ML20238A021

Testimony of Ee Demario on Contention 5.* Testimony of Ee Demario on Contention 5 Re Effects of Seismic Loads That Spent Fuel Storage Racks Could Exert Upon Fuel Assemblies within Spent Fuel Storage Rack.Related Correspondence

ML20238A021
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	08/31/1987
From:	WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20237L743	List: ML20237L739 ML20237L816 ML20238A021 ML20238A042 ML20238A075 ML20238A130 ML20238A236 ML20238A273
References
OLA-2, NUDOCS 8709090099
Download: ML20238A021 (7)

Text

. - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - _ _ _ --

't 1

2 UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5' .

In the Matter of- ) Docket Nos. 50-250-OLA-2 .

6 ) 50-251-OLA-2 l FLORIDA-POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

7 (Turkey Point Nuclear-Generating ) I Station, Units 3 & 4) ) (Spent Fuel Pool Expansion) 8

.9 Testimony Of Edmund E. DeMario j On Contention Number 5  :

10 li Ql: Please state your name and addrecs.

Als My name is Edmund E. DeMario. I am employed by the i 13 ')

Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse") as an 1 14-advisory engineer in the Commercial Nuclear. Fuel Division (CHFD). My business address is P.O. Drawer R, Columbia, SC, 29250.

17 Q2: Please describe your professional qualifications and 18 experience.

A2: A summary of my professional qualifications and experi-ence is attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorpor- -

21 ated herein by reference.

03: What is the purpose of your testimony?

A3: The purpose of my testimony is to address Contention No. ,

L 24 l l 5 as limited to the effects of seismic loads that the i l

25 Turkey Point spent fuel storage racks could exert upon the fuel assemblies within the spent fuel storage racks. )

)

28 l 8709090099 070831 PDR ADOCK 05000250 G PDR l

_.-_____-_-_-_--_-___--___-__-_-_O

ni f

... 1 2 The Testimony Of Harry J. Flanders, Jr. On Contention 3 Number 5 addresses the seismic analysis of the spent 4 fuel storage racks, and the Testimony Of Russell Gouldy 5 On Contention Number 5 addresses the administrative 6 controls.for loading of spent fuel into the racks.

7 Contention No. 5 and the bases for the contention 8 are as follows:

9 Contention 5 10 That the main safety function of the spent 11 fuel pool which is to maintain the spent fuel assemblies in a safe configuration 12 through all environmental and. abnormal leading, may not be. met as a result of a 13 recently brought to light unreviewed safety question involved in the current 14 re-rack design that. allows racks that overhang the support pads in the spent 15 fuel pool. Thus,'the amendment should be revoked.

16 17 Bases for contention 18 In a February 1, 1985, letter from Williams, FPL, to Varga, NRC, which 19 describes the procedures for rack lift off 20 under the seismic everat conditions [ sic) .

This is clearly an unreviewed safety question which demands a safety analysis 21 of all seismic and hurricane conditions i and their potential impacts on the racks 22 in question before the license amendments are issued. Because of the potential to 23 increase the possibility of an accident

, previously evaluate.[ sic), or to create 24 the possibility of'a new or different kind of accident caused.by loss of structural i 25 integrity. If integrity is lost, the L damaged fuel rods could cause a critical- 1 26 ity accident. j 27 28 l

L j

1 2 (Hurricane loads were rejected as a basis for Contention 3 5 in the Licensing Board's memorandum and order of l 4 September 16, 1985).

l 5 04: Please describe the design of the Turkey Point fuel 6 assemblies.

7 A4: Each Turkey Point fuel assembly is approximately 8.4 8 inches square and 13 feet in length. Each assembly 9 consists of a fifteen by fifteen array of fuel rods and 10 guide tubes for control rods and instrumentation. Each 11 of the 204 fuel rods in an assembly contains uranium 12 dioxide fuel pellets clad in Zircaloy tubing, having an 13 outside diameter of 0.422 inches and a wall thickness of 14 0.0243 inches. Grids, positioned at vertical intervals 15 along the length of the fuel rods, maintain rod spacing 16 and geometry.

17 The fuel assemblies and fuel rods have been 18 designed to perform satisfactorily throughout their 19 lifetime in the reactor. The loads, stresses, and 20 strains resulting from the combined effects of flow 21 induced vibrations, earthquakes, reactor pressure, 22 fission gas pressure, fuel growth, thermal strain, and 23 differential expansion during both steady state and 24 transient reactor operating conditions have been consid-25 ered in the design of the fuel rods and fuel assemblies.

26 These conditions in the reactor are far more severe than 27 those postulated for the Turkey Point spent fuel pool 28 _

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . l

-4_

t 1 2' during a. seismic event. Thus, the stored spent fuel l 3 assemblies and fuel rods would be able to withstand a 4 postulated seismic event a'. Turkey Point without loss of 5 structural integrity. l 6' 05: .W as any analysis performed to confirm that there would l I

7 be no loss of integrity in the stored spent fuel'assem-  !

J 8 blies as a result of a seismic event?

9 -A5: Yes. Westinghouse performed a finite element analysis 4 10 to confirm that there would be no loss of integrity '

i

.11 (breaching of the fuel rod cladding) in the stored spent 12' fuel assemblies as a result of a postulated worst case 13 safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). I have reviewed the 14 Westinghouse analysis of the structural capability of 15 the fuel assemblies stored in the Turkey Point spent 16 fuel storage racks and have verified that the methodol-17 ogy used in the analysis was appropriate and that the 18 results obtained from the analysis are accurate.

19 Q6: Please describe this analysis.

20 A6: During a postulated seismic event at Turkey Point Units 21 3 and 4, the fuel assemblies in the spent fuel storage 22 racks would contact the stainless steel walls of the 23 storage rack cells due to the motion of the . rack 24 assembly relative to the motion of the fuel assemblies.

l 25 Employing finite element methods of the type described 26 in the Testimony Of Harry E. Flanders, Jr. On Contention I 27 Number 5, the maximum acceleration imposed upon a spent I

28

4 :.-

t jn

,0 1f 2 fuel assembly as a; result of an SSE at. Turkey Pointiwas o < ;3

~

calculated to be 1.6 9 (where g is:the. acceleration due a t 4 to gravity at the earth'sisurface).- The maximum accel- g 5- eration that 'ifuel a rod in:the fuel assemblies can ll 6 sustain without cladding failure'was'also calculated, -

l-7 . employing finite element analysis methods, for the p" 8 irradiated fuel rods and their supporting grids.

l 7 9 07: What were the results of the finite. element analysis of 10 the. Turkey Point spent fuel assemblies under conditions 11 of an SSE?-

m 1 12 A7: The'results1of the. finite element analysis show that the' 13' spent fuel assemblies can sustain-an acceleration of 36g- 'I L

14 without localized cladding failure. Therefore, the-V x '

15- integrity of the fuel cladding will be maintained for i

11 6 the worst case seismic event because the 369 accelera-

'17 . tion required to prevent' fuel cladding failure is more' i

18 than an. order of magnitude greater than the 1.6g accel-19 eration that the fuel assemblies would experience'in the 20 Turkey Point spent fuel. pool racks-if the maximum  !

21 anticipated earthquake (SSE) occurred, i

-22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i

l l < i m____._.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

=- ..

.. i i '1.

, 1

..,. 1 1

2' EXHIBIT A

.l

.3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF j EDMUND E..DeMARIO l 4

5 1

My name is Edmund E. DeMario and my business. address is P.O.  ;

6 i Drawer R, Columbia, S.C. 29250. I am employed by the 'i Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse) as an u

' Advisory Engineer in the Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division 10 --

11 I graduated.from the Stevens Institute of Technology with a Degree in. Mechanical Engineering in 1960. I also completed 20 credits of graduate study in Chemical Engineering at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

16-

'In September 1961, I joined General Dynamics at the Vandenburg Air Force Base as a Test Engineer on the Atlas Missile program and in August 1963 I joined Lockheed at the <

Vandenburg Air Force Base as a Test Engineer on the AGENA Space Vehicle Program.

1 22 In February 1966, I joined Bell Aerosystems at Wheatfield, N.Y. as a Project Engineer in the design and development of new space engines. '

L-26 27 28 i

L __ _ _ _ - - _ - -

w< ,

l  ?

I' l

. I 1

l 1

2 In. January 1969, I joined the Nuclear Fuel Division of the. i i

3 Westinghouse Electric Corporation as a. Design Engineer where.  ;

4 I was responsible for designing advanced fuel assemblies and -l 5 performing analyses and tests to evaluate the fuel perform-6' ~

ance under the various reactor conditions'. ,

L i 8 After being promoted to the position of Fellow Engineer in 9- 1976, I was subsequently promoted to the position of Advisory 10 Engineer in December 1981, with the ' responsibility for the 11 mechanical design of advanced fuel assemblies. In-addition, r

12 I am' responsible for the training of. engineers in fuel.

13 assembly design.

14 15 '

• 16 I have been responsible for the mechanical design of advanced 1

17- fuel assemblies including the 17 x 17 fuel assembly, the-18 Vantage-S and the Optimized Fuel Assembly.

19 i 20 I am a Professional Engineer in the State of Pennsylvania.

21 22 23 24 l 25 26 27 28

)

__ __-____ _ _