Text

Forwards non-proprietary & Proprietary Response to 970905 RAI Re Structural Evaluation of Proposed Mod of Plant Spent Fuel Storage Pool,Dtd 970331.Proprietary Response Withheld, Per 10CFR2.790
	ML17309A622
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	10/20/1997
From:	Mecredy R; ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To:	Vissing G; NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned), NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML17264B076	List: ML17309A622;
References
	NUDOCS 9710230092
	Download: ML17309A622 (101)
	v • d • e

CATEGORY 1.

REUULATQ ZNFQRMATZON DZSTRZBUTZON '+OEM (RZDS)

ACCESSION NBR:9710230092 DOC.DATE: 97/10/20 'NOTARIZED: YES DOCKET' FACIL:50-244 Robert Emmet Ginna Nucleary Plant, Un1t 1 < Rochester G 05000244 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION MECREDY,R.C. Rochester Gas 6 Electric Corp.

RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION, +~PC' VISSINGFG.S.

SUBJECT:

Forwards non-proprietary & proprietary response to 970905 RAI re structural evaluation, of proposed mod of plant spent fuel storage pool,dtd 970331.Proprietary response withheld, C per 10CFR2.790.

A DISTRIBUTION CODE: AP01D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: Proprietary Review Distribution Pre Operating License 6 Operating R NOTES:License Exp date in accordance with 10CFR2,2.109(9/19/72). 05000244 E RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL 0 PDl-1 LA 1 1 PD1-1 PD 1 1 VISSINGF G. 1 1 1 1 OGC/HDS3 1 0 EXTERNAL: NRC PDR 1 ) 43 oaf D

0 NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTSz 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

s I

+t N

ANn ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION ~ 89 EASTAVENUE, ROCHESTER, N. Y Id6rI9-000I AREA CODE716 546-2~00 ROBERT C. MECREDY Vice President Nvcteor Operations October 20 1997 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 Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Modifications Structural Design Considerations (TAC No. M95759)

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244 Ref. (1): Letter from G. S. Vissing (NRC) to R. C. Mecredy (RG&E),

Subject:

Request for Additional Information Spent Fuel Pool Modifications Structural Design Considerations (TAC No. M95759), dated September 5, 1997.

Dear Mr. Vissing:

By Reference 1, the NRC staff requested additional information regarding the proposed 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 the questions submitted by the NRC staff wh'z.c are re provided p in two separate documents: a Non-Proprietary and a FRAMATOME Proprietary. The Non-Proprietary document contains 'ns all the responses but omits the following information which is considered FRAMATOME Proprietary: (a) selected data in response to NRC Question No. 4.b, and (b) electronic files with input data o the ANSYS code as listed in responses to NRC Questions No. 2.e and 10.

The document entitled FRAMATOME Proprietary is a duplicate of Non-Proprietary version except that proprietary data has been added to that document. The FRAMATOME Proprietary data in that document 97102300'tt2 'tt71020 ADQCK 05000244 PDR P 'DR

Mr. G. S. Vissing October 20, 1997 is supported by an affidavit signed by FRAMATOME TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. Accordingly, entitled it is respectfully requested that the document "FRAMATOME Proprietary" be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations.

Ver ruly yours, Robert C. Mecredy JPO c: Mr. Guy S. Vissing (Mail Stop 14B2)

Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Ginna Senior Resident Inspector Mr. Paul D. Eddy State of New York Department of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza, Tenth Floor Albany, NY 12223-1350

A. My name is James H. Taylor. I am Manager of Licensing Services for Framatome.

Technologies, Inc. (FTQ. Framatome Cogema Fuels is administratively responsible to Framatome Technologies, Inc. Therefore, I am authorized to execute this Affidavit.

B. I am familiar with the criteria applied by FTI to determine whether certain information of FTI is proprietary and I am familiar with the procedures established within FTI to ensure the proper application of these criteria.

C. In determining whether an FTI document is to be classified as proprietary information, an initial determination is made by the Unit Manager, who is responsible for originating the document, as to whether it falls within the criteria set forth in Paragraph D hereof. If the information falls within any one of these criteria, it is classified as proprietary by the originating Unit Manager.

This initial determination is reviewed by the cognizant Section Manager. If the document is designated as proprietary, it is reviewed again by Licensing personnel and other management within FTI as designated by the Manager of Licensing Services to assure that the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR Section 2.790 are met.

D. The following information is provided to demonstrate that the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations have been considered:

The information has been held in confidence by FTI. Copies of the document are clearly identified as proprietary. In addition, whenever FTI transmits the information to a customer, customer's agent, potential customer or regulatory agency, the transmittal requests the recipient to hold the information as proprietary. Also, in order to strictly limit any potential or actual customer's use of proprietary information, the substance of the following provision is included in all agreements entered into by FTI, and an equivalent version of the proprietary provision is included in all of FTI's proposals:

~ Q + ~

~ ~ ~

(Cont'd.)

"Any proprietary information concerning Company's or its Supplier's products or manufacturing processes which is so designated by Company or its Suppliers and disclosed to Purchaser incident to the performance of such contract shall remain the property of Company or its Suppliers and is disclosed in confidence, and Purchaser shall not publish or otherwise disclose it to others without the written approval of Company, and no rights, implied or otherwise, are granted to produce or have produced any products or to practice or cause to be practiced any manufacturing processes covered thereby, Notwithstanding the above, Purchaser may provide the NRC or any other regulatory agency with any such proprietary information as the NRC or such other agency may require; provided, however, that Purchaser shall first give Company written notice of such proposed disclosure and Company shall have the right to amend such proprietary information so as to make it non-proprietary. In the event that Company cannot amend such proprietary information, Purchaser shall, prior to disclosing such information, use its best efforts to obtain a commitment from NRC or such other agency to have such information withheld from public inspection.

Company shall be given the right to participate in pursuit of such confidential treatment."

~ ~

~ ~ I ~

'C (Cont'd.)

The following criteria are customarily applied by FTI in a rational decision process to determine whether the information should be classified as proprietary. Information may be classified as proprietary ifone or more of the following criteria are met:

a. Information reveals cost or price information, commercial strategies, production capabilities, or budget levels of FTI, its customers or suppliers.

b. The information reveals data or material concerning FTI research or development plans or programs of present or potential competitive advantage to FTI.

c. The use of the information by a competitor would decrease his expenditures, in time or resources, in designing, producing or marketing a similar product.

d. The information consists of test data or other similar data concerning a process, method or component, the application of which results in a competitive advantage to FTI.

e. The information reveals special aspects of a process, method, component or the like, the exclusive use of which results in a competitive advantage to FTI.

f. The information contains ideas for which patent protection may be sought.

The document(s) listed on Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, has been evaluated in accordance with normal FTI procedures with respect to classification and has been found to contain information which falls within one or

~

~ 0 ~

(Cont'd.)

more of the criteria enumerated above. Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, specifically identifies the criteria applicable to the document(s) listed in Exhibit "A".

The document(s) listed in Exhibit "A", which has been made available to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission was made available in confidence with a request that the document(s) and the information contained therein be withheld from public disclosure.

(iv) The information is not available in the open literature and to the best of our knowledge is not known by Combustion Engineering, EXXON, General Electric, Westinghouse or other current or potential domestic or foreign competitors of Framatome Technologies, Inc.

(v) Specific information with regard to whether public disclosure of the information is likely to cause harm to the competitive position of FTI, taking into account the value of the information to FTI; the amount of effort or money expended by FTI developing the information; and the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly duplicated by others is given in Exhibit "B".

E. I have personally reviewed the document(s) listed on Exhibit "A" and have found that it is considered proprietary by FTI because it contains information which falls within one or more of thecriteria enumerated in Paragraph D, and it is information which is customarily held in confidence and protected as proprietary information by FTI. This report comprises information

(Cont'd.)

utilized by FTI in its business which afford FTI an opportunity to obtain a competitive advantage over those who may wish to'know or use the information contained in the document(s).

JAMES H. TAYLOR State of Virginia)

SS. Lynchburg City of Lynchburg)

James H. Taylor, being duly sworn, on his oath deposes and says that he is the person who subscribed his name to the foregoing statement, and that the matters and facts set forth in the statement are true.

JAMES H. TAYL R

'f" IL Subscribed and sworn before me this ++day of gal 1997.

Notary Public in and for the City of Lynchburg, State of Virginia.

My Commission Expires > 8l I 99'7

. )

l' I

i fr f fr J

/g h '

I

97i0230092 A-1 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Tnr i in R n Rochester Gas 8'c Electric Ginna spent fuel storage rerack structural qualification is performed using state of the art techniques. To ease the licensing process, the majority of analytical methods, computer program use and verification are the same as the methods used in the current licensing documents. The individual items are discussed during the response process. The idealization of the rack using beam representation, the consideration of hydrodynamic masses, and the seismic analysis methods are the same as 1985 licensing basis (References 3.23 and 3.24 of the Licensing Report).

The computer program ANSYS, version 5.2, was used for the majority of structural analysis calculations. Since 1970, this program has been used extensively in the nuclear, chemical, building, and electronic industries throughout the world. Extensive use led to a high degree of reliability in obtained computer results, and has been extensively benchmarked by industry.

ANSYS has been and continues to be verified by a large volume of users. At Framatome Cogema Fuels, it is benchmarked to hand calculations and to verification problems provided by its developer, Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc. ANSYS has been used in many of 10CFR50 licensing analyses including seismic, time history, and gapped structural analyses.

At Framatome Cogema Fuels the structural analysis personnel has extensive experience in the finite element methods and analysis to solve complex problems. This experience and expertise serves to minimize modeling instabilities typically associated with large non-linear dynamic problems. For the models and analyses reported in the Ginna spent fuel storage rack licensing report, no instabilities existed.

The behavior of spent fuel storage racks is complex, and some simplification of the actual behavior is appropriate when creating a mathematical model for use in a finite element analysis.

Throughout the structural analysis the results are checked against the simplified hand calculation methods. In addition, the results have been compared against recently NRC-licensed spent fuel storage racks to verify the validity of the analysis results and to confirm the design of the racks.

Conservative structural analysis methods are used throughout the structural analysis.

Conservatisms include: enveloping seismic time histories, 'additional safety factors on the seismic time histories, safety factors on loads and displacements, conservative friction factors, and maximum fuel weight and loading in the rack, assumed concurrent impact of all fuel assemblies.

The results summarized in Section 3.5.3.3 show large design margins for all rack hardware per ASME, AISC and ACI code allowables. Additional margins exist which are integral to the codes themselves. The resulting margins show the robustness of the Ginna spent fuel storage system design.

A-2 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing

~Rf~r~n~: (continues sequentially the reference numbers in the Licensing Report) 3.44 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 to US NRC.

3.45 Scavuzzo-1979, "Dynamic Fluid Structure Coupling of Rectangular Modules in Rectangular Pools," R. J. Scavuzzo, et al., ASME Publication PVP-39, 1979, pp. 77-87.

3.46 Radke-1978, "Experimental Study of Immersed Rectangular Solids in Rectangular Cavities," Edward F. Radke, Project for Master of Science Degree, The University of Akron, Ohio, 1978.

A-3 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing 8'ith 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 tiIne history in accordance with guidance provided in Standard Review Plan (SRP)

Section 3.7.I.

c) Ifthe RS of the artificial tiIne history does not envelope the licensing basis design RS in the FSAR, ivhat is the basis for usingit in the analysis?

~R~~n A total of four sets (X, Y, and Z components) of time histories were generated, such that the average of all four time histories, when multiplied by a factor of 1.10, enveloped the design response spectrum. A single time history set was then chosen (SSE1 for SSE conditions) and an additional factor of 1.20 was applied to the resulting loads and displacements to envelope the loads and displacements from all four time history sets.

a) A comparison of the fuel pool safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) response spectra and the response spectra generated from the SSE1 time history used in the seismic analysis is provided in Figures NRCQ1a.1, NRCQ1 a.2 and NRCQla.3. NUREG-800, SRP 3.7.1,Section II.1.b states "Each calculated spectrum of the artificial time history is considered to envelop the design response spectrum when no more than five points fall below, and no more than 10 percent below, the design response spectrum." For this comparison, the 10% below curve is also plotted in Figures NRCQla.1, NRCQla.2 and NRCQla.3. The comparison shows:

East-West (X)Spectra 2 frequencies below design RS but within 10% threshold North-South (Y) Spectra 2 frequencies below design RS but within 10% threshold Vertical (Z) Spectra 1 frequency below design RS but within 10% threshold Therefore, this comparison shows that the selected seismic time histories meet the requirements of SRP 3.7.1.

A-4 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing b) The target power spectral density (PSD) of the SSE time history is plotted in Figures NRCQlb.1, NRCQlb.2 and NRCQlb.3. Standard Review Plan SRP 3.7.1, Appendix A, specifies the minimum PSD requirements. Those minima are also plotted on the same figures for comparison. The comparison shows that all of the artificial time histories used in the analysis meet the minimum PSD requirements of the SRP 3.7.1.

c) The artificial time history envelopes the spent fuel pool design response spectra and meets the requirements of SRP 3.7.1.

A-5 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing in In Fr I K1-H rim n

~ ~ I I I I I ~ I ~ I I ~ I I I I

~ ~ I I ~ I I I I I I I I I

~ ~ I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ J ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ J J ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

~ ~ I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I J ~ J ~ ~ J ~~ ~ 1~~

I I I ~ I ~ I I I I

~ s I ~ I I I I I ~ I ~ I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I

'I ~ ~ 'I h 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 '1 Is I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J ~ J ~ J J ~ JJI1). J JIPI ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ J I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I I I I I I I ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I ~ I ~ ~ I I 1 IIIII ~ ~ ~ I I I I I 5 Y I

I I

I I I

I I

1 I

~

I I

I

~

I I I

~

I Y

~

I

~

VI I~

~ I

~'

Y I

I I

1 Y

~

I I

I II I

~

S

~

4 Y shsI

~

~ ~

I

'I I I ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~

I I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I C I I

I I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I I

~

0

~ J J I I J

I I

J I

I J J I

~

I s

J J

~

I

~

J

~

~ I J

I

~

I I

J

~

L s

~

I I

~

J~

~

I I I I I I ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ I ~

I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I ~

I I I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I I I I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ I I I ~ I I ~ I I ~ I I I I I I I I 8 I I

~

~ ~

~

I

~

~ ll ~

~

~ I

~

~ ~ I J J J J J s J J I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ ~

I I I 8 I I

I

~

I I

hS

~ I I

~

I

~

0 I I

~

I I

~

I I

~

'+

I I

s I

I I

~

I ~ I ~ ~ I Q I I ~

I I I ~ ~ ~ I I I I I ~ ~

I ~ I I I

~ J I I I I I ~

I I I I I I I I YI

'Y s js ~

'Y Y

~ ~

I I I

I I

I

~

's I

~

I I

I

~

I I I I I I I I

~

I I

I lh I is I

I I

I ~ I I I

I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I I IIIIlllsll ] lssll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I ~ I I ~ I I I I ~ I I ~ I I I I ~ I I ~ I I I s I ~ I I ~ I I I I ~ I I ~ I I I I ~ I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I ~ I ~ I I I I I I I I ~ I I ~ I ~ I I IJ I I I I I I I ~ I I ~ I ~ I I

~F I I I I I I I ~ I I ~ I ~ I I P I I I I I I I ~ I I ~ I ~ I I I Js ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ I I I 10 1QO Natural Frequency f (Hz)

A-6 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing i r R 1 2 D i nV In tF r INNA K1-H rim n IY

~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I ~ I ~ I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I ~ I I I ~ I I I I I I I ~ ~ I I I I

~ J ~ J J J~ ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ I I I I I ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ I I

~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ I I

~ J ~ J ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I I I ~ I I I ~ I ~ I I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I I ~ I I I

1

~

.M.. q. I

~

I

~ ~

~

~ ~

'I I ~ ~

I

~

I I

~

I 1$ II~ II I I I

II III

~

I

~

J

~ ~

I I I I ~ I 5

~ ~ ~

I

~

I

~

rIs I I

~ II I

~

r IL.

I I ~

~

I

~

1 1 1 1 1

~ ~

1

~

III S I 1 'I 1 1

~

I

~

1

~

1 1 1

~ ~

1

~

1

~

I ~ ~ I I I ~ I I I I ~ I ~

~ ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~

C I I

I I

~

~ I I

I I

I

~

I ~ ~

I I I I

I I

I I I

I I

I

~

I I

~

I I ~ )I AI~ ~

~

D

~ I I I

~ J ~~~

~

AI I ~

J

~

~ ~ II ~ ~

I A II ~

I JI I

~

~ I

~

~~ ~~~~~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~ I ~

I I

~

I L~

~

I A

~

I

~

I I ~ I ~ I I I I ~ I ~ ~ I I I I ~ I ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I ~ I I 'I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ I I

~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I ~ I I I I I I I I ~ ~ I I I ~ I I I I 8

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I ~ I I I I I I I I ~

's I I I I I

~ AI

~ I~ A

~ I I

~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ I~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~ II ~ A ~ I A I~ ~

I I I I ~

~~~~~~ g ~ ~~~ II ~ ~ ~~ II ~ I ~ I ~ I A

~ I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I

I I

~

I I I lr Is ~

I I

I I I

~

I I I

~

s I

I I

~

I I

D I I

I I I I

I I

I

~ I I I

~

~ Is

~

I

~ ~ ~

~

I

~

0 I I I

I I

I

~

I I

~

I I ss I

~

I I

~

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I

~ ~ ~ ~

I I I I ~ ~

'I 11 ' 4 x I 1

~

I

~

~ ~ s

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

rI ~

I

~

I I

~

~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

III IIIII I I I I II I Illlm,'II(IIIII

~ ~ I ~

rIa

'I

~

~ ~

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ I ~ I ~

I lr ~

~

I I

~

I I

~

I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

J ~

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

~ I I ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ I I ~

I I Ir~

I I I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I

~

I r I I

~

I

~

~ I

~

~ I I

~

I

~

I Jl I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ I I I 0.1 0.1 1 10 300 Natural Frequency f (Hzj

0 l

A-7 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Fi r NR 1a.3 in In tFr I 1-Vr cl

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~

I I I I I I A ~ J ~~ AI

~ A

~

~~

~

AI J

~

I

~

~ ~

I t~

~

I

~ ~

~

A~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~

I~ ~ J

~

~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ I~ ~ ~~~ J ~~~~~~~~~

~

A ~

~

J

~

~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

~

I ~

A~

~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I I ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I I I ~ I ~ ~

I I

I

~

h I I I ~

~

' ~~ 'I ~

~~~~~~~~~

~

t ~

~~

~

'I~ ~

~

t

~

I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~

I I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ~

I ~ I I J ~ A~ ~ ~ J ~ ~~~

~ ~

~~~ Al ~

~~~ ~

~

~ A ~

~ AJ ~

~ ~~ ~ t ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~

~

J

~

0) I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I ~ I ~ ~

8

~ ~ ~ ~

I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~

I I I ~ I ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ Y

~

1 I

1

~

I 1 Y I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~

I I I I I ~ ~

I I ~ I I I I I ~ I ~ I ~ ~

G I I I

I

~

I

~ ~

I I I

~ ~ I I I

~

0

~ J ~ A I

I I

~

I A

I

~

I

~

J~

~

I I

~

~ ~r A ~~1 ~

4 I ff ~ f I ~ I I~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~

I1fl fft1 ~ I I I I

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I t ~

~ I I

f1 ff f1 ~

ff~

I I

(5 I I

I I I

~

~ I

~

~ I

~

~ I

~

I V

I ~

1 ltl

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I L I I I

I I

~

I

~

I I

I

~ ~ J ~ I ~ ~ I I

~

I 'e

~ ~ ~

I

~ ~ ~

8

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I I I I I I I A Af>>

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A l AJ

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

J ~ ~ ~ ~

~~

~

A~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

f f

~ ~

1

~

A~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Cf I I

~

I

~

~ I I

~

I

~

I I

~

I

~

I V I I

I I

I

~

I

~

I I I J'

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I ~

~

I I

~

t ~ ~ ~

~

I

~

I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~

Y I

Y 'I I

~

r Y

~

I I

1 Y 1

~

1 Y

~

Y

~

Y1

~

" 'L jv'gpss ~ ~

1 1

~

1

~

X I I I ~

~

I I

~

5 I I

t ~ ~

~

I

~

I

~

t

~

~ ~ ~

tt

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I ~ ~ I

~ ~ ~ ~

I I I I I I I

I I

~ ~

'p'jif ~

~

I I

I

~

I

~

I

~

I I I I I I ~ ~

~ I I I ~ I I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I ~ I I I I I I I J

~ lfff lf ff1 f(fl I I I I I ~ ~

I ~ ~ I

~ ~ ~ I ~ I I I hl I ~ I I I I I J' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0.1 0.1 10 100 Natural Frequency f (Hz)

A-8 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Fi re NR P 9 m ari nFr IN A E1-Hrizn 1X 1000 ~ p p 'I I ' P P h P I hJ hJ

~ I\ P P

~ J

'h

~

IP l

~ ' '

I I I ~ J I J L h J h L L ~ J ~ ~ ~

4 ~ J a e lI rL rL Y rYY J LJ J J L Y I' Y Y1 J

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

F Y a II~ Ja J

~

F 1

~

1 J

~

~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I 1

~

Y Y~

~

'Y I'1

~

I

~

Y Y Y F Y ~

~ ~

~

1

~

1

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ e' 'I ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I I ~ I I I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I ~

I 4 J I I IOO '

~

~ ~ ~ ~ P a I ~

~

P

~

~ ~

'a

~

I s

P P

~

'I h

\

'h

~

L J hJ J ~ L h ~ ~ eh I ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~

d~

~

L

~

J~ dLJ

~ ~

J~ J I L ~

J

~ ~

J ~

~

~ l I

~

I ~~

~

J~

~

J

~

J

~

I ~ J I e I I ~ J ~ ~ ~

~

II~

~

II~

~

J

~

II~

~

JI

~

J

~

J J

~ ~

l I

~

II~ J

~

J

~

l

~

J

~

J

~

1 I

F ~~+

I

~

I I I

~ ~ I I

I r----r I ~

~

1 I

~

I

~

1 Y I

Y I

~

1 I

~

Y

~

F

~

1

~

1 I

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I I I I I I V 10 I ~

p

~

p 'I

~ ~

~

p'I 'I

~

I p P '

~ ~

'h

~

~ ~ p~

~

p I

~

I'I

~

'I

~

I ~

~

Q 'I rr Y 'h YYY1 P 'I ~

YPr P I p YPr Y I

'I

'I Y 'Y'

~ ~

lO F

F F Y'YY'YY ~

~ r J r 1 1

~ 'I 'a

~

F

~

Y ~

~

'I h

~

e 1

1

~

1 1

~ ~ ~ ~

~

J

~

~ J J ~ I ~

~

J J

~ ~

~

I ~

~

J

~

I

~

I ~

' e s ~ h P 'h 'h ' p p 'I 'h I a ~

CU ~ ~

4 4 e

~

~, J

~

e

~

4

~

h ~

~

J

~ ~

a ~

I

~

~ ~ I I I I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I I

~ I I I I d

~

I

~

J al J ~

J

~

J ~

~ ~

J J~

~

l

~

J

~

J

~

I

~

C

~

~ ~ ~ I I

~

I I

~

I I

~

I I

C L

~

C

~

C

~

C L

)

J

)JI, tl )

J J r Y YY1 Yr rr 11 Y D I

Y 1 1

~

YY1 J J ~ 4 ~ I Y J ~

F F

~

1 1

~

'I 1

~

rD ~

~

P

~

P

~ ~

p 'I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I h ~

~

p ~ 'a h '

~

I I J ~

~

~ ~

~

J

~

I

~

I

~

I

~

I 0 ~

~

I

~

I

~

4

~

I I

I ~

~

J J

~

J

~

~ ~

~

J

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0.1 ) C l

L

~

C

~

C d d J ILJJ

'4

~ ~

CX>J

~ ~

J~

C

~

C )

~

L J J J I J~

~

J J~

~

C L

I ~

I C

~

C L J J

~

J J

~

F r I'

~

rYY

~

p 'a

~

' ~ e h Yp

~

1

~

1 h

'a \ ~

~

YP I I ' h I ~

F e

1

~

1

~

~ F

~

F r Y

~ ~

h

~

YYY

~ ~ ~

1 r ~

Y~

I Y~

'1

~

'Y1

~

I

~

I 'I YI ~

I 1

~

0 I ~

F 1

~

1

~

~ ~

I

~

P 'I~ ~P'I~ 'I ~

~ P

~

I ~

~

I ~

~

~ 'h

~

~ ~

e P

~

P ~

~

'h

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

h h J hJ J ~ h ~

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I 0.01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0.1 30 100 Frequency (Hz)

Ir U

f

A-9 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Fi ur NR 1 2 PD mari nFr I <1-H rim n t Y 1000: ~

' ~

~ ~

P

~

A A

A

~

1A P

JJ A A

~

J

~

J A~

A ~J ~

J

~

~~~

~

1 ~ 1 ~

~~~~J ~~

1 J ~

I

~~ ~ ~

~

I~

~

~~~

~~

P

~

h I A PP A A J1 A

'I A J A

'I J

~

~ ~

r

~ ~ ~

CY

~

Y Y 'V 1 ~

1

~ ~

I 1

~

1

~

I" Jlr Y

~ ~ ~

Y~ ~

'VY

~ ~

1 ~

~ d

~

ld A J A I ~ ~ I ~ l 1 Jl J J

~

~ J A I "r-I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1

~

r

~

r

~

'I 1 'I ~

1

~

1

~

I 1

~

1 I I I II I' ~

~

Y Y

~

I 1

~

YY~

I

~

I I I

' ~ '

~

P

~

P 'I ~

~

~ '

~ ~

~ '

~

~ ~

I

~

P

~

I I

A~

I

~

I

~

I

'\~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ I I I ~

I I 100.:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ h ~ I ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ 4 1 J'1 J ~ J J

~

~ ~ ~ ~ P

~

P ~

~

~ ~

I~ ~ P P ~ ~

P P ~ ~ 'h 'h 'h A A Y I~ ~ P 'I

~

P 1

Jl

~

lA

~

ld A A J

~

~ I

~

I l ~~~ ~~

~ ~~~

~ P

'1

~ ~

4 ~ ~ J1 Jl A A A ~

~

AA J A

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1~ ~

~

I

~

I ~

~

I J ~

~

~ ~ ~

~

A J ~

~

~~ ~~~~ I~ ~ ~ ~~ l~ ~

~

l

~

I

~

lI

~

J J

~

I I~

~

l I ~

~

l J

~

J

~ ~

I J J~

~

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~

1 I

II I~WC-r-r

~ ~

YI 1

~

1

~

I I 1

~

I I ~

'V

~

Y~

~

'V 'V

~

~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I I I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~

I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I I ~ I ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~

I I I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

10

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ '

~ ~ P ~ ~ JP ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ P ~ ~ P~ h h ~~ h I I~ ~~ Pr ~' I P

~ P P

' ~ ~

Y

' ~ P ~ ~ ~

Yr rr 'v ~

'I'IYY

'V

~ CY 1 ~ 1 1 ~ ~

'I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1 I~ ~ C I~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ CY 'V Y 1 1 I' 1 Y 1 'I 'I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

C~~1~1~~~ ~ ~~~~ P ~ P ~

~

I ~ ~

~

Ih ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~

I ~

4~ ~

~

J

~

A~

~

I ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ' ' '

~ ~ P 'I h ~

CU ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

1

~

JP ~

~

~ h ~I

~

J

~

A~

~~

~

J

~

I I ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I

~ ~ ~ ~~~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

J~

~

I I

~

I

~~~~~~ I

~

~ ~ ~ ~I

~

~~ J~

~

J

~

~~

~

JI J~

~

I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~

I I 4.'".. C'C

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~

t ... .. )J .. J) .. )')')'

I I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

) )

I. J . J 1 ~ ~~~ I C c I ~ I~ ~ ~ "~ ~~ ~

~ ~

'4 I '1'I

~

II ~~ 11 I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

rr

~

r

~

'\I 'v

~ ~

'v'v I ~

Q ~~~~

1 1

~ ~

1 I ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~

~

C

~

0 Y A

1 1

~~

YY J A (0 ~ ~

I

~

I

~

I

~

P

~

1

~

~ ~

~

1 Y I h

J h

J I

~

~ ~

~

I I

~ ~

~

~~ ~ ~~~

I h

J

~

'I

~

I I J J

~

tL ~ ~~~~1

~ ~

~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~

I

~

~ I

~

J A A

~

~ ~

~

I

~

~ ~

~

I

~

1 I

1

~

4~ J

~

A

~

AJ I I

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

))[))

I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I I

))

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0.1

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

))'C'1 ) CCI C C ) ))))

~

~ I~ I C

l 1

C

~

~ I. ~ lI

~ 1 A J

A J

II I~ 1~ ~ ~~ II ~ ~ ~~ ~ Jl1 JlI A J A I J

J J I~ J J~

1 1 I ~

~

YP

~ ~

~

t~ Y

~ ~

'V h

YI Y 1~ 1I I~ 1~ 1~ ~~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

rP YP ~ Y

~

'1

~

Y~

'I 1 Y'I

~

~ '

1 I ~

~ I I'

~

~ ~

~

I I'

~

'V Y Y 1I 1 II 1I 1 II

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

I r r 'V Y~,

~ ~ ~

1

~

Y1~ ~

h A

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ P P I 'h ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P P '

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I ~ ~

~ I I

~ I ~

~ ~

~

AI

~

I I

~

~ A J ~ J

~

~~

~

~~

~

~~~

~

~~

~

~~ 1~

~ f A ~

~ I

~

I A~

~

I

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~

0.01

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0.1 1 l0 100 Frequency (Hz)

A-10 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Fi r R 1 3 P D m ri n F r INNA K1-Vertical Z 100 1

~

~ ~

~

4 r J A

~

I~

~

I

~

~ A J J ~

~ I h J A

~ ~

~

~ ~ ~

~

4

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

4 J J ~ AJ f I Y

~ ~ ~ ~

Isr~

O' Y 1

~

1

~

I ~

~ 1

~

Ir 1 Y 1 YY I I ~ ~ ~ ~

~ J A I

~ ~

~

I~ ~

A I AA

~ ~ ~ ~

~

II ~

I' I

~

I

~

IrrI

~

1 I

Y ~

Y~

1 I

~

1

~

I

~

I I 1

~

Y 1 YY ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

\ ~ ~

~~

~

'h

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

10

~

I~ ~ ~V(

~

4

~

Jthtrtth AJJssPAhh

~

yJ~

~

r t ~ P ~~ ~ ~ ~

~

~~~~

J

%QPAtAI A

1J

~

J

~

'I ~ ~ ~ ~ <Y ~ 'I ~ ~ I

~ ~

~

I

~~~~~ ~~~~ ~

tt \

t It t

~ ~ 'I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ P I'P

~

I P

P h

h

~

'I

~

'h h

~

~~~ ~ J t A t t ~~ ~ ~

I I II~ 1 1 ~ II~ ~~ A ~~~~J J ~ ~I I ~ ~ ~ d JI eff~ ~ AA

~

h

~

tA

~

A I

~

I I

~ ~ ~

~

I I

~

~ J J

~

I

~

I I

~

I AA

~ ~ ~

P) A I 1 I

~ ~

~

~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ A~

JI J~ ~ ~ ~

I I ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ I I I SI I Y ~ ~

1 ~

~ ~

~

~ ~ ~

Y'Y

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I

~ ~ ~ ~

t P

~ ~

~~~ I 1~~~ ~~ r ~

P

~

'I ~

'h

~ ~ ~

r" """ YY

' ~ ~ P ~ '

Q 1 1 1 Y I IY I~ I~ "r-I I'

I 1 1' Y fI ~11 4A

~

151' Y Y Yr 1

'I Y Y 1 YY YY h tr 1 1

~ ~ ~ p h ~ ~ 'I 'h

~ ~ ~ ~ I J J ~

~

~ ~

~

~ ~

~

~ A ~

A~

J A ~

~ AA N

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ h 'h ~ h h

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J J ~ J J I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ I I A I ~ ~

~

I ~

1 s ~

A~

~

s AA

~ ~

t: ~

~

~ ~

~

I I I

I

~

I

~

1 I

~

))

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0.1

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I I C C C 1

C C CCC 1 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ A ~~ A ~ A )

~ I ) )

C C

~ ~

C 1 AC )C )

A ~ AA I~ rI I~ IIsrI

$ I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Y I' Y~ ~

YY

~ ~

Q 1 1

~ ~

~

1

\ r YA Y

~

YY AA (6 ~ ~~~

~ ~

~

t

~

P

~

t IA

~

I

~

~s

~

I

~

J

~

Q ~ ~

~

~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

\

~

I I

~

h I

~

~ ~

~

h

~ ~

~

~ ~

AJ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I I I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0.01

~ ~ ~

II C

~

C

~

C )C A )A )

~ ~

C ) )

~ ~

AC C

~

)J I J A

~ ~ ~ ~

I I I C C C C II II 1 1

~ A1 I~I 1I I J A A A ~ ~ II ~ ~ .I.ZP. A dA A J A ~ AJ 1 1 I~ I' Y I~ I~ I

~ ~

Y Y Y 1 ~

~

' ~

1 ~ I I' Y Y

~ ~

~

YY

~ ~

~ '

~ ~ s s ~ ~ '

~ ~ h \ Ah 1

~ ~

f f I' I 'I'

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Y Y Y~

~

I

~

~ ~

I 'I Y

~

I

~

I

~

YY

~ ~

I

~

~ ~

~

P

~

t

~

~ P

~

S

~

'h ~

~

I t

~

I I

~ ~

~

~ ~ ~

~

h h

~ ~

~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

I I ~ ~ ~

I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I A s

~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 0.001 ~ ~ ~ ~

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

A-11 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing 8'ith respect to the dynamic fliiid-stnicture interaction analyses using the computer code, ANSYS, in the

Reference:

a) Erplain how the simple stick model iisedin the dynamic analyses can accurately and realistically represent the actual highly complicated nonlinear hydrodynamic fluid-rack stnicture interactions and behavior of the fiielassemblies and the box-type rack slnicture.

b) Provide the results ofany existing experimental stiidy that verifies the correct or adequate simulation of the fluid coupling utilized in the numeric analyses for the fiiel asseinblies, racks and walls. If there is no such experimental study available, provide in detail techni caljustifications on how the currenl level of the ANSYS code verification is adequate for engineering applications and should be accepted withoutfiirther experimental verification work c) Provide in a tabular form the material properlies including the sliffiiess (k) used for the simplified computer stnictural models shown in Figures 3.5-31 and 3.5-32 on the Reference, and the technical basis for the conclusion thai the properti es usedin the analyses are realistic and equi valent to the properties of the actual rack stnicture.

d) Indicate whether you had any nuinerical convergency and!or stability problem(s) during the nonlinear, dynainic single- and mulli-rack analyses using the ANSYS code. If there were any, how did you overcome the problem?

e) I Submit the ANSYS input data in ASCIIfor the Model (3-D Single Rack Plate Model) and the Model 2 (3-D Single Rack Beam Model) analyses with complete information (i.e.,

artificial tiine history input motions, loading conditions, boundary conditions, material properlies, loading steps, etc.) on a 3.5-inch diskette.

~R~~n a) The behavior of spent fuel storage racks is complex, and some simplification of the actual behavior is appropriate when creating a mathematical model for use in a finite element analysis. One has to assess the aspects of the structural behavior which are important to simulation while considering the end use.

A-12 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing The racks are very rigid structures and their natural frequencies are much greater than the predominant seismic input forcing frequencies. Hence, the rack structure motion can be described by a 3-D beam element (six degrees-of-freedom, three translational and three rotational).

The mathematical models (3-D single rack and whole pool multi-rack) used to perform dynamic analyses of the fuel storage rack structure simulated the three-dimensional characteristics of the rack modules in a comprehensive manner. These models included features to allow for sliding and tipping of the racks and to represent the hydrodynamic coupling which can occur between fuel assemblies and rack cells, between racks, and between the racks and the reinforced concrete walls. The gap elements were incorporated to account for impact between the fuel assembly and the rack. To detect any impact between racks and/or any impact between the racks and the pool wall, additional gap elements were introduced into the 3D-whole pool model of the single rack The support legs were modeled as compression-only gap elements which considered the local vertical flexibilityof the rack-support interface. Friction elements were used at the bottom of the support legs.

The spent fuel storage racks are free-standing structures. They are constructed of a simple tube structure assembled in a honeycomb pattern. Under given seismic excitation they behave similar to a very rigid structure. The beam representation gives adequate simulation for seismic loadings. As discussed in the report, for thermal and other conditions, the complete rack was idealized using plate elements.

The spent fuel storage racks seem like a complex structure. However, when compared to other 10CFR50 license applications, like reactor vessel internals, steam generator internals, containment building, which all are analyzed using beam representation, the spent fuel storage rack itself is a very simple assembly of square tube structures.

Also, the beam representation is consistent with the 1985 licensing basis, NRC SER dated November 14, 1984 (Reference 3.24 of the Licensing Report). Also, this approach is concurrent with recently licensed spent fuel storage racks, namely, Zion Station Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304; Haddam Neck Plant, Docket 50-213; and Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Docket 50-293.

In summary, the methodology used for the mathematical model of the rack structures is consistent with industry practice.

A-13 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing b) The experimental verification of the fluid coupling simulation is provided in Appendix NRCQ2-A to this question. The results show very good agreement between the ANSYS results and the experimental test results.

The validation of the ANSYS Version 5.2 is in conformance with the provision of the Framatome Technologies Inc., Quality Assurance Program, Doc. No. 56-1201212 (Section 7.2 of the Licensing Report). The validation meets the requirements of the subsection II.4.c of SRP Section 3.8.4 and subsection II.4.e of SRP Section 3.8.1. SRP 3.8.1 states computer program validation should meet any of the following procedures or criteria:

(i) The computer program is a recognized program in the public domain, and has had sufficient history of use to justify its applicability and validity without further .

demonstration.

(ii) The computer program solution to a series of test problems has been demonstrated to be substantially identical to those obtained by a similar and independently written and recognized program in the public domain. The test problems should be demonstrated to be similar to or within the range of applicability of the problems analyzed by the public domain computer program.

(iii) The computer program solution to a series of test problems has been demonstrated to be substantially identical to those obtained from classical solutions or from accepted experimental tests or to analytical results published in technical literature. The test problem should be demonstrated to be similar to or within the range of applicability of the classical problems analyzed to justify acceptance of the program.

ANSYS is a widely used and accepted computer program in the public domain. The validation of the fluid coupling element using classical equations was presented to the NRC Staff during a meeting on August 25, 1997. The experimental verification is provided in Appendix NRCQ2-A to this question. The computer program validation requirements of the SRP 3.8.4 and SRP 3.8.1 are met.

c) The material properties used in the 3-D Single Rack and 3-D Whole Pool Rack model are given in Tables 3.4-2 through 3.4-8 of the Licensing Report. The material properties for the structural material are from the ASME Code, which is referenced in the report. The rack stiffnesses are generated internally in the computer program from cross-section properties and are provided in the following summary. The rack stiffness, in terms of cross-section properties, is provided in Section 3.5.3.1.1.1, starting in page 136 of the Licensing Report. The stiffness properties are developed using classical applied mechanics equations. The seismic analysis results are not sensitive to the rack stiffness, and this is demonstrated in Section 3.5.2.7.

U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Fuel Cell Impact Stiffness summary:

Type 1 (Existing U.S. Tool 2 Die Racks): 4,449 lb/in Type 2 and Type 4 (New ATEARacks) 7,036 lb/in Type 3 (New ATEA Racks) 6,595 lb/in The following axial stiffnesses (AE/L) are calculated internally in ANSYS, but are given for information purposes. All page references are from the Ginna Licensing Report.

Consolidated Fuel Canister Structural Properties:

E = 27.87 E6 psi A = 3.6681

= 9.3920 in in',a L=159in k,~ = 1.65 E6 lb/in (k for A,fr)

Fuel Assembly Structural Properties:

E (Zircaloy) = 12.0 E6 psi A=7.1419 m L= 159 in k = 5.39 ES lb/in

U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Support Pad Structural Properties (k represents individual support pad)

E = 27.87 E6 psi L = 10.0 in (for Rack Types 1,4), and L = 19.60 in (for Rack Types 2,3)

Legs of Type 1 Rack:

k = 3.75 E8 1b/in A= 134.5 in~ = 1372.6 in'y = 1274.6 in'x Legs of Rack 7 (2A): A=40.0 in~ = 211.0 in Iy = 211.0in'x k = 5.69 E7 lb/in Legs of Rack 8 (2B):

k = 7.54 E7 Ib/in A= 53.0 I = 290.0 in'y = 290.0 in' Legs of Rack 9 (3C): A=27.0 in = 144.0 in4 = 144.0 in k = 3.84 E7 lb/in Legs of Rack 10(3A): A=40.0 in Ix = 211.0 Iy = 211.0 k = 5.69 E7 lb/in in'x in'y Legs of Rack 11(3E): A = 40.0 in~ = 217.0 = 217.0 k = 5.69 E7 lb/in in'x in'y in'x in'y Legs of Rack 12(3D): A= 27.0 in~ = 144.0 = 144.0 in'x k = 3.84 E7 lb/in in'x in'y Legs of Rack 13(3B): A= 36.8 = 190.0 = 190.0 in' k = 5.23 E7 lb/in Legs of Type 4 Rack: A= 10.45in'x= 32.9 in4 Iy= 86.5 k = 2.91 E7 1b/in

A-16 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Type 1 (Existing) Rack Structural Properties:

E = 27.87 E6 psi A = 420.3 in'

= 159 in k = 7.37 E7 lb/in Type 2 Rack Structural Properties:

E = 27.87 E6 psi L = 158.5 in Rack 7: A= 113.9 k = 2.00 E7 lb/in Rack 8: in in'=1295 k = 2.28 E7 lb/in Type 3 Rack Structural Properties:

E = 27.87 E6 psi L=162in Rack 9: A = 66.2 in~ = 1.14 E7 lb/in Rack 10: A = 92.7 in~ k= 1.59 E7 lb/in Rack 11: A= 84.8 in'=

k= 1.46 E7 lb/in Rack 12: 66.2 in~ k= 1.14 E7 lb/in Rack 13: A = 82.1 in' k= 1.41 E7 lb/in Type 4 Rack Structural Properties:

E = 27.87E06 psi L= 158.5 in Rack Type 4: A = 25.9 in k = 4.55 E6 lb/in

A-17 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing d) There were no convergency or stability problems for either the single- or multi-rack model runs during the nonlinear, dynamic analyses. All load cases ran for the full time history and obtained a converged solution, using the same basic ANSYS program parameters.

The ANSYS solver uses the implicit integration scheme which, upon convergence, produces a repeatable, stable solution within prescribed (program-chosen defaults) tolerance limits.

e) The ANSYS input data in the ASCII form are provided in the enclosed 3.5-inch computer diskette. Note that these input data are proprietary information and should be used only for the Ginna licensing effort. These data are for use with ANSYS Version 5.2. All data are self-explanatory and an experienced ANSYS user should be able to use it easily. If you encounter any problem, FRAMATOMEcan assist the NRC Staff at its Lynchburg offices.

Disk Files Include:

Disk ANSYS Input Files, File S3DR8PL. TXT 3-D Single Rack Plate Model File S3DR8SC. TXT 3-D Single Rack Dynamic Model The 3-D Single Rack Plate Model (Model 1) was used for the static stress, thermal, and the base plate stress analysis, as presented in the detailed descriptions of Model 1 in Section 3.5.2.3 of the report. The model was not used with any time history input.

The loading conditions, boundary conditions, material properties, and loading steps are part of these input files. The time history input (SSE1) is included with the input for Model 2.

A-18 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Appendix NRCQ2-A Experimental Verification of ANSYS Hydrodynamic Mass Coupling and Dynamic Behavior of Immersed Rectangular Solids in Rectangular Cavities

1. Objective An ANSYS numerical study was made to demonstrate the correlation between an ANSYS model utilizing hydrodynamically coupled rectangular tube contained within a laterally excited rectangular container, or cavity, and the experimental results reported in References 3.45 and 3.46. A single degree-of-freedom (DOF) oscillator model (Ref. 3.45), used for estimating certain system's parameters is also compared to the ANSYS results.

2. Experiment Setup An experimental set-up, reported in References 3.45 and 3.46, is shown in Figure A1. A rectangular steel tube with a solid bottom is enclosed in a long rectangular plexiglass container rigidly connected to a solid base plate. The base plate is supported with four steel consoles acting as springs for the laterally imposed base plate motion via electromagnetic actuator. The plexiglass container is additionally reinforced with a Figure A1 Experiment Setup separate rectangular plexiglass plate fixed to the base plate (Fig.A1, left upper Accelerarneters 4" x 4" Steel Tube corner).

Plexiglass Walls Water Level The steel tube bottom plate is connected to the base plate via two elongated steel Overlaplng Teflon plates acting as consoles. These vertical Seals steel plates act as springs for the tube's laterally induced motion. At the top and Shaker bottom tube elevations, teflon seals are Steel Springs (2) introduced in order to minimize eventual vertical mean flow along tube walls. The seal's locations also define water column Steel Support height. A pair of accelerometers is used Springs (4) to pick up acceleration time histories for both the tube and the rigid plexiglass container. The shaker's frequency ranged from 5 to 35 Hz, to obtain adequate data points. The amplitude Concrete Black

A-19 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing response ratio is measured for each excitation frequency. The results are plotted for selected points in Figure A4.

3. ANSYS Model Description The system shown in Fig.A1 is modeled in ANSYS as a series of two vertically connected beams, with the upper one being hydrodynamically coupled to the enveloping plexiglass container, as shown in Figure A2.

Figure A2 ANSYS Model Beam Plexi-Walls The bottom beam represents a pair of Added Weight Lumped vertical steel strips, while the upper beam at the Tube Bottom represents the steel tube. ANSYS 3D element "BEAM4" (Ref. 3.40) is used for both beams, while hydrodynamic coupling Spring is modeled with ANSYS "FLUID38" Beam elements at the tube beam top, middle and Hyd.-Dynamic Coupling Elem. bottom locations. Additional weight placed in the tube (Ref. 3.46) is lumped at Base Plate its bottom. Forced input harmonic motion Input Motion is applied to both spring beam bottom (base plate) and plexiglass container walls.

Model properties are obtained as follows:

Steel Tube Tube envelope mass: m, = V, (pg = 0.0174 ib-s~/in (weight = m, g = (0.0174)(386.4) = 6.72 lb),

where, V, = 4(a h t) = 24 in' the material tube envelope volume), a = 4.0 in ( tube side width),

h = 8.0 in ( tube height), t = 3/16" = 0.1875 in ( tube wall thickness) and p, = 72.46x10'b-s /in' tube wall density, steel, room temperature).

From Ref. 3.46, total tube weight is 15 lb, which includes additional weight together with bolts and nuts connecting tube base to steel springs. It is assumed that all additional mass is concentrated at the bottom of the tube; i.e., it is lumped at the bottom tube beam node. This lumped mass includes tube bottom plate.

A-20 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Lumped mass (tube bottom): mb= (total weight) / g - (tube envelope mass)

= 15.0/386.4 - 0.0174 = 0.0214 lb-s'/in or weight = (0.0214)(386.4) = 8.28 lb Tube cross section: A,=4(at) =3 cross section moment of inertia: I, = 2[a t /12 + (a t) (a/2) ] = 8.0 in'ube in'teel Spring Equivalent spring beam consists of two vertical steel strips, each 4" long, 1" wide and 3/32" thick.

Bending occurs about the weak axis.

Eqv. Spring cross section: A, = 2(c t,) = 2(1")(0.0938") = 0.1875 in~

Eqv. Spring cross sect. moment of inertia: I, = 2[t'c/12] = 2[0.09383(1")/12] = 1.373x10" in4 Eqv. Spring lateral stiffness: k = 12 I,E / L = 772.3 lb/in, for both beam ends clamped, where:

E= 30 MSI(steel elastic modulus@room temperature) and L=4" (equivalent spring beam length). It is suggested in Ref. 3.46 that while excited, the tube remains practically parallel to the plexiglass container walls. In the ANSYS model, this effect is achieved by imposing rotational constraint at the common beams node.

Fluid Masses Hydrodynamic mass, Ref. 3.45: M= (16/3) ph b'/ w = 0.0908 Ib-s /in, where p=

room temperature), b = (a+w)/2 = (4+0.5)/2 = 2.25 in (water column 9.345x10'b-s'/in'water density centerline width, (Fig.A3)), and w = 0.5 in ( tube-to-wall gap).

Displaced fluid mass, Ref. 3.45: M, = (2b- w)' p= 0.01196 lb-s'/in Fluid mass based on container volume, Ref. 3.45: M, = (2b+ w)' p= 0.01869 Ib-s'/in Figure A3 Water Column Dimensions The effect ofhydrodynamic fluid coupling is discretized as 1/2 at the tube beam mid-height and 1/4 at its top and bottom (Fig.A2). ANSYS fluid coupling element "FLUID38" (Ref. 3.40) is used with KEYOPT(3) = 2 for concentric arbitrary cylinders (i.e., rectangular) and KEYOPT(6) = 2 for local element coordinate system's lateral axes oriented in global X and Z directions.

2b

A-21 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Boundary Conditions Boundary conditions are shown in Fig.A2. AllDOFs of the spring beam bottom node are fixed (clamped condition) except the X-displacement component, which is prescribed as sinusoidal motion. The same also applies for the three wall nodes connecting hydrodynamic elements to the tube beam. Due to the fact that the tube remains practically parallel to the container walls, the tube beam bottom node is prevented from rotation about lateral Z-axis (spring's beam bending axis). To match the measured natural frequency in water, spring beam stiffness is adjusted as k =

(2m f,) [m+M] = (2n 9.2) [0.0388+ 0.0908] = 433.1 lb/in.

Structural Damping A time history analysis approach is used to obtain the system's response amplitude ratio. The system is excited to a sinusoidal excitation at selected nodes and response amplitude, or nodal displacement response as a function of time is obtained for selected points of the system. The connecting node between the spring and the tube beams is chosen, since its motion sufficiently describes behavior of the system and it could also be compared against a single DOF theoretical model. Rayleigh damping is used for comparison purposes. In addition to the stiffness matrix multiplier P, the mass matrix multiplier n is simultaneously used to provide more uniform damping over a desired range of frequencies. These multipliers are obtained as a solution of the system of two simultaneous linear equations:

(;= o',/(2(o)+ Pio;/2, where io,.=2mf; [s']

By choosing known pairs of natural frequencies with their associated damping ratio values (Ref.

3.45), f, =15.3Hzand(, =0.053, inair; f~=9.2Hz and(2=0.062 in water, theRayleigh damping multipliers are u = 5.456 and P = 5.122x10'.

4. Results The experiment (in water) data points are obtained from Ref. 3.46. Note that the accuracy of their coordinates in amplitude response plot (Fig.A4) might be insufficient, due to the small scale of the original experiment curve provided in Ref. 3.45. However, their trend is sufficient to validate the ANSYS model's comparison. In the time history method, a 3 second displacement time history is created for each selected excitation frequency, and applied at the selected nodes of the system. The amplitude for all time-histories is unity, i.e., 1.0 in. ANSYS results are also compared against single DOF oscillator model (equation 24 in Ref. 3.45, labeled as "Theory" in Fig. A4), with the total tube mass lumped at the top of the spring beam. Figure A4 shows good comparison between the ANSYS and theoretical response ratio predictions. A minor discrepancy between these models and the experiment is in part due to a sensitivity of measuring equipment, as suggested in Ref. 3.46.

A-22 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Conclusions

1) It is concluded that ANSYS hydrodynamic element FLUID38 can be used to represent fluid-structure interaction of rectangular prismatic containers with good correlation with both theory and test results. There is a good agreement between ANSYS results and experimental test data for dynamic fluid-structure interaction problems. This verifies the capacity of ANSYS to perform seismic time-history analyses of submerged spent fuel storage racks in pools.

2) Use of beam stick model and lumped masses is a realistic representation of fuel and rack type structures for use in time-history driven dynamic analyses.

A-23 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing I<'igure A4 Comparison of Results Amplitude Response Ratio I

I I I 2 I I

o I I

I I

- Theory,'

CL I I I I I

CD I Experimental ResLilts

~ 1.5 I I

I o ANSVS Time History CD I I I I CL I I I I I

1 --rI 1

I I I I

CU I I

1 I

I I

I I I I I

I IO I

I I I I I I I I I I 0

0 5 10 15 20 Excitation Frequency [Hz]

A-24 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing N

8'ith respect to the dynamic fluid coupling element (FLUID38 of the ANSYS code) used in the analysis:

a) Itis our understanding that the element FLUID38 was developed for a fluidflowstudy in an infinitely long rigid cylindricalpipe. Explain how this element can be applicable for your 3-D fluid-rack (single- and multiple-rack) interaction analysis.

b) Ifthe ANSYS input (real constants P2, Al, L, I", DX DZ, PX WZ M2, MI, MHX MHZ, CX CZ) and material properties (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 PLUID38 element ofANSYS code is that the lumped option is not available with this element. Didyou use the lu>nped option for the fluid mass? Ifnot, how do you treat the fluid mass? Explain.

~Ryan

) The ANSYS FLUID38 element is the dynamic fluid coupling element. This element is a generic element to represent a dynamic coupling between two points of a structure. The points represent the centerline of concentric cylinders. The cylinders might be circular or have an arbitrary cross-section. The default values are for a cylinder vibrating in a cylinder. However, when one uses KEYOPT(3) = 2 it can be an arbitrary cross section.

This option is used in the single-rack and multi-rack interaction analysis. The dynamic fiuid coupling used is based on a rectangular body vibrating in fluid contained in an annulus created by a rectangular outer body. The fluid coupling values are based on the Singh-1990 (Reference 3.38 of the Licensing Report) paper. The derivation of values are experimentally verified by Scavuzzo-1979, "Dynamic Fluid Structure fluid'ynamic Coupling of Rectangular Modules in Rectangular Pools" (Reference 3.45).

b) In the ANSYS FLUID38 element input ifKEYOPT(3) = 0 is used, it represents the concentric cylinders, and for that case R2, R1, etc., constants are required. In our case KEYOPT(3) = 2 for arbitrary cross sections was used. MMM~,and M>> terms of the fluid couple-mass matrix were also input. Tables 3.5-10 and 3.5-11 of the Licensing Report provide the mass matrix terms MM~M~ and M>> used in the fluid structure interaction analysis.

c) The lumped mass option (LUMPM, ON) is not available for ANSYS FLUID38 element.

We did not use lump masses for this element. The dynamic fiuid coupling is hydrodynamic mass based on potential theory, Singh-1990 (Reference 3.38). Section 3.5.2.5 discusses the use and calculation of hydrodynamic fluid mass.

A-25 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing 8'ith respect to t'e analytical simulation of the rattlingfuel 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 fidel 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 the cell wallinteraction.

~R~~n a) Impacts between the rack and fuel assembly lumped masses were accounted for by the use of gap elements, as shown in Figure 3.5-41 of the Licensing Report. The impact forces are calculated from the seismic time-history analysis. Gapped spring elements are employed to track the impact forces. The peak forces on these gapped elements represent the impact force.

The impact forces between the fuel assemblies and the cell wall were obtained using the minimum and maximum results summary obtained through the post-processing capability of ANSYS. The post-processing used was POST26, which can extract requested data from a time-history analysis, in order to produce tables of result items versus time. The real-time fuel/rack impact loads were tabulated in POST26 for the sum of both the top and middle rack nodes throughout the entire time-history. The real time maximum impact load was thus obtained for all the fuel assemblies in any particular rack. The assumption that all fuel assemblies act in unison is conservative.

Therefore, the maximum combined fueVrack impact load was then divided by the number of fuel assemblies in the rack to obtain a maximum fueVrack impact load per fuel assembly. The summary of the resulting fuel-to-rack impact loads for each rack and for each load case is tabulated in Tables 3.5-46 through 3.5-57 of the Licensing Report.

e A-26 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing b) The cell wall integrity is determined by stress analysis. Section 3.5;2.2.2.4.discusses the stress analysis. Table 3.5-58 provides the results of the cell wall stress analysis and shows comparison of actual impact load against the allowable load.

The ANSYS finite element analysis was used to calculate stresses in the fuel rack-cell wall due to impact loading of fuel assemblies. The maximum allowable fuel rack load was defined as one which would reach the maximum stress intensity based on the stress limit specified in the ASME Code Section III, Subsection NF. The calculation gave an allowable load per cell of 2290.0 pounds for the OBE condition and 2900.0 pounds for the SSE condition. These allowable loads are much lower than the load value required to ensure the fuel assembly integrity. The elastic load limits of the fuel assembly spacer grids tested range from [b, c, d]. The fuel assembly structural integrity is assured, ifthe spacer grid impact loads are lower than the spacer grid elastic load limit. The highest impact load value obtained from the OBE analysis is 908 pounds and from the SSE analysis is 1600 pounds. These calculations confirm the local rack cell wall integrity and the fuel assembly integrity for the maximum fuel to rack cell wall impact loads.

c) The fluid between the fuel assembly and the cell wall was considered in the seismic analysis. The theory of cylinder vibrating in the fluid (Reference 3.38 of the Licensing Report) is utilized in the hydrodynamic mass calculations. The fuel assembly containing 179 individual fuel rods, 16 guide tubes and one instrument tube was utilized in the calculation. Section 3.5.2.5.1 provides the detailed fuel assembly hydrodynamic calculations for W-Standard, W-OFA and Exxon fuel assemblies.

d) Section 3.5.3.1.1.3 discusses the numerical simulation between the fuel assembly and the cell wall. This is a classic engineering mechanics problem. No experimental studies are required for the general structural problem. No known experimental study exists at Framatome Cogema Fuels. All the experiments performed by Babcock & Wilcox are for fuel impacting a rigid surface or impacting other fuel assemblies.

A-27 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing i n Provide a complete deformation shape with magnitudes of the deformations of the rack fion> the bottom to the top for the single-rack SSL analysis when the maxhnum displacement at the rack top corner occurs.

Reels The single-rack 3-D model was used for parametric studies only. The displacements and loads were obtained from the whole-pool multi-rack model. A summary of all the maximum absolute

¹ horizontal displacements is provided in response to NRC Question 7. A review of those displacements shows that the maximum displacement for any rack, for all loading conditions, occurs at Rack ¹7, during Load Case ¹1. The summary of those maximum displacements are provided in the table below. Therefore, the description of the maximum absolute displacements for Rack ¹7 are provided for the rack bottom, middle, and top four corners.

Table NRCQ5.1 Max. Rack Horizontal crisp. Top - LC¹1 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements (X and Y- (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.25760 0.33280 -0.42080 0.28260 2 -0.28680 0.26240 -0.36870 0.26970 3 -0.29000 0.18640 -0.26200 0.19300 4 -0.25190 0.19140 -0.25300 0.17590 5 -0.38440 0.24140 -0.19250 0.19140 6 -0.35710 0.27190 -0.24400 0.20520 7 -0.59190 0.41610 -0.27550 0.16960 8 -0.55160 0.55660 -0.32230 0.20600 9 -0.58630 0.56700 -0.33660 0.19350 10 -0.53080 0.44060 -0.28250 0.14030 11 -0.52280 0.57350 -0.29340 0.16560 12 -0.49180 0.57140 -0.33350 0.14440 13 -0.50680 0.45750 -0.37800 0.10220

A-28 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Rack Corner Nodal Displacements at Rack's Top, Middle, and Base for Rack ¹7 (inches)

~r~nr ~Y ~7 Top South-West -0.52334 -0.17714 -0.07794 South-East -0.52334 0.01878 0.19580 North-West -0.66054 -0.17714 -0.07786 North-East -0.66054 0.01878 0.19588 Rack Center -0.59194 -0.07918 0.05897

~r~nr ~5( ~Y MZ Mid South-West -0.26183 -0.17708 -0.07639 South-East -0.26183 0.01867 0.19417, North-West -0.39891 -0.17708 -0.07606 North-East -0.39891 0.01867 0.19449 Rack Center -0.33037 -0.07920 0.05905

~i~r ~X ~Y MZ Base South-West -0.00563 -0.17587 -0.07059 South-East -0.00589 0.01925 0.18817 North-West -0.14242 -0.17622 -0.06957 North-East -0.14266 0.01925 0.18918 Rack Center -0.07427 -0.07840 0.05930

A-29 I U..S. NRC G. S. Vissing October 20, 1997 Provide the largest magnitude of the hydrodynamic pressure distribution along the height rack during the fluidand rack interaction for each case of the 3-D single- and multi-rack analyses.

of the

~Res ense:

The single 3-D rack model was used for parametric studies. The loads, including the hydrodynamic loads, and displacements were all obtained solely with the multi-rack whole-pool model. Therefore, the requested hydrodynamic pressure distribution is provided for the whole-pool multi-rack model. The hydrodynamic pressure distributions are tabulated for each rack that interfaces with the spent fuel pool walls. The real-time summation of hydrodynamic loads for the bottom, middle, and top of each rack was used to provide an average hydrodynamic pressure for the entire height of the rack. Also, a real-time summation of hydrodynamic loads was obtained for all the racks facing each of the four walls. The real-time averaged wall pressure for each of the four walls was then determined, and is provided in the following tables.

The tables NRCQ6.1 thru NRCQ6.12 are for each of the Load Cases 1 thru 12.

A-30 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ6.1 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LC¹1 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Min. Max.

Rack Press. Press.

(psi) (psi)

West Side Rl-WW -2.497 2.853 R2-WW -2.693 2.956 East Side R7-EW -3.052 3.935 Rl 1-EW -3.786 5.008 R12-EW -7.643 10.077 R13-EW -4.176 4.995 J

South Side Rl-SW -5.418 3.758 R3-SW -15.162 11.255 RS-SW -18.334 15.081 Rj-SW -3.322 2.726 Rl 1-SW -3.220 2.477 North Side R2-NW -5.325 3.671 R4-NW -18.282 13.105 R6-NW -10.452 8.595 R10-NW -5.775 4.522 R13-NW -2.524 2.001

'um of Real Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW -1.397 1.564 SUM-EW -2.383 3.144 SUM-SW -8.709 6.782 SUM-NW -8.023 6.051 Note: The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

A-31 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ6.2 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LC¹2 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹2 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Min. Max.

Rack Press. Press.

(psi) (p>>)

West Side Rl-WW -2.538 2.322 R2-WW -2.683 2.478 East Side Rj-EW -3.399 3.937 R11-EW -3.514 4.294 R12-EW -6.801 8.846 R13-EW -3.808 4.191 South Side Rl-SW -3.994 3.166 R3-SW -11.901 10.363 RS-SW -16.997 14.018 Rj-SW -3.209 2.633 R11-SW -3.252 2.489 North Side R2-NW -4.159 3.021 R4-NW -14.293 12.220 R6-NW -9.635 7.681 R10-NW -5.423 4.571 R13-NW -2.441 2.121 Sum of Real Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW -1.405 1.288 SUM-EW -2.316 2.789 SUM-SW -7.461 6.320 SUM-NW -6.835 5.746 Note: The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

A-32 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ6.3 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LC¹3 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹3 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Min. Max.

Rack Press. Press.

(psi) (psi)

West Side Rl-WW -1.076 1.058 R2-WW -1.136 1.165 East Side R7-EW -3.434 3.065 Rl 1-EW -8.085 7.052 R13-EW -4.144 3.297 South Side Rl-SW -2.819 3.758 R3-SW -7.232 9.212 R5-SW -9.799 11.062 R7-SW -2.064 2.120 Rl 1-SW -2.113 2.302 North Side R2-NW -3.087 3.713 R4-NW -9.412 11.433 R6-NW -5.921 7.043 R10-NW -3.287 3.491 R13-NW -1.539 1.679 Sum of Real Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW -0.573 0.594 SUM-EW -2.598 2.140 SUM-SW -4.441 5.411 SUM-NW -4.438 5.224 Note: The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

A-33 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ6.4 Max. Rack Side Seismic Hydro Pressures - LCII4 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case 84 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.5 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Min. Max.

Rack Press. Press.

(psi) (p>>)

West Side Rl-WW -2.496 2.716 R2-WW -2.693 3.450 East Side R7-EW -2.833 3.557 Rl 1-EW -3.635 4.561 R12-EW -8.232 10.163 R13-EW -4.412 5.273 South Side Rl-SW -4.812 4.002 R3-SW -13. 171 11.270 R5-SW -18.104 15.125 R7-SW -3.234 2.738 Rl 1-SW -3.143 2.562 North Side R2-NW -4.900 3.999 R4-NW -16.626 13.171 R6-NW -10.289 8.305 R10-NW -5.717 4.574 R13-NW -2.516 2.100 Sum of Real Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW -1.397 1.649 SUM-EW -2.444 3.044 SUM-SW -7.890 6.804 SUM-NW -7.345 6.082 Note: The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

A-34 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ6.5 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LC¹5 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Min. Max.

Rack Press. Press.

(psi) (psi)

West Side Rl-WW -2.472 2.545 R2-WW -2.886 2.509 East Side R7-EW -3.613 2.986 Rl 1-EW -3.397 2.998 R12-EW -8.074 6.885 R13-EW -4.146 3.585 South Side Rl-SW -4.976 4.245 R3-SW -14.174 11.671 RS-SW -19.040 15.898 R7-SW -3.244 2.753 Rl 1-SW -3.190 2.722 North Side R2-NW -4.206 3.657 R4-NW -15.838 13.773 R6-NW -11.010 8.848 R10-NW -5.730 4.647 R13-NW -2.598 2.032 Sum of Real Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW -1.439 1.232 SUM-EW -2.529 2.120 SUM-SW -8.327 7.067 SUM-NW -7.579 6.289 Note: The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

A-35 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ6.6 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LCP6 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case A'6 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Min. Max.

Rack Press. Press.

(psi) (psi)

West Side Rl-WW -1.506 1.348 R2-WW -1.471 1.416 East Side R7-EW -3.261 2.409 Rl 1-EW -3.998 3.217 R12-EW -7.709 6.599 R13-EW -3.798 3.236 South Side Rl-SW -3.140 3.605 R3-SW -7.733 9.405 RS-SW -10.036 11.641 R7-SW -2.006 2.053 Rl 1-SW -2. 166 2.111 North Side R2-NW -3.025 3.625 R4-NW -9.821 11.752 R6-NW -6.090 7.459 R10-NW -3.323 3.438 R13-NW -1.556 1.628 Sum of Real Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW -0.798 0.735 SUM-EW -2.464 2.025 SUM-SW -4.705 5.519 SUM-NW -4.472 5.300 Note: The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

A-36 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ6.7 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LCP7 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case P7 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Min. Max.

Rack Press. Press.

(psi) (p>>)

West Side Rl-WW -2.669 3.256 R2-WW -2.892 2.950 East Side R7-EW -3.089 3.847 Rl 1-EW -3.311 3.281 R12-EW -6.694 7.194 R13-EW -3.281 3.099 South Side Rl-SW -4.174 3.541 R3-SW -12.369 10.802 RS-SW -17.681 14.806 R7-SW -3.088 2.660 Rl 1-SW -2.896 2.522 North Side R2-NW -4.512 3.821 R4-NW -16.343 13.617 R6-NW -10.252 8.157 R10-NW -5.470 4.614 R13-NW -2.374 2.129 Sum of Real Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW -1.452 1.661 SUM-EW -2.157 2.288 SUM-SW -7.704 6.603 SUM-NW -7.332 5.982 Note: The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

A-37 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ6.8 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LCIIS GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case P8 - Consolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Min. Max.

Rack Press. Press.

(psi) (psi)

West Side Rl-WW -0.610 0.565 R2-WW -0.712 0.616 East Side R7-EW -1.122 1.317 R11-EW -1.710 1.775 R12-EW -3.812 3.869 R13-EW -1.701 1.849 South Side Rl-SW -1.787 1.756 R3-SW -4.039 4.728 RS-SW -4.853 5.393 R7-SW -0.909 0.928 R11-SW -0.895 0.895 North Side R2-NW -1.776 1..756 R4-NW -5.043 5.911 R6-NW -3.019 3.327 R10-NW -1.412 1.448 R13-NW -0.671 0.701 Sum of Real Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW -0.356 0.311 SUM-EW -1.026 1.149 SUM-SW -2.389 2.668 SUM-NW -2.291 2.546 Note: The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

A-38 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ6.9 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LCP9 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case 89 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Min. Max.

Rack Press. Press.

(psi) (psi)

West Side Rl-WW -1.165 1.201 R2-WW -1.271 1.198 East Side Rj-EW -1.176 1.344 Rl 1-EW -1.073 1.364 R12-EW -2.231 2.632 R13-EW -1.349 1.243 South Side Rl-SW -1.987 1.989 R3-SW -5.749 5.831 R5-SW -7.889 7.210 R7-SW -1.247 1.405 Rl 1-SW -1.241 1.072 North Side R2-NW -2.070 1.676 R4-NW -7.087 6.834 R6-NW -4.472 3.717 R10-NW -2.099 1.453 R13-NW -0.983 0.986 Sum of Real Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW -0.656 0.636 SUM-EW -0.724 0.871

-3.463 3.296 'UM-SW SUM-NW -3.206 2.817 Note: The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

A-39 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ6.10 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LC¹10 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹10 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Min. Max.

Rack Press. Press.

(psi) (psi)

West Side Rl-WW -0.919 0.908 R2-WW -1.149 0.950 East Side Rj-EW -1.108 1.294 Rl 1-EW -1.163 1.449 R12-EW -2.398 2.540 R13-EW -1.237 1.369 South Side Rl-SW -1.854 1.911 R3-SW -5.474 5.362 RS-SW -7.407 6.794 R7-SW -1.344 0.962 Rl 1-SW -1.251 0.997 North Side R2-NW -1.957 1.522 R4-NW -6.723 6.387 R6-NW -4.172 3.581 R10-NW -2.265 2.203 R13-NW -1.021 1. 169 Sum of Real Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW -0.550 0.500 SUM-EW -0.740 0.828 SUM-SW -3.312 3.047 SUM-NW -3.064 2.681 Note: The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

A-40 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ6.11 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LCP11 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case 011 - Mixed Fuel - SSE - Mu = Mixed Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Min. Max.

Rack Press. Press.

(psi) (psi)

West Side Rl-WW -1.595 2.038 R2-WW -1.649 . 2.091 East Side R7-EW -1.773 1.560 Rl 1-EW -2.573 2.054 R12-EW -6.048 5.603 R13-EW -3.290 2.499 South Side Rl-SW -3.179 2.417 R3-SW -8.105 6.179 RS-SW -6.950 6.892 Rj-SW -1.458 1.411 Rl 1-SW -2.096 '1.857 North Side R2-NW -3.344 2.535 R4-NW -11.218 8.439 R6-NW "

-5.235 4.926 R10-NW -2.636 2.160 R13-NW -1.841 1.375 Sum of Real Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW -0.859 1.110 SUM-EW -1.770 1.435 SUM-SW -4.227 3.473 SUM-NW -4.561 3.617 Note: The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

A-41 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ6.12 Max. Rack Seismic Hydro Pressures - LC¹12 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹12 - Mixed Fuel - OBE - Mu = Mixed Maximum Rack Pressures Due to Seismic Loading Min. '-

Max.

Rack, Press. Press.

(p>>) (psi)

West Side Rl-WW -0.427 0.453 R2-WW -0.329 0.385 East Side R7-EW -0.727 0.683 Rl 1-EW -1.437 1.378 R12-EW -2.964 2.354 R13-EW -1.343 1.223 South Side Rl-SW -0.884 0.845 R3-SW -4.968 3.847 RS-SW -6.250 4.785 R7-SW -0.876 0.801 R11-SW -0.883 1.030 North Side R2-NW -0.737 0.608 R4-NW -3.948 3.091 R6-NW -3.349 2.345 R10-NW -1.220 1.017 R13-NW -0.497 0.517 Sum of Real Time Rack Pressures (psi) Averaged for Each Side SUM-WW -0.203 0.225 SUM-EW -0.836 0.736 SUM-SW -2.679 1.955 SUM-NW -1.893 1.369 Note: The above reported pressures are on the perimeter racks.

A-42 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Provide a summary of the peak response results (i.e., maximum absolute displaceInents 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.

~RNLnn; The 3-D single-rack dynamic model and the 3-D whole pool multi-rack dynamic analysis models, and their intended uses, are described in Sections 3.5 (page 73 of the Licensing Report) and Section 3.5.2.3 (pages 107 to 109 of the Licensing Report). As presented, the 3-D single-rack dynamic model was used for various sensitivity studies. The displacements, loads, and associated stresses are obtained from the 3-D whole pool multi-rack dynamic mathematical model.

Therefore, the following results are presented for the multi-rack model only.

The displacements provided in the Licensing Report were relative displacements - between the racks and surrounding racks, or between the perimeter racks and the spent fuel pool wall. The maximum absolute displacements at the top and bottom of the racks are tabulated in the attached Tables NRCQ7.1 through NRCQ7.24, for all load cases.

The rack maximum forces (bending and shear), moments (bending and torsion) are reported in Section 3.5.3.1.8.1, Tables 3.5-67 through 3.5-90 in a tabular form.

The rack maximum bending, axial and shear stresses are reported in Section 3.5.3.1.2.7.

The maximum pedestal horizontal and vertical loads are reported in Section 3.5.3.1.5, Tables 3.5-22 through 3.5-45 in a tabular form.

The maximum fuel to rack impact loads are reported in Section 3.5.3.1.6, Tables 3.5-46 through 3.5-57 in a tabular form.

A-43 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ7.1 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. Top - LC¹1 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.25760 0.33280 -0.42080 0.28260 2 -0.28680 0.26240 -0.36870 0.26970 3 -0.29000 0.18640 -0.26200 0.19300 4 -0.25190 0.19140 -0.25300 0.17590 5 -0.38440 0.24140 -0.19250 0.19140 6 -0.35710 0.27190 -0.24400 0.20520 7 -0.59190 0.41610 -0.27550 0.16960 8 -0.55160 0.55660 -0.32230 0.20600 9 -0.58630 0.56700 -0.33660 0.19350 10 -0.53080 0.44060 -0.28250 0.14030 11 -0.52280 0.57350 -0.29340 0.16560 12 -0.49180 0.57140 -0.33350 0.14440 13 -0.50680 0.45750 -0.37800 0.10220 Table NRCQ7.2 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. Base - LC¹1 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹1 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.03724 0.06038 -0.07127 0.04580 2 -0.08373 0.04358 -0.05174 0.05001 3 -0.04396 0.02711 -0.05670 0.03254 4 -0.04533 0.02433 -0.05314 0.03130 5 -0.04523 0.02999 -0.03317 0.03733 6 '0.05074 0.02506 -0.04841 0.03996 7 -0.08194 0.03318 -0.11520 0.01411 8 -0.06622 0.06787 -0.13520 0.01375 9 -0.04845 0.07066 -0.13020 0.00962 10 -0.07122 0.03151 -0.09588 0.00988 11 -0.06686 0.06603 -0.15610 0.00744 12 -0.07009 0.05713 -0.13950 0.01199 13 -0.04091 0.08492 -0.13190 0.00621

A-44 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ7.3 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. Top - LC¹2 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹2 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.20310 0.24260 -0.23770 0.26350 2 -0.20330 0.20100 -0.19230 0.26430 3 -0.17020 0.14690 -0.24880 0.14400 4 -0.16100 0.16980 -0.25310 0.14120 5 -0.16430 0.13740 -0.28210 0.15670 6 -0.17680 0.17760 -0.30480 0.17370 7 -0.36910 0.14020 -0.35310 0.13700 8 -0.31460 0.17830 -0.37400 0.17430 9 -0.39740 0.18650 -0.38660 0.13990 10 -0.22680

0.24660 -0.30850 0. 13140 11 -0.46800 0.13850 -0.28450 0.11700 12 -0.47080 0.11450 -0.26690 0.15710 13 -0.27060 0.15340 -0.34380 0.09970 Table NRCQ7.4 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LC¹2 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹2 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.07600 0.06355 -0.16120 0.17780 2 -0.09061 0.06818 -0.10310 0.19000 3 -0.03990 0.03548 -0.17800 0.06131 4 -0.05535 0.07545 -0.18220 0.06546 5 -0.05633 0.02840 -0.20670 0.05355 6 -0.07367 0.08071 -0.23090 0.07678 7 -0.26450 0.07782 -0.23310 0.01380 8 -0.23370 0.09739 -0.23790 0.01596 9 -0.31630 0.10490 -0.23890 0.00823 10 -0.14470 0.17440 -0.17410 0.00730 11 -0.40710 0.07303 -0.16430 0.03825 12 -0.41700 0.05288 -0.12700 0.05833 13 -0.18190 0.08832 -0.21120 0.02261

A-45 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ7.5 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @ Top - LC¹3 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹3 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.28250 0.34740 -0.34790 0.33030 2 -0.24240 0.28350 -0.30640 0.29540 3 -0.15660 0.16630 -0.22950 0.18970 4 -0.19240 0.19310 -0.21630 0.19670 5 -0.18440 0.17210 -0.21540 0.21510 6 -0.19730 0.19930 -0.24260 0.26420 7 -0.27200 0.29190 -0.21980 0.24110 8 -0.32720 0.35680 -0.29730 0.24860 9 -0.39270 0.36180 -0.31500 0.23560 10 -0.25340 0.25620 -0.23730 0.20660 11 -0.40990 0.47120 -0.28000 0.16950 12 -0.43600 0.44050 -0.25880 0.19930 13 -0.32440 0.30230 -0.32240 0.15130 Table NRCQ7.6 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LC¹3 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹3 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.02963 0.08100 -0.06999 0.05401 2 -0.03071 0.02842 -0.06237 0.04588 3 -0.02215 0.02441 -0.04722 0.02990 4 -0.02593 0.02377 -0.04187 0.03227 5 -0.02152 0.02363 -0.03840 0.03303 6 -0.02460 0.02322 -0.03077 0.04759 7 -0.04509 0.05602 -0.04370 0.02714 8 -0.04295 0.06551 -0.08174 0.03714 9 -0.07166 0.03030 -0.09566 0.02131 10 -0.03239 0.05243 -0.04473 0.02635 11 -0.09444 0.02620 -0.08570 0.01601 12 -0.06613 0.04315 -0.06909 0.03757 13 -0.04723 0.05821 -0.07137 0.02015

A-46 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ7.7 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. Top - LC¹4 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹4 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.5 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.29140 0.29570 -0.40560 0.27690 2 -0.24370 0.25830 -0.35330 0.25780 3 -0.28440 0.17620 -0.24460 0.16400 4 -0.24970 0.19300 -0.24040 0.16420 5 -0.37750 0.25800 -0.18660 0.17500 6 -0.34400 0.28940 -0.22980 0.20010 7 -0.57590 0.44130 -0.25950 0.16410 8 -0.53350 0.59220 -0.30110 0.20690 9 -0.57660 0.58020 -0.31510 0.19580 10 -0.52700 0.44280 -0.27800 0.13920 11 -0.52520 0.58540 -0.29130 0.14680 12 -0.49170 0.58170 -0.31280 0.14290 13 -0.49680 0.48470 -0.30700 0.14850 Table NRCQ7.8 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LC¹4 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹4 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.5 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X 'Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.06448 0.03943 -0.08053 0.03250 2 -0.04869 0.04497 -0.05841 0.05560 3 -0.03082 0.02787 -0.05235 0.03424 4 -0.02337 0.02694 -0.04774 0.03357 5 -0.05038 0.02519 -0.03337 0.03860 6 -0.03523 0.04108 -0.06152 0.04440 7 -0.06854 0.04104 -0.10440 0.01376 8 -0.05219 0.08899 -0.11510 0.01568 9 -0.03128 0.09148 -0.09633 0.00852 10 -0.07351 0.03912 -0.10520 0.00869 11 -0.04714 0.07810 -0.10090 0.01362 12 -0.05441 0.06937 -0.10640 0.00840 13 -0.04132 0.11050 -0.06561 0.01893

A-47 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ7.9 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Top - LC¹5 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.18990 0.17380 -0.31140 0.32050 2 -0.20260 0.23700 -0.25600 0.33370 3 -0.21380 0.17460 -0.20670 0.22220 4 -0.17870 0.20350 -0.20880 0.21170 5 -0.29270 0.20990 -0.19080 0.18430 6 -0.25300 0.23450 -0.22940 0.21310 7 -0.56010 0.32340 -0.24590 0.17240 8 -0.51250 0.47370 -0.29380 0.22330 9 -0.52430 0.48480 -0.31760 0.22230 10 -0.46080 0.38520 -0.28720 0.16000 11 -0.52940 0.46670 -0.30500 0.13070 12 -0.48790 0.47870 -0.33800 0.13440 13 -0.48880 0.40670 -0.33210 0.15320 Table NRCQ7.10 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LC¹5 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹5 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.03580 0.04627 -0.07851 0.08393 2 -0.03048 0.03778 -0.03985 0.08068 3 -0.03755 0.02401 -0.03321 0.04379 4 -0.02851 0.02860 -0.03982 0.03519 5 -0.03759 0.02726 -0.03663 0.04251 6 -0.02547 0.04116 -0.04466 0.05161 7 -0.06249 0.05345 -0.06886 0.01393 8 -0.07255 0.07396 -0.07892 0.01529 9 -0.04499 0.06142 -0.11320 0.02185 10 -0.04656 0.04498 -0.09735 0.00944 11 -0.05161 0.07697 -0.12170 0.00730 12 -0.05549 0.08894 -0.12510 0.00820 13 -0.04446 0:08146 -0.10460 0.00609

A-48 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ7.11 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. Top - LC¹6 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹6 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.23050 0.32670 -0.31260 0.35880 2 -0.25070 0.29760 -0.27540 0.32310 3 -0.16650 0.24240 -0.22420 0.19550 4 -0.18690 0.20970 -0.21230 0.18510 5 -0.14570 0.19100 -0.21370 0.20160 6 -0.16020 0.18780 -0.23410 0.24650 7 -0.28190 0.29620 -0.21080 0.23420 8 -0.36950 0.36500 -0.28280 0.24120 9 -0.39160 0.36150 -0.30990 0.23780 10 -0.29210 0.27430 -0.24680 0.19220 11 -0.38140 0.48770 -0.28570 0.15630 12 -0.35640 0.42070 -0.29250 0.18600 13 -0.37140 0:30730 -0.33660 0.14670 Table NRCQ7.12 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @ Base - LC¹6 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹6 - Consolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.02900 0.04717 -0.05076 0.10330 2 -0.03887 0.03377 -0.04990 0.07382 3 -0.02250 0.03253 -0.04870 0.03116 4 -0.02394 0.02860 -0.04665 0.03141 5 -0.01934 0.02418 -0.04324 0.03416 6 -0.01997 0.02465 -0.03789 0.04483 7 -0.03452 0.05312 -0.03707 0.02709 8 -0.03769 0.08631 -0.07240 0.03487 9 -0.06204 0.05149 -0.06606 0.02612 10 -0.02691 0.06189 -0.04530 0.02590 11 -0.08069 0.04502 -0.07084 0.00969 12 -0.06606 0.04247 -0.05413 0.01296 13 -0.04278 0.05559 -0.07601 0.01875

A-49 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ7.13 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Top - LC07 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case 87 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

'ack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.16800 0.14430 -0.20100 0.31790 2 -0.19030 0.19600 -0.13870 0.29530 3 -0.14140 0.15520 -0.15140 0.19160 4 -0.15330 0.14850 -0.17600 0.16990 5 -0.13170 0.15470 -0.19070 0.15910 6 -0.13850 0.13650 -0.24190 0.19320 7 -0.20840 0.26540 -0.33540 0.13150 8 -0.25400 0.26810 -0.37390 0.17870 9 -0.28070 0.22720 -0.41170 0.14390 10 -0.19430 0.23080 -0.29410 0.14100 11 -0.38570 0.20760 -0.32050 0.11840 12 -0.54530 0.13120 -0.30840 0.14560 13 -0.24120 0.19910 -0.31250 0.13130 Table NRCQ7.14 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LCP7 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case 87 - Unconsolidated Fuel - SSE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.05906 0.05380 -0.11980 0.24900 2 -0.06482 0.08367 -0.05676 0.21150 3 -0.03077 0.03802 -0.06922 0.11760 4 -0.04402 0.03961 -0.09945 0.09140 5 -0.03820 0.05111 -0.12820 0.07477 6 -0.05557 0.04126 -0.18950 '0.10770 7 -0.09401 0.20160 -0.21490 0.01396 8 -0.14690 0.19920 -0.24550 0.02873 9 -0.17890 0.15780 -0.24740 0.00780 10 -0.11120 0.16080 -0.15860 0.01001 11 -0.29860 0.12690 -0.22860 0.01035 12 -0.47840 0.07696 -0.21290 0.02105 13 -0.15870 0.13330 -0.20260 0.03134

A-50 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ7.15 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp.

GINNA3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks I Top - LC¹8 Load Case ¹8 - Consolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0. 11370 0.12630 -0.18140 0.19330 2 -0.11330 0.12120 -0.16620 0.16670 3 -0.07782 0.09454 -0.10110 0.09726 4 -0.07965 0.08075 -0.09862 0.09388 5 -0.06691 0.07764 -0.10910 0.10090 6 -0.07055 0.06913 -0.13020 0.12030 7 -0.13950 0.11230 -0.13890 0.11900 8 -0.14260 0.12930 -0.18670 0.13040 9 -0.17750 0.15580 -0.17680 0.13740 10 -0.11340 0.11080 -0.16160 0.09546 11 -0.21430 0.21500 -0.17720 0.08728 12 -0.23460 0.21000 -0.16030 0.10050 13 -0.17900 0.14510 -0.20540 0.07412 Table NRCQ7.16 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LC¹8 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹8 - Consolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.8 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.01840 0.01274 -0.02858 0.03217 2 -0.01355 0.01180 -0.02813 0'.02744 3 -0.01043 0.00924 -0.01734 0.01667 4 -0.01016 0.01054 -0.01771 0.01487 5 -0.00727 0.00980 -0.02037 0.01845 6 -0.00716 0.01015 -0.02334 0.02099 7 -0.02067 0.01675 -0.01500 0.01485 8 -0.02089 0.01944 -0.02212 0.01655 9 -0.02940 0.01972 -0.01614 0.01291 10 -0.01621 0.01572 -0.01618 0.'01084 11 -0.03166 0.03701 -0.02075 0.00847 12 -0.03222 0.03183 -0.02836 0.00446 13 -0.02951 0.01986 -0.02110 0.00904

A-51 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ7.17 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Top - LC¹9 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹9 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.10670 0.10160 -0.19560 0.13740 2 -0.09604 0.09986 -0.16950 0.16200 3 -0.08225 0.07480 -0.10910 0.07603 4 -0.07036 0.07243 -0.10590 0.07939 5 -0.07050 0.07250 -0.08731 0.08764 6 -0.06763 0.07034 -0.10830 0.09834 7 -0.10050 0.15700 -0.10310 0.08977 8 -0.12450 0.14890 -0.11810 0.09964 9 -0.16780 0.13950 -0.09962 0.11460 10 -0.10710 0.10240 -0.08660 0.08530 11 -0.14200 0.12880 -0.11780 0.07094 12 -0.15780 0.10660 -0.09529 0.09744 13 -0.19130 0.07786 -0.12740 0.05970 Table NRCQ7.18 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. Base - LC¹9 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹9 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.02387 0.01397 -0.11270 0.05502

-0.01530 0.02630 -0.07639 0.09551 3 -0.01889 0.00689 -0.03814 0.01685 4 -0.00885 0.01303 -0.03253 0.01629 5 -0.00655 0.01352 -0.01651 0.02084 6 -0.00820 0.02331 -0.03289 0.02285 7 -0.00659 0.07038 -0.01164 0.01420 8 -0.03091 0.05374 -0.03022 0.01279 9 -0.09305 0.05786 -0.01004 0.03093 10 -0.02025 0.03915 -0.00683 0.02048 11 -0.07416 0.06133 -0.04825 0.00655 12 -0.11550 0.04983 -0.01237 0.02229 13 -0.11360 0.02916 -0.02082 0.00730

A-52 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ7.19 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. Top - LC¹10 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹10 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.14200 0.13680 -0.17300 0.09902 2 -0.11540 0.13340 -0.17490 0.11270 3 -0.07823 0.09438 -0.11040 0.08676 4 -0.08496 0.10960 -0.10800 0.08037 5 -0.08016 0.08358 -0.10670 0.09304 6 -0.08274 0.09461 -0.10430 0.11000 7 -0.11070 0.16890 -0.10380 0.09089 8 -0.11620 0.16780 -0.13110 0.10390 9 -0.17870 0.15250 -0.14890 '.10430 10 -0.14480 0.09360 -0.10690 0.08482 11 -0.11900 0.17610 -0.10420 0.07383 12 -0.20090 0.09320 -0.12120 0.09207 13 -0.20950 0.07103 -0.13520 0.07252 Table NRCQ7.20 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @Base - LC¹10 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - Without Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹10 - Unconsolidated Fuel - OBE - Mu = 0.2 Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.03095 0.03006 -0.09498 0.02311 2 -0.02385 0.03886 -0.07780 0.02193 3 -0.01250 0.01011 -0.02894 0.01621 4 -0.01344 0.01401 -0.02704 0.01555 5 -0.01303 0.01195 -0.03653 0.01636 6 -0.00979 0.01194 -0.01566 0.03323 7 -0.00921 0.07850 -0.02239 0.01061 8 -0.00983 0.07407 -0.03278 0.01321 9 -0.08851 0.07162 -0.02074 0.01459 10 -0.06550 0.02948 -0.02159 0.01749 11 -0.03869 0.09176 -0.03615 0.00760 12 -0.15990 0.04029 -0.02132 0.01312 13 -0.14080 0.01560 -0.02246 0.01026

A-53 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ7.21 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @ Top - LC¹11 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹11 - Mixed Fuel - SSE - Mu = Mixed Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack, Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.05948 0.19390 -0.27610 0.17710 2 -0.07477 0.20290 -0.20820 0.21940 3 -0.19750 0.02548 -0.11660 0.15300 4 -0.11830 0.15000 -0.14470 0.12360 5 -0.04267 0.22040 -0.17710 0.06950 6 . -0.13300 0.18390 -0.16050 0.15850 7 -0.37730 0.14160 -0.07047 0.21700 8 -0.31710 0.21120 -0.18530 0.14650 9 -0.43740 0.34140 -0.25770 0.14450 10 -0.24290 0.20000 -0.15430 0.12330 11, -0.38210 0.37110 -0.20210 0.12490 12 -0.45110 0.37320 -0.25110 0.12960 13 -0.37550 0.32950 -0.28790 0.11450 Table NRCQ7.22 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. Base - LC¹11 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹11 - Mixed Fuel - SSE - Mu = Mixed Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.01445 0.05982 -0.15590 0.01150 2 -0.01573 0.04529 -0.10070 0.03121 3 -0.03814 0.00370 -0.03602 0.03054 4 -0.01484 0.01815 -0.03315 0.02177 5 -0.01465 0.02287 -0.03013 0.02401 6 -0.01800 0.02262 -0.03820 0.03220 7 -0.03193 0.05243 -0.01931 0.03262 8 -0.11330 0.00274 -0.09398 0.03485 9 -0.03733 0.05549 -0.10420 0.02030 10 -0.03297 0.08081 -0.06981 0.04140 11 -0.06541 0.02504 -0.06771 0.01611 12 -0.08157 0.03135 -0.06574 0.00541 13 -0.03724 0.06029 -0.08769 0.01894

A-54 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Table NRCQ7.23 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. @ Top - LC¹12 GINNA 3D Whole Pool Model - With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹12 - Mixed Fuel - OBE - Mu = Mixed Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.12800 -0.05099 -0.13840 0.03572 2 -0.02762 0.02608 -0.09272 0.02421 3 -0.03787 0.03915 -0.05966 0.04653 4 -0.03407 0.03728 -0.04433 ~ 0.04576 5 -0.10000 -0.00996 -0.02910 0.08573 6 -0.10610 -0.00685 -0.04246 0.09343 7 -0.07496 0.10240 -0.04333 0.07983 8 -0.12220 0.12010 -0.10590 0.07594 9 -0.13640 0.16730 -0.11620 0.07165 10 -0.07718 0.09392 -0.10030 0.04885 11 -0.18440 0.18660 -0.12090 0.06964 12 -0.22110 0.15880 -0.22060 -0.01558 13 -0.14960 0.11520 -0.16270 0.06942 Table NRCQ7.24 Max. Rack Horizontal Disp. Base - LC¹12 GINNA3D Whole Pool Model With Perimeter Racks Load Case ¹12 - Mixed Fuel - OBE - Mu = Mixed Maximum Rack Horizontal Displacements ( X and Y - (in))

Rack Min X Max X Min Y Max Y 1 -0.01067 0.00032 -0.02250 0.01146 2 -0.01613 0.01311 -0.08309 0.01242 3 -0.00473 0.00567 -0.01409 0.00958 4 -0.00827 0.00950 -0.01946 0.01329 5 -0.01120 0.00375 -0.00882 0.01935 6 -0.01198 0.00319 -0.01166 0.01812 7 -0.00469 0.07092 -0.00503 0.03917 8 -0.02037 0.01650 -0.01667 0.01072 9 -0.02629 0.01897 -0.02377 0.00620 10 -0.00686 0.04084 -0.04963 0.00555 11 -0.03173 0.01917 -0.01639 0.00689 12 -0.02413 0.03670 -0.06873 -0.00189 13 -0.02462 0.01230 -0.01833 0.00719

A-55 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Ifthere is animpact between a rack and a reinforced concrete spent fuel pool (SFP) wall:

a) Provide the magnitude of the hydrodynamic pressure usedin 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) Ifthe ANSYS code was used for the analyses of the SFP walls and slab, provide a technical explanation on how the effects ofreinforcement and concrete cracking is in the computer modeling simulations. Submit the complete input including the J'eflected ANSYS model with all boundary and loading conditions usedfor the SFP analyses of the walls and slab on a 3.5-inch diskette.

~Rien The gaps between the racks and between the racks and the walls are designed such that for any of the seismic (OBE and SSE) events, the racks do not impact the spent fuel pool wall. This is true for both resident U.S. Tool and Die racks and also for the new ATEA racks. This is discussed in Section 3.1, "Scope," Section 3.2.2, "Acceptance Criteria," and Section 3.5.3.5, "Conclusion," of the Licensing Report. I The results of all the 3-D whole-pool multi-rack model runs demonstrated that there were not any rack-to-pool wall impacts (nor any rack-to-rack impacts) from any of the analyses. Further, as stated in Section 3.5.3.1.14 on page 279 of the Licensing Report, there were no impacts after the cumulative efFects of 5 OBE's plus 1 SSE.

The minimum rack to pool wall gaps existing after the cumulative efFects of 5 OBE's plus 1 SSE were as follows:

West Wall: 9.434 in East Wall: 2.686 in South Wall: 4.516 in North Wall: 1.184 in The above numbers were taken directly from Tables 3.5-137 and 3.5-138 on page 282 of the Licensing Report.

A-56 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Indicate whether there were rack-to-pool wall andlor rack-to-rackimpacts from the multi-rack analysis.

~Ryan The gaps between the racks and between the racks and the walls are designed such that for all of the seismic (OBE and SSE) events, the racks do not impact the spent fuel wall nor the racks impact any other racks. This is true for both resident U.S. Tool and Die racks and also for the new ATEA racks. This is discussed in Section 3.1, "Scope," Section 3.2.2, "Acceptance Criteria," and Section 3.5.3.5, "Conclusion," of the Licensing Report.

In summary, there were neither any rack-to-rack nor any rack-to-pool wall impacts from any of the analyses. Further, as stated in Section 3.5.3.1.14 on page 279 of the Licensing Report, there were no impacts after the cumulative e6ects of 5 OBE's plus 1 SSE.

A-57 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Submit the ANSYS input data on a 3.5-inch diskette for the weld analysis, thefuellrackirnpact analysis and the r ack thermal stress analysis as mentionedin the Reference.

~Rq~n~g:

The listing of the computer input data is provided on a 3.5-inch computer diskette in ASCII format. These input are for the ANSYS Version 5.2. These data are proprietary.

The weld stress analysis is discussed in Section 3.5.3.1.3. The weld stress analysis was performed using classical equations. The computer program ANSYS was not used.

The Disk Files Include:

Disk ANSYS Input Files, File FUELLOAD.TXT Fuel Rack Impact Model File S3DPR8TO. TXT Rack Thermal Stress Model

A-58 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Discuss the quality assurance and inspection programs to preclude installation ofany irregular or distorted rack structure and to confirm the actual fiielrack gap configurations with respect to the gaps assumedin the ANSYS analyses after installation of the racks.

ggg~n,:

The Quality Assurance procedures are discussed in Section 7.0 of the Licensing Report. Section 7.2.13 discusses the procedures for the Handling, Storage, and Shipping. Section 7.2.14 discusses the procedures for Inspection, Tests, and Operating Status. This section also discusses installation and testing.

The following QA/QC actions will assure that the fuel racks are properly fabricated and installed:

Dimensional inspections of the racks, by ATEA Quality personnel, will occur during the rack fabrication. A Source Inspection will be performed by FTI QC on the fuel storage racks prior to shipment from ATEA in accordance with an inspection plan prepared by FTI. This inspection will verify that the racks meet drawing requirements, and will check for warpage and distortion.

a) The results of the inspections will be documented on an inspection report.

b) Non-conforming conditions will be presented to ATEA for corrective action, in accordance with the ATEA QA Program. FTI will follow-up on the disposition of the ATEA non-conformance rep'orts and, ifrequired, reinspect the fuel rack assemblies.

RGB QA will perform surveillance of the inspection and preparation for shipment activities to provide additional assurance that the racks are fabricated as required.

2. Following shipment to Ginna and prior to installing the fuel racks, a receipt inspection will be performed to check for shipping damage.

3. The installation of the fuel racks will be in accordance with the RG&E-approved FTI Safety-Related QA Program.

A Traveler/Installation Procedure and installation drawings will be used to install the racks. The Traveler/Procedure will provide detailed instruction to sequence the installation and provide documentation (measurements, verifications, sign-offs for step completion, etc.) to show that the racks are properly installed. The Traveler/Procedure will include in-process QC HOLD points to verify critical installation steps and measurements and allow for RGB HOLD points. These procedures will be prepared by the cognizant FTI Engineering organization, in accordance with the FTI QA Program, approved by FTI QA, and provided to RGE for concurrence.

5. Personnel will be trained and certified, as required by the FTI QA Program. The

A-59 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing

5. Personnel will be trained and certified, as required by the FTI QA Program. The installation crew will receive mock-up training, pre-job briefings, and other task-specific training, as required to support the task.

6. FTI QA/QC will perform a final inspection and detailed review of the installation procedure and supporting documentation at the completion of the task to verify that the work was done in accordance with the applicable procedure(s) and the FTI QA Program.

In-process and final inspection will be performed in accordance with approved installation procedures and drawings. Lack of distortion and gap configuration will be a requirement of the installation process. Specific details that address distortion, irregularities, and gap configuration in accordance with the Structural Evaluation in the Licensing Report will be developed and approved prior to installation of the racks.

8. All installation activities will be subject to oversight and assessment by RGB QA, in addition to FTI oversight activity.

A-60 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Provide the locations of the leak chase systems with respect to the locations of the racks and pedestals.

Reels

/

The ATEA Drawing described below provides the location of leak chases and also the location of rack support pads. The reference drawing provides support pad locations for both the resident spent fuel storage racks and the new ATEA racks.

ATEADrawing No. SA20.001.00000, Sheet 2 of 2, Revision D (Framatome Technology Drawing No. 02-1186074F-03). Title, "Rochester Gas 2 Electric Co., R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Station No 1, General Arrangement Support Pads Location."

A-61 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Describe the method of leak detection in the SFP pool stnIcture. Ho>v are leaks monitored? Is there any existing leakage?

~R~n The leak detection system consists of a grid of rectangular indentations in the concrete behind the steel liner, located in the fioor of the spent fuel pit and refueling canal. They were formed during the initial construction of the pit. The grid is arranged such that any leakage is channeled to a collection chamber, which is periodically checked and drained of any collected borated water, which undergoes treatment.

There has been a history of leakage from the spent fuel pit/refueling canal area, and RG&E believes it has been determined that the source of the leakage is in the refueling canal. RG&E is taking measures to stop this leakage and will monitor the leakage again at our next scheduled refueling outage (the refueling canal is normally empty during normal plant operations.)

A-62 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing u tin 14 Indicate whether or not you are planning to place an overhead platform on the racks permanently or as temporarystorage during the installation of the racks.

~RLnne:

There is no plan to place an overhead platform on the racks either permanently or as temporary storage during rack installation.

n 0

A-63 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing

'0'as the rack design controlled mainly by the results of the single-rack analysis? Ifyes, was there any physical rack design change necessitated by the results of the multi-rack analysis? As applicable, describe the change(s).

Response

The 3-D single-rack dynamic analysis model and 3-D whole-pool multi-rack dynamic analysis models and their intended use are described in Section 3.5 (page 72 of the Licensing Report) and Section 3.5.2.3 (pages 106 to 109 of the Licensing Report). As described, the 3-D single-rack dynamic mathematical model is used for various sensitivity studies. The loads, displacements, and associated stresses are obtained from the 3-D whole-pool multi-rack dynamic mathematical model. The length and location of tabs, the weld size, the weld size of support legs, etc., are designed from the loadings and stresses from the 3-D whole-pool multi-rack dynamic analysis.

The gaps between the racks and the gaps between the rack and the wall are designed to preclude any impact from the results of the 3-D whole-pool multi-rack dynamic analysis.

The single-rack model was used for parametric studies. The whole-pool multi-rack model was used for the loads and displacements. Therefore, the rack design was not controlled by the results of the single-rack analysis. There were several items that were modified based on the results of the multi-rack analysis. Those items are as follows:

a) Rack base plate welds were adjusted to ensure adequate design margins.

b) Rack inter-connecting tabs and associated welds were adjusted to ensure adequate design margins.

0 A-64 U. S. NRC October 20, 1997 G. S. Vissing Describe the plan and procedure for the post-operating basis earthquake inspection offuel rack gap configurations.

~R~Lnn, RG&E has seismic instrumentation located in the sub-basement of the Intermediate Building.

That instrumentation will activate and record various data of the event, the purpose of which is to determine ifan Operating Basis Earthquake has occurred. That data is processed by way of the Technical Engineering Guidelines TEG 2.0, "Response Spectrum Calculation," and TEG 2.1, "SSE and OBE Exceedance Determination". Upon processing of the data, and ifan Operating Base Earthquake had occurred, a detailed structural engineering inspection would be conducted to determine ifany structural damage did occur. Although inspection of the gaps is not specifically identified as a requirement of this inspection, the spent fuel pit and the condition of the

'spent fuel racks/fuel assemblies would receive close scrutiny. These inspections would be performed by Professional Engineers experienced in seismic analyses/design and also trained as Seismic Capability Engineers, per requirements of the Seismic Qualification User's Group (SQUG) Generic Implementation Program.

ML17309A622

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Subject:

Subject:

Dear Mr. Vissing:

Reference:

Response

Navigation menu

ML17309A622

Text

SUBJECT:

Subject:

Subject:

Dear Mr. Vissing:

Reference:

Response

Navigation menu

Search