ML20198P644
| ML20198P644 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1983 |
| From: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151H203 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-26 NUDOCS 8606060362 | |
| Download: ML20198P644 (16) | |
Text
..
T-LICENSING REPORT ON HIGH-DENSITY SPENT FUEL RACKS
~
FOR OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION NRC DOCKET NO. 50-219 t
GPU NUCLEAR i
18e INTERPACE PARKWAY P A R S ! P'P A N Y,
N E W J E Fi S E Y 07'054
- AUGUST, 1983 60 2 860319 PATTERSO86-26 PDR
?
3 9 '- o "
/3 '- 8 "
4'-+"
zt '- o "
E
_39]8
- p"
.B.
t 5
t,
~sa
/f x /6
\\'
00 i
bN Zo x /4 N
a +n s
%x\\s s
s' s
m N
N i
S s
B7:f6 4
s8 N
a
=
n 1
\\
N E-4 u
u
\\
=
" t,I
\\
.c.
i,.
u n
l" a
~
S e,
- q" s' y "
zo n /5
- o" s
,4' s
2tx/t
- / 6 x t 2
/sxit s\\N
+
M i
\\
N
{
' /+ x 3
$ gg s
n n
a u
ir u
g y
,, E,
{
d o
g-
.g.
9 p
o
[
$ 'l" 20 x /4-8 2/x/5
/gx/5
. /6 x /6-8 1
w i~
m 4
.- g" 4-z"
/ g -*
4--
g 4
o
?!s"'
l 1
<r u
l
-,,1, ~
12+ %"
/30%"t 99 41s" 99 '%"
- ip,
- -2E, t
f IE,-*
/6 FIG. 2.1 MODULE.L AYOllT i
i
(
For rack type E
(312 cells),
the averaged gap between adjacent structures.is 3.41" in the x direction and 2.0" in the y direction.
The maximum displacement in either direction for the full rack presented is
.125" which is less than 50%
of the spacing.
Note that the direction along the smallest side is the J
local x direction of the rack.
For all runs, it is shown that inter-rack impacts will not occur.
For rack K (248 cells), the average gap is 1.5" in the local j
x direction and 3.41" in the y direction.
The critical deflection for the full rack with.8 coefficient of friction is.079".
In all other runs for this rack configuration, it is shown that inter-rack
~
impacts do not occur.
i For rack' type F (315 cells), the averaged gap spacings are 5.375" and 1.75" in the_ local x~ and y d.irections, res,pectively.
For the full rack with
.8 coefficient of friction, the maximum j
displacement of the raqk top is l_.298" in the x direction.
In all
~
of th6 analyses, the local x direction is taken along the smaller side of the rack for a non-square configuration.
J For rack type H,
the averaged gap spacings are 2.82" and 2.56" respectively.
The maximum local deflection is 1.46" for the 1
full rack.
Inter-rack impact will not occur.
i Table 6.5 also shows the maximum values of the stress factors obtained for typical full racks.
Of all cases simulated, the full rack with. 8 coefficient of friction gives the highest stress factors.
seismic simulations for the tipping conditions are carried I
15 out by increasing the horizontal SSE accelerations by 504 The calculations indicate that the racks remain stable, and that the gross movement remains within the limit of small motion theory.
- Thus, the rack modules are seen to satisfy both kinematic and stress criteria with large margins of safety.
5
. - ~
~
6 25
by ; % (nG 6 / k :d:
,s.;~,,,,.,
a l
8 5
bV e
p:
A.
- aeL -
-.. %.. d..
Sky::
F w 0 / d 9
'c 0~1 z.
y y
s/s/n i.
/km n a,L. kk rJ w.2
%d tzia
.a 14 sta
&u&
u A:4!
n24n
~
lA v_ c.
c,ma gm a,e r
% 3L
- LL I uu a La. en dj.
o
.y
^ p c 1 y
- j. '
X,M &ak
, H, f
,co m SSE
[0AT^ o d
~ ~ ~ '
,00003 X, Y, z.
ssS=
l I2 Y "
Y A l) fcpa/ L af p J#
ps-coc u e
. coco 2 x,'4 2 ssc
. /72 " (nr d
eg a (omaca) uguu:(
l
~
. occo i x, v, z. sw b Ju uuua
, pla 9)4L.wd /44 'a2 (l na sab J
+
e
.esg e
,,, -, - - - -. ~ - -, -,, - -., -, -
~
Z "a 3 5
gs N s'
\\
C,0 0 P LI N G ELEMENTS 4N TyP.l C A L F U E L A S S E M B LY 3
GR OU P.M A S S H
~
W FUEL R ACK B A SE 2'
s 'lA Ay,
=
a
/
\\
/
Ax
_L l
y 1,
Ijwe
+Y 7-h ]2 XB
/- + -
t t
i 4
a I
I h
1 1
'r su m
FUEL R AC K SUPPORT
~
g X
XB, yB - LOCATION ~ OF CE NTROID O F FUEL ROD G ROUP M ASSES - RELATIVE TO CENTER O F F U E L' R A C K 01 =, U N I T V E C T O R S I
~
FI G.
6.1 D Y N A M I C MODEL 2
t i
c l
1, Y
IMPACT d
SPRIN G S O
~
iir T,.
3 ' ss u
2 y,;.;
i
&3 1
F LU ID DAMPERS RIGID FRAME X
,2.. _.
i, F I G.
E.21 M PA C T S P RI N G S AND i
4 FLUl3 D A M P.E R S 7
l 6-41
.-- 4
. ~.
5 h
%. X. (Typ.)
5
~..
a Seismic h
AAA N Motions E
M-Z Fuel Assembly
-j..
Group Lumped Mass (Typ-)
Y 3
()
wrw Rack Lumped.
3 Mass & inertia For Horizontal Motions (Typ.)
2 (v
WV 2
k n
A K
K h
g s.
N 11
/
jf
~
gwv w
9 g, T t "
st M K
A T
Figure 6.3 Spring Mass Simulation For Two Dimensional Motion 8-42
n p e z' n f>g
/
g g
. m _,,..
E JOSEPH SAT CORP OR ATIO N d'
CHEMIC AL ENGINEERS & F ABRIC ATORS e#
s 499 TEM June 19, 1984 Mr. Clyde Herrick Franklin Research Center 21st and Parkway Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Dear Mr. Herrick:
J My meeting with Dr. Vu Con, Dr.
V.
Luk and yourself on Thursday, June 14, resulted in developing the following criterion to verify the acceptability of the time steps used in running DYNAHIS for the Oyster Creek Project.
It was agreed that rack F, no form drag, p=
0.8, three-D simultaneous earthquake case should be run for the following three time steps for 3 secs. of the earthquake duration; at =.3 x 10-4, 0.2 x 10-4, 0.1 x 10-4 secs. The displacement of the top point on the rack axis as a function of time in x and y directions should be furnished for each of the three time increment solutions.
A re.asonably j
close agreement amongst the three solutions would.be deemed to confirm the validity of the time increments used in integrating the equations of motion.
We herewith attach copies of displacement plots in x and y directions for the three ca'es of time steps (a total of six s
plots).
Each plot has 4 curves (in four colors) - black, red, blue, and green.
Black and red are top corner point displacement histories of the F-rack.
Blue and green curves are the corresponding rack bottom point corners displacement plots.
The three time steps show complete agreement to'.the naked eye.
We trust that this fact establishes the soundness of the integration scheme, and settles this matter for good.
As to the computed 'cack maximum displacements, it is important to bear associated highly conservative assumptions in mind.
We have stated them in our prior answers to your questions.
To recap:
(i)
All fuel assemblies are assumed to vibrate in complete coherence throughout the seismic event - a statistically improbable occurrence.
This completely in-phase motion of the fuel asemblies has the effect of grossly overestimating the rack movement and rack foundation loads.
2500 Broadway / Drawer 10 / Camden, New Jersey 08104 / (609) 541-2900
~,,m
n JOSEPH DAT CORPORATION J
CHEMICAL ENGINEERS & FABRICATORS NUCLEAR POWER COMPONENTS Mr. Clyde Herrick Franklin Research June 19, 1984 Page 2 (ii)
The hydraulic coupling effects are modelled using linearized terms which are known to significantly overpredict the rack displacement and loads.
(iii)
The form drag due to the finite amplitude motion of the fuel assemblies; and due to the movement of the rack is neglected.
(iv)
NUREG-0800 permits evaluation of rack response due to seismic acceleration in one direction at one time; followe6 by a SRSS summation.
It is intuitively apparent that simultaneous application of these earthquake excitations will exacerbate the total response.
In light of the above assumptions, the computed values of rack movements and stresses should be considered grossly limiting upper bounds. The highly conservative nature of these assumptions is demonstrated by considering the previously mentioned case of rack j
F, at =.00003 sec. wherein a lower bound on the fuel assembly J
form drag is included in the analysis.
The detailed output of the i
results forwarded to Franklin Research Center shows the significant reduction in the maximum response.
Other asumptions, when removed, are known to produce even more drastic reductions.
l I close this letter by emphasizing that the racks for Oyster Creek possess by far the greatest flexural rigidity of any high density rack anywhere. It is physically nearly impossible to improve on its structural attributes.
i We trust that your evaluation would continue to proceed apace.
We will continue to provide you complete access to our files as we have done in the past. We hope it will expedite the review process.
Sincerely, gp an d K.P. Singh Vice President KPS:nlm JOC840619.01 l
cc:
Robert Lorenzo, GPU Walter Duda, GPU P.Y.
Kuo, NRC J
t 999V
.o o
o oo o.
X. DISP FOR
.00001 SEC TIME INC DATA FILE o-o e?
P omo oo vo O
M Q
0-o t.n m i
e-no c '.
o t
X on o.
t
't om o.
I o
m
?
o.
3 o
.o
'O.000 2'5.0 5'0. 0 7'. 0 i00.0 i25.0 i50.0 i75.0
. 2'00.0
' 2I 5
TIME.L (. 01.SEC)
~
.5:..?_N.. '.. " M '.
f
.N L
1 y
r ~;.:r '
. :. w.. -
~~
_g3.m. e. '
. k$.
a:
-.,v: y i
A
_m.
- N J
O 1
1 C - DATA FILE 4 6/16/84 q
t 0
0 0
\\)
OW O\\) v y
J g
~
V V
J
~
. jd,. 3'25.0
. l 255.o 3'00.0 3'so, o E..(.
1.SE
.i
' ;.lf
{l
-* 5,
- q'
[,..
1er,f'j.{ ~
I'
='
~'
l\\
-Y i.hq. 'l ~,;. r e,..$'h ?-
'T -
- .:.x -
tg ;
x s
. J.
gf*..,.,
L
.f,f,
- ( [.
.h, '
^
.z l l
~
di ai
,f
i, r
e 4
t go - t.
- 7.
O i.
I O
.D X DISP FOR
.00002 SEC TIME INC -
DATA FILE 1
g black, red, blue, green i
o 1
]
o a
o v
u W o.
H 00-x' 1
O o
i
.c-O (D
O.
- g 8 m i
O CD O.
l l
C.
i I
o i
o l
=g i
o
]
'0.000 2'5. 0, 5'0. 0 7'. 0 i00.0 1'25.0 1'50.0 l'75.0 2'00.0 2'25.0 5
TIME
(.01 SEC)
I IU
.-., s m,.............. ;... w.. ys.g,, yg g.. m
,,_,,,_,m,,
,,m.m,,,,,,,,,,,,,_,,,,,,,_,.,,,,,,,_,
f
(
M
- j!
[-;V i '..
- DATA FILE 2 6/15/84 0
i A
q
(\\
A
\\
b f
3 fdw U\\J y%
.f 1 -
h J
h IP.
i y
ky? =
T'T h
i 6
- ,4 o-i3 2'00.0 2'25.0 2'50.0 2'75.0 3'00.0 3'25.0 3'50.0
- M SEC) s I
_A'
~
'~
. ~
1 g
- :p o,
O o
8 o-X DISP FOR
.00003 SEC TIME INC -
DAT eo a-0 s-g m.
M n1 W
q :l
- a..
wm Hoaa.
x' e
9-8 o.
O.
}
8 R
?-
8
} #' 3D4 0.000 2'5.0 5'o. 0 7'. o i00.0 1'25.0 1'50.0 i75.0 2'00.0 s
~d TIME'
(.01 SEC) 4 O B84 g
l:CEIVED y
4UCLEAR n:
r t r _,_._ _ -
i_
eL {'
t '..
%?t.
~ ~
~
i
'? f.
~ ~.
l i
3'
)
h..d.'
p.9,-
t 7
W' W
- DATA FILE 3
'6/15/84 h
~
t 0
S[v h Jak "Ic p p
p 0
D l~
'~
'l*r*
- Y 1
l l
i 1
o h
~
)I 2'00.0 2'25.0 2'50.0 2'75.0 3'00.0 3'25.0 3'50.0
!Il SEC)
.e a
s l
. 'l l
6
_-.._L Wh "%:12,W' s NW,.
4 %
', lWsT.v.47 s-vi s., S i e s s,+r e
en e.verww.wmaavrev, esses, e
h w
4 4 % 7 7M i 6 -%
e -,, u g } j
gg,'q,
3 s
A
/eo y 7
_ st yy m_.._.._........
% M-'
% ~v-f *4 WMM E A y aw91,-d w t ad zu - m f% carf E, &
ko tiduW y AhAM,wk
& tL as~- 4 -M
' A ~~w wm a u p%ua Q
L- /
M
% A Y~~1 Q f & Ajed eJZ4df,4' sn s wep. n ye w,k,x A rs pi} p u n 2,$~& D g asp m hs m A. gp, s - ~ -aw
$ WWMSWA'T ll4 M Vdb b'M
~7590-01 i
9 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
DOCKET NO. 50-344 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FINAL DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (Comission) has issued Amendment No. 88 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-1, issued to Portland General Electric Company, Pacific Power and Light Company, and The City of Eugene, Oregon (the licensee), which. revised the operating license and the t'echnical specifications for operation of the Trojan Nuclear Plant located in Columbia County, Oregon. The amendment was effective as of thd date of its issuance.
The amendnent authorizes the licensee t'o increase'the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool from 651 fuel assemblies togl408 fuel assemblies.
The application for the amendment complies with the standards and require-ments of the the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's rules and regulations. The Comission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Comission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
JJLI
~
A - IIO t
99 g
-2e Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with this action was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on December 5, 1983 (48 FR 54550). Requests for a hearing were filed by the State of Oregon and the Coalition for Safe Power.
Under its regulations, the Comission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.
1 The Comission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and ha's made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
The basis for this detennination is contained in the Safety Evaluatio'n related to this action. Accordingly, as described above, the amendment has been issued and made imediately effective.and any hearing will be held after issuance.
The Commission has prepared an Environmental Impact Appraisal related to this action and has concluded that an environmental impact statement is not warranted because this action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this action see (1) the application I
for amendment dated August 1,1983, as supplemented and amended October 31, 1983, (2 letters); and supplemented November 23, December 9 and 30, 1983; and m
m m yvr m%== wr -+e a 3 s r,. < y 9 r..e,-r+ -
r **
a$__
L
-3~
~
February 6 and April 25,1984;(2) Amendednt No. 88 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-1; (3) the Comission's related Safety Evaluation; and (4) the Environmental Impact Appraisal.
All of these items are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., and at the
'Multnomah County Library, 801 S. W.10th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. A copy J
of items (2), (3) and (4) may be obtained upon request addressed to the
~
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Licensing.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of June,1984.
FOR THE NUCLEAR R ULATO COMMISSION 4
//
James R. Miller, Chief Operating' Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensin.g
(
I
~
SDS esen r
-~
3
,