ML17265A140
| ML17265A140 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1998 |
| From: | Mecredy R ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| To: | Vissing G NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned), NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17265A141 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-M95759, NUDOCS 9801230117 | |
| Download: ML17265A140 (18) | |
Text
CATEGORY 1 REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:9801230117 DOC.DATE: 98/01/15 NOTARIZED: YES DOCKET FACIL:50-244 Robert Emmet Ginna Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Rochester G
05000244 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILXATION MECREDY,R.O.
Rochester Gas E Electric Corp.
RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION VISSING,G.S.
SUBJECT:
Forwards proprietary response to RAI re structural aspects of spent fuel pool storage rack mod at Ginna Nuclear Power C
Plant. Proprietary response withheld (ref 10CFR2.790).
A DTSTR1BUTTON CODE: AP01D COPTER RECETVED:LTR I
ENCL I
STRE:
'XTLE: Proprietary Review Distribution - Pre Operating License 8 Operating Rp NOTES:License Exp date in accordance with 10CFR2,2.109(9/19/72) 05000244E RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD1-1 LA VISSING,G.
COPIES RECIPIENT LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME, 1
1 PD1-1 PD 1
1 1
COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 0
INTERNAL:
CgKCER 3.
EXTERNAL: NRC PDR 1
OGC/HDS3 pep 1
0 D
N NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD)
ON EXTENSION 415-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 6
ENCL
~
c I
4 1
I t
AND ROCHESTER GASANDEIECTRIC CORPORATION ~ 89 EASTAVENUE, ROCHESTER, MY M6d9-OOOI AREA CODE716 5'-27OO ROBERT C. MECREDY Vice President Hvctear Operations January 15, 1998 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Attn:
Guy S. Vissing Project Directorate I-1 Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
Response
to Request for Additional Information on the Structural Aspects of the Spent Fuel Pool Storage Rack Modification at Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (TAC No.
M95759)
Ref.(1):
Letter from G. S. Vissing (NRC) to R.
C. Mecredy (RG&E),
Subject:
Request for Additional Information on the Structural Aspects of the Spent Fuel Pool Storage Rack Modification at Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (TAC No.
M95759), dated December 16, 1997.
Dear Mr. Vissing:
By Reference 1,
the NRC staff requested additional information regarding the proposed license amendment request for modification of the Ginna Spent Fuel Storage Pool dated March 31, 1997.
The questions were related to the Structural Evaluation of the proposed Modification.
Enclosed are responses to Questions 2 and 3.
Response to Question 3 is provided in two separate documents:
a Non-Proprietary and a
FRAMATOME Proprietary.
The Non-Proprietary document contains all the responses but omits information which is considered FRAMATOME Proprietary.
The document entitled FRAMATOME Proprietary is a duplicate-of Question No.
3 in the Non-Proprietary version except that proprietary data has been added to that document.
The FRAMATOME Proprietary data in that document is supported by an affidavit signed by FRAMATOME TECHNOLOGIES, Inc..
Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the document entitled "FRAMATOME 9801230ii7 980115 PDR ADOCK 05000244 P
'c,.) n<.I' Qka.>cg. NQi t4I lllmlgllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll' no~ra<
~ "~p ~ /V < rd'& Enclosure 1 1.
Response
to Question 2
2.
Non-Proprietary
Response
to Question 3
U.S. NRC G, S. Vissing A-1 January 13, 1998 In the staffs RAIdated September 5, 1997, you were requested to provide a power spectral density (PSD) ofthe artificialtime history to demonstrate the adequacy ofthe time history. You provided a PSD ofthe time history (SSEI-X) with a PSD function developed from Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.60 spectrum (NRC-0.2G shown on page A-8 ofReference I). Itisinteresting to note that the SSEI-XPSD contains energy that is more than about 1.4 to 1.8 times the energy of the NRC-0.2G PSD. RGdcEis requested to provide the following:
(a)
Technical discussion ofthe details as to how the NRC-0.2G PSD was developed. Also, provide sample calculations.
(b)
The time histories usedfor the development ofthe two (SSEI-Xand NRC-0.2G) PSD on a 3.5-inch diskette.
(c)
A comparison between the response spectra (RS) developed using the two time histories indicatedin item (b) above.
gg~n~
The US NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.60 provides the Design Response Spectra (DRS) curve for a maximum (peak) 1.0 g acceleration and was the basis for the generation ofthe GINNA seismic time histories.
The SRP Section 3.7.1 (Reference A), Appendix A specifies minimum PSD requirement for seismic time histories based on RG 1.60. The target PSD curve S<>(f) based on 1.0 G DRS peak acceleration, is defined by Equation 2 in Reference A, p.3.7.1-11:
For frequencies between 0.3 to 2.5 Hz:
For frequencies between 2.5 to 9.0 Hz:
For frequencies between 9.0 to 16.0 Hz:
For frequencies between 16.0 to 24.0 Hz:
S<>(f) = 650 (f/2.5) ~ [in /sec']
S<>(f) = 650 (2.5 / f)"[in'/sec']
S<< >(f) = 64.8 (9 /f)'in/sec']
S+< )(f) 1 1.5 (16 / f)'in'/sec']
For DRS peak accelerations other then 1.0 G, the PSD target curve S<>(f) is scaled by the square ofthe actual DRS peak acceleration.
The time history PSD curve is required to envelope 80% of the scaled target PSD curve S<>(f) given above.
a)
The NRC-0.2G PSD scaled target curve (for example SSE-1 Horizontal X, Fig.NRCQ lb.1 in Reference B) is obtained as follows:
The target PSD curve scaling factor is (0.2)'
0.04, since the SSE-Xl DRS peak acceleration is 0.2 G. For example, at f= 2.5 Hz, the target PSD (based on 1.0G peak acceleration) is 650 [in'/sec']. The resulting scaled target PSD value for GINNA(using
U.S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-2 January 13, 1998 the scaling factor = 0.04) then becomes 0.04(650) = 26 [in /sec'] in Ref. B, Fig.
NRCQ1b.l. A similar procedure is applied for all other frequencies that define the GINNAscaled target PSD curve.
The 80% scaled target PSD curve is labeled as "0.8*(NRC-0.2G)" in Ref. B, Fig.
NRCQlb.1, and represents 80% ofthe "NRC-0.2G" curve in the respective Figure.
b)
The SSE1 horizontal X and Y time histories are provided in ASCII format on the 3.5-inch diskette labeled "Time Histories". There is no time history associated with NRC-0.2G.
The time histories are provided in the followingformat: Time (sec), Acceleration (in/sec~).
There are 2001 entries which run from 0.00 sec. to 20.00 sec., in increments of0.01 sec..
c)
The Response Spectra (RS) used for generation ofthe SSE1 horizontal X and Y time histories are shown in Ref. B, Figures NRCQ 1 a.1 and NRCQla.2.
Since the "NRC-0.2G" curve in Reference B is not derived from any time history, there is no corresponding response spectra developed from a time history.
Note that the Reference A, p.3.7.1-7 suggests that the DRS primarily defines the seismic ground motion (i.e. time histories) and the PSD requirement is a secondary requirement that ensures suAicient seismic power input into the structure ofinterest. For the SSE time histories that are used in GlNNAmulti-rack pool structural licencing, it is demonstrated that their PSD curves conservatively envelop target PSD requirements in SRP 3.7.1, Appendix A.
U.S. NRC G. S. Vissing A-3 January 13, 1998 Figure NRCQib.
1000::::
~
~ ~
~
1 PSD Comparison For GINNASSE1 - Horizontal X 100--
4
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
o 10 C
1 Q
Co 0
0
~
~
~
~ W
~
~
~
0
~
~
~
~
0.1
- c:>::cv:i:::::::::::i::::::c
~ ~
C"~:
0.01 0.1
~
~
1 Frequency (Hz) 10 100 Notes:
1) 2)
Upper curve (SSEl-X) is the PSD for the GINNAtime'history SSE1-X.
\\
Middle curve (NRC-0.2G) is the scaled target PSD curve, based on SRP 3.7.1 requirements.
The scale factor is (0.2)~ =.04. Therefore, at 2.5 Hz, SRP 3.7.1 specifies 650 inch'/sec'.
The scaled target value at 2.5 Hz is (.04)(650)= 26 in /sec'. Note that this curve is not based on any time history.
3)
Bottom curve represents 80% ofthe middle curve in 2) above.
This is the minimum value specified by SRP 3.7.1.
RMcmes; A)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Review Plan, Section 3.7.1, Rev. 2, August, 1989.
B)
"Response to Request for Additional Information - Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Modification-Structural Design Considerations (TACNo. M95759), R. E.Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-244," Letter dated October 20,1997, from RG8cE to U.S. NRC.
t"
U.S. NRC G..S. Vissing A-4 January 13, 1998 In the staffs RAIdated September 5, 1997, you were requested to provide the results ofany existing experimental studies that verify the correct or adequate simulation ofthefluidcoupling utilizedin the ANSYS analyses for the fuel assemblies, racks and walls. Youprovided a comparison study between the results ofan ANSYS analysis and an experimental test. The staff reviewed the comparison study and concluded that the study is not sufficient to demonstrate the adequacy ofthe ANSYS code used to simulate the dynamic fluidcoupling and the structure fluid-structure interactions dhre to: (i) the conditions ofthe experimental setup (i.e.,
boundary conditions, dimensions and shapes ofthe structure, application ofthe load, etc.) are so differentfrom the real conditions ofthe rack structures and (ii) very limited test data are obtained and presented.
Itisstaffs understanding that RGB's contractor, Framatome, has been conducting two series ofthe rack testsin France since August of1994.
Thefirstseries oftestsis to study the fluidstructure interaction in a storage pool and the second series oftests is to study the behavior ofstorage racks (one full-scale and one ll2-scale model). RGQ'is requested to submit: (i) the detailed testing description, (ii) the status ofthe test program, and (iii)comparison studies between the results ofthe experimental tests and the ANSYSpredictions.
Reguum:
The seismic analysis ofthe licensing report used for the 1985 re-racking ofthe GINNApool contained Appendix D, titled "Experimental Verification ofFluid Coupling Theory", which provided an experimental study evaluating a rigid square box in a square pool with 2-dimensional fluid motion (References 3.24 and 3.25 ofthe Licensing Report).
The results from that experimental test program are the same set ofresults that FCF used as the basis for the ANSYS study provided.
FCF judged that is was appropriate to verify the ANSYS model with the results from the same study used for the resident racks, since six ofthe existing resident racks willremain in the Ginna pool for the planned re-rack.
In response to the specific issues raised in Question 3., the followinginformation is provided.
Regarding part (I), the French rack testing descriptions are provided below:
[ PROPRIETARY ]
Regarding part (ii), the status oftest program is provided below:
[ PROPMETARY ]
U.S. NRC G.. S. Vissing A-5 January 13, 1998 Regarding part (iii), a response to the request for comparison studies between ANSYS and experimental data is provided below:
There have not been any ANSYS calculations performed for these experiments and thus FCF does not have related comparison studies between the experimental data and the ANSYS predictions.
The scope and status ofthe testing, as described in sections (I) and (ii) above, indicate that
[ PROPRIETARY ]
~f~r~n References 3.24 and 3.25 in "Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License, Revised Spent Fuel Pool Storage Requirements, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No. 50-244," Letter dated March 31, 1997, from RGB'o U.S.
NRC.