ML16342B259
| ML16342B259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1987 |
| From: | Olshan L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701160325 | |
| Download: ML16342B259 (10) | |
Text
IP
)
~
January 12, 1987 F~c(o5 4e 2 Docket Nos.
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455 LICENSEE:
FACILITIES:
SUBJECT:
Comnonwealth Edison Company Bryon Station, Units 1 and 2
MEETING
SUMMARY
- STRUCTURAL POOL EXPANSION DISTR IBUT ION PO Local PDR PDA'3 Rdo.
J. Partlow S.
Varqa L.. Ol shan OGC E. Jordan B. Grimes J.
Stevens ACPS (10)
H. Ashar R. Ballard ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL On December 22,
- 1986, a meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss the structural analysis of the spent fuel pool expansion for Byron Station, Units 1
and 2.
Members of the NRC and its consultant, Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), and Comnonwealth Edison Company and its consultants, Sargent and Lundy (SSL) and loseph Oat Corporation, were present.
Attendees are listed in Enclosure 1.
The licensee provided the following Joseph Oat Corporation drawings during the meeting:
E - 8119
~
D - 8123 D - 8122 D - 8243 D - 8120 D - 8121 Enclosure 2 provides a list of the NRC discussed at the meeting.
Pool Layout Supports and Handle Detail - Rack Jl Meld Map - Region II Details - Region I Details - Region II concerns and their resolution that were
Enclosures:
As stated cc'.
See next page Sincerely,(
Leonard N.
lshan, Proiect Manaoer Project Directorate h'3 Division of PWR Licensing-A g >~ LOlshan
- >'/o./87 S
rga
/
87
~
4
,I
-'~
v
\\
Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Comonwealth Edison Company Byron Station Units 1 and
?
CC:
Mr. William Kortier Atomic Power Distribution Westinghouse Electric Corporation Post Office Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Hichael Miller Isham, Lincoln Im Beale One First National Plaza 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson 1907 Stratford Lane Rock ford, Il1 inoi s 61107 Dr. Bruce von Zellen Department of Biolnoical Sciences Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 61107 Mr. Edward R. Crass Nuclear Safeguards 8 Licensing Sarqent lc Lundv Engineers 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. Julian Hinds U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Byron/Resident Inspectors Offices 4448 German Church Road Byron, T11inois 61010 Mr. Micha el C. Parker, Chi ef Divisi on of Engineering Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, I11inois 62704 Ms. Diane Chavez 528 Gregory Street Rnckford, Illinois 61108 Reqinnal Administrator, Reoion III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln 8 Beale Suite 1100 1150 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Douglass
- Cassel, Esq.
109 N. Dearborn Street Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Ms. Pat Morrison 5568 Thunderidge Drive Rockford, Illinois 61107 Ms. Lorraine Creek Rt. 1, Box 182 Manteno, Illinois 60950
ENCLOSURE 1
PFETING ATTENDEES STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF SPENT FUEL POOL EXPANSION December 22, 1986 NRC H. Ashar R. Ballard*
J. Stevens*
COMMONWEALTH EDISON K. Ainger S.
Gubin PNL G. DeGrassi M. Phillipoupolis SSL S.
Putnam JOSEPH OAT K. Singh
- Part-time Attendance
f I
P
'a
ENCLOSURE 2
NRC CONCERNS AND RESOLUTIONS 1.
The information provided to BNL does not address potential. damage to fuel resulting from fuel to cell wall and baseplate impacts.
Have these effects been evaluated?'esolution:
The licensee will provide a copy of the Turkey Point hearinq transcript on the integrity of the Mestinghouse Fuel assembly under seismic loading.
2.
Has the pnol floor evaluation included a check for potential local perforation of the liner due to rack foot impact?
How was this done?
Resolution:
The licensee will provide more information on peak stresses (strains) in the liner.
3.
Since the seismic impact loads may be sensitive to gap sizes, are there OA procedures in place to assure that the proper inter-rack and wall to rack gaps. are maintained during initial installation and subsequent loading/unloadinq of fuel?
Resolution:
The licensee will provide the installation procedure for the racks agd the method for monitoring gap sizes.
4.
How was the conservatism of the single rack model demonstrated?
The model appears to limit the amount of sliding and tilting of the rack between small gaps.
This would not account for potential pileup of racks against the pool wal,l.
Has this possibility been investigated?
Resolution:
The NRC will decide whether this concern needs to be addressed bv the licensee.
5.
How has the conservatism of the rattlino mass representation of the +uel within the rack cells been demonstrated?
The model does not appear to account for the flexural rigidity of the fuel and the potential amplified response of its resonant modes.
Has this been investigated?
Resolution:
The licensee will provide the Fermi 2 analysis showing 'the
" fuel assembly to be extremely flexible to iustify its model.
6.
Describe how inter-rack and rack to wall fluid coup1ing was handled by the model (note-p II-25 missing from BNL copy of seismic report).
Resolution:
The licensee provided an adequate explanation at the meeting.
~
I
7.
Uplift of fuel from rack baseplate and resulting impact loads were not considered in the model.
How was this effect evaluated?
Resolution:
The licensee provided an adequate explanation at the meeting.
r 8.
How were the rack to rack and rack to wall oap spring constants determined?
How are the impact loads evaluated?
Resolution:
The licensee will send stiffness calculations, impact load calculations and girdle bar stresses.
9.
Have any studies been performed to test the impact load sensitivity to gap size?
Resolution:
The licensee will provide explanation of the computer inout-output parameters.
10.
How are pool wall motions included in the analysis?
Do the walls experience the same motion as the floor?
. Resolution:
The licensee provided an adequate explanation at the meeting.
ll.
!s the buoyant force of water considered in the calculation of frictional resistance of the rack feet'?
Resolution:
The licensee'rovided an adequate explanation at the meeting.
12.
How were the floor time histories used as input generated'?
Provide the corresponding response spectra.
Resolution:
The licensee will provide the comparison of ground motion spectra and the synthetic time histories that were used in the rack analysis.
13.
Clarify equation for P. in Table 6. 1 on Page 6.27 of the licensing report.
Resolution:
The licensee provided an adequate explanation at the meeting.
14.
Explain the criteria used for selection of fuel to rack eccentricity values (X>>
Y>> considered in the models.
Resolution:
The licensee provided an adequate explanation at the meeting.
15.
Define the parameters given in the DYNAHIS computer run input and output.
Resolution:
The licensee will provide the user's manual for DYNAHIS.
16.
Rack to rack and rack to wall gaps in the computer runs do not appear consistent with gaps shown on fuel pool layout drawing.
Explain.
Resolution:
The licensee provided an adeauate explanation at the meeting.
/
~ ~
I