i

the function and integrity of the stressing washers.

.ontadE%b"Msbc..

I 1

Pcge 9 Buttonheads Corrosion levels of 2 or less are acceptable for buttonheads in accordance with SP-182.

Inspection results tabulated in the VSI. Report, Table 3 indicate one tendon,42H1 field end, where a corrosion level of 4 was observed on six buttonheads. The buttonheads were cleaned and additional field inspection by FPC concluded the buttonheads are still effective and acceptable.

A number of buttonheads are noted as rnisformed and recorded by VSL on the SP-182 Enclosure forms. The noted observations were further discussed with VSL and FPC. The results of the inspections and the recording of data by VSL on misformed buttonheads was intended for historical record purposes. The discrepancies as noted were not gross deficiencies outside the acceptance criteria for buttonheads as specified in SP-182,. Results do not suggest the wires are to be considered ineffective. It was concluded that the observed buttonhead conditions have existed since the original tendon installation and are acceptable. Those wires determined by VSL to be ineffective wires, are summarized on Table 4 of the VSL Report.

Bearine Plates Bearing plate corrosion levels greater than 3 are unacceptable without rework or justification per SP-182. Inspection results as tabulated in the VSL Renort, Table 3 indicate that six tendons had corrosion levels of 4 or 5 on their bearing plates. These tendons and ends are:

D224, field and shop end D231, field and shop end 56V15, shop end (Top) 61V14, shop end 46H21, field end 46H47, field and shop end In all cases, the corrosion was found to be outside the sealed area of the tendon end caps.

Epoxy repairs as specified in SP-182 were completed on four of the above bearing plates.

This repair procedure provides a smooth surface to allow proper sealing of the new O Ring to the plate. The bearing plate for tendon D231 was cleaned and accepted. Tendon 46H21 bearing plate was cleaned and repainted per SP-182.

The bearing plate corrosion conditions were all exterior to the O ring seals. No corrosion had progressed to the point of allowing environmental conditions and moisture to breech the integrity of the O ring and affect tendon anchorage components.

.c.oTJa" =%c..

~

P.tge 10 i

The design function of the bearing plates is to transmit the tendon force into the concrete containment. The corrosion conditions found did not degrade the bearing plates from performing this design function. While the corrosion condition required cleanup and

-l resurfacing with epoxy, the effect on the required thickness of the bearing plate is insignificant. Therefore, the existing conditions and repairs made to the bearing plates are found acceptable. The protection of anchorage components is assured, and the function and integrity of the bearing plates is maintained.

Shims Shim corrosion levels of 3 or less are acceptable without additionaljustification per SP-182.

Table 3 of the VSL Report shows that there were no shims with corrosion levels greater than 2. It should be noted however, that some shims were found to have a heavy film coating on them apparently from the time of original installation. In some cases, it was necessary to avoid shims locations with this coating when inserting the feeler gauge, since it could affect the accuracy of the determined liftoff force.

End Caps and Studs Tendon end caps and hold down studs are not considered an anchorage assembly component. However, they provide environmental protection from the elements for the tendon anchorage assembly. End caps typically were corroded indicative of their age and environment. This corrosion level however, did not affect their design function of protecting the anchorage assembly.

After removal from the tendon anchorage, tendon end caps were taken to the CR3 shop where they were cleaned and repainted.

Studs and exterior nuts used to secure the end caps were replaced and repainted as necessary, t

i l

.aasenfE'&"mEd,wc..

Page 11 4.2 Physical Condhlon Tests Sample wires were removed from the three tendons selected for detensioning, D231, 46H47, and 56V15. In addition, another ineffective wire was removed from 56V15 and one random wire was removed from the detensioned 46H29. Three broken wires were found at the field end of 46H29 and were removed for sample selection and testing.

All samples were tested in accordance with ASTM A421-76 for Uncoated Stress Relieved Wire for Prestressed Concrete. The minimum acceptance values for ultimate strength, yield strength and elongation are 240 Ksi,204 Ksi and 4% respectively.

Table 7 of the VSL report tabulates the laboratory test results for the wire samples. All the tested samples exceeded the required minimum values for yield strength and elongation.

All samples but one exceeded the required minimum ultimate strength. A very minor error in the measurement of the wire diameter could contribute to this condition. The center wire sample from tendon D231 had a reported 239 ksi value for ultimate strength.

The other two samples at the ends were 243 ksi and 244 ksi, resulting in an average tensile value of 242 ksi for the three samples from the same wire. Review of previous tendon surveillance reports concluded that this is the only occurrence of an ultimate strength value less than the required minimum of 240 ksi. There fore, the anomaly is accepted as a unique occurrence and is not considered significant.

In addition to the standard wire testing performed and discussed above, additional tests were requested for closer examination of the three broken wires found at the field end of tendon 46H29 during the surveillance. As a result of the field performing various alternative liftoff techniques, it is suspected that these wires were inadvertently broken during the surveillance work.

A visualinspection of the wire breaks at the site concluded that the fracture occurred as a result of mechanical damage to the stressed wire. The fact that each of the broken wires was the same length supported this position. The mechanical damage appeared to have caused an indentation on the wires resulting in failure of the stressed wire. Shims were removed and inspected for any markings made by a wire rubbing against the shim.

Evidence was found on the bottom of the shims of such an omurrence, and the length of wire stub corresponded to the location of the shim markings.

To confirm the above, the wires were sent to a testing facility for examination with a scanning electron microscope. The laboratory conclusion confirmed that the wires failed as a result of tensile shear overload caused by mechanical deformation and indentation of the wires on one side. There was no evidence of stress corrosion cracking. Results from the electron microscope scanning, including photos of the fracture structure from 15X to 1390X, are presented in a separate report in Appendix 2 of the VSL report.

.oruErFofEEEEE.mc..

l 1

Page 12 Tendon wires, and specifically ineffective tendon wires, are tabulated in Appendix C for comparison with the acceptance criteria as specified in Enclosure 5 of SP-182. This acceptance criteria is summarized as follows:

A.

Broken and ineffective wires shall not exceed 8 wires per individual tendon.

l B.

Broken and ineffective wires shall not exceed 2% of the total number of wires in that group. Groups are defined in the following manner:

Vertical Tendons; One stressing sequence quadrant of 36 tendons.

Dome Tendons; One layer series of 41 tendons, i.e. D100, D200 & D300 groups.

Hoop tendons; One side of a buttress,47 tendons.

C.

Broken and ineffective wires shall not exceed 3% in any ten consecutive tendons in a group.

This acceptance criteria is not required for Technical Specification or current Regulatory Guide compliance, but is maintained from the original design basis of the post tensioning system. It provides a flag for potential deficiencies in the tendon system and as such, was continued for this surveillance.

The cumulative results of these wire summaries, as tabulated for all surveillances, has indicated that there are no deviations from the SP-182 Enclosure 5 acceptance criteria.

(Note that there are two individual tendons having greater than 8 ineffective wires. This anomaly is not considered a deficiency and is discussed in Appendix C.)

The results of the tendon wire summaries provide additional assurance that the tendon wires are performing their intended function and that no local problem areas exist in the tendon post tensioning system.

.co f d "ol E "m m" E me..

i Page 13 5.0 INDIVIDUAL TENDONS LIFT OFF FORCE EVALUATION Evaluation of the individual tendon liftoff forces for the fifth ruveillance will consider both the existing Technical Specification positions rad the latest revision of Regulatory Guide 1.35 criteria.

Measured liftoff forces are the average of both ends, except for the vertical tendons where liftoffis measured from the top only. Refer to Enclosure 20 data presented in the VSL report. Liftoff forces for all 14 tendons in the scope of this surveillance, along with comparisons to TS and Reg. Guide acceptance criteria are presented in Table 5.0. Tendon j

liftoff results for a tendon fallinto one of five acceptance categories.

l These categories are described in the following designations:

CATEGORY DESCRWFION A.

Greater than 1721 Kips Greater than Technical Specification upper limit.

B.

Greater than or equal Equal to or above to 95% Base and RG 95% limit and less than less than 1721 Kips TS upper limit.

C.

Less than 95% Base Less than RG 95% limit and greater than and greater than or equal to or equal to 90% Base the RG 90% limit.

D.

Less than 90% Base Less than RG 90% limit and greater than and greater than 1249 Kips TS lower limit.

E.

Less than 1249 Kips Below Technical Specification lower limit.

.oruair%LUo"wEMim.

)

Page 14 5.1 Evaluation for Compliance with Appruved TS Criteria (Up to 1/2/94)

The Technical Specification acceptance criteria, which existed for the last several surveillances and for most of this surveillance, states that each tendon shall have a measured liftoff between 1249 kips and 1721 kips. All tendons had liftoffs that were within the acceptance criteria of the TS. The lowest average liftoff force of all the tendons is 1300 kips for tendon 46H29, or 4.08% above the TS lower limit. The highest force recorded is 1590 kips for tendon 34V6, which is 92.3% of the TS upper limit.

5.2 Evaluation for Compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.35 Criteria The predicted prestress force vs. time curves are presented for each tendon in the VSL report and in Appendix A herein. Minor corrections were recorded on the attached copy.

The force curves have been prepared using the procedure for the development of these force curves as presented in Regulatory Guide 1.35.1 (Reference 5). Predicted base prestress forces have been calculated accounting for prestress losses due to elastic shortening of the tendon, stress relaxation of the wire, concrete shrinkage and concrete creep.

The 95% base line is 95% of the predicted base force curve and is the lower limit for acceptance of a tendon liftoff force according to the requirements of RG 1.35. Tendons with measured liftoff values less than 95% but greater than or equal to 90% base are to have their adjacent tendons lifted off. Tendons with measured liftoff values less than the 90% base line are considered defective according to the Reg. Guide. Measured liftoff forces for all 14 tendons in the scope of this surveillance, along with comparisons to the Reg. Guide base and 95% base lower limits are presented in Table 5.0. A summary of these liftoffs with respect to their resulting acceptance category is presented below.

Measured liftoff forces above their predicted base.

D215 34V6 35H1 D224 56V15 42H1 D231 61V14 46H47 Measured liftoff forces at or above 95% Base 46H21 62H8 46H30 Measured liftoff forces at or above 90% Base and below 95% Base 46H28 Measured liftoff forces below 90% Base 46H29

.on$rEnisMEEmc..

Page 15 Of the eleven selected tendons in the scope of this surveillance, all tendons but one met the RG acceptance criteria for liftoff. Hoop tendon 46H29, the control tendon, was the only tendon, at 88.1% of the predicted base, found to be below the 90% Base limit. Actions were taken to address this low prestress condition and the liftoffs of adjacent tendons 46H28 and 46H30, were performed.

For tendon 46H30, a large deviation occurred between the liftoff force at the field end and the liftoff force at the shop end. Note that some of these differences were over 200 kips.

An initial force at the shop end of 1138 kips was cause for concern as it wouM fall below both RG and TS lower limits. Numerous other liftoff readings vere taken on both 46H30 and 46H29 to gather data and evaluate the problem. Also, the equipment used for measuring liftoff forces was evaluated. Based upon additional data and field observations, it was determined that a recession existed in the area between the two mated shims where the feeler gauge was used. This allowed the feeler gauge to pull out prior to actualliftoff.

Closer inspection of the removed shims also confirmed that shim surface conditions and tolerances were an obvious contributor. In addition, some shims were found to have a coating that was not of consistent thickness over the entire shim surface.

To further evaluate the large deviation of forces between ends, engineering requested the field to detension 46H29 and perform a push / pull drag test to determine if there was any obstruction or cause for the large disparity. The detensioned tendon moved in both directions with resulting forces found to be about equal (7.2 kips vs 7.4 kips). No obstruction or other cause was determined from the push / pull test. The tendon was then inspected and treated as another detensioned tendon. A new control tendon was selected.

Table 5.2 was prepared to tabulate the results of the additionalliftoff data for tendons 46H30 and 46H29 and for use in selecting which liftoff is considered valid and applicable.

Based on the tabulated data, liftoff values were selected and indicated in the Table.

For 46H29, the 1300 kip value was judged to be the appropriate liftoff value. This was the first liftoff recorded and had the smallest deviation between the field und shop end results.

Broken wires found at the field end of tendon 46H29 during the surveillance do not affect the selected liftoff figure, as it was determined that the three broken wires occurred after this liftoff was completed. The selected liftoff force for 46H29 is 88.1% of base.

For tendon 46H30, the 1382 kip value was judged to be the valid liftoff. Two of the three shop end liftoff forces had a large deviation of over 200+ kips. The forces at the field end are all very consistent, therefore, the shop end of 1395 is the best representation with the lowest deviation between the two ends. The liftoff of 1382 kips is 95.3% of the predicted base and therefore the tendon is considered acceptable, being above the lower limit of 95%

base.

i

.oa E r7xx% % Y m.mc..

Page 16 The liftoff force of tendon 46H28, the other adjacent tendon to 46H29, is 90.4% of the predicted base. Therefore, the liftoff results of the adjacent tendons of tendon 46H29, at 953% and 90.4% of their respective base values, provided mixed results as to the extent of the low hoop prestress condition of 46H29.

Tendon 46H21 was then selected as an additional tendon to be checked for liftoff. Tendon 46H21 is representative of the mid section of the hoop area in the same meridian sector as tendons 46H28 and 46H29. It was also selected as the new control tendon since the original control tendon,46H29, was detensioned and is no longer a valid control tendon.

The liftoff force for hoop tendon 46H21 was found to be acceptable with a measured force at 97.9% of base.

With the additional tendons selected for liftoff measurement and detensioning, as well as the additional inspections and tests performed on wires and grease samples, it was determined that sufficient information had been gathered to conclude that the extent of the low prestress condition was limited to 46H29 and 46H28. However, it was decided that some further evaluation and possible courses of action be made concerning the low prestress force condition for these hoop tendons. A preliminary evaluation was made with considerations and recommendations documented separately in the Reference 19 Report.

The results from the various inspections and from the wire and grease laboratory tests for the two problem tendons 46H28 and 46H29, have determined that there is no evidence of wire failure or problems with the corrosion protection system. Based upon all the available data, it is concluded that the two hoop tendons are still performing their intended function, but have experienced somewhat greater losses than predicted.

The overall effect of these additionallosses will be considered in the performance evaluation and trending analysis as presented in Section 6.0 of this report for the hoop group of tendons.

1 i

l

. GILBERT COMMO INC..

TABLE 5.0 TENDON SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM 20 - i.. -94 FIFTII SURVEILLANCE RESULTS 09-5439 AM Predicted Measured Lower Limit Lower Limit Measured Measured Measured Tendon Base Value at Tendon Force for

% of 95% Base per per vs.

vs.

vs.

Acceptance Number 5th Surveitiatice P.h St;n W H m e Baw Reg Guide 1.35 for Tech. Spec.

Predicted Lower Limit Lower Limit Category 5th Surveillance Base RG 1.35 Tech. Spec.

(Kips)

(Kips) r3 /2) X 100%

(Kips)

(Kips)

(3-2/2)X100%

(3-5/5) X 100%

(3-6/6) X 100%

1 2

3 1

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 D215 1311 1518 115.8 %

1246 1249 15.8 %

212 %

215 %

B D224 1320 1425 108.0 %

1254 1249 8.0%.

13.6 %

14.1%

B D231 1299 1335 1024 %

1234 1249 2.8%

8.2%

6.9%

B Dome Avs, 108.8 %

8.8%

' 14.6%

14.2 %

34V6 1515 1590 105.0 %

1439 1249 5.0%

10.5 %

273 %

B 56V15 1510 1541 102.1 %

1434 1249 2.1%

7.5 %

23.4 %

B 61V14 1549 1587 102.5 %

1471 1249 2.5%

7.9%

27.1%

B 103.2 %

3.2%

8.6% :

+ 25.9%

i Vert. Avg.

J 35111 1424 1572 110.4 %

1352 1249 10.4 %

163 %

25.9 %

B 421It 1431 1560 109.0 %

1360 1249 9.0%

14.7 %

24.9 %

B 46H21 +

1455 1425 97.9 %

1383 1249

-2.1%

3.0%

14.1 %

B 461128 +

1521 1375 90.4 %

1445 1249

-9.6%

-42%

10.1%

C 46H29 1476 1300

• 88.1 %

1402 1249

- 11.9%

-73%

4.1%

D 461130 +

1450 1382

• 953 %

1378 1249

-4.7%

03 %

10.6 %

B 461147 1445 1468 101.6 %

1373 1249 1.6%

6.9%

17.5 %

B 62118

-1464 1435 98.0 %

1391 1249

-2.0%

3.2%

14.9 %

B Hoop Avs, 98.8 %

6.4%

~

- 7.1%

153 %

10.1% l l

18.4 %

6.1%

Overall Average 103.6 %

Notes:

1) Average's are computed using absolute values of tabulated data.

File: SURVE115.WK3

2) Acceptance categories are as follows:

A - Liftoff force greater than 1721K (T.S. upper limit applicable at time of inspection).

B - Liftoff force greater than or equal to 95% Base and less than 1721K.

C - Liftoff force less than 95% Base; greater than 90% Base (Reg. Guide 1.35).

D - Liftoff force less than 90% Base and greater than 1249K.

E - Liftoff force less than 1249K (T.S. lower limit applicable at time of inspection).

y

3)

• Values selected for use in final analysis from the results of severalliftoff tests performed.

4) Sources for the tabulated data are noted as follows:

O Column 3, measured lifloff force VSL Summary Report, Enclosure 20.

Column 2 and 5, Base and 95% values, from Tendon Force Curves.

Column 6, Tech Spec lower limit, SP-182, Rev.10, Section 3.6.4.

5) + Indicates additionaltendons added during the surveillance.

TABLE 5.2 23-May-94 LIFTOFF DATA 11:49:14 AM FIFTH SURVEILLANCE RESULTS FORCE DEVIATIONS AT TENDON ENDS Tendon Average Field End Shop End Difference

% Difference Number Liftoff Date at Ends Of Average Force Ram No.

Force Ram No.

l3-4l l(3-4) / 2l rKino (Kips) fKipsi I

(Kipo 5

11 6

7 1

Il 2

3 l

4 i

D215 1518 1579 1458 11/09B3 121 8.0%

D224 1425 1412 1438 11/1733 26 1.8%

D231 1335 1332 1337 12/0133 5

0.4%

35III 1572 1568 1577 01/03/94 9

0.6%

42111 1560 1507 1613 01/03/94 106 6.8%

461121 1425 1427 1423 12M7B3 4

0.3%

461128 1375 1374 1376 11/22S 3 2

0.1%

461129 1300 1280 12-3 1321 12-3 11/1993 41 3.2%

1335 1256 6529 1414 12-3 12/08B3 158 11.8 %

1262 1172 6529 1352 12-3 ILU8S3 180 14.3 %

1347 1275 6529 1420 12-3 12/08B3 145 10.8 %

1323 1256 6529 1391

~ 12-3 12/0833 135 10.2 %

461130 1254 1371 6529 1838 12-3 II/22S3 233 18.6 %

1382 1368 6529 1395 12 - 3 12/07B3 27 2.0%

1238 1368 6529 1109 12-3 12/07B3 259 20.9 %

461147 1468 1472 1464 12/04B3 8

0.5%

62118 1435 1462 1407 12/2993:

55 3.8%

Average 89 6.7%

• Indicates the selected choice for the tendon.

4#

Note: N/A to Veltical Tendons since Liftoff is measured from upper end only.

I all Fue:UFTOFF5.WK3 6.

-. - - _.. -., - ~

~.,,

Page 19 6.0 TENDON GROUP AVERAGE FORCE AND TREND EVALUATION In addition to the review of the individual tendon forces, the average normalized tendon force for each tendon group is to be reviewed based on the results of the liftoffs determined during this surveillance. The calculation for these averages is contained within 1 of SP-182, Revision 11. Enclosures 41 & 42 of SP-182 are attached in Appendix B and show normalization factors and the average normalized forces for each of the three tendon groupings. Each group average is compared to the minimum required design prestress force for each tendon group. These values are design bases values for the containment design and are noted as follows:

Reouired Minimum Desian Prestress Force Tendon Group Average Dome 1215 Kips Hoop 1252 Kips Vertical 1149 Kips Table 6.0 provides a complete listing of the tendons inspected in the first through the fifth surveillances. Tables 6.1,6.2 and 63 present an overall summary of data for the dome, hoop and vertical tendons respectively. These summaries present measured liftoff values and other data for each tendon in each of the five surveillances. Both the 95% base RG limit and the TS lower limit are presented, and a comparison made with the measured liftoff values for each tendon. The normalized average force calculations are also included for each group and for each surveillance.

Note that prior to the fourth surveillance, the Regulatory Guide " lower limit" was defined differently than the current RG 95% base limit. For comparison purposes, tendon data presented in Tables 6.1,6.2 and 63, for surveillances one through three was reworked to develop the equivalent 95% base lower limit as defined in the current Reg. Guide, Revision

3. Column 5 presents these revised values. Measured liftoffs are compared to these values as well as the TS lower limit.

The tabulated data provides the basis for establishing the overall trend oflosses for each tendon group. Curves were plotted to represent the best fit (regression analysis) of the data points from each of the smveillances. These curves represent the overall trend of losses for the dome, hoop, and vertical tendon groups for CR3. These curves are attached as Figures 6.1,6.2 and 63 respectively.

Results of the average normalized force calculation, and the trend oflosses for each group of tendons are discussed in the following sections.

.onsr$5fEoL*Eime..

i Page 20 6.1 Dome Tendons Lift Off Force Evaluation Table 6.1 indicates that the average normalized liftoff force for the dome group of tendons for this surveillance period is 1454 kips. This exceeds the minimum required prestress of 1215 kips by almost 20%.

Figure 6.1 shows the plot of the regression line representing the overall trend oflosses for the dome tendons since the first surveillance period. Data points are reasonably correlated and the projected trend line at the end of the forty year life of the plant is well above the minimum required prestress level of 1215 kips.

The data in Table 6.1 reflects an overall positive condition of the dome tendon group.

Columns 7 and-8 compare measured liftoffs versus RG and applicable TS lower limits. He calculated percentages are all positive numbers indicating that measured liftoffs were above their RG and TS lower limits. Therefore, in addition to the minimum required average prestress value for the dome group being met, individual dome tendons were found to meet current Technical Specification and RG 135 acceptance criteria.

6.2 Hoop Tendons Lift-Off Force Evaluation Table 6.2 indicates that the average normalized liftoff force for the hoop group of tendons was calculated as 1424 kips. This exceeds the minimum required prestress of 1252 kips by almost 14%.

Figure 6.2 shows the plot of the regression line representing the overall trend oflosses for the hoop tendons since the first surveillance. He data points have good correlation and the projected trend line at the end of the forty year plant life is above the minimum required prestress level of 1252 kips. The low prestress condition of two hoop tendons is reflected in the average for the current surveillance, and is therefore accounted for in this projection.

Data in Table 6.2 reflects an overall positive condition of the hoop tendon group. A review of the measured liftoffs versus the TS lower limit shows that all hoop tendons have exceeded the Technical Specification lower limit. In fact, tendon 46H29 from this surveillance is the lowest hoop tendon shown with a 4.1% margin over the TS limit.

A review of the measured liftoffs versus the Reg. Guide 95% base lower limit shows some negative values for some hoop tendons (See columns 7 & 8). This indicates that some hoop tendon liftoffs do not meet the current Reg Guide acceptance criteria. Five hoop tendons of a total of 43 inspected to date do not meet the Reg. Guide 95% base value.

Rese tendons arelisted as follows:

oumEMEMbc.

.1 PJge 21 Tendon Surveillance

% below 35H28 2

-1.7 51H26 3

-2.9 51H26 4

-2.1 46H28 5

-4.8 46H29 5

-7.3 While these results indicate a few individual tendons have not met the acceptance criteria of the current Reg. Guide, the required minimum prestress levels for the overall hoop group has still been met with ample margin. Furthermore, the overall positive results from the various wire and grease tests support the conclusion that the integrity of the hoop tendons, and the structuralintegrity of the containment have been maintained.

6.3 Vertical Tendons Lin-Off Force Evaluation The average normalized liftoff force for the vertical group of tendons was calculated as 1571 kips. This exceeds the minimum required prestress of 1149 kips by almost 37%.

Figure 6.3 shows the plot of the regression line representing the overall trend oflosses for the vertical tendons since the first surveillance. Results indicate the trend oflosses for the vertical group is well above the required minimum prestress force of 1149 kips. The data points are less correlated than the other groups but the projected trend line at the end of the forty year life of the plant is still well above the required minimum prestress level.

Data in Table 6.3 reflects an overall positive condition of the vertical tendon group.

Measured liftoffs, when compared to the lower limit of the TS, show that all values are positive (Columns 7 and 8). This indicates that the none were below the TS limit. When the same comparison is made against the lower limit of the Reg. Guide, only one tendon shows as negative. This tendon was 12V1, as inspected in the third surveillance period. A closer examination of the data indicates that the same tendon was inspected again in the fourth surveillance with results indicating that the same tendon was 5.6% above the 95%

Base limit. The O/C fourth surveillance report (Reference 7.) reported this as an error from the third surveillance. Therefore, it can be concluded that all vertical tendons meet the current Reg. Guide acceptance criteria.

.oua&%?NEMR me..

Page 22 6.4 Lift-Off Forces Overall Evaluation Computed overall averages of tendons measured forces vs. the RG 1.35 and TS lower limits for all three tendon groups are shown at the bottom of Columns 7 & 8, Tables 6.1, 6.2 & 63 and are summarized below. (Note that these computed averages for measured liftoff vs. RO 135 values are based on the adjusted lower limit values for surveillances one through three, as explained in Section 6.0. and noted on the Tables.)

Above RG Above 95% Base Tech. Spec.

Group IAwer Limit Imer limit Dome 13.5 %

20.2 Hoop 6.6 19.4 Vertical 103 29.2 These results indicate margins above the applicable lower limits. As the TS lower limits are typically below that of RG 135, greater margin is available when comparing with the TS lower limit.

Average tendon force margins, with respect to the Reg. Guide, show the hoop group with -

the lowest margin of 6.6%. These results are a positive indication of the overall condition and performance of the prestressing system.

1

.ou8lr"cWi&"fER mc..

• • • • • • • • • • CR3 TENDON SURVE!LLANCE HISTORICAL RECORD **********

TABLE 6.0 20MAY94 SURVEILLANCE PERIOD IST SURVEILLANCE 2ND SURVEILLANCE 3RD SURVEILLANCE 4TH SURVEILLANCE STN SURVEILLANCE l

11/27/77 To 2/9/78 3/5/80 TO 5/9/80 9/28/81 TO 12/7/81 9/15/87 TO 11/17/8711/93 TO 1/94 l

l TEARS AFTER SIT SIT 11/76 1 YEAR 3.5 YEARS 5 YEARS 11 TEARS 17 YEARS l

SUMMARY

DATA

................................................................= _............................. _ =..

REQUIRED TO INSPECT 21 TOT-10H,6V,5D 21 TOT-10H,6V,5D 21 TOT-10H,6V,50 11 TOT-54,3v,3D 11 TOT-5H,3V,30 l85 TOT-40H,24V,21D ACTUALLY INSPECTED 23 TOT-10H,7V,60 22 TOT-10H,7V,5D 21 TOT-10H,6V,$D 11 TOT-5H,3V,30 14 TOT-8H,3V,3D l91 TOT-43H,26V,22D I

SP 182 BASIS REV --

REV --

REV 4 REV T REY 10 & 11 l

G/C REPORT 3/78 5/80 5/19/82 3/10/88 5/94 l

........................_................................._..._ m. m......_ m _........... m....... m._ -........._ m...

DOME TENDONS D139 D122 D123 D105 D

D215 R,C l22DOMETENDONS 123 TOTAL D215 D140 D215 R

D212 R

D231 D

l INSPECTED TO DATE 3 GROUPS OF 41 D221 D

D208 D

D212 D328 D224 A

l D100'S, D200's, D300'S D228 D323 D322 D

l r

D234 D331 0329 l

[

0340 l

VERTICAL TENDONS 12V19 12V12 12V1 12V1 R

34V6 R,C l26VERTICALTENDON 144 TOTAL 12V20 12V20 R

34V6 R

34V4 56V15 D

lINSPECTEDTODATE 6 GROUPS OF 24 12V21 23V5 34V19 D

56v2 D

61V14 l

12, 34, 56, 23, 45, 61 23V15 34V1 45V16 l

34V6 45V6 56v11 l

45V3 D

56V20 61v5 l

56V1 56V1 D,R l

1 HORIZONTAL TENDONS 13H10 13H22 13H19 R

13H2O 35H1 l43HOOPTENDONS 282 TOTAL 13H19 13H32 D

13H46 13H40 0

42H1 l INSPECTED TO DATE 6 GROUPS 3 47 HIGH 13H37 13H43 42H2O 51H26 R

46H21 C(New) l 13, 24, 35, 46, 51, 62 13H47 51H10 42H40 51H41 46H28 ADJ.

l 3 TENDONS PER HOOP 51H11 51H23 51H26 46H19 46H29 R.C,0 l

I 62H9 51H37 51H45 46H30 ADJ.

l 46H21-53H24 53435 46H47 D

l 46H29 53H28 53H40 62H8 l

46F37 0

53H44 62H34 l

[

TOTAL TENDONS = 549 46N46 46N42 46H10

'D l

5 i

e TOTAL INSPECTED 23 22 21 11 14 l91TDTALINSPECTED 1

tEsEND -

A, AufRmATE C, CouTROL D, DETENSiONED R REPEATED A04., ADaACEHT lrrtE-CR3RST$e.wi

6 TABLE : 6.1

SUMMARY

OF DOME TENDON FORCES THROUGH FIFTH SURVEILLANCE SORTED BY SURVEILLANCE NO./ TENDON NO.

20-Jun-N 11Xt100AM

~

Original Measured lower Umit

• Imer Umit Measured Measured Normalizing Normalized Minimum -

Tendon Ixck-Off Ilft-Off Surveillance 95% Base per per Tech. Spec.

vs.

vs.

Factor Force Required Number Force Force Number Reg. Guide 1.35 Reg. Guide Tech. Spec.

NF (3+9)

Avg. Force (Kips)

(Kips)

(Kips)

(Kips)

(3-5)/5 X 100%

(3-6)/6 X 100%

(Kips)

(Kim)

(Idips) 1 l

2 l

3 I

4 l

5 6

l 7

8 l

9 10 l

11

-D139 1686 1590 1

1351 1249 17.7 27.3

-18 1572 1215 D215 1667 1644 1

1307 1249 25.8 31.6 28 1672 1215 D221 1670 1511 1

1M3 1249 3.3 21.0

- 141 1370 1215 D228 IM7 1524 1

1378 1249 10.6 22.0

-M 1478 1215 D234 1643 1513 1

1415 1249 6.9 21.1

- 86 1427 1215 D140 1634 1562 1

1401 1249 11.5 25.1

-68 1494 1215

/Aversee '

-~ 1502 D122 IM4 1647 2

1356 1249 21.5 31.9

-53 1594 1215 D140 1669 1587 2

1410 1249 12.6 27.1

- 102 1485 1215 D208 1648 1594 2

1392 1249 14.5 27.6

- 81 1513 1215 D323 1671 1526 2

1299 1249 17.5 22.2 19 1545 1215 D331 1636 1461 2

1259 1249 16.0 17.0 59 1520 1215 Averate -

'1531 D123 1611 1304 3

1231 1249 5.9 4.4 75 1379 1215 D212 1600 1338 3

1292 1249 3.6 7.1 16 1354 1215 l

D215 1667 1594 3

1278 1249 24.7 27.6 28 1622 1215

+

D322 1628 1494 3

1315 1249 13.6 19.6

-8 1486 1215 D329 1645 1506 3

1295 1249 16.3 20.6

- 12 1494 1215 Averate

- 1467 j

DIOS 1646 1452 4

1297 1249 12.0 1&3

- 11 1441 1215 D212

-1600 1275 4

1250 1249 2.0 2.1 16 1291 1215 D328 1670 1618 4

1375 1249 17.7 29.5

- 112 1506 1215

-1413 Average D215 1666 1518 5

12M 1249 21.8 21.5 27 1545 1215 D224 1598 1425 5

1254 1249 13.6 14.1 17 1442 1215 D231 1651 1335 5

1234 1249 8.2 6.9 39 1374 1215 4 Averaae '

1454 Averaae 1647 1501 13.5 20.2 r

• Iower limit values for Survedlance 1 through 3 were revised to represent 95% Base value currently J

5

[

specified by R.G.135, Revision 3. (Previous lowerlimits were at approximately 97% Base.)

File-DOMES.WK3

_ _ - _ _ - - - -. _ _.. = - -,

c r -. - ~ -., ~,.

+

c,-

FPC - Crystal River Unit #3 FIGURE 6.1 Tendon Surveillance Program oeeeo ui! Aii Forces in survetitance 1,,,,

Av Required Avg. Force Dome Group Trend of Losses TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE DOME PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 10 2

J 4

5 6

7 8

9 2

3 4

5 1600 1500 N

Y N

w G

h N

~

v 1400-N U

~

W 8

z OO 1300 Z

U 1215 Kips c

0 0

0 e

a 1200

~

?

1100 l

l g

i s

s to is 2o 23 so as 40 g

10/27/93 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)

TABLE 6.2

SUMMARY

OF HOOP TENDON FORCES THROUGH FIFTH SURVEILLANCE 20-Jun-94 SORTED BY SURVEILLANCE NO./ TENDON NO.

114t01AM Original Measured LowerLimit

• Lower Limit Measured Measured Normalizing Normalized Minimum Tendon Lock-Off lift-Off Surveillance 95% Base per perTech. Spec.

ss.

ss.

Factor Force Required Number Force Force Number Reg. Guide 135 Reg. Guide Tech. Spec.

NF (3+9)

Avg. Force (Kios)

(1(ips)

(Kips)

Sips)

(3-5)i5 X100%

(3-6F6 X 100%

(Kips)

(Kips)

(Kips) 1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 l

11 131110 1604 1524 1

1432 1249

&4 22.0

-17 1507 1252 131119 1625 1485 1

1372 1249 8.2 1&9 50 1535 1252 13H37 1629 1606 1

1354 1249 1&6 2&6 M

1672 1252 131147 1623 1606 1

IMI 1249 19.8 2&6 81 1687 1252 461121 1653 1502 1

1422 1249 5.6 20.3

-6 14 %

1152 461129 1667 1463 1

1444 1249 13 17.1

-26 1437 1252 46H37 1617 1457 1

1402 1249 3.9 1&7 15 1472 1252 46HM 1644 1464 1

1435 1249 20 17.2

-20 1444 1252 51H11 1615 1474 1

1363 1249

&1 1&O 58 1512 1252 62119 1639 1574 1

1400 1249 12.4 26.0 19 1593 1252 Average 1538 13H22 1652 1572 2

1470 1249 6.9 25.9

- 59 1513 1252 13H32 1653 1611 2

145 1249 10.0 29.0

- 53 1558 1252 13H43 1641 1583 2

1359 1249 16.5 267 59 1642 1252 35H24 1621 1533 2

1447 1249 5.9 217

-36 1497 1252 351128 1626 1430 2

1454 1249

-1.7 14.5

-40 1390 1252 35H44 1653 1622 2

1463 1249 10.9 29.9

- 53 1569 1252 461142 1599 1548 2

1391 1249 11.3 23.9 24 1572 1252 51H10 1674 1572 2

1503 1249 4.6 25.9

- 94 1478 1252 51H23 1609 1528 2

1M9 1249 13.3 22.3 70 1598 1252 511137 1606 1567 2

1335 1249 17.4 25.5 86 1653 1252 Average -

'1547 131119 1625 1424 3

1354 1249 5.2 14.0 50 1474 1252 13H M 1623 15 4 3

1418 1249 9.0 23.8

-20 1526 1252 351135 1604 1328 3

1322 1249 0.5 63 86 1414 1252 351140 1660 1458 3

1458 1249 0.0 16.7

-62 1396 1252 421120 1662 1544 3

1444 1249 6.9 23.6 70 1614 1252 42H40 1651 1466 3

1429 1249 2.6 17.4 152 1618 1252 MH10 1646 1478 3

1437 1249 2.9 183

- 40 1438 1252 51H26 1661 1424 3

1466 1249

-2.9 14.0

-70 1354 1252 51H45 1581 1492 3

1294 1249 15.3 19.5 118 1610 1252 g

62H34 1626 15 4 3

1400 1249 10.4 23.8 70 1616 1252 Averase :

1506 9

Ch

TABLE 6.2

SUMMARY

OF HOOP TENDON FORCES THROUGH FIFTH SURVEILLANCE 20-Jun-94 SORTED BY SURVEILLANCE NO./ TENDON NO.

114:01 AM Original Measured Lower Umit

• Iower Umit !

Measured Measured Normalizing Normalized Minimual Tendon Lock-Off Lift-Off Surveillance 95% Base per perTech. Spec.

ss.

ss.

Factor Force Required Number Force Force Number Reg. Guide 135 Reg. Guide Tech. Spec.

NF (3+9)

Avg. Force 1

2 3

4 5

(Kip 1s.

13-51/5 X 100%

(3-6V6 X 100%

(KipJs (Kips)

(Kips)

(Kips)

(Kips)

(Kips) 6 7

8 9

10 11 131{20 1604 1456 4

1390 1249 4.7 16.6

- 15 1441 1252 131{40 1623 1470 4

1407 1249 4.5 17.7

- 27 1443 1252 461119 1617 1470 4

1357 1249 83 17.7 25 1495 1252 511126 1661 1411 4

1442 1249

-2.1 13.0

-70 1341 1252 i

511141 1631 1362 4

1315 1249 3.6 9.0 64 1426 1252 Average 1429 j

35111 1640 1572 5

1352 1249 163 25.9 19 1591 1252 42111 1645 1560 5

1360 1249 14.7 24.9 12 1572 1252 461121 1653 1425 5

1383 1249 3.0 14.1

- 12 1413 1252 461128 1600 1375 5

1445 1249

-4.8 10.1

- 77 1298 1252 461129 1667 1300 5

1402 1249

-73 4.1

- 32 1268 1252 461130 1642 1382 5

1378 1249 03 10.6

-7 1375 1252 461147 1623 1468 5

1373 1249 6.9 17.5

-3 1465 1252 62118 1624 1435 5

1391 1249 3.2 14.9

-22 1413 1252 Awrage 1424 Average 1635 1491 6.6 19.4

• Lower limit values for Surveillance 1 through 3 were resised to represent 95% Base value currently specified by R.G.135, Revision 3. (Presious lower limits were at approximately 97% Base.)

l, File:1100PS.WK3 I

18 M

i i

_Q

FIGURE 6.2 FPC - Crystal River Unit #3 ue2+ Av All Forces in Surveillance Tendon Surveillance Program N Wg. Requimd As Fome Hoop Group Trend of Losses TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 10 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

8 2

3 4

1600 N

N N \\

1500 s

E

~

v 1400 --

O x

e 5

g1300 W

1252 Kips c

c c

c c a 1200

~

?

J100 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l W

10/27/93 i

a 5

to is 20 25 so ss 40 g

l SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)

TABLE 6.3

SUMMARY

OF VERTICAL TENDON FORCES THROUGH FIFTH SURVEILLANCE SORTED BY SURVEILLANCE NO./ TENDON NO.

20-Jun-94 11:OLSSAM Original Measured Lower Umit

• Lower Umit Measured Measured Normalizing Normalized Minimum Tendon Lock-Off Lift-Off Surveillance 95% Base per per Tech. Spec.

ss, ss.

Factor Force Required Number Force Force Number Reg. Guide 135 Reg. Guide Tech. Spec.

NF (3+9)

Avg. Force (Kips)

(Kips)

(Kips)

(Kips}

(3-5)/5 X 100%

(3-6)/6 X 100%

(Kips)

[ Kips)

(Kips) 1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12V19 1654 1590 1

1448 1249 9.8 273 22 1612 1149 12V20 1598 1785 1

1458 1249 22.4 42.9 8

1793 1149 12V21 1638 1633 1

1436 1249 13.7 30.7 35 1668 1149 23V15 1615 1590 1

1436 1249 10.7 273 35 1625 1149 34V6 1609 1590 1

1460 1249 89 273 9

1597 1149 45V3 1639 1678 1

1465 1249 14.5 343 4

16R2 1149 56V1 1784 1719 1

1563 1249 to 0 37.6

- 102 1617 1149 Average 1657 12V12 1610 1718 2

1516 1249 133 37.6

- 54 1664 1149 12V20 1598 1740 2

1457 1249 19.4 393 8

1748 1149 23V5 1711 1580 2

1497 1249 5.5 26.5

- 33 1547 1149 MV1 1651 1569 2

1447 1249 8.4 25.6 20 1589 1149 45V6 1614 1685 2

1444 1249 167 34.9 21 1706 1149 56V1 1784 1707 2

1561 1249 9.4 36.7

- 102 1605 1149 56V20 16R7 1630 2

1524 1249 7.0 30.5

- 62 1568 1149

- Average 1632 12VI 1675 1315 3

1469 1249

-10.5 53

-10 1305 1149 34V19 1573 1610 3

1397 1249 17.4 313 65 1705 1149 34V6 1609 1600 3

1451 1249 103 2&1 9

1609 1149 45V16 1661 1575 3

1485 1249 6.1 26.1

- 27 1548 1149 56V11 1658 1565 3

1463 1249 70 253

-5 1560 1149 61V5 1643 1519 3

1437 1249 5.7 21.6 23 1542 1;49

' Awsage 1545 12V1 1675 1535 4

1454 1249 5.6 22.9

-10 1525 1149 34V4 1585 1623 4

1412 1249 14.9 29.9 41 1664 1149 56V2 1603 1648 4

1434 1249 14 9 31.9 13 1661 1149 Average 1617 34V6 1609 1590 5

1439 1249 10.5 273 7

1597 1149 56V15 1638 1541 5

1434 1249 7.5 214 13 1554 1149 61V14 1646 1587 5

1471 1249 7.9 27.1

-26 1561 1149 L Averste

~1571 y

Average 1647 1614 103 292 g

M*

• Lowerlimit values for Surveillance 1 through 3 were revised to represent 95% Base values currently File VERS.WK3 specified by R.G.135, Revision 3. (Presious lower limits were at approximately 97% Base.)

FPC - Crystal River Unit #3 FIGURE 6.3 Tendon Surveillance Program oeeeo ui! AH Forces in SurveiHance m Av Vertical Group Trend of Losses Required Avg. Force TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 10 2

3 4

5 s

7 8

e 2

3 4

5 1800

• N N N

1600 x

+

g

~

9:E 0

e x

o 1400 x

w z

O 1200

~

1149 Kips c

0 0

0 0 0 2

1000 I

l l

l l

l l

l l

l W

i 3

s to is 20 25 so 35 40 g

10/27/93 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)

Page 31 7.0 TENDON ELONGATION Information on tendon elongation was taken for all detensioned tendons during the retensioning process. RG acceptance criteria states that the percent difference of tendon elongation measured during the surveillance be compared to the elongation at original installation. A difference exceeding plus or minus ten percent shall be investigated to determine if the difference is related to wire failure or wire slipping at anchorages.

Measured elongation values from this surveillance are presented in the VSL Report, Table 2, and in the Enclosure 29 data attached in the VSL Report for each tendon. These elongation differences are summarized as follows:

Tendon Elongation 56V15

-16.3%

D231

-8.7%

46H29

+ 1.2%

46H47

-14.0%

The above results show that 56V15 and 46H47 do not meet the acceptance criteria.

However, the negative values indicate that less elongation was measured in the current surveillance than at the time of original stressing. This condition also occurred in prior smveillances. Therefore, these differences are not considered to be an indication of wire failure or slippage.

Each tendon had one or more wires removed for inspection and testing. These wires were visually inspected and found to be in very good condition. Tensile and yield strength tests were performed on the wire samples, and results demonstrated that all wires met the guaranteed minimum ultimate tensile and yield strengths for the material.

Based on the above, the deviation of measured tendon elcagation with the acceptance criteria is not the result of wire failure or slippage. There is no adverse or detrimental i

effect on the integrity of the post tensioning system.

8.0 TENDON RELATED CONCRETE INSPECTION As part of the surveillance, visual inspections were performed to evaluate the condition of the concrete immediately adjacent to each tendon area. In addition, a general inspection was performed to evaluate the concrete condition of the exterior of the containment.

These inspections were performed as required by the Reg. Guide. Results are documented in the VSL Report in Enclosures 22 through 24, for the local tendon area inspections and in Enclosure 48 for the general containment inspection.

.oumfEEMmc..

Page 32

)

The surveillance procedure requires that concrete cracks greater than 0.010 inches in width be evaluated. Cracks in excess of 0.040 inches shall be investigated for cause and effect on the structural integrity of the containment. Of the fourteen tendon areas inspected as part of this surveillance, six tendons had concrete cracks ranging in sizes from 0.010" to 0.025".

These tendon areas are D215, D231,46H21,46H28,46H30 and 46H47. Cracks were evaluated and accepted as shrinkage or surface cracks and were all found to have no impact on the ability of the structure to perform its design function. There were no cracks observed to be greater than the 0.040 inch threshold.

The results of the general containment exterior inspection found concrete spalling and cracking on the outside corners of Buttress 1 and Buttress 2. The condition at Buttress 2 was previously reviewed by FPC Engineering, where it was determined that the condition is cosmetic and not structurally significant. FPC has initiated a Request for Engineering Assistance to evaluate the condition at Buttress 1, and will disposition the condition within that process Exterior walls were all found to be in good condition. There was no evidence of leaking grease or other abnormal concrete degradation. The dome area was also inspected and there was no indication of any major cracks or abnormal conditions. A small concrete spall on the dome was recorded and accepted by FPC engineering as cosmetic.

Based on the results of the tendon adjacent area concrete inspections and the general exterior containment inspection, no significant concrete problems were found which would affect the integrity of the post tensioning system or the concrete containment structure.

9.0 CORROSION PROTECTION SYSTEM INSPECTION Specification SP-5959, dated 3/29/71 was found to be used for the originalinstallation and bulk filling of the prestressing system. Section 3.07.3 of the specification specifies that the type of grease used in the original bulk filling of the tendon conduit was 2090-P2 as manufactured by Viscosity Oil Company.

The bulk grease specified for use in Revision 10 of SP-182 is Visconorust 2090-P2 or latest compatible formulation. It was determined that Visconorust 2090-P4 was the current formulation available for use by VSL during this smveillance and that the 2090-P4 grease was also used in prior surveillances. Certificates of Conformance were found in contractor test reports for the third and fourth surveillances. Mr. Charles Novak of Viscosity Oil Company was contacted and the use of the P-4 grease was discussed with him. It was i

determined that the 2090-P4 grease was previously found compatible and acceptable for use at CR3 and is still acceptable.

l

.oum%C%'AiA%c..

l

Page 33 Visual examinations of the grease were performed by VSL with results of each tendon presented in the VSL report, Enclosure 16. There were no adverse findings as a result of the visualinspections. It was noted that the P-4 grease is lighter in color and thicker than the older P-2 grease. This difference was taken into account in the acceptance criteria for visual grease inspection.

1 Samples of bulk filler grease were removed from each end of the tendons and sent for laboratory testing. Tests were performed for the following conditions:

Acceptance Criteriq Chlorides 10 ppm maximum Nitrates 10 ppm maximum l

Sulfides 10 ppm maximum Moisture content 10% Maximum

)

Reserve Alkalinity Greater than 50% of the installed

)

~

(Base) value, or greater than 0 when the l

installed value was less than 5.

All samples of filler grease met the required acceptance criteria for chlorides, nitrates, j

sulfides and moisture content. The criteria for Reserve Alkalinity (R.A.) warrants further l

discussion.

The evaluation of the results for reserve alkalinity are presented in the VSL Report, Table

6. The vast majority of tendon samples resulted in neutralization numbers between values of 30 to 60. This is indicative of 2090-P4 grease since it is specified by Viscosity Oil as having a minimum R.A. of 35. Only two exceptions are noted in Table 6 of the VSL Report with alkalinity values less than 30. These include tendon D224 field end with a reserve alkalinity of 14.43 and tendon 62H8 field end with an R.A. of 1.25.

Additional discussions with Mr. C. Novak of Viscosity Oil determined that the reserve alkalinity of 2090-P4 was 35, and the reserve alkalinity for 2090-P2 grease was 3. Applying acceptance criteria for reserve alkalinity as noted above would result in the following acceptance values for both types of grease:

Grease Minimum Installed Acceptable Iyp_g R.A. Value R.A. Value 2090-P2 3 minimum

>0 2090-P4 35 minimum

> 18.5

.ou"rM5Mo"wMELc.

Page 34 Since CR3 has used both types of grease, it is believed that the low R.A. values for tendons D224 and 62H8 are representative of a sample of 2090-P2 grease. The grease testing laboratory was contacted and it was confirmed that two separate tests were performed to confirm the 1.25 R.A. value for 62H8. Additional samples of the grease available on site 1

were visually inspected. It was determined that the 62H8 field end sample was a noticeably darker grease of thinner consistency than the shop end. Therefore, it is concluded that the low reserve alkalinity level from the 62H8 field end sample is a sample of Visconorust 2090-P2. The test value of 1.25 is acceptable since it meets the above acceptance criteria and is greater than zero.

A review of previous surveillance summary reports indicates that sample testing of the bulk filler grease was performed successfully in the past and met the required acceptance criteria.

Note that the above acceptance criteria values are only representative of old grease. New grease supplied by Viscosity Oil has more stringent acceptance criteria per SP-182, Section 4.1.4.9. Certificates of Conformance for the newly purchased grease were provided by Viscosity Oil. Copies of the Certificates of Conformance are included in the VSL report.

Based on the visual inspections performed during the surveillance and the results of sample testing of the bulk filler material, it can be concluded that the corrosion protection system is performing its protective function with no abnormal degradation.

Grease replacement quantities for individual tendons were monitored as required by the j

Reg. Guide. The specified acceptance criteria is that the amount of grease replaced shall not exceed 5% of the net duct volume. Prior criteria used on CR3 was a 4 gallon maximum. His threshold was maintained in Revision 11 of SP-182 as the 4 gallon value is close to but conservatively lower than the 5% volume criteria.

VSL tabulated the replaced grease data in Table 5 of their report. All tendons failed to meet the acceptance criteria. A review of prior surveillance reports indicates that CR3 has j

not been able to meet this acceptance criteria in the past. This exceedance has typically

)

been in the range of 10 to 23 gallons over that removed. This condition has been evaluated in depth in the past and the evaluation is still applicable at this time. His evaluation has been updated for the current grease replacement data and is presented in Appendix D.

i Inspections of the Reactor Building have not located any grease seepage or tendon leakage problems. The inspection of bottom end caps of all the vertical tendons as required by the current revision of the Reg. Guide, was performed with no leaks found. The overall condition of the tendon wires remains good and successful wire tests performed for all five surveillances support the conclusion that the corrosion protection system is performing well and maintaining the integrity of the tendons.

.o S Tx ? N m.mc..

Page 35 During the preparation of the surveillance procedure for this surveillance, two discrepancies occurred with the required procedures for grease testing as required by Reg.

Guide 135, Revision 3. Reg. Guide 135, Section 6, specifies APHA 428 for the testing of sulfides. VSL's testinglab determined that the APHA 428 test was a test for sulfites and requested direction on which test to perform. After some research and review, it was determined that the Reg. Guide was in error and that the proper test for sulfides is APHA 427.

The Reg. Guide also specifies ASTM D3867 (formerly ASTM D992) as the test method for nitrates / nitrites. The VSL testing facility questioned the use of this test method since it would be very expensive and involved the use of some hazardous materials. The method could not be performed by that facility and no other facility was known to be familiar with or capable of performing the test. After additional review, the ASTM D992 test was determined to be acceptable for use. The disposition of both of these discrepancies involved contacts and concurrence with the NRC.

10.0 EVALUATION OF OTHER NONCONFORMANCES Shim material used for this surveillance was purchased by FPC and is ASTM A633 material Tnis was accepted and documented as meeting the specifications of the original Armco material.

f f

0 INC.

• Page 36

11.0 CONCLUSION

S The results of the surveillance have demonstrated that the structuralintegrity of the CR3 containment has been maintained at a level consistent with the requirements of the original Technical Specification and the intent of Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 135.

Conclusions based upon the various inspections and tests performed during this surveillance are summarized below.

Individual Tendon Forces All tendons met the Technical Specification acceptance criteria for individual prestress forces. Two tendons,46H28 and 46H29, failed to meet the Reg. Guide 95% base lower limit for measured liftoff forces. The liftoff of 46H28 was 90.4% ofits predicted base, and the liftoff for 46H29 was 88.1% of its predicted base. This is a reportable position according to the Reg. Guide.

As a result of the above condition, corrective action was taken. Tendon 46H29 was detensioned and inspected, and additional tendon inspections were performed. Both tendons were retensioned to bring their prestress forces up to the required levels.

The extent and cause of this condition was thoroughly investigated. At this time, the extent of the condition appears to be limited to these two hoop tendons. The tendons have experienced somewhat greater losses than predicted and the causes of the condition are not fully defined at this time. A preliminar) review of potential causes, and recommendations for future review efforts was initiated and will provide future reference information. See Reference 19. No other action items are required at this time to address this issue.

Aversee Group Tendon Forces The average prestress condition for each of the three groups of tendons is currently projected to exceed the required minimum levels at the end of the expected 40 year plant life. The projected trend of prestress forces for each of the three tendon groups shows adequate margin available at the projected end of the forty year plant life.

l

.ouSS"d*oM me..

P ge 37 j

Anchorare and Assembly Hardware Tendon anchorage hardware was inspected and found to be in good condition. There were instances of corrosion that were found, such as on bearing plates outside of the o ring end cap seal. These corrosion instances are typical of that expected for a plant in service almost twenty years. Cases of minor pitting were observed on the stressing washers and buttonheads. This condition is suspected as being present at installation. This same observation was also made in the Fourth Surveillance Engineering Report (Reference 8, Section 8.1) for a corrosion condition on a stressing washer.

Wires Tendon wires were found to be in good condition. No corrosion was found on the tendon wires removed from the detensioned tendons. Material tests on the tendon wires showed that all wires, except one, met the minimum guaranteed ultimate tensile strength. The one exception was accepted as an anomaly since the other tests on the same wire were found to be above the minimum required values.

Corrosion Protection System Grease samples as tested were all found to meet the required acceptance criteria for the various conditions of impurity. The corrosion protection system was found to be performing its protective function with no indications of abnormal degradation.

Concrete A few minor cracks and spalls found during the inspecticn were typical for a facility of this age. No concrete problems were observed that impacted the design function or integrity of the concrete containment.

Recommendations Based on the results from the surveillance and the engineering evaluations performed herein, recommendations are provided as follows:

FPC should pursue a preventative maintenance program to mitigate the effects of corrosion problems on bearing plates, end caps and studs. Similarly, concrete spalling and cracking problems should be repaired before they propagate and deteriorate concrete and reinforcement.

i The contractor selected for the next surveillance should be appraised of field conditions at Crystal River which may affect liftoff results. The method and determination ofliftoff l

should also be discussed in conjunction with the specific equipment to be used by the contractor. This should eliminate the potential of breaking tendon wires during the liftoff process.

.omWi"xh%"dw"Eimc..

i Pzge 38 j

12.0 REFERENCES

1.

17th Year In -Service Tendon Surveillance Test Report, Revision 0, March 1994, by

)

VSL Corporation (For Fifth surveillance).

2.

FPC Surveillance Procedure, SP-182, Tendon Surveillance Program, Revision 10.

3.

FI C Surveillance Procedure, SP-182, Tendon Surveillance Program, Revision 11.

4.

US NRC Regulatory Guide 135, Revision 3, Inservice Inspection of Ungrouted Tendons in Prestressed Concrete Containments.

5.

Proposed US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.35.1, Determining Prestressing Forces for Irspection of Prestressed Concrete Containments, April 1979.

6.

Engineering Study of Regulatory Issues for the Tendon Surveillance Program, March 5,1993, issued by FCS-13670.

7.

Engineering Review of ASME Section XI, Subsection IWL for the Tendon Surveillance Program, May 28,1993, issued by FCS-13892,6/2/93.

8.

Fourth Tendon Surveillance Engineering Evaluation, Surveillance report by G/C Enc., March 10,1988.

9.

Third Tendon Surveillance Liftoff Force Evaluation, Surveillance Report by G/C Inc., May 19,1982.

10.

Second Tendon Surveillance Liftoff Force Evaluation, Surveillance Report by G/C Inc., May 1980.

11.

First Tendon Surveillance Liftoff Force Evaluation, Surveillance Report by G/C, Revision 1, April 1980.

12.

Fourth Tendon Surveillance Test Report Containment Structure Post Tensioning System Surveillance, Ten Year Surveillance, by VSL Corp., November,1987.

13.

Third Tendon Surveillance Test of the Reactor Containment Building Five Years after Structural Integrity Test, by VSL Corp., December 1981.

14.

Second Tendon Surveillance Test of the Reactor Containment Building Three Years after Structural Integrity Test, by VSL Corp., May 1980.

15.

First Tendon Surveillance Test of the Reactor Containment Building One Year after Structural Integrity Test, by VSL Corp., March 1978.

.ou$rToUE"m"e.aAmc..

l

Page 39 16.

Tendon History Sheets for the Dome, Hoop and Vertical tendons, updated to the fifth surveillance.

17.

G/C Design Input Record DI-5520-152.0 SE, Revision 2, November,1993.

18.

NRC inspection / Violation Report 50-302/93-27, December 10,1993.

19.

Meeting Minutes and Report on CR3 Tendons and Containment Restoration, low Hoop Prestress Condition, G/C Letter to FPC, FCS-14237, December 14,1993.

5 s

I

.o$f INc..

m surystuANCE APPENDIIA Page1 i

I:

APPENDIXA PREDICTED FORCE VS TIME CURVES f

4 FOR THEFIFTH TENDONSURVEILLANCE Notes -

1.

Normalization factors on two of the original prepared force curves were in error with the wrong number presented in Revision 11 of SP-182 and in the current VSL Report. Corrections were made in the following curves and in a corrected version of Enclosure 41 contained in Appendix B. Curves affected include 42HI,62H7 and 62H8.

2.

Tendon 46H21 was added to the scope of tendons to be inspected during this fifth surveillance. The force curve was not included in SP-182 but was prepared separately and is attached in this Appendix.

3.

A second force curve for tendon 46H29 was prepared and is attached. The original curve represented a full 163 wire tendon. The second curve was prepared and represents a 159 wire tendon, since one wire was removed and three wires were broken.

l l

i!

- GILBERT /COMMONWEAlllli, INC. -

j

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE DOME PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 10 e.

4 e

7 e

a 1600 TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON D137 NORMALIZING FAC"OR:-34 t

1500-

~

BASE

~

E 1400

- ~

9:

6 952 BASE N

N N

t s

y O

~

O 1300 N

90s BASE s

N Z

, N z

~

~

1200 i

Predicted Volues for Year 17 Base 1370 Kips 95s Bose 1301 Kips

~

90s Base 1233 Kips 1100 e..

i 1000 l

l l

l lU 10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 f

E SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE _ PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) 4

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE DOME PLACEMENT (YEARS)

?

10 1

3 3

4 3

4 7

8 3

3 3

4 S

1600

~

TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON D138 NORMAUZING FAC"OR:-69 1500

~

BASE

~

955 BASE

~

N N

52 w

s v

b 90s BASE e

O 1300-

~

W z

N O

O Z

Ld 1200 Predicted Values for Year 17 Base 1407 Kips 95s Base 1336 Kips

~

90s Base 1266 K1ps 1100 ll

~

2000

. 3 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 10/26/93 1

SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) la

-e

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE DOME PLACEMENT (YEARS) 10 1

3 3

4 S

S 7

8 9

3 3

4 8

1600 TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON D139 NORMAllZING FAC OR:-19 1

1500--

~

BASE G 1400-

~

s 952 BASE N

w N

N N -----

O N

o 1300 90s BASE N

N

~

~-

Z o

~

w 1200 Predicted Values for Year 17 Bose 1358 K!ps 952 Ocse 1291 K1ps 90s Base 1223 Kips 1100 l

l l

l l

l l

l 1000 10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 9$

>h SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCREE DOME PLACEMENT (YEARS)

I 10 E

3 4

S e

7 8

8 2

3 4

S' 1600 TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON D214 NORMAUZING FAC"OR:-73 1500 BASE s

~

~

952 BASE

@ 1400

~

~~

~

B:

5 Ld 90s BASE N

s O 1300 z

N o

~

O Z

1200 Predicted Values tor Year 17 Bose 1410 K1ps 95s Base 1340 Kips 90s Base 1269 K1ps 1100 g

g i

8 I

I I

t M

lb ho 15 5

5 10/26/93 1

3 5

SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a

-..m

.2.

-n---

Em SURVEILLANCE APPENDIX A e

Page 6 1

I I

p,

.. g J

a-o i--

8" 5

m

__ g f, 2 w

m e

o m$"

o b--6 EEE

[

W w g 222

-- 2 <c v

O in g

co

• c in x-o o

283 JC"U; trj w

N 55]

D, !!

--e t s u gb oc 3

Om 0-j g

W-I I

I Ew 8

l l

l k

3[ s l

I I

" "d l

l l

5 Z

xus-1 I

I n a l

l l

w O

w -

i f

f aD I

f f

f Oa 4

o oO w

W w

y Q

E E

I M

m m

m e

m a

4.

ws 1:

2>

. 3

~

,iii iiii iiii i i i i b

(SdDi) 3080.3 N00N31

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE DOME PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 10 3

1 e s 3

s 1600 TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON D216 NORMAUZING FAC"OR: 2 1500 BASE ncn 1400 m

9:

N

~

Y

~

v y

955 BASE s

x

~

N

~

O 1300

[

90s BASE N

Z s

o

~

~

Z

~

1200 l

Predicted Volues for Year 17 Bose 1335 Kips 95s Bose 1268 Kips 90s Base 1201 Kips 1100 1000 l

l l

l i

10/26/93 1-3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) 9 w

- ~

~

v

-~m~..-w ew

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE DOME PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 10 e.

4 s

1600

~

TENDON FORCE CJRVE 1ENDON D224 NORMAUZING FACTOR: 17

-1500 Q!VOS G 1400 BASE 1

2 v

s N

b N-1300 Lt.

h N

o 90s BASE tu

~

1200 N

N Predicted Values for Year 17 i

Base 1320 K1ps 952 Base 1254 Kips 90s Base 1188 Kips 1100

~

h.

5 1000 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l 10/2s/93 i

s 3

to is 20 2s so ss 40 g

SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a

,yn4

,i))

Il[l

!lll

.1 l1i!!

lI ll illI!

flJa 5

a jlR >

{*

04

0 5

3 3

~

~

52 9

)T 0

~

2

~

I 1

S E

0 V R R

R O E

)S J

R 3

sss T

A C C N N idr e ppp F

E A

Iii s

KKK A

E F i

(Y s 752 C0 e

470 S

R3G u

T O2N 7433

!o 111 R

N FDI 1

V A

E Z

r ee da ss E

M NNU cY BB l

o ee ao Y

E A

OOM t

t

(

C DD A

R eo sss NN rf a50 D

LP EEO P B99 TTN O

0 I

E1 R

M E

O s

l 5

P D

E t

~

i

~

C t

1 N

N R

A C

L N

l 3

I L

O C

E V

F.'

R

~

O US ETA.'

D D

E l

1 E

L G

U A

D R

E E

E E

E S

S H

V S

A A

A C

A B

B B

R S

t 5

s 5

0 ir 9

9 A

E M

IT 3

9/6 2

/

0

__________1 1

~ - _ ~

~_

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

3 2

1 0

6 5

1 1

1 1

1 1

n[ 6 w@ Ok ZOOzW"

,Jll' lIltlf I

l l

l j'

l'

f

., ;r f

I l-l' t

98 5

E 8

w s

i NN e'

4 e

NN e

3

)T 9

I 3

S E

a V R R

)S R

O E

J R

2 sss T

A C C ppp F

E A

KKK iii Y

E F A

(

C1 s

949 e

R3G u 936 S

T 7221 O2N la 111 R

N FDI V

1 E

Z A

I r

ee M

NNL da ss E

e e aa Y

E A

t OO cY BB A

DDM idr e C

(

L NNR eo sss rf o50 D

P EEO P B99 TTN O

0

~

E1 I

R M

E

^

9 O

P D

8 E

t C

i t

7 N

N R

A CN L

I S

3 L O

C EV F

S N

R O

U E

S T

A 4

D D

E i

E L

G U

A D

R 3

E E

E E

E S

S V

S A

A H

A A

B B

C B

R S

t s

s i

5 0

r 9

9 A

2 E

M IT s

9/6 2/

o,

- ~ _ _

_~

- ~ -

- _ =

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 6

5 4

3 2

1 0

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 G93 jUmOL OCb" i

a t

t

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE DOME PLACEMENT (YEARS) l 1

10 m

a 4

3 a

4 e

1600 TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON D232 NORMAUZING FAC'T)R: 22 1500-g 1400 G.

~

g)sE to O

$,g300 ~

955 B0

~ ~ ~~

~

~

~"~ -

~

O O

,,,sst ts_1

~

P g200 Predict *d vowes tor T*0f o g315 N9*

$d Bos* Ifg3 Kip

• gon Bos* g 1100

~

[

U 1000 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l

=

E

~

10/26/93 1

.3 5-10 15 20 25 30 35 40 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 10 2

3 4

8 t

3 3

4 5

4 7

e e 1600 TENDON FORCE CJ8yE TENDON 35H1 GD NORMAUZING FAC'VR:19 1500 BASE

~~

N

~

955 BASE G 1400 N

s

~

0.

E v

N Ld 90s BASE o

~~

[E

~

o 1300

~

tu Z

~

O Q

Z h1 1200-Predicted Votues for Year 17

~

Dase 1424 Kips 95s Base 1352 Kips 90s Bose 1281 Kips W

1100 me.

I "00 gg 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 1000 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)

'l

i to/2s/93 a.

m

,w

~

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) to 1

2 3

4 8

2 3

4 3

e 7

s e

1600 TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON 35H2 o

NORMAUZING FAC"OR:14 1500-BASE

~

N 955 BASE E 1400

~

~

O_b

~

bJ 90s BASE

~'

~

o 1300-

~

Z

~

OO O

1200 Predicted Values for Year 17 Base 1426 K!ps 95m Base 1355 Kips

~

90s Base 1283 Kips 1100-d"

~

l l

l l

l l

1 3

5 to 15 20 25 30 35 40 C

1000 10/26/93 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a t

m-.

m v

u v

w

....m

b TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) i to S

3 4

S e

7 3

8 2

3 4

3 1600 TENDON FORCE CLIRVE TENDON 35H3 NORMAllZING FAC VR: 59 1500 s

BASE s

E 1400

!b N

N Y

~~-

v 955 BASE

~

b z

~

O 1300 12-90s BASE O

g

~_

La 1200 Predicted Values for Year 17 Base 1383 Kips 95m Base 1313 Kips 90s Base 1244 Kips 1100

~

d_q$3 1000 l

l l

l l

l l

=

• cf O 10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 "5

R SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) g, f

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS)

~

1 10 2

3 4

3 e

y a

3 2

3 4

8 1600 TENDON FORCE CLIRVE TENDON 42H1

-/560 NORMAUZING FAC"OR: 12 t

1500 BASE N

s

_ ~

952 BASE E 1400

---. s v

_ N W

90s BASE O

s M

o 1300 w

-~ ~ ~ - - -

Z O

~

Q Zw 1200

~

Predicted Values for Year 17 Bose 1431 Kips 95s Bose 1360 Kips 90s Base 1288 Kips 1100

~

k3 1000

=

10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 E

SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) ia

TIME. AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1

=

=

+

=

1600 TENDON FORCE CLIRVE TENDON 42H2 NORMAllZING FAC"OR:-49 BASE

~-

~

1500

^

955s BASE s

~

~

==%.

@ 1400 b

905s BASE a

g O

O' O' 1300 ZO

. c3 zw i

1200 Predicted Values for Year 17

~

Base 1492 Kips 95s Base 1417 Kips 90s Bose 1343 Kips 1100 1000 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 10 3

1 s

1600 TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON 42H3 NORMAUZING FAC"OR: 2 1500 BASE

~

~

s N

~

~

~

N 95x BASE

~

G 1400 9-E W

90s BASE O

Of o 1300 7

~

O O

Z W

1200--

Predicted Votues for Year 17

~

Base 1441 Kips 95m Base 1369 Kips 90s Base 1297 Kips 1100 M

Wh.

gs 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 1000 10/26/93 A

SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)-

1 lr 4

1 TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF ' CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 10 1

1600 TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON 46H3 NORMALIZING FAC'VR: 8 1500 BASE 955 BA3E G 1400

---

_ ~'

' N v

Lu 90s BASE O

-N tr O 1300

~

~

Z

~

O O

Z LU" i

1200 Predleted Values for Year 17 Base-1435 K1pa 952 Bose 1363 Kips 90s Bose 1291 Kips 1100

{

5 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

3g 1000 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 R

10/26/93 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)

+

m i--

---

s-m

--4.--e

+ -e r'

m

.-... a

p 8

8 TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) g 10 3

3 4

3 g

y a e 1

3 4

5 1600 TENDON FORCE CLIRVE TENDON 46H21 NORMAUZING FAcrVR:-12

~

BASE 1500

~

~

s s

95s BASE 6/W/5 G 1400 N

B:

N Y

v 90s BASE m

x O 1300

^

Lt.

Z

~

O O

Z 1200-Predicted Votues for Year 17 t

Base 1455 Kips 95n Base 1383 Kips 90s Base 1310 K!ps 1100

~

m>

I i

1000 G

l 12/06/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 g

SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a

l

\\l

.lll 3=

a 3g "

[g s

s

! 0 4

5 3

rw l

0 r

3 Q

ar w

f 5

L l

2 3

w m tS

" N 5

7 2

7 0

7 97 2

l 2

5 LE E

5X

/

V R

/

)

R a ~

O" l

5 S

J R

C C

~

ippp sss 1

)

A A

ii T

E E8F KKK IS Y

C2 s

159

(

e RHG la 246 u 7543 R

T O6N N

idr e V

l o

1111 N

F4I E

t Z

E r ee T

M NNU da ss F

e e oa A

E OO cY BB A

t C

DDM A

NNR eo s2s rf a50 S

EEO L

P B99 R

P TTN 0

A L1

~

~

l 5 E L

Y W

~

l 3

A

(

~

D t

O it I

~

R R

E CN P

~

l 1

OC EC F

s E

E N

O S

S A

A A

E B

B L

T L

A I

D E

2 s

V E

5 0

R G

9 9

U A

S R

s EV D

A E

M L

t U

D i

tA E

e H

E C

M

~

I S

T 3

9/6 2/0 1

~ ~ ~ -

- - ~ _

- _. ~

1 m.

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

7 6

5 4

3 2

1

=.

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

@g5 grO oozy t

I llll\\

ill

{

[l l

i TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) l 1

10 a

s a

s e

7 e e 2

s e

e l

1600 TENDON FORCE CLIRVE TENDON 46H29 i

NORMAUZING FAC"OR:-32

(/43 EM War.S}

BASE 1500 O

~

955 BASE

~

~

E 1400 i

N

~

0.

{

905 BASE tu N

~

~

o N

Z

~

S[3oo O 1300

//F7bff L1-Z

~

O O

Z Ld 1200 Predicted Values for Year 17 Base 1476 Kips 95 Bose 1402 Mps 90s Base 1328 Kips 1100 1000 l

l l

l l

l l

l 2

10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a

.. + -

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCREE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS)

~

1 10 3

3 s

y 3

1600

~

y' TENDON FORCE CLIRVE TENDON 46H29 NORMAUZING FACVR: 8

(/59 EFE Mees) 1500-BASE

- s

~

cMG

- - - - - - - N, 95s BASE ncn 1400 m

~

~

~

N y

}

90s BASE gi1300 w

m

^

f

~

f $6V/he CwnC To e

REPMSGMT Y KCmo)O

~

b)/ACS &Artf f* W

'200 SuRyenLitr/Cl=

Predicted Values for Year 17 Bose 1436 K!ps

~

95a Bose 1364 Kips 90s Bose 1293 Kips 1100 hh 1000 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l D 0 12/13/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 R>

SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)

g a

4gU >

S

~

0 4

~ w '

3 5

4

3 0

5 3

i-

2

~

0 7

g 2

g E

V R

)

R O

S J

1 5

R C C

)

sss 1

A A

ppp T

11i E

E0F KKK IS Y

C3 s

085

(

RHG e

570

~

la

o u 7433 R

T O6N 1111 N

F4I E

V Z

t E

r ee T

M NNU da ss F

A e e aa 6

E OO cY BB A

t M

C DD A

NN

~

idr e R

eo s2s rf a50 S

L EEO P

TTN P B99 R

0 A

L1

5 E

LA Y

e

(

W i

e

3 D

t t

7 l

O i.

I s

ER RCN P

e s

1 O

C EC F

3 O

E E

E N

S S

S E

A A

A A

T B

B B

LL A

4 I

D E

5 s

V E

5 0

R G

9 9

A U

S R

3 EV D

A E

R L

t U

I D

tA E

2 H

E C

M I

S T

3 9/62/0 1

- ~

~

~._

- ~ - -

b

~

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 6

5 4

3 2

1 0

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 2v yO'O0' zoOZw"

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS)

~

1 s

=

=

1600.

TENDON FORCE CJRVE

~

TENDON 46H45 NORMAUZING FAC"0R:-14

~

BASE 1500

~~

- ~

~

955 BASE

~

@ 1400 N

1 E

~N b

90s BASE

~

O

~

N g

O 1300

~

b.

Z O

O Z

u.1 1200 Predicted Votues for Year 17 Base 1456 Kips 93 Base 1353 Mps 90s Bose 1311 Kips 1100 muu 1000 l

l l

l l

l l

l r

10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 g

SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a a_

k TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PtACEMENT (YEARS) 10 1

3 3

4 S

S 7

8 9

2 3

4 S

1600 TENDON FORCE CLJRVE

~

TENDON 46H46 NORMALIZING FActrOR:-23 BASE 1500

~ --

~

95s BASE s

^1400[

^

[

N

~

90s BASE

~

~

w N

O m

O 1300 Z

O O

ZW Predicted Values for Year 17

~

Base 1466 Kips 95s Bose 1392 Kips 90s Bose 1319 Kips 1100

~

dO e

1000 1

io is to 25 so ss so p

10/26/93 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 10 3

3 4

5 e

7 8

9 2

3 4

3 1600 TENDON FORCE CLIRVE

~

TENDON 46H47 NORMAUZING FAC' OR:-3 1500 BASE

~

s

~

~

AQ N

s 95s BASE

~

G 1400

^

v w

~

w 90s BASE

~

~

~

U g

' 1300-O

~

z o

O Z

W

" 1200 Predicted Values for Year 17

~

Base 1445 K1ps 95s Base 1373 Kips 90s Base 1300 Kips 1100

~

f3

=

1000 j

to is 20 25 30 35 40 R

10/26/93 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE. PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRLi' ?!<E10 1

=

=

+

5 1600,

TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON 62H7 NORMAUZING FAC'VR:48 1500 O^

~

~

~

E i400 h

95s BASE i

v

~

w O

90s BASE

~~--

' 1300 0

~

z

~

N O

Q L

Z W

H 1200 predicted votues for Year 17 Base 1394 Kips

~

95m Base 1324 Kips 90s Base 1254 Kips 1100 Gal

=

i i

1000 3

i, i3 2o 2s ao ss 40 10/26/93-

-SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD -(YEARS-AFTER SIT) g

L I'

gg g

i$ >

u S

0 I 4 5

4 3

~ %%

0 l

3 5

3 l

~

2 5

22 3

0 l 2

~ g/

~

/

E V R

)

R O

S J

5 R

C "C

2 w

l sss 1

)T A

ppp A

1ii E

E F KKK I

Y C8 e

S s

417

(

RHG 691 u

T O2N 7433 R

x idr e to 111 l

o N

F6I 1

E V

Z t

E r ee T

I M

NNL da ss F

e e-aa E

OOA cY BB A

t C

DDMR A

NN eo sss rf a50 S

L EEO P B99 R

P TTN 0

A L1 5 E l

L Y

8 AW

~

(

5 i

~

~

D t

3 l

O t

7

~

IR RC E

N P

e

~

O l 1 C

EC F

S O

E E

E N

S S

S E

A A

A A

T B

B B

L A

4 IL D

E z

s V

E 5

0 R

G 9

9 A

U R

S 3

EVA DE R

L E

U TF D

A E

1 H

E C

M I

S T

3 9/s2/o 1

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 6

5 4

3 2

1 0

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 nL__5 worOu ZOOZW" (I_

(

4 TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCREE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 10 1

2 3

4 S

8 7

8 9

2 3

4 5

1600 TENDON FORCE CJRVE

~

TENDON 62H9 NORMAUZING FAC'VR: 13 1500-BASE

~

- ~

95z BASE

~

G 1400 N

W M

v tij 90s BASE o

gr O 1300-k N

Z O

O Z

tAJ Predicted Values for Year 17

~

Base 1430 Kips 95s Base 1358 Kips 1

90s Base 1287 Kips 1100

~

hh uB 1000 I

io is 20 25 30 35 40 R>

10/26/93 SCHEDULED SURVEILIANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 10 3

3 4

S S

7 8

8 3

3 4

8 1700 1ENDON FORCE CJRVE l

TENDON 34V5 NORMALIZING FAC"OR: 37 l

l.

1600

~

BASE G 1500 0-E v

W 95%

BASE O

IE O 1400 ta_

y 90s BASE O

ZW 1300 l

Predicted Values for Year 17 Base-1486 K1ps 95s Base 1411 Kips 90s Base 1337 Kips 1200 m

W

~

1 n00 10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a x -

a g"

S 04 5

4

3 0

l 3

5 3

l 2

o 9

l 0

7 2

5 E

/

V R

)

R O"

l 5

S J

2 R

C C ppp sss 1

)

A T

A iii E

E F KKK I

Y S

(

C6 s

593 e

RVG T

O4N lu 136 7543 R

N F3I V

l 0

a 111 E

1 1

Z E

r ee T

M NNU da ss F

E OOA e e aa M

cY BB A

t C

DD A

N4R idr e eo s2s rf a50 S

EDO L

P B99 R

P TTN 0

A L1 l

5 E

LA Y

e

(

W 8

D E

3 l

T O

E 7

I R

R C

E N

P 0

O l

1 C

EC F

3 O

E E

E N

S S

S E

A A

A A

T B

B B

LL A

4 I

D E

5 s

V E

5 0

R G

9 9

A US R

3 EVA DE x

L t

U i

D tA E

2 H

E C

M I

S T

3 9/6 2/0 1

_ ~ _

_ _ - ~

- ~ _ _

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 3

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 7

6 5

4 3

2 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 Gt_f WOEOu_ zoOZW 1

[

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 10 1

3 s

e s

s e

1700 TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON 34V7 NORMAUZING FAC"OR: 3 1600

~

BASE E 1500 a-95%

BASE y

v W

O CE O 1400 90%

BASE l

b-

~

l Z

O O

Zw 1300 Predicted Volues -

for Year 17 Dose 1520 Kips 952 Base 1444 Kips 90s Base 1368 Kips l

1200 l

l l

i l

l l

1 3

5 to 15 20 25 30 35 40

• • S 1100 l

10/26/93 R>

I SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) l R

l t

I TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 10 s

7 s

1700 TENDON FORCE CLIRVE i

TENDON 34V23-NORMAUZING FAC"OR:-7 1600

~

BASE E 1500 b

95s BASE 5

Lt.1 i

4 O

90s BASE.

tr O 1400 Lt.

Z l

O O

Z Ltj 1300

~

Predicted Votues for Year 17 3

Base 1530 Kips 95s Base 1453 Kips 90s Base 1377 Kips 1200 l

1100 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

M 10/26/93 1

3' 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 g

i SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)

~. =,

.<w.

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 to a

3 s

1 s

3

+

s 1700

~

TENDON FORCE CLIRVE TENDON 56V14 NORMAUZING FAC"OR:-61

~

BASE 1600

~

95%

BASE E 1500 Q_-

M

~

90s BASE La O

of O 1400 Z

~

O O

Z Lu 1300 Predicted Values for Year 17 Base 1585 Kips 952 Base 1506 Kips

~

90s Base 1426 Kips 1200 esa 1100 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l g

10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 SCHEDULED SURVElLLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT)

iD M MIA M TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 10 s

3 e

2 a

+

s l

1700 TENDON FORCE CLJRVE TENDON 56V15 NORMALIZING FAC' OR: 13 1600 l

l l

~

l /W/

BASE g

G 1500 B-b 955 BASE W

O

~

O' O 1400 1

90s BASE Z

O O

ZW 1300

~

Predicted Values for Year 17 Base 1510 Kips 955 Bose 1434 Kips 90s Base 1359 Kips 1200 1100 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

3g 10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 R>

SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) i 10 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

8 3

3 4

8 1700 TENDON FORCE CLIRVE TENDON 56V16 NORMALIZING FAC VR:-26 1600 BASE 500 955 BASE S'

v w

90s BASE O 1400 tt.

Z O

~

Q ZW 1300 Predicted Values for Year 17 Base 1549 Kips 952 Bose 1471 Kips 90s Base 1394 Kips

~

1200 m

W

~

n 00 y

10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a t

r -

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 10 2

3 4

3 4

7 8

9 2

3 4

S 1700 TENDON FORCE CLIRVE TENDON 61V13 NORMALIZING FAC"OR:-44 1600 BASE 955 BASE E 1500 t_t_

b Ld 90s BASE O

tr O 1400-LL.

Z O

O Z

Ld

.1300 Predicted Vo!ues for Year 17 Bose 1568 Kips 95s Base 1490 Kips 90s Base 1412 Kips 1200

[

U 1100 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l w"

10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30- 35 40 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a

- ~

TIME AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) 1 to e

3 1700 TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON 61V14 NORMALIZING FAC'I)R:-26 1600-

@lse7 BASE 955 BASE 2

v Lu 90s BASE OLu 1400 Z

~

O Q

Z g

" 1300 Predicted Values for Year 17 Base 1549 Kips 95s Base 1471 Kips 90s Base 1394 Kips 1200 enum 1100 l

1 l

l l

l l

l l

l g

10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS-AFTER SIT) e

-~w

-__A-.--n..-------------,_-_.--a-----

TIME.AFTER AVERAGE DATE OF CONCRETE WALL PLACEMENT (YEARS) i 10 8

3 4

S S

7 8

9 2

3 4

3 1700 TENDON FORCE CJRVE TENDON 61V15 l-NORMAUZING FAC"OR: 53 1600 l

1 I

f E 1500 a_

BASE E

v W

)

955 BASE 0 1400 Z

~

Oo 90s BASE ZW 1300 Predicted Values for Year 17 Base 1469 Kips 952 Base 1395 Kips 90s Base 1322 Kips 1200

~

~

h 1100 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l 3

g 10/26/93 1

3 5

to 15 20 25 30 35 40 g

SCHEDULED SURVEILLANCE PERIOD (YEARS AFTER SIT) a

m SURVEI1MNCE AFFENDM 3 j

Page1 APPENDIXB AVERAGE NORMALIZED 11FTOFFFORCE AND NORMAL 12ATIONFACTORS There are minor corrections made to some normalization factors presented in Enclosure 42 of Revision 11 of SP-182 and used in this surveillance. These corrections affect the calculations in Enclosure 41 and are noted as follows:

NF in SP-182 Corrected Tendon Rev 11 NE 42H1 11 12 62H7

-3 48

'51

-22 62H8 46H21 N/A

-12 Note that tendon 46H21 was not originally presented in Enclosure 42 since it was added during the course of the surveillance.

The effect of the above corrections is not significant. Force curves attached in Appendix A are corrected with the information. The VSL Report will be updated to reflect these corrections. This report utilized all corrected dcta in the various tables and analyses.

4

- GILBERT /COMMONWEALTil, INC..

- - - - +..

• --o

sn stavmuANCE

~'.

Paes2 j

ENCLOSURE 41 AVERAGE OF THE NORMAllIED LIFT OFF FORCE-1 Acceptance i

Lift Off Norma 11zinf Normalized Factor (NF Lift Off Yes No j

Tendon 10 Force (1)+(2)

Dome Tender.s**

1.

3215 4518

~2 7 IW 2.

n2+

i4 2s t1 144 2.

3.

$nn n 3'A=:

31 4674-(Average

4. %-

equal to or greater than 5.

6.

1215 kips) 7.

Total N 434 gg3 Average 16+

Vertical Tendons **

1.

34y y 1590 7

1597 -

2.

c, i v $ 4 wa7

- z(,

i%t (Averzo 3.

%v is 66+\\

13 iss+

equal (e 4.

N-7 o er 5.

N greater than 6.

.,/.

X-1149 kips) 7.

V 8.

7 N

Total 4'7Il-E6 /

Average

1. 97i b #M M Hoon Tendons **

)

1.

35Hi

\\G~/1 l't 1991 2.

42Ht t%o s /2 w/s 72 3.

46 H 4 'I t 46 8

-3 I okK (Average 4.

L1HE i4 w

-= Err. 22.

N/pqual to or 5.

44. H 29 i3oo

~ - 32 thB creater than i375

-77 i19E

[252 kips) numurt 6.

4 H IE

[/B N wumT 7.

4 H 3o 1

-7

.ae-cr / r 7 8.

4 H 16 l

142 6

- Il t+i2

9. N.

10.

FN 7

11.

I//t #

12.

7 N

g)

~

Total M M 2 [)

Average

• See Enclosure 42 forJornalizing Factors

• • Include adjacent tapid s, if any, in the above tendon list.

k-Date:~lk!N Contract Asvie W FPC Approval By Date: / /d Y

u.

Total Rewrite of SP 162 Rey )!

Sue 9?

sin scaVEllhNCE APPENDIX B Page 3 ENCLOSURE 42 TENDON NORMALIZING FACTORS Tendon No.

[{f, Tendon No.

E Tendon No.

E 0137 34 34V5 37

/ d-D138

-69 34V6 7

42H2

-49' 0139

-19 34V7 3

42H3 2

0214 73 56V14

-61 46H28

-77hp 0 D215 27 56V15 13 46H29 0216 2

56V16

-26 46H30

-7 gnuw D230

-109 61V13

-44 35H1 19 U/2 D231 39' 61V14

-26 35H2 14 D232 22 61V15 53 35H3 59 D224 17 34V23

-7 46H45

-14 j

46H46

-23

,b'g9f 46H47

-3 g ((

62H7

[*

'._ 62H8

-jf,29-i

~ 62H9 13 46H3 8

-/1)

$U2/

l SP-182 Rev. 11 Page 101

r m summuANCE APPENDIX C Page 1 l

l i

APPENDIX C 1

TENDON WIRE SUMMARIES DOME, HOOP AND VERTICAL GROUPS

- GILBERT /COMMONWTALTII, INC -

m stavsnipez APPENDIX C P=or 2 INEFFECTIVE WIRE StafMARY UPDATED TO FIITII SURVEILLANCE Acceptance Criteria 1.

Maximum of 8 ineffective wires per tendon.

2.

Maximum of 3% ineffective wires per 10 consecutive tendons.

3.

Maximum of 2% ineffective wires per group.

The vertical tendons group consists of one stressing sequence quadrant of 36 tendons. The dome tendons group consists of one series layer of 41 tendons, i.e.

D100, D200 & D300 groups. The hoop tendons group consists of one side of a buttress or 47 tendons.

The results of all tabulated data are summarized as follows:

Tendon Groun Max / Tendon Max /10 Tendons Max /GrouR Domes Actual 7 (Note 1) 30 67 Allowable 8

49 134 Verticals Actual 6

21 37 Allowable 8

49 117 Hoops Actual 6

18 49 Allowable 8

49 153 Notes -

1.

Dome tendons D-217 and D-233 with 16 and 12 ineffective wires respectively exceed the 8 wire maximum per tendon but were previously accepted for that condition. These two tendons are reduced force dome tendans and it was determined that the high number of ineffective wires was due to unseating as a result of the reduced tensioning force in the tendons. See Ineffective Wire Summary, Update 2, 8/14/78, for additional information.

2.

The calculation for the ten consecutive tendons for the last nine tendons was perfarmed by using the data from first tendons at the top of the listing.

3.

Maximum wires per group are noted on the tendon group sheets.

- GIIEERT/COMMONWIMI.TII,1NC. -

1 En SURVDLIANCE APPENDIX C Pate 3 F

=CS 55 i q.e..

E g ~J r

=-

l s

f 4

b y=.1 E C E

$ $ $ I *

• $ =

= = I O = D k A b M 8 &

N o

5 V

s Y

s 6 % s!

k st Ets#g da o E

ra

E

.?

=

g t' L

6i lo.5 E lO ag.

eo

,c 2

5 w2 to o

s2 e

~

o m

e..

e e

o o

o e.

e o

e..

m. ~

~

o o. o

~

~

e. m w.

m.

e.

g$

t *N o

in 5

,>.t.

o" E6 t.

3-7 G ? 7 3-G 7GGG-3 7 G G 3 3S-G- : 3 G7 G-G G 7 7 3 7 3 7 *- G G U S C-3 m

.=

3.

!7 8

8 mo g

[c g g g y. y g g g gs : : : :

s t e r a n n a r. o r. n a t * = = m

• n * * * :

y,

,a m

m m m

m m

m m

m m

m m

m m m m m

m m m m

m m

m m

m m

m m e E

W o c o c c o n o c o c c o c o o c o o c o c o c o c o c o n o c o m o c o c o c o E

Ir F a$C oA e

• n n : t %

2 *

• t

• S*

m.

n n nnn A A A R R :

g > 5",t

. e gbx wzb E

>w z zu O

<Z e

b, 3 rs ' b D.. 5*.

1M a

o og s-e y

o OE*$

e m o r.

o

~

e

. o.

e g g g o

a e.

e.. o o

n e

o g

o. y z O=go o

t.,

1 o

uwEo yE o

s EhMW G U G-7 TG-- o" G-U 7 G G G G-E G G-7 7-G- -

A-G G-G- G-A- -

- 7 7 7-G G-G- -

E 8

il: a O

a. #

G G 7

G G = 7 w ze g2 3 6 8

O *< o O g

8

o. s z "

A wo 5g

r. ~ne A s s E = ~==.= ~=~=~2: s t R n E 7.

A s t a

~

~

~

n a n n a n*a n n s g

• s :

3e ry re.a

~

e

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ n n ~ ~

~

~

~

~

m

~

h h $8 h

2 c o c o c c o c o c o c c o c c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c c o a c c o c c o o m OL aw c3 mtt

.$v i s$t Op

!b g

g ; ; g g g g g g g g ; g g m

c. ~

c. e.

e.

c. m a

m m e.

c. e e

. o o

!he d

e gg a

3 zEk m

E e

G a

a o. gde 7

O 5

ye e

~

gg o

o...

~

~

m m

x x o

E, z o O

W 5 to W O"

Eg HO i

D3 et i

Ud G-G-- 77 7 7 GG-G- G-G 7 0 7 GG-G G 7G-77 7 G-G- 1 7 G 3 7 % 7 7 7 3 7 G G G-l e:

7

=

a w*

8 os

=p A

g, gg s s s

- s-s- s s -== = =

s t e t a : O m : = x m m a = = =

x tm-a s : g

- s s

x o o, g

y p

o c o c c a c o c o c o c o c c o c c o n o c o c o c o n o c o c o n o c o c c o E R

1 1

2

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CHYSTAL RIVER UNil 3 Onsmetm R.Ctes Date 0539e 6

HOOP TENDONS WlHE

SUMMARY

Venfier: M D Mweettus Dste 0$n9s UPDATED TO STil SURVEILLANCE snFETt oF2 P E E HMstEl mEl 13HXX GHOUP 35HXX GROUP SiliiUI~dii IIP TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 1RNDON EFF PEFF '

IF OREA1ER pfFF. MRES RF OREATER ENDON EFF M FF tF ORE ATER MFF MRE$

W OREATER TEMDON EFF PEFF N OREAMR MFF MES W OREA1ER I

MG -

MRES MRES THAM IM MEXTte THANet NO MRES MMS THAN IN NEXTIO THANES NO MRES M9ES THAN IN NEXT10 1 NAN et a

1FNDONS 04y 3

WNtm$

S WNNWS

_g 13H I let 2

4 35H 1 161 2

14__g_,

0 11 51H I 163 13H 2 163 0

2 35H 2 142 1

18 51H 2 163 0

11 13H 3 163 0

2 35H 3 161 2

17 51H 3 163 0

11 11H 4

163 0

2 35 H 4 161 2

17 51H 4

162 1

15 13H 5 163 0

2 35H 5 160 3

15 51H 5 163 0

14 1:H 6 163 0

2 35H 6 163 0

12 51H 6 161 2

14 13H 7 143 0

4 35H 7 162 1

12 51H 7 162 1

13 13H S 163 0

4 35H 8 161 2

11 51H 8 160 3

12 13H 9

161 2

7 35H 9 163 0

9 51H $

161 2

11 JH 10 163 0

7 35H to 162 I

to SlH 10 161 2

9 13H 11 163 0

9 35H 11 157 6

9 51H 11 163 0

7 13H 12 163 0

13 35H 12 163 0

4 51H 12 163 0

7 1 311 13 163 0

13 35H 13 tel 2

4 51H 13 159 4

7 13H 14 163 0

13 35H 14 163 0

2 51H 14 163 0

3 13H 15 163 0

13 35H 15 163 0

3 51H 15 163 0

3 13H 16 161 2

13 35H 16 163 0

4 51H 16 162 1

4 13H 11 163 0

11 35H 17 163 0

4 51H 17 163 0

3 13H 18 160 3

11 35H 18 163 0

4 51H 18 161 2

5 13H 19 161 2

8 35H 19 162 3

4 51H 19 163 0

3 13H 20 162 1

8 35H 20 143 0

7 51H 20 163 0

3 13H 21 158 5

7 35H 21 162 1

7 StH 21 163 0

4 13H 22 163 0

2 35H 22 163 0

6 51H 22 163 0

7 13)! 23 163 0

3 35H 23 163 0

6 51H 23 163 0

8 13H 24 163 0

4 35H 24 162 1

6 51H 24 163 0

8 13H 25 163 0

4 35H 25 162 1

5 StH 25 162 1

8 13H 26 163 0

6 35H 26 163 0

4 51H 26 163 0

7 13H 27 163 0

9 35H 27 163 0

4 StH 27 tot 2

8 13H 28 143 0

le 35H 28 163 0

4 SlH 28 163 0

9 13H 29 161 2

11 35H 29 159 4

4 5tH 29 163 0

9 13H 30 163 0

10 35H 30 163 0

5 5tH 30 162 1

9 13H 31 143 0

11 35H 31 163 0

5 SlH 31 160 3

8 13H 32 162 1

11 35H 32 163 4

5 51H 32 162 1

5 13H 33 162 1

10 35H 33 163 0

5 51H 33 163 0

5 13H 34 163 0

to 35H 34 163 0

6 StH 34 163 0

7 13H 35 161 2

10 35H 35 163 6

6 51H 35 163 0

8 13H 36 160 3

9 35H 34 163 0

4 5tH 36 162 1

9 13H 37 162 1

6 35H 37 163 0

6 51H 37 161 2

8 13H 38 162 1

5 35H 38 163 0

6 51H 38 162 1

7 13H 39 162 1

6 35H 39 158 5

8 S1H 39 163 0

6 13H 40 162 1

5 35H 40 163 0

4 51H 40 163 0

6 13H 48 163 0

4 35H 41 163 0

6 S1H 41 163 0

6 13H 42 163 0

4 35H 42 163 0

8 51H 42 162 1

7 13H 43 162 1

4 35H 43 162 1

11 5tH 43 161 2

6 13H 44 163 0

3 35H 44 163 0

10 StH 44 162 3

4 13H 41 162 1

3 35H 43 163 0

11 51H 45 162 1

6 13H 46 163 0

2 35H 46 163 0

13 S1H 46 163 0

8 13H 47 143 0

4 35H 47 163 0

13 51H 47 162 1

10 10TAL MD 31 OK 10TAL 1E2S N

DE TOTAL 1825 N

CE g

MAX 19EJM 29 FORGJP 133 taAXBEUtd 29IORGJP 153 MAX 1tR!td 1% FORGJP ID g

Ro MAXIMUM WIRES Pelt GROUP = 47X 163 = 7661 R

F LORIDA POWER CORFORATION CRYSTAL river UNTI 3 Onynew R Chang Dele 95 3%

HOOP TENDONS WIRE

SUMMARY

ven6m M D M=tenus D te 0%nw UPDATED TO STH SURVEILLANCE seert 2 of s Ftf HERE2 MEL) 42tlXX GROUP 4eHXX GROUP 62HXX GROUP ictu.

ToTat Tova T'NDON EFF 1TFF tF OREAM R IWFP M9ES IF GRSA1TR WNEON EFF LT FF 8F OREAMR laf 77 WIRES 1F ORE A1TR TE

• Dose EFF iT FF IF OREAMR IPfFF M18tES fF ORPA1T A NO W1RE S

1. 18E S 754AM IN NEXT IO THANet MO WIRES Wf1EE5 THAN IN =aEXTIO TH AM 48 b0

%1RES MIES THAN fM MENT I9 THAM 49 a

wunows (my a

T*:wpo=s im e

TFNttws (Mi 42H 1 1601 3

8

%H I

to 0

7 62H l 162 1

11 42H 2 160I 3

5 46H 2

163 0

10 62H 2 163 0

12 42H 3 163 0

2 esH 3 163 0

10 62H 3 163 0

12 42H 4

162 1

3 46H 4

10 0

12 42H 4

161 2

12 42H 5 163 0

3

1. H 5 159 4

12 62H 5 159 4

le 42H 6 163 0

3 46H 6

163 0

10 62H 6 163 0

4 42H 7 162 3

46H 7

to e

10 62H 7 162 1

6 42H 8 143 0

2 46H 8

142 1

12 62H 8 161 2

3 42H 9 163 0

2 46H 9

162 1

13 42H 9 163 0

3 42H 10 163 0

2 46H 10 162 1

12 62H 10 162 1

5 42H 11 163 0

2 46H 11 160 14 62H 11 161 2

3 42H 12 to 0

3 46H 12 163 0

12 62H 12 163 0

4 42H 13 162 1

4 46H 13 161 2

13 62H 13 163 0

4 42H 14 162 1

4 46H 14 163 0

14 62H 14 163 0

4 lli 15 163 0

3

• • H 15 161 2

14 62H 15 10 0

4 42H 16 163 0

3 MH 16 163 0

15 62H 16 163 0

6 42H 17 163 0

3 46H 17 161 2

15 62H 17 163 0

6 42H 18 163 0

3 46H 18 161 2

13 62H 18 16 0

4 72H 19 163 0

3 46H 19 163 0

11 62H 19 161 2

4 42H 29 10 0

3 46H 20 160 3

15 62H 20 162 1

5 42H 21 162 1

3 46H 21 162 1

14 62H 21 162 3

4 42H 22 162 1

2 46H 22 162 1

13 OH 22 163 0

3 42H 23 162 1

1 46H 23 160 3

12 62H 23 163 0

3 42H 24 163 0

0 46H 24 143 0

9 62H 24 163 0

4 42H 23 163 0

3 46H 25 160 3

9 62H 15 161 2

3 42H 26 163 0

4 46H 26 163 0

6 62H 26 163 0

4 42H 27 163 0

4 46H 27 163 0

6 62H 27 163 0

4 42H 28 to 0

4 46H 28 163 0

8 62H 28 10 0

5 42H 29 163 0

4 46H 29 159 4

9 62H 29 162 1

5 42H 30 10 0

4 46H 30 161 2

6 62H 30 163 0

42H 31 163 0

5 46H 31 163 0

8 6?H 31 163 0

5 42H 32 163 0

6 46H 32 163 0

8 62H 32 163 0

5 42H 33 163 0

6 46H 33 163 0

8 62H 33 162 1

5 42H 34 If4 5

6 46H 34 163 0

8 62H 34 162 1

6 42H 35 162 1

3 46H 35 163 0

8 62H 35 162 1

5 72H 34 163 0

2 46H 36 163 0

12 62H 36 10 0

5 42H 37 10 0

2 46H 37 161 2

12 62H 37 162 1

5 42H 38 163 0

5 4*H 38 162 1

12 62H 38 163 0

7 4 211 39 163 0

8 46H 39 162 1

11 62H 39 162 1

8 42H 40 162 I

46H 40 159 4

10 62H 40 163 0

7 72H 41 162 1

19 46H 41 163 0

6 62H 41 163 0

7 42H 42 163 0

10 46H 42 163 0

6 62H 42 163 0

9 42H 43 163 0

10 MH 43 163 0

10 62H 43 161 2

13 42H 44 163 0

10 46H 44 163 0

to 62H 44 163 0

11 42H 45

~ 163 0

11 46H 45 159 4

10 62H 45 162 1

12 42H 44 163 0

11 MH 46 163 0

7 62H 46 163 0

13 42H 47 160 3

11 46H 47 161 2

8 62H 47 lao 3

13 TOTAL 16es 22 UE TOTAL 4 12 e9 OE TOTAL Mill 74 OE MAXtMUM 2910RCUP 813 MAK1 MUM 2% f JRCRJP 153 MAXIMUM 2S f OROUP 133 Rf O

MAXIMUM WIRES PER OROUP = 47 X 163 = 7661 w

R

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER UNTI 3 one r.R.cwas D=c 85m4 VERTICAL TENDONS WIRE

SUMMARY

venrier un week om. oe4 UPDATED TO STH SURVEILLANCE stEETi Or2 File:YWIREl.%U QUADRANT 1 (30* TO 120*)

QUADRANT 2 (300* TO 30*)

TOTAL TOTAL TENDON

EFF, INEFF IF OREATER INEFP.%1RES

!F GREATER TENDON EFF.

INEFF.

IF GREATER INEN. W1RES 1F OREATT.R NO.

%1RES WIRES THAN IN NEXTIO THAN #

NO.

%1RES wtRES THAN IN NEXT1e THAN #

8 TENDONS (M) 8 TENDONS (M) 23V 1

163 0

0 12V 13 162 1

16 21V 2 163 0

0 12V 14 163 0

18 23V 3 163 0

0 12V 15 159 4

19 23V 4

163 0

0 12V 16 163 0

17 23V $

163 0

0 12V 17 160 3

21 23V 6 163 0

4 12V 18 163 0

18 23V 7 163 0

4 12V 19 160 3

18 23V 8 163 0

5 12V 20 163 0

18 23V 9 163 0

6 12V 21 160 3

18 23V to 163 0

6 12V 22 161 2

15 23V 11 163 0

8 12V 23 160 3

13 23V 12 163 0

8 12V 24 162 1

10 23V 13 163 0

8 61V i

161 2

9 23V 14 163 0

8 61V 2 159 4

10 23V 15 159 4

8 61V 3 163 0

6 23V 16 163 0

4 61V 4 163 0

6 23V 17 162 1

4 61V 5 160 3

7 23V 18 162 1

3 61V 6 163 0

7 23V 19 163 0

3 61V 7 163 0

7 23V 20 161 2

3 61V 8 163 0

8 23V 21 163 0

3 61V 9 163 0

8 23V 22 163 0

4 61V 10 163 0

8 23V 23 163 0

4 61V 11 160 3

8 23V 24 163 0

4 61V 12 163 0

5 12V 1 163 0

4 61V 13 163 0

5 12V 2 163 0

7 61V 14 162 1

5 12V 3 163 0

7 61V 15 160 3

4 12V 4

162 1

7 61V 16 163 0

2 12V 5 163 0

6 61V 17 162 1

2 12V 6 161 2

6 61V 18 163 0

5 12V - 7 162 1

4 61V 19 163 0

5 12V 8 163 0

3 61V 20 163 0

8 12V 9 163 0

3 61V 21 163 0

8 12V 10 163 0

3 61V 22 163 0

11 12V 11 160 3

3 61V 23 163 0

11 12V 12 163 0

0 61V 24 163 0

14 1UTAL 5e53 13 OE 1UTAL 5831 31 OE MAXB4UW 2%/ GROUP 117 MAXBAJW2%IGROUP 117 MAXIMUM WIRES PER GROUP = 36 X 163 = 5868

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER UNTI 3 onsir ter: R.cs.n.

p.m e.21w VERTICAL TENDONS WIRE

SUMMARY

wnr r:Ma M=nu.

o.w cznw UPDATED TO STH SURVEILLANCE SHEET 2 oF2 FILE: WIRE 1.%K3 QUADRANT 3 (210' TO 300*)

QUADRANT 4 (120* TO 210*)

tot 4 Tora TENDON EFF..

INEFF.

IF OREATER

!NEFF.%1RES IFOREATER 11LNDON EFF.

INEIT.

IF OREATER INEFF. WIRES IF ORFATER NO.

WIRES WIRES THAN IN NEXT10 THAN 49 NO.

%1RES WIRES titan IN NEXT 10 11 TAN 49 8

TENDONS 04) 6

_ TENDONS (M) 56V 1

162 1

10 45V 13 163 0

4 56V 2 162 1

9 45V 14 163 0

4 56V 3 163 0

8 45V 15 163 0

5 56V 4 162 1

9 45V 16 163 0

5 56V 5

162 1

8 45V 17 163 0

6 56V 6

162 1

10 45V 18 163 0

9 56V 7

161 2

11 45V 19 163 0

12 56V 8 161 2

9 45V 20 161 2

12 56V 9 162 1

7 45V 21 162 1

10 56V 10 163 0

9 45V 22 162 1

9 56V 11 163 0

9 45V 23 163 0

10 56V 12 163 0

11 45V 24 162 1

10 56V 13 162 1

13 34V i 163 0

9 56V 14 163 0

12 34V 2 162 1

9 56V 15 160 3

12 34V 3 160 3

9 56V 16 161 2

11 34V 4 160 3

10 56V 17 163 0

9 34V 5 163 0

8 56V 18 163 0

10 34V 6 163 0

9

$6V 19 160 3

11 34V 7 163 0

11 56V 20 163 0

8 34V 8 161 2

11 56V 21 161 2

9 34V 9 163 0

9 56V 22 161 2

13 34V 10 163 0

13 56V 23 163 0

11 34V 11 163 0

13 56V 24 163 0

11 34V 12 162 1

14 45V 1 161 2

13 34V 13 159 4

13 45V 2 163 0

11 34V 14 162 1

9 45V 3 162 1

11 34V 15 162 1

9 45V 4 162 1

11 34V 16 161 2

8 45V 5 163 0

11 34V 17 163 0

6 45V 6

162 I

11 34V 18 163 0

6 45V 7 157 6

11 34V 19 159 4

6 45V 8 163 0

6 34V 20 163 0

2 45V 9 163 0

7 34V 21 162 1

2 45V 10 161 2

9 34V 22 163 0

1 45V 11 163 0

9 34V 23 163 0

3 y

5a 45V 12 163 0

10 34V 24 162 1

4 TOTAL 5e32 M

OE 1trrn 5s39 29 OE MAXIMUM 2%/GROUF 117 MAXIMUM 2%IOROUP 117 n

MAXIMUM WIRES PER GROUP = 36 X 163 = 5868

sn SURVEILLANCE APPENDIX D o

Page1 APPENDIXD EVALUATION OFREPLACED BULK FILLER The Crystal River Unit No. 3 (CR3) Surveillance Procedure SI'-182, Reactor Building Structural Integrity Tendon Surveillance Program, requires the quantity of removed and replaced bulk filler grease (grease) to be recorded. An engineering evaluation is required when the difference between removed and replaced grease exceeds 4 gallons, (Reference Enclosure Data Sheet 12, SP-182). During the 17th year surveillance which began in November 1993, all 14 of the surveillance tendons exceeded this 4 gallon limit.

Furthermore, this exceedance has also occurred in prior tendon surveillance periods.

The purpose of collecting data on the quantity of removed and replaced grease has its background in proposed revisions to Regulatory Guide 1.35 and in ongoing ASME/ACI Committee activity. The issuance of Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 3, in July 1990, has formalized the requirement for the amount of grease replaced as a reportable condition when the amount exceeds 5% of the net duct volume.

The essential function of the grease is to prevent corrosion of both the tendon wires and the anchorage components. The material used in the CR3 tendon system, Visconorust 2090 P-2/P-4, accomplishes this by a characteristic which gives the filler material an affinity to adhere to steei surfaces, its ability to emulsify any moisture in the system which nullifies its rusting tendency, and by its resistance to moisture, mild acids, and alkalis. In addition, protection is afforded by each tendon wire being individually coated with a heavy wax base corrosion inhibitor in the tendon fabricating shop.

This coating is chemically absorbed on the surface of the wire and cannot be removed by any mechanical means which does not also remove the surface of the steel wire.

As indicated by the quantity of grease replaced, the voids in the tendon sheathing varied from 9.8% to 30.5%, and averaged 16.7% for the 14 surveillance tendons. The individual tendon results are given in Table D-1.

- GILBERT /COMMONWEA1.TlI, INC -

m stavEnuNCE APPENDIK D Page 2 TABLE D-1 TENDON SURVEILLANCE GREASING

SUMMARY

NET DUCT NET GREASE

% GREASE

^

TENDON y.QLUME (GAL)

ADDED (GAL.)

ADDED D215 111.8 32.0 28.6 D224 111.8 13.0 11.6 D231 111.8 11.0 9.8 34V6 135.9 41.5 30.5 56V15 135.9 20.0 17.4 61V14 135.9 18.0 15.6 I

35HI i15.2 20.0 17.4 42HI 115.2 20.0 17.4 46H21 115.2 15.0 13.0 46H28 115.2 15.5 13.4

~

46H29 115.2 15.0 13.0 46H30 115.2 13.0 11.3 46H47 115.2 20.0 17.4-t 62H8 115.2 20.0 17.4 Average 16.7 Contributing to the indicated voids may be a number of factors:

1.

The grease has a coefficient of expansion which yields an expansion of about 1%

per every 20 F change in temperature. Initial filling temperature of the grease averaged 140 F During the subject tendon surveillance the ambient temperature of insitu grease was about'80 F, giving a contraction of about 3% from initial fill.

2.

Calculated voids between the wires which comprise the tendon bundle are approximately 3% to 4% of the net duct volume. During the initial filling operation the tendon bundb was at ambient temperature. As the heated grease was pumped into the sheathing it solidified on the surface of the tendon bundle, leaving small voids between the wires. As the grease gradually heated the tendon bundled wires it is likely that t'2e voids between the wires allowed migration of the grease into the tendon bundle. Because this process is slow and gradual, it is reasonable to expect that it took place substantially after the filling operation was complete and possibly during the surveillance refill operation. This type of migration could also occur at other areas, such as where tendons are in contact with the sheathing.

3.

During the initial grease filling operation pumping operations may have introduced air into the grease. This may amount to as much as 2% of the net duct volume.

Thus it has been demonstrated that under optimum filling operations voids ranging from 8 to 9% could be expected after the initial filling operation.

- GILBERT /COMMONwEALTI1, INC. -

sn suavrunuce i

APPENDDr D Page 3 1-l The tendons at CR3 were initially greased between late 1974 and early 1975 using current industry standard filling procedures. It was not required to record the amount of grease j

used for each tendon. Tendon fill was accomplished by the pumping of grease through the tendon sheath and exiting the other end.

During the past four surveillances and during this surveillance, the reactor building has been inspected with no sign of grease seepage from the tendon duct. Additionally there i

have been no reported instances of grease seepage on/from the reactor building.

l l

Therefore, it is concluded that the voids existed within the tendon duct boundary.

l l

The CR3 tendons requiring net refill volumes of the grease in excess of the 4 gallon criteria or the 5 % net duct volume criteria have not shown any abnormal deterioration or j

degradation of strength. The lift off forces for those tendons are within the acceptable j

range. Examination and testing of the individual wires from detensioned tendons has revealed that there is no evidence of corrosion and that wire strength exceeds the minimum required ultimate strength throughout the wires. Examination of the grease has shown virtually no change in the physical appearance or chemical properties. Test results f

indicate that the amount of chlorides, sulfides, nitrates, and moisture fall far below the

)

maximum allowed limits. Visual inspection of the grease protected components of the l

anchorage system revealed proper coverage y the grease with no sign of new corrosion or presence of water.

As indicated by the test results, the function of the grease in prownng the post-tensioning i

system is being maintained. Voids can be expected due to the characterutics of the filler l

material and initial filling operations as previously noted. Since each wire has individual pre-coated, the degree of filling interstitial spaces, which compromise the net duct volume, is not directly related to the degree of coating which occurs. Based on physical tests on the tendon wires and chemical tests of the grease, there seems to be little correlation between the 5% maximum void requirement and the structural integrity of the tendon and anchorage system.

1 Based on the above discussion, it is obvious that CR3 cannot meet the grease replacement j

criteria to be less than 5 % of the net duct volume. The corrosion protection system is functioning as designed and maintaining the structural integrity of the system. Future surveillances will continue to monitor the tendons against the 5% criteria as required by the Regulatory guide and will also include building inspections for leaking grease and other problems.

- GILBERT /COMMONWEALTilINC -

Sn SURVEILLANCE APPENDIX E j

Page1 l

)

i APPENDIXE LOCATION PLOTS OFHOOP TENDONS INSPECTED IN ALL SURVEILLANCES Note A total of 40 tendons are shown on the attached plots. While there has been 43 hoop tendon inspections to date,3 were repeated.

l 1

i l

. criainnT/ceMMONwnAL111,INc. -

1

Crystal River Unit #3 Tendon Surveillance Program Hoop Tendons Layout Tendons Inspected up to 5th Surveillance 0

60 90 120 180 240 270 300 360 5-in sn s4 sn se s-D6 Q6 Q6 C6 06 C

6 Q6 Z

l C Z CZEL 250'#

Z C Z C Z C Z C

C~

13R47 3

~f 51H45 K

46m 7 46H45 g

O h

13H46 35H44 b

l 51H41

--6 13H43 46H42 A

A A

b-'

d 42H40 13H40 A

3 gg

= a

--A 46H37 b

-A 13H37 g.

A A

62H34 62H34 13H32 46H30 p

h-46K9 35H28 O

46H28 O

51H26 g

h.

51H23

--A

-A 6

u 13H22 O

46H21 42H2O A

13H2O fi

}

46H19 g~

13H19' 51H11 h

h 51HfD 46H10 13H10.

b b

une 62H6 4' D b i

46H3 w 9 *6 A

A td 42H1

^

A EL 93'#y S

A em i

9 ll 4

m suavmMNCE AFFENDM E rws Crystal River Unit #3 Tendon Surveillance Program

. Hoop Tendons inspected to the 5th Surveillance os

,eo

,120 E

C 0

0 e

e

]~

5" 59 o

e o

e o

,y Z (F Z W Z EL 250'-0*

13H47 3

13H46 3

13H43 g

3 13H40 g

3 13H37 g

3

]

l l

13H32 g

3

• c s

)'

13H22 3

13H2O 3

13H19 1

3

,c u

13H10

.g 3

)

-i I

EL 93'-0*

m sunvrtuMCE f

Crystal River Unit #3 f,","'

Tendon Surveillance Program Hoop Tendons inspected to the 5th Surveillance 120 180 240 h

bT U

6 d

o i

iW Z GJ Z G2 Z EL 250'4' A

35H44 3

35H40 g

3 35H35 3

• o 35H28 3

35H24 3

35H1 g

3 EL 93'-O'

-z-,

m surYERhNCE AFFENDM E i

i Crystal River Unit #3 Tendon Surveillance Program Hoop Tendons inspected to the 5th Surveillance o

o o

240 300 360 i

y o

u 2

s 2

C9

, A9 A~.

i 0

i o

e o

gg Z cu Z

$ Z EL 250'-0*

-a i

51H45 x

A u

i 51H41

)

x 3

a u

51H37 g

3 i

51H26 x

A a

g 51H23 x

A u

t 51H11 x

b 51H10 A

m P

EL 93'-0*

- s y,3, 9

-~

..~--.,__s.

__.._y

,,-y..,.

-,%.o

in SURVEILIANCE APPENDIX E i

Crystal River Unit #3 p,,

Tendon Surveillance Program Hoop Tendons Inspected to the 5th Surveillance o

o o

60 120 180

)

1 t

u o

u I

E" ER E,

0 O

u O

W Z W Z W Z EL 250'-0*

A I

I 42H40 g

i

[

l 1

• o N

42H2O a

.a l

l 42H1 EL 93'-O' y

m SURVEU M NCE Crystal River Unit #3 Page 7 Tendon Surveillance Program Hoop Tendons inspected to the 5th Surveillance 180 240 300 5

8 2

e

• r n,

g 6

d' C

e

@ I W Z W Z EL 250*-O' A

46H47 g

7 48H46 g

46H42 g

46H37

~

g 46H30 6

0 46H29 g

46H28 g

b N0 46H21 g

a 46H19 3

46H10 b- - -.-

f a _.....

46H3 I

_I..-

EL 93'-0* v

sn stramuANCE Crystal River Unit #3 APPENMX E Page8 Tendon Surveillance program Hoop Tendons inspected to the 5th Surveillance 0

0 0

300 360a 60 a

e a

b *,

b ~.

5".

c o

e o

y Z gZ

$ Z EL 250*-0*

A 62H34 3

• o A

S 62H9

.9 62H8 i

Y EL 93' O'

.