ML20197J326
| ML20197J326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1998 |
| From: | Hood D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mueller J NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| TAC-MA1945, NUDOCS 9812150040 | |
| Download: ML20197J326 (10) | |
Text
__
Mr. John H. Mueller i
Chi;f Nuclerr Officer December 9, 1998 Nirgira Mohawk Power C:rporction Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Operations Building, Second Floor P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING INCREASED SPENT FUEL POOL STORAGE CAPACITY AT NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 (TAC NO. MA1945)
Dear Mr. Mueller.
By letter dated May 15,1998, you submitted an application for license amendment to change Technical Specification 5.5," Storage of Unirradiated and Spent Fuel." The changes would reflect proposed modifications to increase the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool at Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No.1. The NRC staff is reviewing this application and finds that additional information, identified in the enclosure, is needed. The requests in Enclosure 1 supplement our requests by letter dated August 11 and 24,1998, and October 27,1998.
As shown in Enclosure 2, a draft version of Enclosure 1 was faxed to Mr. S. Leonard of your organization on November 20,1998, to determine a response date. Based on Mr. Leonard's reply that a response can be provided within 30 days of receipt of NRC's letter, it has been determined that a mutually acceptable response date is January 11,1999. If you have any questions regarding this request or find that you are unable to meet this response schedule, please contact me by phone on (301) 415-3049 or by electronic mail at dsh@nrc. gov.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
l Darl S. Hood, Senior Project Manager 9812150040 981209 Project Directorate 1-1 PDR ADOCK 05000220 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 l
P PDR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-220 i
Enclosures:
- 1. Supplemental Request for Additional Information
- 2. Correspondence regarding response date Y
)
cc w/encls: See next page
,(pp p 5 g ("
..,g E w
/
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket I :le SBajwa OGC YKim PUBLIC Little ACRS CHinson
/
,,.3, PDI-1 R/F 4 v 's a Hood LDoerflein, RI DShum JZwolinski(A)
LKopp KParczewski j {}l t
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\NMPi\\NM1A1945.WPD To r:crive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with cticchment/ enclosure "N" = No copy 0FFICE PM:PDI 1 lE LA:PDI 10()
l 4$DM/} M l
l L
NAME DHood/rst_) d N SlittlC Wa9WV /
8 1
DATE 12/ 4 /98 12/ 9 /98 12/ 4 f /98
/98 Official itecord Copy
l y[ spCth UNITED STATES
).
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001
\\ *****/
December 9, 1998 Mr. John H. Muener Chief Nuclear Officer fY_ FAX Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 4
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Operations Building, Second Floor P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING INCREASED SPENT FUEL POOL STORAGE CAPACITY AT NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.1 (TAC NO. MA1945)
Dear Mr. Mueller.
By letter dated May 15,1998, you submitted an application forlicense amendment to change Technical Specification S.5, " Storage of Unirradiated and Spent Fuel." The changes would reflect proposed modifications to increase the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool at Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No.1. The NRC staff is reviewing this application and finds that additionalinformation, identified in Enclosure 1, is needed. The requests in Enclosure 1 supplement our requests by letter dated August 11 and 24,1998, and October 27,1998.
As shown in Enclosure 2, a draft version of Enclosure 1 was faxed to Mr. S. Leonard of your organization on November 20,1998, to determine a response date. Based on Mr. Leonard's reply that a response can be provided within 30 days of receipt of NRC's letter, it has been determined that a mutually acceptable response date is January 11,1999. If you have any questions regarding this request or find that you are unable to meet this response schedule, please contact me by phone on (301) 415-3049 or by electronic mail at dsh@nrc. gov.
Sincerely, Darl S. Hood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-220
Enclosures:
- 1. Supplemental Request for Additional Information
- 2. Correspondence regarding response date cc w/encts: See next page
1 i
John H. Mueller Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Unit No.1
- cc:
Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road
' King of Prussia, PA 19406 l
. Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 126 Lycoming, NY 13093 Charies Donaldson, Esquire
' Assistant Attomey General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Mr. Paul D. Eddy State of New York Department of Public Service Power Division, System Operations 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223 l
Mr. F. William Valentino, President i
New York State Energy, Research, and Development Authority Corporate Plaza West 286 Washington Avenue Extension Albany, NY 12203-6399 Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, NW l
Washington, DC 20005-3502
. Gary D. Wilson, Esquire Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, NY 13202 l
Supervisor Town of Scriba Route 8, Box 382 Oswego, NY 13126 l
l-SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATIONS NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-220 in addition to the information requested by the NRC staff by letters dated August 11 and 24, 1998, and October 27,1998, provide the following additional information regarding the application for license amendment by letter dated May 15,1998.
V.
CIVIL ENGINEERING
- 12. Provide additionalinformation including drawings or sketches describing the d2 sign of the following items:
a)
The pool cask area and the cask drop protection system. Identify any physical barriers between this area and the remaining pool. Explain why the cask drop protection system was analyzed as a fuel rack.
b)
Details of cell-to-cell welds, cell-to-baseplate welds, and pedestal-to-baseplate welds.
c)
Details of impact protection hard points at top comers of the racks.
d)
Dimensions of the bearing pads which transfer the rack loads to the pool floor.
- 13. Demonstrate that the artificial seismic time histories used in the analyses satisfy the power spectral density (PSD) requirement of Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.7.1.
- 14. Explain how in-phase fluid coupling coefficients are calculated for single rack model analysis.
- 15. Fuel-to-cell fluid coupling coefficients were calculated based on channeled fuel. Fluid coupling for unchanneled fuel may be sign;ficantly lower due to the larger flow area through the fuel. This may increase the rack responsas. Please address this potential concem.
- 16. Provide the structural damping values used in the analysis and explain how damping was included in the equations of motion.
- 17. Provide a sketch of a typical simplified 8 DOF rack model used in the whole pool multi-rack (WPMR) analyses. What percentage of the total fuel mass was assumed to rattle and how was this and other simplifying assumptions validated?
l l
a-18. A number of new fuel racks (e.g., racks E and M) shown in your submittal of May 15, 1998, have irregular configurations with additional cells in corners. These racks are significantly different from the simple rectangular cross-section racks assumed in the models. These differences may affect the seismic motion and stress distribution. Explain how these differences are accounted for in the analyses.
- 19. The WPMR analysis predicted rack-to-rack impacts which were not predicted by the single rack analysis. Since the structural evaluation of the racks was based upon the single rack analysis, these impact loads may not have been considered in the overall structural evaluation. Please provide a summary of the impact loads and explain how they were accounted for in the rack stress evaluation.
- 20. Provide sample calculations for the following:
a)
Evaluation of welds summarized in Table 6.7.27 of your submittal of May 15, 1998.
b)
Evaluation of local stresses in rack cells due to rack-to-rack impact loads and due to fluid coupling hydrodynamic pressures.
c)
Evaluation of dropped fuel, stuck fuel and dropped rack accidents.
d)
Evaluation of the pool liner for potential tearing, rupture and fatigue failure.
- 21. Provide an explanation of the information in Table 6.7.28, " Summary of Analysis Results,"
of your submittal of May 15,1998. There is no discussion of this table in the report.
- 22. Provide the basis for selection of the third WPMR analysis load case on page 6-28 of your submittal of May 15,1998. In this case, four racks in the southwest comer of the pool are empty. It appears inappropriate that one of the empty racks, J2, is the heaviest rack that was analyzed as one of the two bounding racks in the single rack analyses.
- 23. The first WPMR analysis load case includes the old racks in the south half of the pool.
Although they are laterally restrained, they appear to be analyzed as free-standing racks and have comparable seismic displacements to those of the new racks. Please clarify the design, lateral restraint and analysis of the old racks.
- 24. The maximum WPMR analysis displacement of 1.366 inches presented in Table 6.8.13 of your submittal of May 15,1998, does not agree with the value of 2.04 inches presented in Table 6.8.1 for the same rack. This is much larger than the single rack analysis displacement of 0.726 inches. This should be corrected and the consequences of this difference should be evaluated.
- 25. Explain the basis for the maximum shear stress equation given in Section 7.4 of your submittal of May 15,1998.
I
.. 26. Provide additionalinformation to demonstrate that the increased mass due to the expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity will not affect the seismic response of the reactor building.
- 27. Provide the stiffness calculations for the racks C and E of your submittal of May 15,1998, with respect to the three directions (i.e., North-South, East-West and diagonal (45-degree) directions).
- 28. What is the maximum bulk pool temperature at a full core off-load during a refueling outage? If the temperature exceeds 150 *F, provide the following:
a)
A description of the details of the spent fuel pool (SFP) structural analysis, including the material properties (i.e., modulus of elasticity, shear modulus, poisson's ratio, yield stress and strain, ultimate stress and strain, compressive strength, etc.), used in the analysis for the reinforced concrete slab and walls, and liner plate, welds and anchorages.
b)
The complete analysis results in a tabular form including: (i) factors of safety with respect to bending, shear and axial forces for SFP walls and slab and (ii) i shear stress, strain, deflection and reaction forces for the liner plate and liner anchor.
I c)
ACI Code 349 limits a concrete temperature up to 150 *F for normal operation or any other long term period. Provide technicaljustification for exceeding the required temperature of 150 *F.
- 29. Discuss the quality assurance and inspection programs to preclude installation of any irregular or distorted racks, and to confirm the actual fuel rack gap configurations with respect to the gaps assumed in the DYNARACK analyses after installation of the racks.
- 30. Indicate whether or not you are planning to place an overhead platform on the racks permanently or for temporary storage during the installation of the racks.
- 31. Describe the plan and procedure for the post-operating basis earthquake inspection of fuel rack gaps and configurations.
i s** R8%
g UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30eeMMm1
/
////[8 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION DATE:
To: $k FAX NO: 8ff-)Yf-t'Y&
TEL NO: J/S.29'F-+'sf FROM:(pje)CC j
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FAX NO.: (301) 415-2102 TEL NO:80/- V/S'-/fGF PAGE 1 OFf PAGES ggjgg
,g REMARKS:
g p ssLied %
" N*
g.
~.
l
l i
e, t
.]> @ P T REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE SPENT FUEL POOL STORAGE RACK MODIFICATION AT NINE MILE POINT UNIT 1 l
l Civil Enaineerino and Geosciences Branch l
Division of Enaineerina 1.
Provide additional information including drawings or sketches describing the design of the following items:
a)
The pool cask area and the cask drop protection system. Identify any physical l
barriers between this area and the remaining pocl. Explain why the cask drop l
protection system was analyzed as a fuel rack.
b)
Details of cell-to-cell welds, cell-to-baseplate welds, and pedestal-to-baseplate l
c)
Details of impact protection hard points at top comers of the racks.
l l
d)
Dimensions of the bearing pads which transfer the rack loads to the pool floor.
\\
l 2.
Demonstrate that the artificial seismic time histories used in the analyses satisfy the power spectral density (PSD) requirement of SRP 3.7,1.
3.
Explain how in-phase fluid coupling coefficients are calculated for single rack model analysis.
4.
Fuel-to-cell fluid coupling coefficients were calculated based on channeled fuel. Fluid j
coupling for unchanneled fuel may be significantly lower due to the larger flow area l
througn the fuel. This may increase the rack responses. Explain why this was not l.
considered.
5.
Provide the structural damping values used in the analysis and explain how damping was included in the equations of motion.
2 i
6.
Provide a sketch of a typical simplified 8 DOF rack model used in the whole pool multi-l rack (WPMR) analyses. What percentage of the total fuel mass was assumed to rattle and how was this and other simplifying assumptions validated?
l 7.
A number of new fuel racks (e.g., racks E and M) shown in Reference have irregular configurations with additional cells in comers. These racks are significantly different from the simple rectangular cross-section racks assumed in the models. These differences may affect the seismic motion and stress distribution. Explain how these differences are propedy accounted for in the analyses.
8.
The WPMR analysis predicted rack-to-rack impacts which were not predicted by the single rack analysis. Since the structural evaluation of the racks was based the single 2NF/
l
e hWYYATTACHMENT rack analysis, these impact loads may not have been considered in the overall structural evaluation. Please provide a summary of the impact loads and explain how they were accounted for in the rack stress evaluation.
9.
Provide sample calculations on the following:
a)
Evaluation of welds summarized in Table 6.7.27 of Reference.
b)
Evaluation of local stresses in rack cells due to rack-to-rack impact loads and to fluid coupling hydrodynamic pressures.
c)
Evaluation of dropped fuel, stuck fuel and dropped rack accidents.
d)
Evaluation of pool liner for potential tearing, rupture and fatigue failure.
10.
Provide an explanation of the information in Table 6.7.28, " Summary of Analysis Results", on page 6-69a of Reference. There is no discussion of this table in the report.
11.
Provide the basis for selection of the third WPMR analysis load case on page 6-28 of Reference. In this case, four racks in the southwest corner of the pool are empty. It appears inappropriate that one of the empty racks is the heaviest rack J2 which was analyzed as one of the two bounding racks in the single rack analyses.
12.
The first WPMR analysis load case includes the old racks in the south half of the pool.
Although they are laterally restrained, they appear to be analyzed as free-standing racks and have comparable seismic displacements to those of the new racks. Please clarify the design, lateral restraint and analysis of the old racks.
13.
The maximum WPMR analysis displacement of 1.366 inches presented in Table 6.8.13 of Reference does not agree with the value of 2.04 inches presented in Table 6.8.1 for the same rack. This is much larger than the single rack analysis displacement of 0.726 inches. This should be corrected and the consequences of this difference should be evaluated.
14.
Explain the basis for the maximum shear stress equation given in Section 7.4 of Reference.
15.
Provide additional information to demonstrate that the increased mass due to the expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity will not affect the seismic response of the reactor building.
16.
Provide the stiffness calculations for the racks C and E of Reference with respect to the three directions (i.e., North-South, East-West and diagonal (45-degree) directions).
17.
What is the maximum bulk pool temperature at a full core off-load during a refueling outage? If the temperature exceeds 150*F, provide the following: l
}RA F T l
l
}
) $ A f 7~
,a l
a)
Describe the details of the spent fuel pool (SFP) structural analysis including the material properties (i.e., modulus of elasticity, shear modulus, poisson's ratio, yield stress and strain, ultimate stress and strain, compressive strength, etc.)
used in the analysis for the reinforced concrete slab and walls, and liner plate, l
welds and anchorages in the analysis.
b)
The complete analysis results in a tabular form including: (1) factors of safety with respect to bending, shear and axial forces for SFP walls and slab and (ii) shear stress, strain, deflection and reaction forces for the liner plate and liner anchor.
l c)
ACI Code 349 limits a concrete temperature up to 150'F for normal operation or any other long term period. Provide technical justifications for exceeding the required temperature of 150'F.
18.
Discuss the quality assurance and inspection programs to preclude installation of any irregular or distorted racks, and to confirm the actual fuel rack gap configurations with respect to the gaps assumed in the DYNARACK analyses after installation of the racks.
19.
Indicate whether or not you are planning to place an overhead platform on the racks permanently or for temporary storage during the installation of the racks.
20.
Describe the plan and procedure for the post operating basis earthquake inspection of fuel rack gaps and configurations.
Reference:
"Nine Mile Point Unit 1, Docket No. 50-220, DPR-63," Letter dated May 15,1998, from Niagara Mohawk to U.S. NRC.
l r
3 l
.