ML20207N227
| ML20207N227 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1987 |
| From: | Donohew J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701140062 | |
| Download: ML20207N227 (42) | |
Text
. _ _ ._ .._ ,
< s
[.M **I'^n UNITED STATES j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j - WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k January 5,1987 Docket No. 50-219 i, LICENSEES: GPU Nuclear Corporation Jersey Central Power and Light Company FACILITY: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station SUB.1ECT: DECEMBER 10, 1986, MEETING WITH GPU NilCLEAR CORPOPATION (GPI'N1 TO DISCUSS CORROSION OF THE OUTER SURFACE OF THE DRYWELL SHELL
- On Wednesday, December 10, 1986, a meeting was held at NRC, Bethesda, Maryland, with GPUN, the licensee, on the potentially severe corrosion of the outer 4
drywell shell, at an elevation just below the downcomers. This is the second meeting with the licensee on this subject. The summary for the first meetino held on December 1, 1986, was issued December 12, 1986. Figures 1 and 2 in Attachment 2 show a vertical cross section of the entire drywell shell and of the region just below the downcomers, including a drainage channel and the sand filled cavity, respectively. The corrosion was measured in the outer shell exposed to this sand filled cavity.
Attachment 1 is the list of the participants that attended the meeting.
Attachment 2 contains three figures of the Oyster Creek drywell and the meeting notice issued for this meeting. Attachment 3 contains the handout from the licensee for its presentation. The handout is arranged in the order of the licensee's presentation. The following is a sumary of the significant items discussed and the actions, if any, taken or proposed.
This second meeting was also for an information exchange between the licensee and the staff. The licensee's agenda for the meeting is in Attachment 3.
The licensee began its presentation with a brief background of the problem with the corrosion of the drywell including the data the licensee provided in
'"$$ the first meeting on December 1, 1986. The licensee then discussed the 20
~
additional ultrasonic testing (UT1 measurements made on the shell and the goals I and basis for selecting locations for cutting the seven cores from the drywell
$$ shell. The additional UT measurements were in bays 5, 7, and 19 in 7 x 7 g arrays at the core plug sites and in two trenches cut into the drywell concrete
- m floor to expose the part of the sand cavity which extended beneath the floor.
Figure 3 in Attachment 2 shows the plan view of the drywell floor with the 10
[o bays, one in front of each downcomer. The core borings indicated the UT o- measurements were accurate except for the UT indications of the deep pits in
- - @M bays 5 and 15. The coring and additional UT measurements at an angle showed 2g these " pits" were inclusions in a solid plate. The inclusions reflected the UT sound waves.
The observations made after each of the seven corings are given in Attachment 3.
i The sample number gives the sequence of the cutting and tho bay in which the cutting was done. Sample 1-19C was the first cutting and it was done in bay 19 and in location C with respect to the downcomer. The letters A to D are shown with respect to the downcomer in the figure on page 4 of Attachment 3.
The licensee showed the staff phntographs of the drilling tool for cutting plugs from the shell, the first three. holes cut and the trenches cut into the concrete floor.
The licensee explained what analyses are to be done by itself, General Electric (GE) and by a Dr. C. Pather at York College and the consultations that will be made with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and 1.ehigh I!niversity. GE is also to assist in the UT measurements by using a system to develop a base line for future UT measurements.
The licensee discussed the tables of core sample visual examinations and core sample thickness evaluations which are in Attachment 3. The pre-removed thicknesses are the UT measurements. The sand in the areas of general wastage was damp and compacted. The sand in the area of minimal or no corrosion was dry or slightly damp and loose, or space existed between the sand and the steel.
The licensee stated that these examinations were done to characterize the quality of the surface of each bay.
The licensee then discussed its analysis of the drywell drain water leachates from the sand and from the " insulation" on the shell. The " insulation" is the Firebar-D or foamed asbestos fiber magnesite cement discussed in the first meeting. The table showing the licensee's analyses is in Attachment 3. The analyses show chlorides and sulfates which accelerate corrosion.
The table of the licensee's preliminary assessment is given in Attachment 3.
Microbial-induced corrosion is a possible contributor to the problem as the licensee found bacteria in the sand. The preliminary results of the bacteriological studies are given in a table also in Attachment 3. The licensee's preliminary assessment is the following:
o Isolated low thickness readings are a result of oxide stringers in the base metal. These inclusions are non-injurious.
o Areas where sand is dry do not show corrosion.
o Ultrasonic testing accurately assesses extent of damage, o Combination of UT "D" (or direct) Meter and "A" (or angle) scan provide adequate assessment of plate inclusions.
o Analytical results indicate C1 and SO can be leached from Firebar-D.
4 o Microbial-induced corrosion is a possibility.
The staff requested that the licensee discuss its ground potential measurements.
The licensee stated that its neasurements between the sand and the steel shell and between the drainage charnel from the sand cavity and ground showed no potential. There is not a ta'o le on this in Attachment 3.
This completed the first part of the meeting. The second part is on the licensee's structural evaluations on the damaged drywell shell. To begin its presentation, the licensee discussed the structural criteria for the shell to be considered sound. The licensee discussed the equivalent plate thickness for a damaged plate and the stability considerations #or the damaged shell.
These are given in Attachment 3.
The licensee stated the drywell was designed for the dead weight (DW), for water flooded to the 75' elevation, for the design basis accident (DBA) conditions and for the operatino basis earthouake (OBE1 loads. This is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASMEi Code level A and R loads which is more conservative than level C. Level C includes the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE1 loads but has higber allowables than level A and B. The licensee stated the allowable stress criteria are local membrane stresses (P1) of 2E,875 psi and membrane stress plus discontinuity stresses (Pl+Q) of 57,500 psi. The local membrane stress is the limiting stress.
The licensee explained its method to determine the eouivalent plate thickness of the damaged shell bays over the sand cavity. The displacement half wave length calculated by the licensee for a sphere representing the drywell shell is about 30" arc length. The licensee averaged the wastage of the shell in the sand cavity over twice that arc length or 60". The mean thickness remaining calculated for bay 19 was 0.871" and the minimum reasured UT thickness was 0.741".
The stability considerations for the damaged shell being considered by the licensee are given below and in Attachment 3:
o Interior bracing and stiffening at the embedment (concrete floor and sand) will prevent buckling.
o For modelling purposes, consider a uniform sphere 1.154" thick as equivalent to the braced and reinforced drywell.
o Buckling occurs at about 3 Sm and only then is the buckling wave length approximately equal to the meridional span of the wastage, o Maximum compressive load produces about 1 S,.
o Puckling is not physically realizable and is not a technical issue.
The licensee presented an analytical model of the reduced thickness of the damaged shell. The picture is shown on page 21 in Attachment 3. The reduced thickness is viewed as a notch in a spherical shell and the sand acts as a compressive spring. The assumed thicknesses are given in the picture.
, - _m.J _q ._
For a notch of only 0.7" and a nominal shell thickness of 1.154" per the shell design, there are nine figures in Attachment 3 giving the stress intensities, longitudinal stresses, circumferential stresses, and radial pressure and deflection along the meridian as a function of the elevation through the sand cavity. These figures are for (1) the sand acting as a spring ar.d (2) without the sand (w/o sand). The' figures list the maximum stress values in psi and the assumptions of drywell pressure (P, psi), maximum drywell temperature (T Max, 'F) and shell thickness (thick, inch) on the bottom of each page. The stresses are within the allowables. The sand, as expected, reduces the stress intensities at the interface between the lower part of the sand cavity and the pinning of the drywell shell by the concrete pad. The sand in the cavity provides a transition region between the lower, fixed or pinned base of the shell which is in concrete and the upper, unrestrained shell. The upper shell is not attached to the outer biological concrete shield. The sand reduces stresses in the shell in the region of the sand cavity by acting as a spring as discussed above.
The licensee's conclusion from this calculation was that a notch as low as 0.7" thick could be acceptable to the ASME Code for the Oyster Creek design. Also, the governing allowables are the local membrane stresses.
.The licensee ended its presentation with a discussion on its plan to resolve this issue. This is the last page in Attachment 3. The licensee explained that this requires additional analyses which have to be completed. As shown on page 32 of Attachment 3, the decision may be to keep Oyster Creek down in the Cycle 11R outage and repair the shell or modify the sand cavity.
The staff did not disagree with the licensee's presentation of the structural criteria for the damaged drywell shell and its plan to resolve this issue with the staff. At this time, the licensee stated it is still analyzing the damaged shell, but, as soon as it completes its analyses and has decided on a restart and/or repair program for Oyster Creek, it will have another meeting with the staff. This will be arranged through the NRC Project Manager and, the licensee stated, it could be as early as December 19, 1986.
1 ak Do r., Project Manager BWR Project Dir torate #1 Division of BWR Licensing Attachments:
- 1. List of Attendees
- 2. Drywell Figures and Meeting Notice
- 3. Licensee's Handout for Meeting
_ \ ,
OFC : DBL:BWD1 : : :
- DBL g ___
_____:.... ____ g ,::DB :B y
_.y :..___________: ___________: ___________:______
NAME :CJamerson :JD g g_,_,___:J7wtlinski i85 & : : : : :
DATE :01/!I/87 M:01/T/87 :01/M/87 : : : :
. _ _ - _ _ _ - . _~
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station cc:
Mr. Ernest L. Blake, Jr. Resident Inspector Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge c/o U.S. NRC 2300 N Street, NW Post Office Box 445 Washington, D.C. 20037 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 J.B. Liberman, Escuire Comissioner Bishop, Libeman, Cook, et al. New Jersey Department of Energy 1155 Avenue of the Americas 101 Commerce Street New York, New Ycrk 10036 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Mr. David P. Scott, Acting Chief Regional Administrator, Region I Bureau of Nuclear Engineering U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Department of Environmental Protectior 4 631 Park Avenue CN 411 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 BWP Licensing Manager Mr. P. P. Fiedler GPU Nuclear Corporation Vice President & Director 1 Upper Pond Road Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Station P. O. Box 388 Deputy Attorney General Forked River, New Jersey 08731 State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 36 West State Street - CN 112 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Mayor Lacey Township 818 West Lacey Road Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Licensing Manager Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Mail Step: Site Emergency Bldg.
P. O. Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731
ATTACHMENT 1 SECOND MEETING WITH GPU NUCLEAR CORPOP/, TION (GPUN)
TO DISCI'FS DRYWELL SHELL CORROSION DECEMBER 10, 1986 NAME ORGANIZATION G. Capodanno GPU Nuclear P. Craya GPU Nuclear P. Laggart GPU Nuclear S. D. Leshnoff GPU Nuclear D. K. Croneberger cpl! Nuclear C. P. Ten NRC/NRR/ DBL J. Zwolinski NRC/NRR/ DBL J. Donobew NRC/NRR/ DBL W. Eaunack NRC Region I D. L. Hill Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation D. B. Vassallo NRC/NPR/ DBL B. Hermann NRC/NRR/ DBL H. Conrad NRC/F'PR/ DBL F. S. Giacobbe GPU Nuclear F. J. Witt NRC/NPR/ DBL F. B. Sutton NRC/NRR/ DBL R. W. Grenier C.eneral Electric T. J. Ahl Chicago Bridge & Iron L. Neal General Electric
ATTACHMENT 2 Three drywell figures Meeting notice
l.A Cl@!re.
@sb, < t @
,r:. , x 6
, ,. e .
oLQ(ARP 1
3 i et' A
M]- - -
m, biU n nnryt tsm 1
bN M vuA om 4 o.bnDJ.
/alu)ll .c, W e oit (aea H, A rt9AcLh w oan.1.' -
. *h~ ~~ ~.
i m . .. .
'y l *
.G_ 'f<g
- +
- y. i i e,
)
,/ _ , , , , -. !
. ~ . . . = ";,= -
l l _ , , , , , _
.~
- ~
[' A w
=='* ! !5 l l%
r- - '
- as.<ri
- . i , _ , . . .
.3 , .; : s
. 't.p/ 4
/ ,
ya / y -mu
-.Per .r ~ + /
%:'"g
. , . , , -e i ::: g.t h' N-
- , -a.ae y."r.;..t , _ _
m
, j - Et@'l .
I "".t'::P = s ,-
-bx.. .
- i.
.Jh' n.n p ,
.-.- i 3:::a t._w
%.W Q - ..
t.s 1
, =: . u
~ ~ . 3:7 ..
I ..uu.
u . -. m.g g
- - ~ = .
-y
[ / .\ w ,~
9..il . ..,k .
I
?, .t' .T,.
J, ,. 8. . ~~/..
1, 9.
i,I *"- t t ,..
"*i, t
' D,;7 1 -w . .. .
ji_-[j
-> 2"'il
[ .k /.- j::*J',.t., f
\. /
f w./ g ] \. /
-'\
2?_h.__-
/ .X,.\
- m -
... U s
, ; ._ l fQ n'.r. - m -
3 /
'X[ \---
~
.r -
c-p\.
l " -* w T
, , C'-
gu
-n "* *'
j -c L *^ ? '
---Q f t."JE* -./
i f ./ , ,, ,. . - * * * -
l7 N I N g l J i r-e * "f-f;."'
'~
- l'" % .
, y _
4 dl7' .',,.
l
/ '
Mg s. < ~ r iuv.-~"2:.
.sMC m
@' T7
' -"5;
.ui
[' W. : w s --<
l -1 .
r ~
u T 1
~,
j /
j l
['hg'-l
~,
O' 'M Mk
- 3{i;, ~
- . .. .md nibmJ ordist l I W
L i GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION f OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION CONTAINMENT SYSTEk l UPDATED l FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REV. O,12/84 l FIGU
. . *v
~/.
N i O. '
, __ 3 "g a ,yMJL A A. AfM M . . .ana e u o n i. *
- N .O -
'- 4644s
, ~
. ,, ,. sm..r.
G #
4 e
$. A
~
g , LA 788N -
, soeart, Gan - C F '", ,
pg.a s. r M G 0 .
d
. , ry o.4
..O -
d:va,, ,
- r. * ,
s
.v
- b (/ .' ; AsgssTo $ F!$ * *
, gangs s, PtfA eMa
,' O ,,
weld tt 621 M '
, (reMovan **T M *
" ,- ##I)
} EL . 23 '- b ?9 ~ .
O- '
{ /\
TlFL eet. EL 23 N, .
, ,' ,' /
-/
t.154." k 3,GMEM
c ., - - , 1 o 4 U--
4 . o . o o o , c/ -
l + /
.- _ ' ,e .. .~.
0- o -
o .,
I se ,73 7 ' e .'. o d. o' k .-O o - -
'O O* a (,
be sts.c y ', '
. ' ', 0 Oj. -
i .. '
i
,. g i l *-
- u. b .O *I d
\ A "~ , , . . .
j ( g r o/aNING \
U ~-se &AL. 4HT Q t atas .
.( -
g,73 g,
- g'
- O
,,, v .
, t r
ei.oz-sb 1
/
i N 5.... b..
} "et. se'- s" # <. < D i . .
0> + '
o
. ,, +r: . . , . .. 0 0 . . .i <
,^.
f
, ><. . es ir e
- v. .v s
6o i
- e. .
a , s . ,s '. D o a p o-O ( ,.
0.' . sNy g f i
..e'\
m
~. 6. : o*
/
i
- e. s a. **Os 'e -], a~us v s'u.:.ge ~~'~ s s. a . .L-
~
/
/
,'.e .,s snrs.t.; -s- + ~t am
- use -
{ '
3 ,-f.alef j:4 ','0/ 4 '
- Ir**"* "t9 .s, on *vo<g s
( 0 0s0 '
1
~- -
a 4 r.N* ,
o ,*i . " o ~ 'o ' y , .
- o ( ' , q* ,,
' o A atst A,b -
a
. o. 6' , ,o ~B. -
O. ,' 0; - ", . . b .)
1.,
e icto bs e
y,
- ~ .U, .R *~ 6 o k ' 'a <> ~> *c <
! .a g , s s<
o e tarw -
= o o -
o 4 r*us '* L . (-) 2 '- 6 S
e n a(
N g g o.
W 10 11 12 I
9 . c 6 \4 g
BAY ll BAY 7
% 9 13 15
~
%, BAY BAY #
90 6 r 16 270
- Y ^
ii w 5 BAY BAY 17 3 89 BAT 4 ' i- 18
% 3 ma j e a zo f
/
~
O' PLAN VIEW TORUS & DR'TWELL
4 8 0
_ ATTACHMENT 3 _
I. CORR 0SION INVESTIGATION A. ADDITIONALUIRESULIS
~
B. PLATECORING
- 0. PHYSICALOBSERVATIONSANDANALYIICALRESULIS10DATE D. ADDITIONALLABORATORYSTUDIES E. IENTATIVECONCLUSIONS II. SIRUCIURAL EVALUATIONS A. CRITERIA B. PRELIMINARYRESULIS O. UIINPUI10ANALYIICALMODEL 4
D. STABILITY -
E. IENTATIVECONCLUSIONS l
l III. PLANNING BASIS FOR DRYWELL EVALUATION l
l
(
.~
0YSTER CREEK DRYWELL UT E)(AMINATION -
PREVIOUSDATA(12/1/86) i ELEVATION BAY RESULTS 51' 17 & 19 N0 WASTAGE 51' 13 N0 WASTAGE 51' 7 N0 WASTAGE 11'-3"i ALLBAYS WASTAGE ADDITIONALDATA(12/10/86)
A. 00WNCOMER REINFORCEMENT PLATE N0 WASTAGE (BAYS 5,7,19)
! 8. AD]ACENT TO PLATE WELDS BELOW D0WNCOMER l BAY 5 APPARENTINCLUSIONS BAY 7 N0 WASTAGE BAY 19 WASTAGE l
l
\ .
! 2
C. GRID MAPS 1.7X7 ARRAYS (l" SPACING) 2.TAKENATPROPOSEDCOREPLUGSITES 3.INDICATIONSARESAMEINNATUREASPREVIOUS UTINTHESEAREAS.
D. BELOW FLOOR TRENCHAISB WASTAGE TRENCHAT170 WASTAGE 3
W D
e W s
- e.
l
=
3 _
i i li e
M* 4 it NM -
I) b#
t
d j, kd. " ' i, b u "
B!M g N I'
h q gg g, -
- ,i z
O 0j0 4
0
\
\
o h 'ii' '
- {l 4 f=y8$ g-
{80 -e
~
L_ o i..
i v.
0 088 30 e l[a\ 4 00000 o
' i 11
)- d
,i D 0[ ' ~ [ ,' i
,i d 7
O il e,o r
o l
,i 7- ld
/ .
gi 27 D l
?:, ii $4 o
g* #$s' t C h N., 4 '
9
>d e 4- E h/
i t
- e - I
= -
3 dr S5 -
3-^ '9 g5 A -
=
h$ A " h;t
=
,i b P)d 4 -
OYSTERCREEKDRYWELL CUTTINGOfCOREPLUGS -
I. G0ALS A. CONFIRM VI READINGS B. OBTAIN SANDlMATERIAL SAMPLES C. CHARACTERIZE CORROSION PRODUCTS
- 0. CHARACTERIZE PLATE MATERIAL E. CHECK FOR BACTERIA II. BASIS FOR SELECTING LOCATIONS A. SAMPLE AREAS THAT ARE:
- 1. POSTULATED PITTING
- 2. POSTULATED GENERAL WASTAGE
- 3. BELOW BASEMENT FLOOR AD]ACENT TO SAND
- 4. AB0VE APPARENT DAMAGE ADJACENT TO SAND l
B. PROVIDE CONTINGENCY LOCATIONS IN CASE Of l DIFFICULTlRESTRICTIONS 5 .
III. PREPARATION & SAMPLING _
A. CLEAN SURFACE B. VI EXAM LOCATIONS BEFORE CUT (UI GRID)
C. LOCATE CENTER OF CUT TO OBIAIN DESIRED SAMPLE
- 0. PERFORM CUT E. TAKE FULL DE?IH SAND CORE F. PHOTOGRAPWlVIDE0 TAPE G. VI CORE & MEASURE WITH MICROMETER
4 IV.RESULTS A. UT & MICROMETER READINGS AGREE (WITHIN 5'l. MA)(.)
B. CORES N0. LOCATION OBSERVATIONS
- 1. 19C WASTAGE, M0IST SAND,HARD CRUST" (FROM PLUG)
ONSAND
- 2. 15A N0WASTAGElPITS,SANDDRY& LOOSE
- 3. 170 WASTAGE,M0ISTSAND,HARD" CRUST"(FROMPLUG)
ONSAND
- 4. 19A WASTAGE,DRYSAND
- 5. llA WASTAGE,DRYSAND
- 6. IlA N0WASTAGElPITS,SLIGHTLYM0ISTSAND
- 7. 19A N0WASTAGElPITS,M0ISTSAND 4
Materials Evaluation _
I. GPUN Analyses: a) Hater Analysis from Drain Pipe b) Leachate analysis of sand from Drain Pipe c) Leachate analysis of Firebar-D d) Leachate analysis of Fiberglass e) Sieve Analysis of Sand f) Water Retention of sand g) Metallography of Core Plug with Deep Pit / Inclusion Indication (core plug 15A) h) Metallography of Core Plug with Wastage - Elemental Analysis of Deposit (core plug 19c)
II. General Electric: a) Duplicate of items Ia-d b) Metallurgical and deposit analysis of drain line
& Core Plugs (core plugs 17D,19A,11 AH)-3 c) X-ray diffraction of corrosion products d) Leachate analysis of sand behind Core Plugs e) Ultrasonic Testing 2
b III. Dr. C. Mather a) Biological Assessment York College M1croscopic evaluation Standard Plate Count Culture for SRB b) Specimens Evaluated
' 15A - Sand 19C - Corrosion Product llA - Sand -
19A - Corrosion Product k
IV. EPRI a) Literature Search gydkV"C#c on Steel Corrosion b) Consultation on MIC 2F c) Consultation on Mechanism for Inhibiting Corrosion d) Independent NDE Evaluation e) Consultation on Corrosion Monitoring / Corrosion Testing V. Lehigh University a) Independent Consultation on Corrosion i
O',
CORESAMPLEVISUALEXAMINATION .
SampleNo. ConditionofSteel CorrosionProduct/ Sand 1-19C Generalwastage . Adherent black scale on steel Non-uniformpenetration . Scale with metallic lustre Onsand
. Scale is dense, magnetic
. Sand was damp, compacted 2-15A Minorsurfacecorrosion . Red rust on surface Stringerspresentinsteel . No scale on sand
. Sand was dry, loose
. Space existed between sand andsteel LO
CORE SAMPLE VISUAL E)(AMINATION (CONT'D.)
SampleNo. ConditionofSteel CorrosionProduct/ Sand 3-170 Generalcorrosion . Adherentgreyscaleonsteel Flatsurface . Somerustspotsonsteel
. Denseblackscaleonsand
(~1/4" thick)
. Sandwasdamp, compacted 4-19A Generalcorrosion . Adherentblackscaleonsteel Flatsurface . Denseblackscaleonsand
(~ll4" thick)
. Sandwasdamp, compacted h
CORESAMPLEVISUAl. EXAMINATION (CONT'0.)
SampleNo. ConditionofSteel CorrosionProduct/ Sand 5-llA Generalcorrosion . Adherent black scale on steel flatsurface . Dense black scale on sand
. Sand was damp, compacted 6-llAH Noevidenceofcorrosion . Two rust-colored streaks on steel
. No scale on sand
. Sand was slightly damp, somewhat compacted
. Small gap between sand and steel attop 7-19AW Minimalcorrosion . Some black loose deposit on steel flatsurface . No scale on sand
. Sand was slightly damp, loose
. Small gap between sand and steel attop
- 2. --
a CORE SAMPLE THICKNESS EVALUATION 1
1-Sample No. Location Type of Sample Pre-removal Thick. Post-Removal Thick.(Ave.)
1 19C - 11'3 5/8" Wastage .815" (ave.) .825" 2 15A - 11' 5 1/4" Pitting .490" (min.) 1.170" center i
- only i
3 17D - 11' 3 3/4" ' Wastage .840" .860" ,
4- 19A - 11' 3 3/8" Wastage .830" '
.847" 5 11A - 11' 3 Wastage .828" .885"
- 6 11A - 12' 2 3/4" Above Wastage 1.170" 1.19" center
- only i
7 19A - 12' 1" Above Wastage 1.140" 1.181" center only 3
1 I
h
DRYWELL DRAIN WATER AND LEACHATES Drain Water Sand Leachates " Insulation" Leachate 24 HR I HR 1 HR -
25'C 90*C 90*C S ug/g ug/g ug/g Na 145 25 25 777 K 142 25 20 784 Ca 7.5 30 25 176 Mg 30 30 10 1936 A1 0.33 <0.5 1.5 <0.3 Ni <0.01 <0.5 0.5 <0.3 Fe <0.01 5.0 1.0 <0.3 Cr <0.01 <0.5 <0.5 <0.3 Mn <0.01 0.5 <0.5 <0.3 Pb 0.06 1.5 <0.5 0.6 NH3 (N) 3.6 -- -- --
C1 32.5 10.5 6.5 573 NO: 8.7 2.5 1.5 132 S0. 153 <25 32 2850 P0. 5 N.D. N.D. N.D.
F <1 N.D. N.D. 14.
TOC 51 39 37 1056 Organic Acids <0.1 <5 <5 <20 Total S 0 -- -
<50-B* 1 Conductivity 1100 MS/CM 588 pH* 8.9 7.43 7.58 8.46 N.D. - Not detected at routine detection limits " Insulation" is a composite of foam, fibers and concrete
- - . Bacteriological Studies Preliminary Results Sample No. Typee Plate Count 2-15A Sand (dry) lx10' cells /gm 71% viable 1-19C Corrosion Product 5x10' cells /gm 50% viable 6-11A- Sand (moist) 4x10' cells /gm 74% viable 4-19A Corrosion Product 6x10' cells /gm 40% viable
. Visual Observations Bacterial appears filametous Bacteria appear attached to corrosion production on sample 4-19A l
l
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT I. Isolated' low thickness readings are a result of oxide stringers in the base metal. These inclusions are non-injurious II. Areas where sand is dry do not show corrosion.
III. Areas above sand bed do not show corrosion based on UT results.
Region should be dry.
IV. -Ultrasonic testing accurately assesses. extent of damage.
V. Combination of "0" Meter and "A" scan provide adequate assessmemt of plate inclusions.
.VI. Analytical results indicate C1 and S0. can be leached from Firebar-0.
VII. Microbial-induced corrosion is a possibility.
k
SHUCNRALCRITERIA .
SUSTAINEDLOADSFORHICHCONTAIRENTISDESIGNED (ASE LEVEL A & B)
'DW0FSIEEL&APPURIENANCES-
' FLOODED 1075'ELEV.
'DBA'S 35PSIG,281'F 62PSIG,175'F
'0BE/SSE All0WABLESTRESSCRITERIA ASE SECT VIII, '62 ED, & CODE CASES (1272N-5)
ASE SECT III, DIV 1, SUBSECTION NE
! P LOCAL EMBRAE SIRESS
!1.5x1.1x17500=28875 psi P + Q EERANE STRESS PLUS DIS 00hTIEIIT STRESSES 13S = 52500 BC NOTE: DIS 00NIIEIIT STRESSES ARE SECONDARY SIRESSES.
EXCEPTIONS STRESSINIENSITIESUSEDTHROUGH-0VI l.0(RfEXCEEDED(<2X) l w )bpAm) su h ua s-
EQUIVALENTPLATETHICKNESS
' DISPLACEENT Half WAVE LENGTH FOR SPHERE (W=0) IS ABOUT 30"
. -- 2vm"
' 60" ARC LENGTH IN REGION OF WASTAGE ESTABLISHES INFLUENCE ZONE W THEBASISFORUIREADINGAVERAGING.
' BAY 19 100P0INTSINSAMPLE wagw _(OT)
EAN Inumtmyn _ _ #2.
i n 0.87)" o.741 (oo" 3s tu;vea.. tk 30",hg wwa. k 1
L i
SIABILIIYCONSIDERATIONS INTERIOR BRACING & SIIFFENING AI FREDENT (CONCREIE FLOOR &
PREVBIBUCKLING.
FORMODELLINGPURPOSES,CONSIDERAUNIFORMSPHERE1.154"THICKAS EQUIVALENT 10 BRACED &REINFORCEDDRYWELL.
BUCKLING OCCURS @ ABOUT 3 S & ONLY THEN IS THE BUCKLING WAVE LENG m
APPR0XIMAIELYEQUAL10MERIDIONALSPAN0FWASIAGE.
MAX.COMPRESSIVELOADPRODUCESABOUT1S.
E BUCKLINGISNOIPHYSICALLYREALIZABLEANDISNOTAIECHNICALISSUE.
1
, DEC ,e9 '86 11:39 850 CBI OAKB200K P.02 Pt/g l
- d#f Nesis/ meed = d4e meeyra 'af die s.4.eed timmeerr 9a4er 6eek. nbea6nert awe. d ker y y&ndy e enrenred ad e% s'-15 . ~6d y*weyr *M modekJ w armed sedal *4*ad *** dyeefewd uper sete neew6de */
d4a H dybeenend . 72e semed amysw\t a sm3por/ned./r.dktdaybe.eumi.
7$e
- M 6ad m od th e M earl GM n)f awe kekk,r Jk/ ;l>eye ele . yh 4=wt edes boykr et jse f*yeerw/ , A%elede ne end o+wsw 4 <r* 6e <ysed b l
&+3 a.dk et ekv.itL*% ou %&& op / 6%
g . -
N I
n* eley, g,p L s Tfr y,e
= g G1*
4
- 4 , V.,,
% eLa //f.s e6
<e6=d'-#4
.%d ponent m
- 4 *%.
nunascT w.ca nursannes no.
c y r t e,. doen n, fe j Ja, ,g. O t;6uAmu **'**
Afslui '
Ae.tsk y -ged ed Timarsea g"""' * * ** "^' * * ** '
3sr.2.o,.2.
OATE DATE DATE
=== "6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ~ - - ** * *h_
DEC 09 '80 11:00 090 CGI OAu8000K P.03
- pij l l
- l l ll
- 11 a - Membwas dwas 2-t 74 a - Se&s Jtoww Znenerity (m.) ,
+ ~Surfase Mmer h40eg4 (4) i u
e
\ l
.h e.
{
.9 k
- - = g -
, -_ el**. 12!3 A Nt D
p
.A 1
i .- r
- 4/er. d '-1/ Vt 3 3 2 Seele /"r # Mr/ *W es , l** i
/* : J d " e m /e4944 '
STRES$ INTENSITIES ALONG MERIDIAN or OYSTER CREEK EMBEONENT, CASE 1: P=35;TIMAX)=281 THICK =0.70 #
MAXIMR 32309. 25561. 31093.
Of.sA= Cnew YMbaafmut
..u,.-...
Jst >
22
"" N w er
.u i eb r v ~ Raked Threesee "NLs '~Te*
. ms 2 w t
DEC 09 '86 11:42 050 CSI OAxB200K P.06
. A 0 o
A- NmW fVeaur &dsenty , ,
e & Ane24ne4r k)
+- Arfaer Aunr 2% &ner) . , ,
I l I >
1 >
4 #
t s4a /r LJ 4
2 p <+
N .
<1 *$
, ,_ e/ev. d '-//Ir
&' 1
.fole /"n M ars #*eer, Mrs
/" a .58 ' ** M .
- LONGITUDINAL STRESS ALONG MERIDIAN (M og SYSTER CREEM EMBEDMENT, CASE 2: Pr52 TIMAXI-175 THICN=0.70,,
_MRXIMR 34804. 21387. 35250. M
=n- n_, +a 2; r '~~
nya; 23 p (( ** I '"*
m ea e
i i n
il 1 1 11 I l I -
I i
f i
l l - 1 STRESS INTENSITIES ALONG MERIDIAN j OYSTER CREEK EMBEDMENT. CASE 1: P=35 T (MAX) =281 THICK =0.70 W/0 SAND MAXIMA 29326. 7732. 15381.
24L '
i
o Il Il 11 ll 1-t i
l i I'
- e _
1 STRESS INTENSITIES ALONG MERIDIAN OTSTER CREEK EMBEDMENT, CASE 2: P=62 T(MAX)=175 THICK =0.70 W/0 SAND MAXIMA 36312. 12843. 10625.
11 di 11 Il 11 il i i i
t o
N i
CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS ALONG MERIDIAN OTSTER CREEK EMBEDMENT, CASE 2: P=62 T(MAX)=175 THICK =0.70 W/0 SAND j MAXIMA 20797. 21563. 22792.
. o -
,~
RADIAL PRESSURE AND DEFLECTION ALONG MER101AN OYSTER CREEK EMBEDMENT, CASE 1: P=3S T(MAX)=281 THICK =0.70 W/0 SAND MAXIMA 3S.000 0.706 27
e $
e e
N
- ,ep# # ## ## e
. oA s s# # ;*o'le#'s o .p"
' # p*
- s# . . * *' s 28
o o
11 11 11 11 l b i i l lI
/
y
[
l N
l l
f CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS ALONG MERIDIAN-OYSTER CREEK EMBEDMENT, CASE 1: P=35 T IMAX) =281 THICX=0.70 W/0 SAND
( MAXIMA 12687. 13299. 14392.
i l 29
,+ .
(>
o o
ll 11 i l a
il) h mar -
t 4,
4, du
[
e-f LONGITUDINAL STRESS ALONG MERIDIAN i OTSTER CREEK EMBEDMENT, CASE 2: P=62 T (MAX) =175 THICK =0.70 W/0 SAND MAXIMA S1874. 18348. 30679.
l 1
i 30 --. _ . , . , , , _ - _
- ~o ll
-o il i l l l
< l 1 l l
l
~
/
i d 4> d
,, 1
- l. ,,
l l
l LONGITUDINAL STRESS ALONG MERIDIAN OYSTER CREEK EMBEDMENT, CASE 1: P=35 TIMAX)=281 THICK =0.70 W/0 SAND MAXIMA 41894. 9961. 22045.
l l
l l .-
3l _ ..
ESTIMATEMIN.WAEFROMUT(60"ARCMEAN)
' ~
LESSCORR0SIONALLOWANCEPERGE/GPUANALYSIS LESSBAY17 TRENCH-WASTAGEASFUNCTIONOFDEPTH f;& a ~ % d a. &
=
MIN. REQUIRED WALL THICKNESS FROM ANALYSIS 3
IF ANALYSIS SAYS OK - ACCEPTABLE YES,- y N0 COMPLETESMARTUTSURVEY ' IMPLEMENT LONG TERM FIX ASBASELINE A)REINFORCEMENTPLATE y OR CONFIRMSANDDRYING B)'ELIMINATESANDCUSHION FROMOUTSIDEISFEASIBLE ' FILL AREA WIIH GROUT
' INSTAE INSULATION ONI.D.NEARFLOOR YES # v N0
,e
' FUTURE INSPECTION (FURTHERDAMAGE) 1 YES N0 y
l PROCEEDW/ ' CONTINUE LONGTERMFIX ISIPROGRAM l
. o fo d Distribution for Meeting Sumary dated: January 5, 1987 Facility: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generatino Station *
$T. Do6NIN1bb
'PDR '
. Local PDR BWD1 Reading-JZwolinski JDonohew CJamerson OGC-BETH (Info Only)
EJordan BGrimes ACPS(10)
Oyster Creek File RBernero Glainas BDLiaw GHulrian DHouston PCortland RHermann RBlough, RI WBateman. R-I TRote11a JStang RGilbert WCollins PTurovlin HConrad EAdensam WButler DMu11er GHolaban JCostello FWitt
- CPTan FBSutton OPA
- Copies sent to persons on facility service list
. . .. m . . .
- o,, UNITED STATES h)
! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' 9;
,._, 5 ;j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ,
'P
~
December 9, 1986 -
(~.< k * * * *
- p#
. . i Occket No. 50-219 ,
MEMORANDUM FO'R:
H. Denton* R. W. Houston W. Pittler . .
, R. Vollmer . D. Crutchfield D. P.uller -
J..Lyons* E. Rossi E. Adensari
,H._ Thompson
- f G. Laines G. Hulman F. Miraglia* T. Speis R. D. Liaw R. Bernero* W. Russell W. Podges G. Holahan* V. Benaroya T. Novak F. Schroeder W. Regan D. Vassallo }
THPit: John A. Zwolinski, Director A ;
BWR Project Directorate #1, DBL .
FPnM- Jack N. Donohev, Jr., Project Manager BWR Prnject Directorate #1, DBL ,
, SURJ6CT: DAILY HIGHLIGHT - SECOMO MEETING WTTH GPU NUCLEAR CORPnRATION .
ON TPE OYSTER CREEK STATION DRYWEl.L SHELL CORROSI0N .
DATE & TIME: Wednesday, December 10, 19P6 3
(. 10:00 a.m.
LOCATIDN: Suite 203, Landau Fuilding
. 7910 Woodmont Avenue Pethesda, Maryland -
, PURPOSE: To discuss'(1) the new data, including shell borings, on the corrosion of the drywell shell and (21 the basis for a justification for Oyster Creek to restart from the current Cycle 11 Refueling outage. The first meeting was on December 1,'1986. -
PARTICIPANTS *: NRC Licensee P. Pernero R. Wilson .
J. Zwolinski D. Croneburger l
G. Lainas M. Laggart B. D. Liaw R. Permann J. Donohew I i i j
NM Jack N. D hew, .
S
)roject Manager
( BWR Project Directora a #1, DBL L
[,j b>lcc:MSee IDnext M page~
l- N. . .
!:-
- Meetings between NRC technical staff and applicants for licenses are open for j interested members of the public, petitioners, intervenors, or other parties to p attend as observers pursuant to "Open Meeting Statement of NRC Staff Policy".
43 Federal Register 28058,6/28/78.
L ,