ML20217E046
| ML20217E046 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1997 |
| From: | Chandu Patel NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Dugger C ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| References | |
| TAC-M98325, NUDOCS 9710060269 | |
| Download: ML20217E046 (7) | |
Text
e September 25, 1997 c
Mr. Charles M. Dugger Vice President Operations Entergy Operations, Inc.
P. O. Box B K111ona, LA 70066
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE SPENT FUEL POOL RERACKING AT WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 (TAC NO.
M98325)
Dear Mr. Dugger:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) he spent fuel storage capacity at the staff is reviewing your letter dated March 27, 1997, requesting to increase t Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.
As discussed in the Enclosure, sdditional information is required fro'1 Entergy Operations, Inc., in order for the staff to complete its review regarding the structural aspects of the request.
We request that you provide response within 30 days from the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please. call me.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-382
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enc 1:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
' Docket File PUBLIC PD4-1 r/f OGC-C. Patel J. Clifford C. Hawes y1)
E. Adensam (EGA1)
T. Gwynn, RIV ACRS V
Document Name: WAT98325.RAI 0FC-PM/PD4-1 a LA/PD4-1
/
l NAME CPatelk CHawes M//
DATE
'1/A(97 Q<p5'/97 b b!,.h b,3!h3 hht]
COPY-- kE9/NO YES/NO 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY Nk00INhk $$$a2 P
PDR Il p pl.1pliq ll
@# #f 00 k UNITES STATES g
g
]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 300eH001
\\,..... /j September 25, 1997 Mr. Chat-les M. Dugger Vice President Operations Entergy Operations, Inc.
P. O. Box B K111ona, LA 70066
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE SPENT FUEL POOL RERACKING AT WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 (TAC NO.
M98325)
Dear Mr. Dugger:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing your letter dated March 27, 1997, requesting to increase the spent fuel storage capacity at the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.
As discussed in the Enclosure, additional information is required from Entergy Operations, Inc., in order for the staff to complete its review regarding the structural aspects of the request.
We request that you provide response within 30 days from the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely, i
W @hh Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 s
Division of Reactor Projects !!!/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-382
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enc 1:
See next page
~~- = = - - - -
Mr. Charles M. Dugger Entergy Operations, Inc.
Waterford 3 cc:
Administrator Regional Administrator, Region IV Louisiana Radiation Protection Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 82135 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 Arlington, TX 76011 Vice President, Operations Resident Inspector /Waterford NPS Support Post Office Box 822 Entergy-Operations, Inc.
Killona, LA 70066 P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286 Parish President Council St. Charles Parish Director P. O. Box 302 Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs Hahnville, LA 70057 Entergy Operations, Inc.
P. O. Box B Executive Vice-President Killona, LA 70066 and Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.
Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway P. O. Box 31995 P. O. Box 651 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Jackson, MS 39205 Chairman General Manager Plant Operations Louisiana Public Service Commission Entergy Operations, Inc.
One American Place, Suite 1630 P. O. Box B Baton Rouge, LA 70825-1697 Killona, LA 70066 Licensing Manager Entergy Operations, Inc.
P. O. Box B Killona, LA 70066 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502
%S1 ^ 64wuM*WS h
e m my-m
-em--
i t
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION i
WATERFORD 3 SPENT FUEL POOL RERACKING l.
With respect to the dynamic fluid-structure interaction analyses using the computer code, DYNARACK, in the Reference, provide the following:
L; Explain how the simple stick model used in the dynamic analyses can represent accurately and realistically the actual highly complicated nonlinear hydrodynamic fluid-rack structure interactions and 1
behavior of the fuel assemblies and the box-type rack structures, t
Discuss whether or-not a finite element (FE) model with 3-D plate, i
beam and fluid elements together with appropriate constitutive relationships would be a more Walistic, accurate approach to analyze the fluid-structure interactions in contrast to the stick
- model, b)
Provide the results of any existing experimental study that verifies the correctness or adequacy of the simulation of the fluid coupling utilized in the numerical analyses for the fuel assemblies, racks and walls.
If there is no such experimental study available, provide information to demonstrate that the current level of the DYNARACK code verification is adequate for engineering application and should be accepted without further experimental verification work.
c)
Indicate whether you had any numerical convergency and/or stability
[
problem (s) during the nonlinear, dynamic single-and multi-rack analyses using the DYNARACK code.
If there were any, how did you overcome the problem?
i 2.
Provide technical discussions as to how you developed the target power spectral density (PSD) functions shown in Figures 6.4.7 through 6.4.12 of Reference.
3.
Submit time history input data in ASCII for the operating basis earthquake (OBE)5-inch diskette.and design base earthquake (08E) used in the rac analyses on a 3.
Also submit input data used for the target PSD development.
4.
With respect to the dynamic differential equations described on page 1
6-11 in the Reference, you introduced the nonlinear terms, 0 (X ) and u
0 (X,,).
Explain:
i a)
What are those nonlinear terms?
b) What are the factors that contribute to those terms? Provide the l
terms including magnitudes actually used in your analysis.
ENCLOSURE l
i
=
a
. : : w.:==----
2-5.
Provide the physical dimensions of the racks, and gaps between the racks and the racks and the walls.
6.
Provide a complete deformation shape of the rack from the bottom to the top for the single rack 08E analysis when the maximum displacement equals 2.83 inches as shown on page 6-24 of the Reference.
7.
From a review of the displacement summary on page 6-24 of.the Reference, the maximum displacements of the racks in the spent fuel pool and cask pit for the DBE is approximately two times larger than the maximum displacements of the racks for the DBE. However the maximum displacements of the racks in the refueling canal for the DBE is approximately eight times larger than the maximum displacements of the racks for the OBE. Discuss t1e factors to cause such a large difference.
- 8.
Your analysis results show that there were rack-to-pool wall and rack-to-rack impacts.
Indicate whether you are planning to install a support system to minimi'.e displacement and impact force between the rack-to-pool wall and rack-to-rack.
9.
With respect to the analytical simulation of the rattling fuel assembly impacting against the cell:
a) How did you calculate the magnitude of the largest im>act force and the location of the impact in'the fuel assembly and tie cell wall?
b) How did you determine and analyze the fuel assembly and cell wall integrity?
c) Discuss the considerations given to the effects of the fluid between the fuel assembly and cell wall during the interactions, d)
Provide available experimental studier, that verify the reasonableness of the numerical simu'lation adopted to represent the fuel asambly and cell wall interaction.
10.
With respect to the spent fuel pool (SFP) structural analysis using the EBS/NASTRAN computer code presented 9n Chapter 8 of the
Reference:
a) Provide a plan view of the SFP and physical dimensions-of the reinforced concrete slab and walls, lirar plate and liner anchorage, b)
Provide a copy of the mesh used in the analysis.
c) Describe the boundary conditions used, and indicate them in the mesh.
-m
- _____._ r
. Provide the material properties d) modulus, poisson's ratio, yield s(tress and strain, ultimate stressi.e., modulus of elas and strain, etc.) of'the liner plate and liner anchorage at the temperature of 212'F used in the analysis, e) Describe the a> plied loading conditions including the magnitudes, and indicate tteir locations in the mesh, f) Explain how the interface between the liner and concrete slab is modeled, and also, how the liner anchors are modeled.
Provide the basis for using such modeline with respect to how they accurately represent the real structural behavior.
g) Discuss how the material nonlinearities were modeled in your analysis (i.e., stress-strain relationships, hardening, etc.),
h) Provide in a tabular form the complete analysis results including out-of-plane and shear stress, strain, deflection and reaction forces for the liner and liner plate and liner anchor under the maximum temperature loading condition (212'F) during an accident.
Also, provide the analysis results that demonstrate that there is no local buckling on the liner plate or a liner pitte separation from the liner anchor (i.e, bifurcation point, mode shape, etc.)..
11.
You concluded that there is no structural failure of the liner plate and liner anchor in pullout and shear. This conclusion was based on the design criteria guide in the ASME Section III Code.
Provide the following:
a) A detailed technical discussion (i.e, analysis approach, procedure, etc.) regarding the thermal analysis at the temperature of 212*F.
b) An effective coefficient of thermal expansion, which is the difference between the steel and the concrete thermal coefficients, used in the analysis, c) Did you perform an experimental test to determine the. actual ultimate deflection of the liner anchor?
If not, how did you get the actual ultimate axial and shear deflections of the liner anchor to use with the ASME Section III Code?-
12.
Provide the locations of the leak chase systems with respect to the locations of the racks and pedestals.
13..
Describe the method of leak detection in the fuel pool structure.
How are leaks monitored? Is there any existing leakage?
14.
Discuss the quality assurance and inspection programs to preclude installation of any irregular or distorted rack structure, and to confirm the actual fuel rack gap configurations with res>ect to the gaps assumed in the DYNARACK analyses after installation of tie racks.
4-15.
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.
16.
Describe the plan and procedure for the post OBE inspection of fuel rack gap configurations.
p - - -
.4
-.-.-,p.wm%.,y_,_
,.,y,,
s,
.