ML17264B016
| ML17264B016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1997 |
| From: | Vissing G NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mecredy R ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| References | |
| TAC-M95759, NUDOCS 9709110121 | |
| Download: ML17264B016 (9) | |
Text
Dr. Robert C. Hecredy ~
Vlcc President, Nucleai~perations
~Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14649 ptember 5,
1997
SUBJECT:
RE(VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SPENT FUEL POOL HODIFICATIONS-STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (TAC NO. M95759)
Dear Dr. Mecredy:
We are in the process of reviewing your March 31, 1997, application for an amendment to the Technical Specifications relating to the proposed spent fuel pool modifications.
In order to continue our review, we have determined the need for additional information in the area of structural design considerations.
The enclosed request for additional information provides our concerns and since we are approaching the date when you requested the amendment, please provide your response as soon as possible.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Docket No. 50-244 Guy S. Vissing, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-l Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC PDI-1 R/F B. Boger A. Dromerick S. Little G. Vissing OGC ACRS L. Doerflein, RI U. Kim G. Bagchi 88C HiM CEHTEK CSPV DOCUMENT NAME:
G: iG INNAiH95759ST. RAI To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy without attachment enclosure "E" = Co with attachment enclosure "N" = No co OFFICE PM:PDI-1 E
LA:PDI-1 D:P NAME GVissing/rsi SLittl AD ck DATE 09/
/97 09/
/97 09/8 /97 9709iiOi2i 9'70905
1
~f If If I
pic ANODE 0
0 C
~o
++*++
UNlTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 5,
1997 Dr. Robert C. Hecredy Vice President, Nuclear Operations Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14649
SUBJECT:
RE(UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORHATION SPENT FUEL POOL HODIFICATIONS-STRUCTURAI DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (TAC NO. H95759)
Dear Dr. Hecredy:
We are in the process of reviewing your Harch 31, 1997, application for an amendment to the Technical Specifications relating to the proposed spent fuel pool modifications.
In order to continue our review, we have determined the need for additional information in the area of structural design considerations.
The enclosed request for additional information provides our concerns and since we are approaching the date when you requested the amendment, please provide your response as soon as possible.
Sincerely, Docket No. 50-244 Guy
. Vissing, Senio Project Hanager Project Directorate
-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl:
See next page
Dr. Robert C. Hecredy R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant CC:
Peter D. Drysdale, Senior Resident Inspector R.E.
Ginna Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1503 Lake Road
- Ontario, NY 14519 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Hr. F. William Valentino, President New York State Ener'gy,
- Research, and Development Authority Corporate Plaza West 286 Washington Avenue Extension
- Albany, NY 12203-6399 Charlie Donaldson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Nicholas S.
Reynolds Winston
& Strawn 1400 L St.
N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502 Hs.
Thelma Wideman
- Director, Wayne County Emergency Management Office Wayne County Emergency Operations Center 7336 Route 31
- Lyons, NY 14489 Hs.
Mary Louise Heisenzahl Administrator, Monroe County Office of Emergency Preparedness 111 West Fall
- Road, Room ll Rochester, NY 14620 Mr. Paul Eddy New York State Department of Public Service 3 Empire State
- Plaza, Tenth Floor
- Albany, NY 12223
RE VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATING TO THE PROPOSED SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATIONS STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS R.E.
GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT With respect to the single safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) artificial time history used for stress analysis as mentioned on page 75 of the Reference, provide the following:
a)
A comparison between the response spectrum (RS) of the artificial time history and the licensing basis design RS in the final safety analysis report (FSAR).
b)
Demonstrate the adequacy of the artificial time history including a
demonstration of the extent of conformance to a target power spectral density (PSD) function of the artificial time history in accordance with guidance provided in Standard Review Plan (SRP)
Section 3.7.1.
c) If the RS of the artificial time history does not envelope the licensing basis design RS in the FSAR, what is the basis for using it in the analysis?
With respect to the dynamic fluid-structure interaction analyses using the computer code, ANSYS, in the
Reference:
a)
Explain how the simple stick model used in the dynamic analyses can accurately and realistically represent the actual highly complicated nonlinear hydrodynamic fluid-rack structure inter actions and behavior of the fuel assemblies and the box-type rack structures.
I.
b)
Provide the results of any existing experimental study that verifies the correct or adequate simulation of the fluid coupling utilized in the numerical analyses for the fuel assemblies, racks and walls. If there is no such experimental study available, provide in detail technical justifications on how the current level of the ANSYS code verification is adequate for engineering applications and should be accepted without further experimental verification work.
c)
Provide in a tabular form the material properties including the
.stiffness (k) used for the simplified computer structural models shown in Figures 3.5-31 and 3.5-32 of the Reference, and the technical basis for the conclusion that the properties used in the analyses are realistic and equivalent to the properties of. the actual rack structure.
Enclosure
d)
Indicate whether you had any numerical convergency and/or stability problem(s) during the nonlinear, dynamic single-and multi-rack analyses using the ANSYS code.
If there were any, how did you overcome the problem?
e)
Submit the ANSYS input data in ASCII for the Model I (3-0 Single Rack Plate Model) and the Model 2 (3-D Single Rack Beam Model) analyses with complete information (i.e., artificial time history input motions, loading conditions, boundary conditions, material properties, loading steps, etc.)
on a 3.5-inch diskette.
4 With respect to the dynamic fluid coupling element (FLUID38 of the ANSYS code) used in the analysis:
a)
It is our understanding that the element FLUID38 was developed for a fluid flow study in an infinitely long rigid cylindrical pipe.
Explain how this element can be applicable for your 3-D fluid-rack (single-and multiple-rack). interaction analysis.
b) If the ANSYS input (real constants (R2, Rl, L, F, DX, DZ, WX, WZ, M2, Ml, MHX, MHZ, CX, CZ) and material property (DENS)) were used for the FLUID38 element, provide the values and technical basis for the conclusion that those values are realistic.
c)
One of the assumptions for the FLUID38 element of the ANSYS code is that the lumped option is not available with this element.
Did you use the lumped option for the fluid mass?
If not, how did you treat the fluid mass?
Explain.
With respect to the analytical simulation of the rattling fuel assembly impacting against the cell:
a)
How did you calculate the magnitude of the largest impact force and the location of the impact in the fuel assembly and the cell wall?
b)
How did you determine and analyze the fuel assembly and cell wall integrity?
c)
Discuss the considerations given to the effects of the fluid between the fuel assembly and cell wall during the interactions.
d)
Provide available experimental studies that verify the reasonableness of the numerical simulation adopted to represent the fuel assembly and cell wall interaction.
Provide a complete deformation shape with magnitudes of the deformations of the rack from the bottom to the top for the single-rack SSE analysis when the maximum displacement at the rack top corner occurs.
Provide the largest magnitude of the hydrodynamic pressure distribution along the height of the rack during the fluid and rack interaction for each case of the 3-D single-'nd multi-rack analyses.
7.
Provide a summary of the peak response results (i.e.,
maximum absolute displacements at the top and bottom of the rack, magnitudes of the
- bending, shear and axial stresses with their locations, maximum pedestal horizontal and vertical loads, impact loads, etc.) of the single-and multi-rack SSE analyses in a tabular form.
8.
If there is an impact between a rack and a reinforced concrete spent fuel pool (SFP) wall:
a)
Provide the magnitude of the hydrodynamic pressure used in the SFP concrete wall analysis.
b)
Provide the temperature profiles with magnitudes used for the SFP slab and walls analyses.
c)
Provide the calculated safety margins for the four walls and the slab with respect to the bending and shear strength evaluations.
d) If the ANSYS code was used for the analyses of the SFP walls and
- slab, provide a technical explanation on how the effects of reinforcement and concrete cracking is reflected in the computer modeling simulations.
Submit the complete input including the ANSYS model with all boundary and loading conditions used for the SFP analyses of the walls and slab on a 3.5-inch diskette.
9 10.
Indicate whether there were rack-to-pool wall and/or rack-to-rack'mpacts from the multi-rack analysis.
r Submit the ANSYS input data on a 3.5-inch diskette for the weld
- analysis, the fuel/rack impact analysis and the rack thermal stress analysis as mentioned in the Reference.
Discuss the quality assurance and inspection programs to preclude installation of any irregular or distorted rack structure and to confirm the actual fuel rack gap configurations with respect to the gaps assumed in the ANSYS analyses after installation of the racks.
12.
Provide the locations of the leak chase systems with respect to the locations of the racks and pedestals.
13.
Describe the method of leak detection in the SFP pool structure.
How are'eaks monitored?
Is there any existing leakage2 14.
Indicate whether or not you are planning to place an overhead platform on the racks permanently or as temporary storage during the installation of the racks.
15.
Was the rack design controlled mainly by the results of the single-rack analysis?
If yes, was there any physical rack design change necessitated by the results of the multi-rack analysis7 As applicable, describe the change(s).
16.
Describe the plan and procedure for the post operating basis earthquake inspection of fuel racks gap configurations.
Reference:
"Application for Amendment to Facility Operating
- License, Revised Spent Fuel Pool Storage Requirements, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, R.E.'inna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-244," letter dated March 31,
- 1997, from RG&E to U.S.
NRC.
1
~
h
>r